But just how extensive was that consultation? And what - precisely - did it say, and what - precisely - were the questions that public views were sought about?
The history is revealing.
The first major piece of consultation that is directly relevant to this analysis/blog was run in early 2005 and was called "Linking People, City and Sea". This was a 4 page brochure with a questionnaire, and included public open days and stakeholder workshops. The preamable to the document reads:
The unique location of Auckland’s waterfront is one of its greatest assets. The closeness of the harbour to the central business district, together with the rich maritime tradition and character of the area, provides many exciting opportunities for the future.
To recognise the importance of this area, the Auckland Regional and Auckland City councils are working with Ports of Auckland towards a long-term vision for the wider waterfront area.
The vision will provide guidance and direction for how this area is managed, developed and protected in the future.
This document sets out a draft vision for the waterfront – stretching from the Auckland Harbour Bridge in the west to Mechanics Bay in the east. This draft vision has been created following community feedback and may change as more input is received from those who live, work and play in the waterfront area.
This is your opportunity to help develop an exciting future for Auckland’s waterfront by filling out the feedback form on the back page...
It is worth noting right here and now, that this document "Linking People, City and Sea" makes no mention of cruise ships or cruise ship terminals at all.
The questionnaire and graphic insets actually emphasise questions about the future of the America’s Cup bases at Wynyard Quarter. At the time, that issue was to the forefront of waterfront planners' attention.
There are two main questions in the questionnaire:
Using a scale of 1 to 5, how important are the following aspects to you in terms of the draft vision? (1 = not important; 5 = extremely important)
Port 1 2 3 4 5
Working waterfront – marine & fishing activity 1 2 3 4 5
Public access and enjoyment 1 2 3 4 5
Economic & social prosperity 1 2 3 4 5
Transport 1 2 3 4 5
Environment 1 2 3 4 5
How strongly do you support or oppose some of the future options (outlined on page 2) for the former America’s Cup bases? (1 = strongly oppose; 5 = strongly support)
Marine events centre 1 2 3 4 5
Marine services activity 1 2 3 4 5
Open public space 1 2 3 4 5
Education, research and environmental activity 1 2 3 4 5
Residential development 1 2 3 4 5
Office and commercial development 1 2 3 4 5
Combinations of some of the above 1 2 3 4 5
These questions are asked along with some open-ended questions. The feedback from these questions is not surprising.
Highest feedback to the first question was that 81% of respondents thought that "Public access and enjoyment" was extremely or very important. And highest feedback to the second question was that "Open public space" was seen as supported or strongly supported by 81% of respondents PLUS that 63% of respondents were opposed or strongly opposed to residential/commercial development. (This latter feedback fact has been regularly ignored in public reports about this consultation.)
Feedback from the open ended questions was summarised and this includes this:
Comments about waterfront functions, the maritime characteristics and mix of waterbased activities were coded separately and mentioned by over one quarter of respondents (26.6%). One eighth (11.9%) saw it as important to the future of the waterfront, with a tenth of respondents (9.3%) liking it currently and half that proportion (4.2%) wanting some change. Comments were typically about enjoying watching boats of all scales – from cruise ships to fishing fleet to small yachts and kayaks – and appreciation of the real working maritime character of the waterfront, different from other parts of the city or water’s edge.
Which as you can see does mention cruise ships - but as a spectator sport more than anything else. There was other feedback reported from stakeholder workshops. One of these stakeholders mentioned cruise ships:
Auckland Chamber of Commerce
The commercial viability of the waterfront is the Chamber of Commerce key concern including retaining the Port of Auckland and its continued to develop as an international hub, enabling growth of the cruise ship and tourism cluster, providing and future proofing the needs of the fishing fleet and sea food processing plants, improving deep water access, berthage and servicing facilities vital to visiting super-yachts and marine industry cluster, improving transport links including future demand for ferry services.
Hardly surprising for the Chamber to say something like this about cruise ships.
Anyway. You can see from this that there were no questions asked, and negligible feedback received about cruise ships or cruise ship terminals from the "approximately 850 people who gave feedback on the draft vision, with a number of groups providing more comprehensive and detailed feedback...."
This feedback then resulted in a flash and glossy communications document which is entitled: Auckland waterfront Vision 2040 which was published in December 2005. The preamble to this document reads:
The aim of this vision is to develop an overarching framework for the whole of the CBD waterfront area, stretching from the Harbour Bridge in the west through to Teal Park in the east. The vision has a long-term planning horizon out to 2040, reflecting the need to consider the staging and timing of future changes.
By taking a big picture approach, the vision sets the high-level, strategic direction for the waterfront area. This framework sits above the detailed planning for specific areas. Following the adoption of the vision, more detailed planning work focusing on specifi c precincts or parts of the waterfront will be undertaken. Detailed planning will align and fit in with the principles of the vision. Public input Throughout the process of developing the vision, both councils have been committed to involving key businesses, industry representatives and the wider community. The draft vision, ‘Linking people, city and sea’, was released for public consultation in February 2005. The consultation focused on getting feedback on key elements and themes of the vision. It also included a questionnaire on various parts
of the draft vision. Consultation included public meetings, open days at the Viaduct Harbour, meetings with stakeholder groups, a mail-out to 2500 residents and distribution of the publication to 140,000 households in Auckland city....
There are two mentions of cruise ships in Auckland Waterfront Vision 2040:
The waterfront is a gateway to the city. It is a transport hub for ferries, buses and rail and is the first port of call for cruise ships. The port also channels goods through the waterfront to the rest of the country.
This is a statement of fact. No surprise or vision or future in this statement. And:
Princes Wharf
Princes Wharf provides a mix of residential, entertainment and hotel activities. It is also the overseas passenger terminal for cruise ships. The continuing use of the wharf for cruise liners, visiting naval vessels and sailing ships helps make Auckland an attractive visitor destination. Improving public access and protecting the public viewing platform at the end of the wharf are essential to the success
of the area. Better signage will also help people visiting the wharves.
Queens Wharf
Queens Wharf will continue to be used for port operations over the short to medium term, in particular for noncontainer based cargo. However, alternative uses will be explored over the medium to long term when the wharf is no longer required for core port functions. Ideas include providing public access, public spaces, a continual link between Queen Street and the waterfront, reconfiguring the wharf structure to create a new town basin, an iconic building, extending ferries and water taxis, entertainment and a mix of activities.
No mention here - at all - of a cruise ship terminal on Queens Wharf.The opposite in fact. The words here all point to Queens Wharf being a great new public place.
If a citizen was to read the Auckland Waterfront Vision 2040 document s/he could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that there were no plans to build a cruise ship terminal on Queens Wharf - let alone demolish the cargo sheds.
So where was the ARC's public consultation about what it proposes for Queens Wharf? Where was the genuine, open, transparent consultation?
No comments:
Post a Comment