Challenging Auckland Council Growth Assumptions

I argue in this posting that rather than accept the Auckland Plan's growth assumptions as the basis and rationale for what Auckland Council does this term - these need to be challenged now.

The Mayor's direction setting paper for Auckland Council's review of its Long Term Plan was considered by Council's Budget Committee in March this year. The Mayor's paper calls for a major review of council activities, and that papers prepared in that major review are to be considered by Councillors in the build up to the draft long term plan. The mayor has indicated that he will consider officer reports that respond to his direction, and prepare from them his Long Term Plan Proposal in August this year, which it is planned Councillors will consider and adopt - as the Draft Long Term Plan - in December 2014.

That would then go out for public consultation.

The Mayor's direction includes this text:

1. This is a full review of all our budgets not just new proposals and savings targets....
2. The assumptions... of legacy organisations (old councils) can no longer be the basis... we now have a new starting point being the Auckland Plan...
3. There is no public appetite for large increases in rates or debt.... new programmes and projects will need to be funded by reviewing their relative priority against existing programmes and projects....
4. This exercise needs to be coordinated across Council and CCOs. In particular aligning our assumptions about growth, and infrastructure development to support that growth.... in a coherent manner that enables us to develop an integrated 10 year plan and budget... (bold added)

There is some general text about the Auckland Plan being the starting point, but there is this, in the Mayor's direction, about some "high level financial modelling":

....there will need to be a revisiting and updating of our assumptions around such issues as growth, interest rates, revenue from alternative funding mechanisms....

The mayor also asks for some work on PPPs. I will leave any critique of PPPs for another time. When will councillors understand the message that PPPs are just another "something for nothing" magic wand that is very high risk? Look no further than the Kaipara District Council and EcoCare.

I want to concentrate here on what the Auckland Plan means or requires, as it stands, as a "starting point" for the Council's Long Term Plan.

The Auckland Plan

This is what the Auckland Plan states:

A-1, S5: We are committed to shaping our growth to
support Aucklanders, rather than allowing growth to shape our
lives in an unmanaged way.

A-1, s37: Many Aucklanders still value the egalitarian principles that
our city and country were founded upon. However, in recent
years there has been an alarming growth in inequality and
the concentration of highly deprived communities in some
parts of Auckland. Addressing inequalities is a major focus of
the Auckland Plan. Nevertheless, we still view ourselves as
a classless society, and have a degree of access to decision
makers and figures of authority that is often not possible in
larger cities.

A-1, s 55 : Auckland’s population has grown steadily and is projected
to continue to do so throughout the period covered by this
plan. The impacts of this growth on the provision
of public services, infrastructure and our rural and urban
environments must be carefully managed, to enhance what we
value about Auckland.

A-1 Box B.2: Statistics New Zealand models three scenarios for the future
of Auckland’s population – high, medium and low growth.
Given Auckland’s history of rapid population growth,
Auckland Council believes it is prudent to base its future
planning on the high-growth scenario, and unless otherwise
stated, this model is used throughout the Auckland Plan.
The high-growth model projects a population of 2.5 million
in 2041.

A-1, 89: Further, by adopting a ‘place-based’ approach, the
Development Strategy focuses on delivering quality outcomes
by aligning investment in areas of change where the majority
of growth will occur. (Bold added)

It is unclear how the Council proposes to address inequalities as a major focus. However, the implications of the growth assumptions are summarised in a range of graphics and diagrams, and the overall Auckland Plan is that Auckland council needs to plan for (unsure exactly what "plan" entails at this stage, that's what will be coming in the Long Term Plan):

• between 280,000 and 240,000 new homes built within the Rural Urban Boundary between 2012 and 2041
• between 120,000 and 160,000 new homes built outside the Rural Urban Boundary between 2012 and 2041

The Auckland Plan continues. The graphic below shows the impact of this in terms of a massive increase in building consent and construction rates, and the text explains....

A-1, 108: Aucklanders have said they want Auckland to build on its strengths and ensure growth and change is well planned and of a high quality*. They seek a quality compact model of growth that prevents excessive expansion into our rural hinterland.

A-1, 156: These figures indicate the approximate scale of growth
needed to implement the Auckland Plan. These numbers
may be refined following more detailed implementation planning. They only apply to ‘urban dwellings’ (i.e. dwellings in rural villages, country living, and other rural areas are not included). The figures show the intention for 70% of growth to occur within the baseline 2010 MUL, and the possibility of needing 40% of new dwellings outside the baseline 2010 MUL.

Auckland Economic Development Plan
 
And then we get to the Economic Development part of the Auckland Plan, which is inextricably bound to the Population Growth assumptions. In the Economic Strategy, we have Strategic Direction 6, which includes these two targets:

1.  Improve Auckland’s OECD ranking
of cities (GDP per capita) of 69th
place in 2011 by 20 places by 2031

2.  Increase annual average real GDP growth from 3% p.a. in
the last decade to 5% p.a. for the next 30 years

369_ Measured internationally, Auckland’s performance is
relatively poor: it is ranked 69th out of 85 metro regions in the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) in terms of GDP per capita. New Zealand’s economic
performance has declined relative to other OECD countries
in terms of GDP per capita to its position at 21st, but has
stabilised at around 80% of the OECD median.

370_ Auckland’s relative size is a disadvantage, because
the scale of cities affects output per capita and levels of
productivity.

The graphic to the left is from the OECD's report which compares 78 metro regions. It is a slightly earlier version than used in the Auckland Plan - but that has little effect on what I write here.... take a look at the graphic.... look for Auckland.... you will find it right at the bottom. It is the smallest city region in the sample.

The 400+ page report that is wrapped around the data contains a number of points that seem to get ignored in the excitement of growth:

At first sight, the relationship between population size and income is not a straightforward one. One of the most important features claimed for urban economies, including metro-regions, is their capacity to concentrate population that nurtures the development of a pooled labour market, as well as human and physical capital, income and infrastructure besides cultural and recreational amenities. However, an initial look at the data for OECD metro-regions does not support this argument; if anything, there is a slight negative association between the size of a metro-region and the income of its inhabitants. (Pg. 50)

In fact, bigger may mean richer until congestion reaches a certain level. It can be argued that in mega-cities, income is affected by population size, probably as diseconomies of scale and congestion costs appear. Congestion costs seem to outweigh centripetal forces after a certain critical value that can be regarded as a threshold.(Pg. 51)

Although most metro-regions appear to be characterised by high concentrations of wealth and employment associated with leading sectors and the focal points of their national economies, they also tend to concentrate a high number of unemployed residents. (pg 76)

The point being made in the OECD report about competitiveness of city regions is that it is NOT necessarily the case that bigger means more GDP/capita. The selective use of the OECD data in the Auckland Plan is all part of an unquestioning push for growth at all costs - especially if many of the costs (eg growth related infrastructure) can be born by Auckland Council and the ratepayer.

Another player in this discussion is Central Government. It is looking closely at how Auckland can become part of New Zealand's economic "growth engine" (alongside the dairy industry and the earthquake recovery industry). Ministry of Economic Development has produced a report exploring Auckland and which investigates a number of economic development indicators. It takes OECD data and applies its own local knowledge. This graph for example: "Auckland had a relatively high average annual population growth rate between 2005 and 2010, at 1.6 percent. Between 2002 and 2007, Auckland had the third highest average annual population growth rate of the sample of 78 OECD metropolitan regions."

And in relation to this graphic: "Auckland has one of the highest proportions of its population comprised of overseas-born residents, just behind Toronto and Vancouver."

Concluding Remarks

The seeds of the Auckland Plan are beginning to take root in the Long Term Plan. This is a problem because the Auckland Plan assumes and presumes that all growth in Auckland is good growth, and that it is going to be good for us all. But is it? Is bigger necessarily better? (The OECD analysis raises important questions about this - notably for Auckland with its peculiar congestion problems stemming from unusual geography). And even if it is, what is the justification for Auckland Council budgeting and raising rates to build the infrastructure apparently needed for all the new houses, and in effect subsidising growth. The Auckland Plan growth assumptions: high population growth scenario and 5% compound GDP growth are driving Council policies and budgets that will be ruinous.

Waterfront losing authenticity (2)?

A few weeks ago I blogged with a worry about Wynyard Quarter losing its gritty reality.

Losing the reality of the fishing fleet tying up at North Wharf. Losing the sight of fish being unloaded. Stuff like that.

Why this matters - if it's true - is because a lot was made of this in public consultations, and also with shareholders.

Back in the days of the ARC (Auckland Regional Council) we were briefed by Sea + City (precursor to Waterfront Development Agency). On the 11th of May 2009 we (Councillors) received a briefing from Sea + City's CEO about Wynyard Quarter redevelopment. These slides are from that presentation.

It was argued that a "key ingredient for success", was to foster real engagement with authentic maritime experiences....

The urban designers were big on reminding us that fishing nets and floats (their colour and texture) and all they stood for were important. (Maybe that could just be about paint....but I think there was more to it than that....)

This image told a strong story. Fish being sold, available, right there. At the waters edge....

And this diagram emphasised that these would be Real Fishing Boats. (ie not cardboard cut-outs or some other plastic imitation.) We're talking real.

The vision for Jellicoe Harbour was spelled out in this picture: no mucking about. No if's, but's or maybe's. PUBLIC FISH SALES. Maybe I'm too literal. But I think this image, and the words and slides before it, tell a very strong story, which we all bought into. Authenticity. We supported it. ARC supported it.

This slide adds more colour.

And this one does a good job of explaining how the different uses and activities would co-exist. How the reality of the transport needs of fishing boats loading and unloading on North Wharf would be provided for. So that's what we want to see down there. It's what we voted. It's also what the public said they wanted when we consulted them.

Planning Priority for Queens Wharf

The Herald wrote a few weeks ago describing a Waterfront Auckland "draft masterplan" for Queens Wharf. The story says:

" ....The thinking is for the single-storey Shed 11 to be reinstated south of Shed 10 for a market and other public uses.  The waterfront agency is also proposing to build a new shed, respecting the traditional shed form, for the servicing components of the cruise ship terminal at Shed 10.  It would be located north of Shed 10 at the end of Queens Wharf and include a mezzanine level for functions, along the lines of the mezzanine floor at the end of the Cloud. The draft masterplan will envisage removing the Cloud at some stage to free up the western side of the wharf for public space.
....said the Cloud could remain for five to 10 years...."

This story provoked a critical editorial response from NZ Herald, which received a few comments. Many of these supported the Herald's line:  ".... just because a building is old does not mean it has aesthetic appeal. The sheds are simply ugly embarrassments undeserving of any historic status....". I thought this was an irresponsible comment for our country's leading newspaper - making no mention of the work of the Historic Places Trust. It is simply one person's opinion. That's OK for a letter to the editor, but I think an editorial needs to more broadly reflect the public interest in the shape and history of its urban form.

But thankfully some comments spoke in support of adaptive re-use.  

It's good that Waterfront Auckland's plan is described as "draft masterplan" and it is "due out for public consultation in the next few weeks..."

But there are some terrible echoes in what's happening on Queens Wharf, of what happened in the planning of Princes Wharf. The draft masterplan talks about public space, but that can't happen until the Cloud is removed ("could remain 5 to 10 years"). And the proposed building at the end of Queens Wharf - ancillary to cruise ship visits - will block views of the Waitemata Harbour entrance - and more or less enshrine the cruise ship business carpark that is already emerging at the end of Queens Wharf (this is what now happens on most of the "public space" on Princes Wharf.)

The "draft masterplan" appears to prioritise the construction of a Shed 11 structure at the Quay Street end of Queens Wharf - this could well be a positive step I think, but needs to be seen in the context of a pedestrianised Quay Street and Queen Elizabeth Square (as was promised in 1980!). According to the NZ Herald story the draft masterplan includes a new shed at the end, maybe alongside the mayor's state house sculpture (which I wrote a bit about here), and only then, almost as an after-thought, a public space. But only after everyone's finished with the Cloud....

The public spaces on Princes Wharf were all after-thoughts, and are miserable failures as a consequence. We can, and must do much better with Queens Wharf.

This is what Disney has done at the Hyperion Wharf. Activated (but not dominated by places to spend money), multi-level, shade from the sun, shelter from winds, access to the water, places to sit.

I suggest you click on this picture to see the detail...

I know it's a bit of a fantasy...

These three pictures are of Boston's Long Wharf. This one is at the end - reminiscent of the end of our Queens Wharf. Note the absence of permanent fences - one of the least attractive aspects of our Queens Wharf at present. 

There are grassed areas as well - closer to the landward end of the wharf.

This view is looking back landward from the end of Long Wharf. While the building shown is brick - it has a similar form to Shed 10. This view is impossible on our Queens Wharf, because the bloody security fence, which is always up, prevents access.

We can do this stuff well in Auckland.

When we get some good planning in place that is. This is Silo Park in the Wynyard Quarter. It's reclaimed land. But the grass looks and works well. Surrounded by interesting structures from the industrial background of the place.Successful. Internationally recognised.

And just a reminder of Wellington. This map gives an indication of the amount of waterfront public space that was planned, and is provided, for Wellington citizens (and it is not dominated by cruise ship parking - by the way).

Here's another map showing the amount of open space - without buildings - on Wellington's waterfront.

I prepared this rough equivalent for Auckland. And it's a generous interpretation. It does show the space that is without buildings, but it is important to note that much of the space on Queens Wharf, and on Te Whero is taken up with car and vehicle parking, and by traffic.

This next two pics are about a part of Washington DC. Planners' images for the use of part of the waterfront (bottom), and of a narrow wharf (left).

I do have some experience of how artistic impressions can be used to lull the public into a state of calm, and allow developments to occur that drive the public away, rather than the whole being genuinely designed and planned, as a priority, for public.

The two pieces of waterfront development at Auckland that have generally been successful are the Viaduct and Wynyard Quarter (I appreciate it's early days for Wynyard, but it has started reasonably well).

The two pieces of waterfront development at Auckland that have not been successful are Princes Wharf and Queens Wharf (so far).

What the two successes share in common is that in each case the land was subject to a Plan Change under the RMA. This allowed a major public consultation process to play out and unfold. Sadly, that has not happened with either Princes Wharf or Queens Wharf. You can read here my recent detailed research about the sorry planning history of Princes Wharf.

Queens Wharf has fared little better so far. That history is next on my list of research projects, but it includes the Rugby World Cup Empowering Act, and the Hon Murray McCully and the might of the Auckland Regional Council, with a heap of opinions and personal visions, and no proper planning. Which is why it is the way it is today.

The planning rules for Queens Wharf, in the Unitary Plan, as far as I can make out, are: "The activities in the General Coastal Marine zone apply to the CMA in the Central Wharves Precinct unless otherwise specified in the activity table below....." and the activity table says that "public amenities" are permitted, and that "Minor cosmetic alterations and repairs to a building that does not changes its external design and appearance" are permitted, and that: "New buildings, and alterations and additions to buildings not otherwise provided for" are restricted discretionary.

The words "public amenities" are rather vague, and the assessment criteria for any new building don't appear to be onerous. My assessment of the planning controls is that the owner has a great deal of flexibility, about what can happen on Queens Wharf - you can drive a coach and horses through those sorts of rules. And that the public has no real certainty about what might happen there. Certainly there is no stated commitment to public space. Just flexibility.

And the unitary plan does not mention the deal that was done with Ports of Auckland Ltd, and about which I don't recall the details now, but which relates to a strip around Queens Wharf (not the end) where POAL has mooring rights and rights to collect mooring fees. From cruise ships.

Ports and Cruise Ship planning are the elephants in the room of Queens Wharf. Auckland needs a staged waterspace and wharfspace allocation plan, for the next 10 years or so, which allows more certainty in the planning of public space and public park spaces on its waterfront. The future of cruise ship parking - whether it's on Princes, Bledisloe, Captain Cook with a dolphin, Wynyard Wharf, or with much less impact on Queens Wharf and shared across these other options - needs decisions.

Queens Wharf deserves better than it's had so far - in planning terms - and in terms of public involvement.

Princes Wharf Planning: Pocket History

It’s surprising what you find when you get the inclination to dig into Auckland archives. Like investigating how we ended up with a Hilton Hotel and hundreds of private apartments on Auckland’s publicly owned Princes Wharf and little else for locals. 

This is my story of discovery. I show and tell from my recent journey into the bowels of Auckland planning archives. It is a story that needs to be told so we can learn, reflect and – hopefully – avoid repetition.

Please be patient with my story-telling. I didn’t know what I didn’t know when I started. One set of archives led to another. One step forward two steps backward. Then onward again, but better informed.

This story begins in 2004 when I was elected onto the Auckland Regional Council (ARC) alongside Mike Lee and Sandra Coney. Mainly responsible for public transport funding and environmental protection, the ARC had just been handed control of the Ports of Auckland company and its waterfront land assets, some of which were surplus to Port’s requirements.

The ARC’s thirteen councillors found themselves in the hot seat responsible for the development planning of what was then known as the Western Reclamation, today as Wynyard Quarter, including about 18 hectares of prime waterfront real estate held in public ownership.

Councillors were taken on tiki tours around the Viaduct Basin and out to the end of Princes Wharf where we were shown the meagre provision there for public viewing. Standing outside I felt as if I was intruding on the holidays of the rich and famous sitting comfortably behind plate glass in Hilton’s lap of luxury. 

The months flew by as ARC Councillors considered urban designs and land use proposals for Wynyard Quarter, put them out for public consultation, collected feedback, held stakeholder fora, and came under the media spotlight. The demand for public space, things to do, visitor destinations, character buildings to protect, places to see, marine industry development was huge.

Eventually the ARC and Auckland City Council prepared changes to land use planning documents – how high buildings could be, what was public, what was commercial, what was marine, streetscapes, heritage buildings, transport, what could be moored and where – anything and everything – and these were put out for submissions. In Resource Management Act lingo – the plans were publicly notified.

While all this was happening in 2007 I asked myself this question: if we have to go through all this palaver, jump through so many RMA hoops for the Wynyard Quarter, how come Princes Wharf got developed without so much as a dicky-bird chirping? Construction had started at the end of 1998, well after the RMA was law. So how did the Princes Wharf development get under the radar?

I asked long serving ARC Councillors, and senior staff. But nobody told me. Looking back now I wonder how many could have told me. Perhaps I asked the wrong questions. But I had little time to fret because suddenly Rugby World Cup fever descended on Auckland and Queens Wharf jumped to the top of the ARC’s list of things to worry about. Helter Skelter.

Toward the end of my time on the ARC in 2010 I went into bat with Sandra Coney to protect Queens Wharf’s Shed 10 from demolition. So did Heart of the City and Mayor John Banks to their credit. Pressure for another big cruise ship terminal on Queens Wharf and the for demolition of heritage buildings had been huge. My fear was that Auckland would get another Princes Wharf type development.

Since then I've had some time to reflect. About Auckland planning. Time to think about that question again: How did the Princes Wharf development happen?

For a few months in 2013, with twelve years of local government experience and a planning degree behind me, I have been on a mission.

Auckland Library Archives

To kick off my investigation I started with the New Zealand Herald archives which anyone can access over the internet. Keyword: “Princes Wharf”. Hundreds of entries: creating a thriving new heart for the city; café set worrying mariners; city wharf vital to trade; bars hinder sightseers. Stuff like that. But the digital archiving that I could access started in 1999. I needed to go back before that.

Someone suggested I check Auckland Library archives. I’d used my daughter’s library card in the past to get books from Devonport library, but it had lapsed. She’d long left home. So I joined and a strange (for me) new world opened up.

The Auckland library has a heap of digital archives available – to card-carrying-members – over the internet. The New Zealand Card Index is one of these. It began in the 1950’s as a manual card system, closed in 1996, and has since been digitised. It focuses on people, places and organisations, and selectively indexes the NZ Herald and Auckland Star newspapers and something called the Auckland Scrapbook (ASB for short) which was started in 1921.

I’m told that this scrapbook – large, heavy cardboard covers, gold lettering - was kept by the desk of the Auckland City Council Secretary. His or her job included cutting out and pasting in newspaper articles of interest. There are dozens of these Auckland Scrapbooks. And when I searched for “Princes Wharf” a heap of Scrapbook card index entries came up. Including:

·    ASB Aug 1983, Page 242: Auckland Harbour Board. Work has begun on the board's new headquarters building at the base of Princes Wharf - with this development will be the upgrading of the "downtown quayside" by the Auckland City Council
·    ASB Feb 1984, Page 290: Auckland Harbour Board. 8 huge concrete "legs" are part of the base of the $14.2 million Auckland Harbour Bd. headquarters on Princes Wharf
·    ASB Nov 1987, Page 224: Auckland Waterfront. 3-way race for the proposed redevelopment of Princes Wharf was won yesterday by the Mace Development Corporation.

And tantalisingly, this from the Auckland Star:

·    Star, 9 Oct 1987, Front page: Auckland Harbour Board has chosen a $190 million design by Mace Development Corporation incorporating hotel, markets, entertainment centre and a museum for the 63 year-old Princes Wharf site.

But how to see the actual newspaper articles? Over the phone the receptionist at Auckland Library Archives explained I needed to go into the Auckland Library – the archives floor – with my card index references – and they’d show me. She said I should set aside a few hours.

Next day I visited the Central Auckland Research Centre. Level two of the Lorne Street Auckland Library building. Acres of carpet and silence. Kilometres of old volumes and filing cabinets. She asked if I knew about microfilm. No. I was shown where the rolls of film were stored and how to work an old microfilm reader. Talk about exciting.

The picture in the Sun newspaper (10.10.87) showed a stunning development for Princes Wharf, and the article shouted: “..features for the development include:

·    225 bed hotel;
·    maritime museum and commercial marina
·    public steps which will form a grandstand to the harbour
·    entertainment and cultural centre
·    modernised arrival area for cruise ships
·    quayside marketplace, foodhall and variety of restaurants
·    art gallery and cinema
·    carpark…”  

So what happened? Where’s the waterfront grandstand? What about the cultural centre? And the quayside marketplace, art gallery and cinema. What happened to the Harbour Board’s promise of Princes Wharf being transformed into a ‘people place’?

Other library archives gave a partial answer. In its 19th January 1989 issue, the National Business Review (NBR) reports:

“Work on redeveloping Auckland’s Princes Wharf has shifted from overall design to planning for legislative changes needed….   The $275 million project had been reviewed since the original design licence was awarded to Mace a week before the sharemarket crash…”

A crash. Bet that came as a nasty surprise. The report continues:

“…approvals required include maritime planning permission… and an Act of Parliament must be amended to allow construction of commercial property on the wharf...”

Legislation and maritime planning. These would have been spanners in the works. Before going onward from 1989, I need to back-track a little. My curiosity in the rather striking Auckland Harbour Board Headquarters Building had been piqued by the Library archives. Another hunt in the NZ Card Index was called for:

·    ASB, Feb 1980, Page 79:  The Auckland Harbour Board has revealed its design for a $7.7 million quayside office building.
·    NZ Herald, 13 Oct 1982, Page 4: Travelodge NZ Ltd and AMP Society's appeal against Planning Tribunal decision that Auckland Harbour Board's proposed new headquarters on Princes Wharf can go ahead being heard in High Court.
·    ASB, July 1985, Page 29:  Auckland Harbour Board building wins one of the NZ Institute of Architects awards.

Both the NZ Herald and the Auckland Star ran features after AHB released proposals for its new HQ. These included a striking illustration of  “Quayside Project” plans to pedestrianize Quay Street all the way from Queens Wharf to Princes Wharf, and from Shed 10 on Queens Wharf up through Queen Elizabeth Square. (You can see this picture here.)

The Auckland Star article (14.4.1980) reads:

“This is the way the Auckland Harbour Board visualizes the downtown waterfront area developing, including its new building at the corner of Princes wharf and the quayside. The Mediterranean concept, as board chairman Mr Bob Carr, once described it, is aimed at bringing the port to the people…”

So what happened to those plans? Maybe it was just a public con job.

And the Herald report (15.4.1980), headlined: “Harbour Board Feeling Call of the Sea”, states that the first floor of its HQ “is set 36 feet above an open lower story… the open lower floor has been designed to provide public access through to the existing waterfront…”

Man oh man. Look at this building today. The whole underneath has been filled in. Vertical infill. How did that happen? More on that later.  (You can see here for before and now)

So. AHB got their HQ. Cost them around $14 million. Money they didn’t have, so they needed a bank loan. But their really big plan was to develop Princes Wharf real estate. Make serious money.

But it took some detective work to piece this together.

Auckland City Council Archives

I knew I’d have to get immersed in Auckland City Council archives at some point. There’s a sort of meta-data system anyone can access over the net. I tried words like “Wharf” and “Princes” and found a whole lot of references to “Scheme Change 4” of the “Waitemata Harbour Maritime Plan”. By “references” I mean record numbers, dates, file numbers. Stuff like that. No actual documents though.

So I sent an email to the queries address. By return I was advised I needed to show up at the Auckland Council Archives offices. Two stories underground by the Academy Theatre – also in Lorne Street interestingly. Pressed the buzzer. Was let in and told, “this is a pencil and paper only area. Put your things in that locker.”  Heavy. Did as I was told, and was presented with a pile of old manilla folders dated between 1986 and 1989 stuffed with papers about a change of planning controls for Princes Wharf. 

Cutting to the chase: In 1989 Auckland Harbour Board applied to the Waitemata Harbour Planning Authority for changes that would allow commercial development on Princes Wharf. Its application states:

“…It is intended that Mace should be granted a lease to permit the redevelopment and operation of Princes Wharf as a commercially based mixed-use complex of benefit to the citizens of Auckland and visitors to the city. To provide a planning opportunity for that development, the Authority has introduced this Proposed Change to its Scheme…”

The fine print permits most activities known to mankind; allocates wharf space roughly between hotel uses, shops, offices, and public space; permits a maximum height of 62 meters above the deck; and states: “the redevelopment is intended to contain an appropriate and balanced mix of uses which will ensure its commercial viability while facilitating public access and providing for public enjoyment of the wharf…”

Auckland City Council opposed the application. 

In an internal memo (23.3.1989), Council’s Divisional Planner City Development, writes:

“It is extremely important that this Council lodge objection to Proposed Change 4 and pursue this matter with vigour….”

He refers to the “Quayside Project” (mentioned earlier, with Quay Street pedestrianised and Queens Wharf paved. This turns out was a joint plan between Auckland Harbour Board and Auckland City Council) and other joint plans: “the emphasis (of these) is to encourage reuse and refurbishment of existing structures and to encourage greater public use of those spaces…”

Points made in Council’s objection include:

“…at a height of 62 metres, the new building can hardly be construed as a reuse of an existing and obsolete wharf…”
“…’commercial viability’ is a market influence and should not dictate planning decisions which are made in the public interest…”
“…the Scheme Change would permit development of a scale and nature which is not appropriate to this important maritime location… and such development would be permitted without right of public scrutiny or objection…”

I suggest you re-read that last quote – especially the last part of it.

Other documents in the folders show that changes were made to the application, and that AHB’s modified application was granted. Man oh man. Given the strength of those objections from a council planner – what the hell happened?

No detail. Frustrating. I had been given Auckland City Council archives - but only files that were “unrestricted”. I was told that to see “restricted” files I would have to apply to Auckland Council under the Local Government Official Information Act. That might be a mission.

But staff at Auckland Council Archives had a suggestion. They told me that all the Auckland Harbour Board files - with its side of the story – much more detailed - were held by the Auckland Maritime Museum.

Auckland Harbour Board Archives – Maritime Museum

I made an appointment. Asked to see files about the late 1980’s proposed Princes Wharf development, and anything they might have about Scheme Change 4. She told me she’d dig them out and that I should set aside a day.

This was treasure trove. “Pencil and paper” environment but few restrictions. I was led to a large table with piles of folders and boxes. She showed me some of the big A3 documents first explaining, “these are the design submissions for Princes Wharf.” They looked amazing. Nothing like what’s down there today. I got the impression these particular documents had been shown to lots of people before me. Probably architecture students.

“Not sure what’s in these boxes though”, she said, indicating the rest of the documents, “but sounds like you know what you’re looking for.”

 Altogether I was looking at about a thousand pieces of paper, a tiny proportion of the AHB archives, and I didn’t really know where to start, or even what I was looking for. So I decided I’d go through the lot, folder by folder, box by box, page by page, taking pencilled notes of documents of interest. I was a bit put off by the cost of photocopying (high because staff did it for you), but after signing a copyright document I was permitted to use my digital camera to photograph whole pages.

What was most surprising were the blunt letters from Russell McVeagh lawyers providing strategic advice to the AHB chief executive and board of directors every step of the way. Much of it was advice about how to deal with Auckland City Council concerns about the Head Quarters building and Princes Wharf proposals.

Letters from Auckland City Council planning staff make it clear that the Council would not submit against AHB’s proposed HQ plans, on the understanding that AHB would take steps to implement the widely publicised Quayside Project. Travelodge (now the Copthorne Hotel) wasn’t impressed though, wanting to protect hotel window views across Quay Street, so it took the AHB’s plans to the Planning Tribunal Court (the precursor of the Environment Court).

Noted Judge Sheppard dealt with the case and ruled in AHB’s favour, confirming specific conditions of consent in his decision (8.7.1982):

“the (HQ) building to be used solely as the administrative offices of the Auckland Harbour Board and not leased, sub-leased or otherwise let to any other party …”
“the building to be treated by the Board as part of a comprehensive plan for progressive re-use of the Quayside area…”
“the pedestrian plaza areas, landscaping and public amenity provisions… are constructed contemporaneously with the building itself…”

Documents reveal that only four years after the HQ’s construction, port admin staff vacated the building and it was leased to commercial tenants. Another public con.

Back to Princes Wharf – but this time viewed through the lens of AHB’s archives.

AHB’s first step in the development of Princes Wharf was to conduct a design competition. The brief for this reads: “with its proximity to Auckland’s CBD there is considerable cope for an imaginative development plan…  the overall development will need to be commercially viable to attract capital. At the same time and not necessarily in conflict, public activities are seen as an essential feature… preliminary applications are invited from parties seriously interested in the development of Princes Wharf ...”

 Fifteen entries were received by the closing date (31.10.1986). These were culled to a short-list of four which were released to the Auckland public in a well organised media event including a public display of scale models of the winning designs. (The May 1987 issue of Metro Magazine published details and ran a poll on readers’ preferences.)

The public loved what they saw. So did the newspapers. Concept images did a great selling job on the public. A people’s waterfront at last.

Next step for the short-list was another design competition – only this time the entrants were advised: “parties should refine their preliminary development proposals to the stage that they would be prepared to enter into a binding development/lease agreement with the Board… lease would be for 20 years…right of renewal… lease rental basis could be based on value of property….or equity participation….”.

A big reality check. Grand designs were revisited and cut down to size. The Mace Development proposal was chosen – though minutes of AHB Board Meetings show that members were extremely unhappy with the final design – one that was economically feasible – and talked of “walking away from the deal”.

In parallel AHB got on with the serious business of changing the planning rules (summarised above), and New Zealand legislation, to allow commercial development on Princes Wharf.

This was a time when the Lange-led Labour government was hard at work restructuring New Zealand’s economy. Entrepreneurialism and market forces rule.

Auckland Harbour Board was corporatized in 1988 by Act of Parliament. Port assets and operations were handed over to a newly formed company, Ports of Auckland Ltd, (POAL) 100% owned by AHB, but whose shares could be traded on the stock exchange. The purpose of the reform was clearly stated: “The principal objective of every port company shall be to operate as a successful business.”

AHB held onto Princes Wharf for a couple of years. Getting it ready for development, prior to handing it over to POAL to do the business.

In 1989 the Hon Minister Prebble introduced the Princes Wharf Empowering Act into Parliament. Hansard tells us what he said, “to me, one of the most exciting things about the proposal is that for the first time it will open up the wharf to the public of Auckland…..  benefits or proposals intended for Princes Wharf include a new, upgraded international cruise-ship passenger terminal; a waterside plaza with a ceremonial landing---and it is to be hoped that the America's Cup boats will come into there; a low-level pontoon, and a marina promenade; a pedestrian link leading right to downtown; a theatre complex; a maritime museum; and public viewing areas…..”.

Parliament was persuaded to allow Princes Wharf leases to be sold commercially.

Interestingly, AHB files explain how Auckland City Council’s objections to Princes Wharf development proposals were finally overcome. Internal AHB legal advice states: “The City seek to have the Princes Wharf area brought within its planning jurisdiction. This would be a very dangerous concession. At the present moment it is in the maritime planning area and the scheme change is almost at the point of being made operative….  Alternative approaches… provide for the area to be deemed part of the City’s district for the purposes of the Rating Act 1967 only…”

The Council was partly bought off by the promise of rates revenue, and left planning responsibilities alone.

But Council had gone public in the Herald about its concerns, and St Mary’s Bay residents took up the fight. They were concerned about losing their views from a waterfront development that could go as high as 62 metres.

Despite these objections a public hearing signed off the AHB’s Princes Wharf development proposal. However an appeal to the Planning Tribunal was filed by the Auckland Regional Authority (the precursor to the ARC) seeking: “to limit development on the wharf to redevelopment and reuse of the existing buildings; or to permit buildings of no greater height than 25 metres above wharf level…”

A deal that was done out of court (dropping the maximum height from 62 metres to 37 metres) is hinted at by a filed court memorandum: “… clarifying the practicability of achieving a height reduction of the proposed Mace project… by eliminating the 650 seat theatre…. the hotel could be ‘dropped’ to sit immediately above the present deck level… the theatre foyer area which, in the present design, enables internal public access through to the top of the Waitemata Steps would be occupied by the hotel….”

Man oh man. Keep the hotel the same size but lose the theatre and internal public access. Con or sell out? Who knows. St Mary’s Bay residents forced the issue, and the rest of Auckland lost out big time.

By now the development was all over bar the shouting. But then came the crash and the Mace deal disappeared. Nothing happened on Princes Wharf for ten years.

However, unbeknownst to an unsuspecting public the planks for what we see today on Princes Wharf had already been laid by these historic decisions.

Next piece of the jigsaw was the Resource Management Act (RMA). This was enacted in 1991 and required the newly formed Auckland Regional Council (ARC) to prepare Auckland’s Regional Plan Coastal – which would regulate activities on the coast and above the sea (which includes on wharves).

Put simply, under the new RMA regime, any development proposed on Princes Wharf after 1991 would need to comply with Auckland’s Regional Plan Coastal, and if it didn’t, it would need a resource consent.

The RMA came from much the same parentage as the rest of New Zealand’s 1980’s free market reforms, and though it promised much in the way of environmental protection, it was – and still is – silent on human, social, and public needs.

Urban planning was reduced to the assessment of environmental effects.

The ARC could have written its Regional Plan Coastal from scratch. But in common with most NZ Councils it adopted large chunks from the previous planning regime. And by this I mean the Waitemata Harbour Maritme Plan, which – you will remember - had been changed to allow for the Mace development on Princes Wharf.

It has proved difficult for me to get files on this next stage. The Ports of Auckland Ltd have denied me access to their files – even though they are 100% publicly owned. But I have been able to obtain the Property File for Princes Wharf from Auckland Council.

Princes Wharf Property File Archives

A typical residential property file (like for where your house is) might contain a dozen or so entries describing the original subdivision, later subdivisions, and any resource or building consents. The Princes Wharf property file – which I got on CD from Council for $50 – contains around 10,000 planning files for the period since 1991. All nicely scanned and ready to read. But a bit like looking for a needle in a haystack.

What I found has appalled me.

The new ARC Plan Coastal notes that by 1991 the development that had been originally envisaged by Ports of Auckland had not taken place, and contains these words:

“… the upgrading and modernisation of facilities on Princes Wharf could significantly benefit tourism, recreation, and the public amenity values of the waterfront. Any development would need to complement the urban landscape, be in scale with adjacent land-based development, and retain views of the harbour from surrounding locations. A high level of public access would need to be maintained, particularly around the northern end of Princes Wharf…”

Some commitment to public access but little else. And when you get to the rules, ARC’s Plan Coastal states that anything that fits within a building envelope 37 metres high, and runs solid along the wharf, could be built as of right, as a fully complying activity. No notification necessary. Subject to a tiny bit of planning discretion being retained by the ARC so it:

“had control over… the extent to which the design and external appearance of any buildings or structures recognises the city/harbour relationship, the prominent maritime setting of the site, and the public use of the development…”

That was feeble. The ARC showed its woeful understanding of urban planning. Ports of Auckland now had control of the lease to Princes Wharf. With a statutory obligation to be a successful business it must have been laughing. And with a planning regime like that in place, it was only a matter of time before a resource consent application to develop Princes Wharf would be received.

On the 18th June 1997, Ports of Auckland Ltd issued a media release through NZX (Capital Markets) which announced the sale of POAL’s leasehold interests (98 years) in Princes Wharf to Kitchener Group of Companies for $25.752 million.

A few months later the ARC received an application to: “construct alterations to existing buildings contained on Princes Wharf, and to install 52 racking piles to provide additional lateral support for the wharf structure.”

The ARC officer’s report (25.2.1998) notes: “the applicant has designed the proposal to comply with all requirements of the Regional Plan Coastal…. falls for consideration as a controlled activity…. The Manager… determined that the application be processed on a non-notified basis.”

In planning speak “Controlled” is like saying permitted.  And “non-notified” means what it says. No public notification.

That’s why no-one knew about it.

But there was a check. The ARC’s Plan Coastal, required that the developer should obtain a certificate from an independent registered architect. That one person needed to formally certify: “that the design and appearance of the proposed development of Princes Wharf is responsive to the city/harbour relationship, the prominent maritime setting of the site and the public use of the development and its setting…”

So an architect was retained who “worked closely with the developer”. Part of his report signing off the development reads:  “Although the height of the buildings will be greater than those currently existing on the wharf… the additional height proposed will help to achieve a sense of enclosure and definition to the harbour space in front of the Ferry building. The proposed development will act like a ‘constructed headland’… this will assist in restoring a more visually interesting and spatially attractive city waterfront which, as a result of successive harbour reclamations since the founding of the city, has been reduced to a relatively flat, straight edge…”

Which is just a matter of opinion. The expert “certifying report” minimising environmental effects is full of urban design speak that smoothly turns black into white.

Consistent with the purpose of the RMA, consent was granted. Without a hearing and without notification. By now the proposed development no longer included a cinema, theatres, museum, Waitemata Steps, festival shopping arcades. Such public amenities had long gone from this business-friendly proposal.

But it gets worse.

Over the next two years the developer applied for modifications to the original consent. These included: 37 more hotel rooms,  79 more apartments,  increased building heights, a pedestrian bridge, and a new lift. The developer also applied to restrict the public’s “unfettered access” to the end of Princes Wharf, and for six new vertical piles to hold the weight of the building. Parking increased. Restaurants spilled out between the protected colonnades. On and on.

Step by step the public lost out, and private interests took over Princes Wharf.

The same developer now owned the old (new) AHB headquarters building and applied for and obtained consent to fill it in with three new floors of commercial office space, again with the support of the friendly independent architect. Public access underneath and onto Princes Wharf was lost. And unknown additional lease payments were made to Ports of Auckland Ltd.

So that’s how it all happened.

The lesson for future waterfront development is this. Market forces can be relied upon to return profits to private shareholders. But public benefits on Auckland’s waterfront – including access, open spaces, parks, views, peace, seating, toilets, shelter, theatres, museums, galleries – can only be guaranteed when the public interest is rigorously defended and promoted by powerful and determined local government.

Auckland Cruise Ships: How Lucrative? (2)

This picture was taken a little while ago. Among other things it shows the Oosterdam cruise ship docked at Queens Wharf.

The Oosterdam visited Auckland again a week or so ago, docked at Queens Wharf.

I decided to interview a few of the passengers about how much they spent, and what they did while they were in Auckland.

Last time I blogged I wrote this piece questioning how lucrative the cruise ship industry actually is for Auckland Inc. An Auckland consultant emailed me about it, and sent me this info:

"....there are sources of information which can assist in understanding the value of cruise to NZ and Australia  - the principal one being the annual Economic Impact report prepared for Cruise New Zealand by Market Economics (it used to be part funded by the former Ministry of Economic Development) available at this web site - http://www.tourismnewzealand.com/sector-marketing/cruise/cruise-resources/

The early part of the report outlines the way in which the data is collected, modelled and presented. The direct expenditure figures included include cruise related (port, maritime costs, bunkering, providoring etc), passenger related (those you focussed on plus pre and post cruise expenditure and flights costs where applicable) and crew related (similar but related to crew). All of this was included in the reports to the ARC that made up the final report of the cruise project in 2009.

The regional summary data provides figures for total expenditure (including air fares and ship fuel) net expenditure (excluding those items) and value add (synonymous with GDP and the figure we mostly use as the one most applicable to the impact on the Auckland economy)   The value add totals for 2012-13 shows that Auckland received $116.3m from 100 ship visits (thus the $1m a ship comment), made up of $66.3m from 179,800 passengers, $7.3m from 67,900 crew, and $42.7m from cruise vessel related value add.

Covec have looked more closely at passenger spend and conclude that each exchange passenger (those who start or finish their cruise in Auckland) is worth $1,128 and each transit passenger is worth $782 in terms of ground product purchases in the 2011-12 season...."

This piqued my interest further, and I decided I'd chat with a few passengers from time to time, when I had the time waiting for the Devonport ferry, and when there was a cruise ship in with passengers relaxing on Queens Wharf.

It turned out the Oosterdam was only in for the day - so that obviously meant passengers only had a day to do their thing in Auckland. I spoke to a group of Australians (there were five in the group, average age 65-70 I estimate), and a young bloke who turned out to be from Belgium.

This is the guts of what the Australians told me:

"we spent $75 each on two bus tours and a few drinks...."  (Not much. It seems it's the bus tour operators who do best out of cruise ship visits.)

"we get everything we need on the ship - we don't need to buy stuff...."  (This seems obvious. If you've paid for your meals in your cruise fare - why would you spend more?)

"we each paid a few thousand for our cruise tickets..."  (This is an indication of how wealthy cruise ship passengers are, and how much discretionary money they have for extras.)

They reckoned "American tourists spend more", and said more than half the passengers were from Australia.

The guy from Belgium told me he didn't spend any money in Auckland. Just walked around the waterfront improving his suntan and taking pictures. But he said he did spend $2000 in Christchurch. When I asked him about that, he explained he bought a camera, and that duties payable in NZ for such things is less than in Belgium. Maybe we are seen as a duty free port by some?

The Aussies I spoke to were from Sydney. They said they really liked the Queens Wharf docking location.... "fantastic to be so near the centre, compared with what it's like in Sydney".  Now. You might read that as supporting a view that cruise ship parking on Queens Wharf should be retained. But you can read it another way. That is that Auckland has bent over backwards to allow cruise ship parking in the heart of the CBD - at the expense of providing a central park for its citizens.