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.