The pictures in this blog are of ARC's Jasmax / Architectus artist impressions of how Shed 10 could be adapted and refurbished at a cost of around $18 million to provide for Party Central AND a floor area of 6000 square metres. You will see in the pictures that Shed 11 is to be removed. In its place is the Rugby Ball. And on the opposite corner of Queens Wharf is a large video screen. You will note that the pictures are reminiscent of designs submitted in the much criticised Queens Wharf Design Competition. You can see some of these at: Blog: queens-wharf-design-competition-stage-1 |
Today ARC held a short notice full council meeting. All the media were in attendance. The purpose of the meeting was to present ARC's new designs, and also to acquaint the public with the fact that the Hon Murray McCully does not support the ARC's change of course. A rather odd resolution was passed without dissent. The guts of it is this: "...that recognising ARC's provisional agreement with NZ Historic Places Trust and the willingness of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to explore options that retain Shed 10, the Council authorises the CEO to commission urgent work from the Council's architects on options that combine the retention of Shed 10 and the Minister's preferred temporary building..." I asked at the meeting, rhetorically of course, "what do you get when you combine a heritage shed with a plastic slug?" Is it a shug...? or is it a sled....? It's a nonsense of course. Like the nonsense that drove the other compromise - the removal of Shed 11. The only reason it's gone - according to ARC's council report - is to "improve views", and to "create more public space". As if there's not already vast amounts of public space on this 27th ARC Regional Park. And as if we really need better views from QW of the Hilton Hotel on Princes Wharf. In fact I find the "improve views" reason hypocritical. How can you say that Shed 10 should be retained because it's heritage, and also say that Shed 11 (which is much the same externally and relates really well with Shed 10 - it's brother or sister if you like) should be removed because it's somehow not heritage, and the view we have had of it for the past 100 years should be replaced with a view we can see today with Shed 11 left where it is? Letters on the agenda from the Historical Places Trust state its assessment that: "...NZHPT's strong preference would have been for Shed 11 to remain in its original location, however under the circumstances we accept that relocation is possible...." and notes further that: "...we understand that one of the rationales for relocating Shed 11 is to enable views to be opened up from Queens Street to the Harbour...". This illustrates the depth of the compromises. |
Councillors were advised that his attitude about Shed 10 changed in the course of meetings held with the Historic Places Trust, some of which were attended by the Hon Murray McCully. It appears the Minister was forthright in expressing his view that the sheds should go, and make way for his preferred cloud structure, aka the slug. It also appears that the Minister was not for turning. ARC's Chairman was concerned that a divergence of views was emerging (between him and the Minister) and so he wrote to the PM about it on 17 June, putting a strong argument for the adaptive re-use of Shed 10. The Minister for the RWC replied to that letter on the 28th of June. Interesting that he replied, and not the PM. I can imagine the conversation about that. Something like, "you write the letter Murray, you're the Minister, but if you haven't got this sorted out in 10 days I'll have to put it back on the Cabinet agenda..." |
The letter goes on state that: "the Government remains committed to the announced proposals..." This letter arrived on the day of the 28th June Council meeting, and Chairman Lee read it out to Councillors who were meeting informally before the Council meeting. They were concerned that this situation should not lead to a meltdown in relations. There were also suggestions that dialogue should be opened up between ARC and Auckland City Council, now that ARC's proposals involved retention of Shed 10 and its adaptive re-use. This type of approach was supported by Auckland City Council and budget had been set aside for Queens Wharf work on condition that its sheds were refurbished as part of that work. For completeness I note here that in April 2010 Auckland City Council's Combined Committee meeting voted for: "That the $21 million and $5 million capital expenditure budget for Queens Wharf in 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 be confirmed in the Annual Plan, subject to: These funds are only to be applied to a project that ensures the restoration/refurbishment of the sheds on Queens Wharf for the Rugby World Cup, and in the case of Shed 10 future medium term uses including the possible option of a cruise ship terminal." |
The council voted for the latter course of action, which was a change in direction. That was last Monday. In the following week information was hard to come by as to what was happening. Especially what was happening between ARC and Auckland City Council. I understand informally that there was discussion, but no resolution. There are trust issues it seems.... The on Monday 5th July Kingsland Station was officially opened. Even the All Blacks turned up for this. I couldn't attend because I was on a hearing, but there were some interesting indications reported back by some who were there. ARTA's Rabin Rabindram was MC and he introduced Murray McCully who spoke first. Then - oddly - Rabin informed everybody that it was time for a cup of tea. This was a bit of a surprise because there were two speeches to go. One from Mike Lee and the other from John Banks. An Auckland City Councillor commented, "the Minister will not share the platform with Mike Lee." Raised eyebrows all round. Then after the cup of tea, when Mike Lee was acknowledging distinguished visitors it appeared that the Minister had already left the building.... But I digress. Then on Tuesday ARC councillors were advised there would be an extraordinary Council meeting about QW today (7th July). The rest is history. I have summarised the decision made, above. Another letter from Murray McCully, dated 6th July, accompanied the agenda. It restates that "Ministers have agreed that we remain committed to the decision Cabinet made on 19 April. We see no merit in the redevelopment of Shed 10 on its current site, as we agree with your earlier assertion that it is 'old and cheap and nasty'..." The letter goes on to offer two alternatives: (1) restore Shed 10 off the site and build the "cloud" as agreed; or (2) "we would be prepared to sell the Crown's share in Queens Wharf to the Auckland Regional council in order for you to pursue your alternative design..." To finish this I will repeat the advice that was contained in the report to councillors at today's meeting. The advice stated: "In considering its position, the Council will have to weight up the relative importance of: the heritage values of the Sheds; the use of Queens Wharf as a fan zone for the Rugby World Cup; the costs to ratepayers and taxpayers of alternative options; the flexibility available for future decision makers; the value for money afforded by the alternative options; the feasibility and risks of each option; the council's relationship with Government; and the expectations of the people of Auckland." In my comments at the meeting I expressed the view that, due to the consultation with the HPT, we needed to respect the heritage values of the sheds; secondly we needed to deliver the use of Queens Wharf as Party Central (that was the deal); thirdly that we should not do anything that precludes future options. That includes not dismantling or demolishing Shed 11. There is no credible argument for the demolition of Shed 11. And certainly not to make room for a view of the last World Cup's plastic rugby ball.... TV3 News: Queens-Wharf-debate---what-a-shambles |
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
ARC votes to combine Slug & Shed on QW!
The pictures in this blog are of ARC's Jasmax / Architectus artist impressions of how Shed 10 could be adapted and refurbished at a cost of around $18 million to provide for Party Central AND a floor area of 6000 square metres. You will see in the pictures that Shed 11 is to be removed. In its place is the Rugby Ball. And on the opposite corner of Queens Wharf is a large video screen. You will note that the pictures are reminiscent of designs submitted in the much criticised Queens Wharf Design Competition. You can see some of these at: Blog: queens-wharf-design-competition-stage-1 |
Today ARC held a short notice full council meeting. All the media were in attendance. The purpose of the meeting was to present ARC's new designs, and also to acquaint the public with the fact that the Hon Murray McCully does not support the ARC's change of course. A rather odd resolution was passed without dissent. The guts of it is this: "...that recognising ARC's provisional agreement with NZ Historic Places Trust and the willingness of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to explore options that retain Shed 10, the Council authorises the CEO to commission urgent work from the Council's architects on options that combine the retention of Shed 10 and the Minister's preferred temporary building..." I asked at the meeting, rhetorically of course, "what do you get when you combine a heritage shed with a plastic slug?" Is it a shug...? or is it a sled....? It's a nonsense of course. Like the nonsense that drove the other compromise - the removal of Shed 11. The only reason it's gone - according to ARC's council report - is to "improve views", and to "create more public space". As if there's not already vast amounts of public space on this 27th ARC Regional Park. And as if we really need better views from QW of the Hilton Hotel on Princes Wharf. In fact I find the "improve views" reason hypocritical. How can you say that Shed 10 should be retained because it's heritage, and also say that Shed 11 (which is much the same externally and relates really well with Shed 10 - it's brother or sister if you like) should be removed because it's somehow not heritage, and the view we have had of it for the past 100 years should be replaced with a view we can see today with Shed 11 left where it is? Letters on the agenda from the Historical Places Trust state its assessment that: "...NZHPT's strong preference would have been for Shed 11 to remain in its original location, however under the circumstances we accept that relocation is possible...." and notes further that: "...we understand that one of the rationales for relocating Shed 11 is to enable views to be opened up from Queens Street to the Harbour...". This illustrates the depth of the compromises. |
Councillors were advised that his attitude about Shed 10 changed in the course of meetings held with the Historic Places Trust, some of which were attended by the Hon Murray McCully. It appears the Minister was forthright in expressing his view that the sheds should go, and make way for his preferred cloud structure, aka the slug. It also appears that the Minister was not for turning. ARC's Chairman was concerned that a divergence of views was emerging (between him and the Minister) and so he wrote to the PM about it on 17 June, putting a strong argument for the adaptive re-use of Shed 10. The Minister for the RWC replied to that letter on the 28th of June. Interesting that he replied, and not the PM. I can imagine the conversation about that. Something like, "you write the letter Murray, you're the Minister, but if you haven't got this sorted out in 10 days I'll have to put it back on the Cabinet agenda..." |
The letter goes on state that: "the Government remains committed to the announced proposals..." This letter arrived on the day of the 28th June Council meeting, and Chairman Lee read it out to Councillors who were meeting informally before the Council meeting. They were concerned that this situation should not lead to a meltdown in relations. There were also suggestions that dialogue should be opened up between ARC and Auckland City Council, now that ARC's proposals involved retention of Shed 10 and its adaptive re-use. This type of approach was supported by Auckland City Council and budget had been set aside for Queens Wharf work on condition that its sheds were refurbished as part of that work. For completeness I note here that in April 2010 Auckland City Council's Combined Committee meeting voted for: "That the $21 million and $5 million capital expenditure budget for Queens Wharf in 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 be confirmed in the Annual Plan, subject to: These funds are only to be applied to a project that ensures the restoration/refurbishment of the sheds on Queens Wharf for the Rugby World Cup, and in the case of Shed 10 future medium term uses including the possible option of a cruise ship terminal." |
The council voted for the latter course of action, which was a change in direction. That was last Monday. In the following week information was hard to come by as to what was happening. Especially what was happening between ARC and Auckland City Council. I understand informally that there was discussion, but no resolution. There are trust issues it seems.... The on Monday 5th July Kingsland Station was officially opened. Even the All Blacks turned up for this. I couldn't attend because I was on a hearing, but there were some interesting indications reported back by some who were there. ARTA's Rabin Rabindram was MC and he introduced Murray McCully who spoke first. Then - oddly - Rabin informed everybody that it was time for a cup of tea. This was a bit of a surprise because there were two speeches to go. One from Mike Lee and the other from John Banks. An Auckland City Councillor commented, "the Minister will not share the platform with Mike Lee." Raised eyebrows all round. Then after the cup of tea, when Mike Lee was acknowledging distinguished visitors it appeared that the Minister had already left the building.... But I digress. Then on Tuesday ARC councillors were advised there would be an extraordinary Council meeting about QW today (7th July). The rest is history. I have summarised the decision made, above. Another letter from Murray McCully, dated 6th July, accompanied the agenda. It restates that "Ministers have agreed that we remain committed to the decision Cabinet made on 19 April. We see no merit in the redevelopment of Shed 10 on its current site, as we agree with your earlier assertion that it is 'old and cheap and nasty'..." The letter goes on to offer two alternatives: (1) restore Shed 10 off the site and build the "cloud" as agreed; or (2) "we would be prepared to sell the Crown's share in Queens Wharf to the Auckland Regional council in order for you to pursue your alternative design..." To finish this I will repeat the advice that was contained in the report to councillors at today's meeting. The advice stated: "In considering its position, the Council will have to weight up the relative importance of: the heritage values of the Sheds; the use of Queens Wharf as a fan zone for the Rugby World Cup; the costs to ratepayers and taxpayers of alternative options; the flexibility available for future decision makers; the value for money afforded by the alternative options; the feasibility and risks of each option; the council's relationship with Government; and the expectations of the people of Auckland." In my comments at the meeting I expressed the view that, due to the consultation with the HPT, we needed to respect the heritage values of the sheds; secondly we needed to deliver the use of Queens Wharf as Party Central (that was the deal); thirdly that we should not do anything that precludes future options. That includes not dismantling or demolishing Shed 11. There is no credible argument for the demolition of Shed 11. And certainly not to make room for a view of the last World Cup's plastic rugby ball.... TV3 News: Queens-Wharf-debate---what-a-shambles |
No comments:
Post a Comment