Buggers Muddle on Queens Wharf

It's hard not to be a bit cynical about what's happening, or not happening, or planned, or not planned down at Queens Wharf. But it's good to see the Herald coming out strongly in support of the original Party Central idea.

I have been closely interested in the development of Auckland's waterfront, previously as a councillor, and now as a citizen on the sidelines. It seems a long time ago - but really it's only around two years - that PM John Key first announced his idea of Party Central on Queens Wharf. He saw a vision of an international party on Auckland's waterfront during the Rugby World Cup.

This was seized on by ARC's leadership as a way of getting ownership of Queens Wharf, with a chunk of Government money thrown in. $20 million of Govt money, and $20 million of ARC money. And it's right here that the lack of clarity began.

The ARC leadership really wanted Queens Wharf for a cruise ship terminal. A stonking big "world class" cruise ship terminal. And certainly not a terminal made from "cheap and nasty" sheds. So right there you had a two-faced idea.

Was it for Party Central? Or was it for a Cruise Shop (I mean Ship) terminal? I pushed for retention of the Sheds. We love our iconic sheds. Saw Party Central idea as critical to retaining them. Learned about Party Central around the America's Cup in Valencia.

Then two Ministers got involved. Gerry Brownlee and Murray McCully. To begin with it was mainly Murray. He hated the sheds too, and kicked the shit out of the NZ Historic Places Trust in a bullying effort to get them off the case. Even threatened their funding I understand, if NZHPT pursued registration of Queens Wharf and Shed 10. McCully came up with his own appalling idea. Man what a philistine.

At this point it is useful to remind ourselves of all the good ideas that came out of the woodwork in Auckland when there was a design competition. So many used the sheds in creative and vibrant ways.

Finally McCully and Chairman Lee resolved their differences in a classic compromise. It was all about saving two faces. So Auckland lost a Shed and got the McCully tent.

And now we have two more parties on the scene and two more faces that need saving. Gerry Brownlee (Mr Economic Development), and the Maori Party. According to Mike Lee in this morning's Herald the McCully tent was "always going to house a mix of entertainment, tourism information and industry promotion...".

First I knew.

But this is typical when you get a bunch of faces that need to be saved. A year ago we had one face saying: "Queens Wharf is the people's wharf" who was at the same time instructing architects to draw up plans for cruise ship terminals on BOTH sides of Queens Wharf. We still have that problem on Auckland Council, and added to that now we have Bob Harvey's enthusiasm for the pretty pastel advertiser pictures of the McCully tent, and we have Gerry Brownlee filling it up with business promotion and industry stands like a commercial exhibition. And off to one side - always off to one side - we have the Ngati Whatua waka.

Bugger's muddle. I can even feel the birth of a Waterfront Convention Centre....

The danger is that Auckland will do what it always does down on the waterfront, and that is let business and commercial interests dominate, and just leave a bit of space around the edge - the people's space - always a very narrow and dangerous edge close to the water - for the public.

I agree with NZ Herald: "Don't take the party out of Party Central!"

And I say loud and clear - Queens Wharf must be kept for the people of Auckland to congregate and celebrate and have their fun - and that must be its primary purpose in perpetuity.