Queens Wharf Chronology of Confidential Consultation

I haven't put everything down here, but some sort of chronology does put into perspective how we've got to where we are with Queens Wharf....

2005

In March 2005, ARC working with Auckland City Council and Ports of Auckland Ltd, ran a major public consultation about Auckland’s waterfront called Linking People, City and Sea. This emphasised the Western Reclamation and the America’s Cup Syndicate bases in particular. It also sought support for the Marine Event Centre. The consultation made no mention at all of cruise ships or cruise ship terminals. (You can read the detail of this here:
http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2010/05/queens-wharf-did-arc-consult-properly.html )

Then in December 2005, ARC working with Auckland City Council and Ports of Auckland Ltd, publised the Waterfront Vision 2040. This consultation makes no mention at all of the possible option of using Queens Wharf as cruise ship terminal. In fact, in relation to Queens Wharf this public document states: “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…”

2007

Then in October 2007 there was an election, the council elections, and a new ARC Council was established. Most Councillors were re-elected from the previous council. I was relegated to the back benches. Mike Lee was elected Chairman, and Michael Barnett was elected Deputy Chairman.

2008

Council resolved on 25 Feb 2008 that ARC officers, with ARH and POAL, should undertake further work on the potential options for the development of Queens Wharf, determining the benefits and capital costs and operating costs of those options.

On November 12 2008, ARC considered a report in confidential. This contained information about the Princes Wharf cruise ship terminal noting that “improvement of passenger facilities at Princes Wharf have been held up due to objections from local residents….”. The report went on to suggest actions needed if Queens Wharf was to become Auckland’s primary cruise ship terminal, or if Queens Wharf was to be improved as Auckland’s secondary cruise ship terminal. Council resolved to support further work on Queens Wharf cruise ship terminal options, with “limited public access”, with Government, Auckland City Council, ARH, and POAL.

After that meeting, my unpublished letter to NZ Herald included: "...I am very dissappointed by Auckland Regional Council’s limited approach to the Queens Wharf opportunity. At the confidential meeting I advocated for the broader public interest and an urban design led approach. But to little avail. ARC’s involvement in the redevelopment of other Auckland waterfront opportunities has been a public disaster. It was ARC’s responsibility to balance public and private interests on Princes Wharf. It is a disgrace that this opportunity has such impoverished public spaces…” It was around this time that I began this blog….

2009

On May 25 2009, ARC considered a report in confidential which dealt with a potential material transaction relating to a recapitalisation of POAL which included the option of purchasing Queens Wharf outright. Among other things, Council resolved at that meeting: “That the council wishes to have Queens Wharf be made available, to accommodate a primary cruise ship terminal, and for public access, in addition to normal cargo operations.” This is the first time - I think - that ARC actually voted for Queens Wharf to become Auckland's primary cruise ship terminal. No accompanying decision was made to consult the public about this decision or its implications.

On 15 June 2009, in a confidential meeting, ARC decided to buy Queens Wharf for $40 million, in a 50/50 partnership with central government. This was made possible after Government had said that it was keen on using Queens Wharf as “Party Central” for the Rugby World Cup event in 2011. The ARC decided to make provision for this new expenditure in its LTCCP 2009-19, which was adopted on 29 June 2009. This $20 million expenditure was added to the LTCCP too late for public consultation.

On 19 June 2009, Chairman Mike Lee gained sole access to Shed 10, with an NZ Herald photographer, and was reported in NZ Herald: “….he did not believe that Aucklanders and their visitors would be satisfied with such a shape and type of building. ‘We need a longer and higher building, ideally with lots of glass and lights ... I don't think this is going to cut the mustard.’….” He’d made up his mind. ‘This is going to be the front door of Auckland for cruise ship visitors and possibly a renaissance of passenger ships,’ he said.

On June 27 2010, ARC’s Chairman released drawings to NZ Herald that he had had commissioned himself. These had no Council endorsement. They show cruise ship structures on both sides of Queens Wharf, and both sheds gone. These images are contrasted in the news report with images provided by Auckland City Council which show Shed 10 incorporated into the design, and significant public space. You see these at: http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/QueensWharf.pdf

Then on July 14 2009, ARC Councillors had their first site visit of Queens Wharf. A blog covers that visit: http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/07/queens-wharf-site-visit.html
and: http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/07/queens-wharf-site-visit-shed-10.html

On the 19 July 2009, Cllr Sandra Coney spoke out about the sheds. Her statements were reported in NZ Herald, with Chairman Lee’s response:

“Although the wharf's two 1912 cargo sheds are missing from the council's preliminary concept drawings for a cruise ship terminal, Ms Coney described them as "heritage buildings" and sought an assurance that they would be included in a design brief . She called at a transport committee meeting for their preservation to be considered in the context of historic maritime buildings to have survived redevelopment along Quay St.
Auckland City has proposed incorporating the cargo sheds into wharf development plans, in contrast to the regional council's preliminary vision of a new three-storey ship terminal. ARC chief Peter Winder said entrants in a design competition could incorporate both old and new into their entries.

But council chairman Mike Lee said: "Unlike the substantial buildings on the Wellington waterfront, the Queens Wharf sheds were cheap and nasty when they were first built. Now they are old and decrepit, they are still cheap and nasty."

On Friday 24 July 2009, in another confidential meeting, ARC’s approval was sought for the final terms of the acquisition of Queens Wharf, along with its agreement to the terms of the proposed Queens Wharf Design Competition. A draft of the Sale and Purchase Agreement was provided (without schedules). The ARC delegated authority to the Chairman and the CEO to “finalise the Sale and Purchase Agreement…”. It is extraordinary that this responsibility was delegated in this way. I understand that it was in the course of those negotiations that POAL was negotiated away from its position that Princes Wharf remain the primary cruise ship terminal, to a new position that Queens Wharf was to become the primary cruise ship terminal, and that cruise ships were to be accommodated on Queens Wharf on both sides.

On Monday 24 August 2009, Stage 1 design competition opened. Then closed Fri 11 September 2009. From Sun 13 September 2009 Public exhibition of designs opens. I have blogged some of the images and design ideas from those entries:

http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/09/queens-wharf-design-competition-stage-1.html

Mon 28 September 2009, short list of designs to go forward announced. Start of detailed development for short list designs (Stage 2). Closed Fri 16 October 2009



On Friday 30 October 2009, Chairman Lee goes public: “The Queens Wharf design contest is a flop, says Auckland Regional Council chairman Mike Lee. He says the final eight designs are ‘lacklustre, underwhelming and mediocre’….” The competition is canned. (You can see very good images of the 8 finalists at this NZ Herald link: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/image.cfm?c_id=1&gal_objectid=10606264&gallery_id=107985 ) Six of the eight finalists used one or both cargo sheds in their designs.


December 22 2009, at a confidential meeting ARC agrees that winning design QW04 (one of those not incorporating the sheds, and thus providing the 8000 sm of floor space deemed necessary for primary cruise ship building) “as the design with the most merit from the design competition…” should be used as the basis of an “exclusive partnership between ARC and Government”…for "progressing the Queens Wharf development project". Again, the Chairman was given delegated authority, with the CEO, to enter into a Joint Venture agreement with Central Government. Again, this is an extraordinary delegation of responsibility. With minimum consultation requirements. This pre-christmas meeting was attended by a bare quorum of 7 ARC Councillors.


2010


February 19 2010, all 7 of Region’s mayors vote against the ARC and Central Government Joint Venture $100 million cruise ship terminal tart up of Queens Wharf. You’d think that feedback represented pretty weighty public consultation. But no.

April 19 2010, at another confidential meeting, ARC votes for the plastic tent or slug or relocateable structure, and that the sheds are to be ‘dismantled’ (sensitive demolition), but ‘subject to consultation with the Historic Places Trust’. Yet even this confidential meeting was not allowed to see the other designs that the Architectus/Jazmax team had come up with during the Joint Venture process. I understand there were 6 or so designs - some of which enviasged retaining one or both sheds, and provided a temporary structure alongside them. I have asked to see copies of these plans, but none have been provided yet. So ARC councillors, and the public have only one design to look at. One option to consider.



Which brings us to the present. Casual reading does suggest that the main consideration of this matter has been done in confidential by the ARC, and that genuine public consultation about crucial decisions - like where Auckland's primary cruise ship terminal should be; like what should happen on Princes Wharf (now that its residents are making life a bit hard for cruise ships); and like how any cruise ship terminal should be accommodated on Queens Wharf; and what do we all think about adapting the cargo sheds - has simply not happened.



What will happen next?

Queens Wharf - another ad hoc Auckland accident?

Until yesterday, my understanding about what was happening down on Queens Wharf was pretty much as had been reported by NZ Herald on the 8th December:

"Queens Wharf is to be spruced up for the Rugby World Cup at a cost of about $10 million.

It is understood there is no political appetite or funding to proceed with a grand design for the wharf in the foreseeable future.

Last month, political leaders called a halt to the much-maligned design contest to turn Queens Wharf into a combined cruise ship terminal and "party central" venue for the 2011 Cup.

A joint entry from architects Jasmax and Architectus, featuring a ramp to the water at the end of Queens Wharf, was the winning design for the $47 million budget...."

The Herald even ran a picture of the winning design with that story. The winning entry was known as QW04.

I quite liked the variant of that design that was in the design competition. One of the reasons I liked it was because the Cool Shed was retained, and featured.

Anyway. I digress. Things have been moving along apace. Yesterday, an extraordinary meeting of ARC Council was called by ARC's Chairman.

It was all about Queens Wharf. I can't really go into detail here - because the item was in confidential. A slim majority of councillors were able to attend - almost half the ARC councillors had made other Xmas arrangements and were elsewhere.

So a bare quorum attended. I was not happy to be considering such an important matter with so little time to think about it, and with so few councillors there. And there was no real sense of urgency. A strong whiff of expediency or ad hockery (if that's a word) was in the air....

The Chairman of ARC has made no secret of his desire to get rid of the Queens Wharf sheds, and to build Auckland's primary cruise ship terminal there. Quite a few other councillors, not to mention a fair slice of Auckland's media and public are concerned by that proposal. That it will restrict the opportunities to provide for public waterfront amenity. Crowd Auckland's CBD waterfront with cruise ships and basically give over the cruise ship industry a fantastic slice of Auckland's central waterfront. Here's how ARC's Chairman describes what he wants in his November report to Council. This photo is part of his report:

"A lot of public and media attention has been given to Queens Wharf in recent weeks – especially with the decision taken by the government, Auckland City and ourselves to ditch the cruise ship terminal design competition. ...My own comments on the standard of the designs is on the record and I am determined that we do not accept a second rate building on such a magnificent site. These opportunities come perhaps once in a lifetime and should not be squandered. If the job is worth doing its worth doing well.... As you might have guessed given the interest of the public I have been inundated with design ideas (especially gigantic waka and oversized rugby balls) which are at least more interesting than the standard boring post modern stodge offered up by the architectural experts. With all the controversy flying about the designs it is important not to lose sight of why we resolved to acquire Queens Wharf from POAL in the first place. That was for a new cruise ship terminal for Auckland and for public open space. One thing is for certain the wharf will be formally handed over to the ARC and the NZ government in April next year and we will be opening it up to the public. In regard to cruise ships, the 2008/09 cruise ship season was the largest yet, with New Zealand receiving 118,976 passengers. As the country’s key hub port, Auckland received a significant proportion of the 2008/09 cruise ship passengers (112,870). Growth in passenger numbers is expected to steadily increase, helped by announcements such as the one P&O Cruises made in October that it is going to base its newest superliner – the 1800 passenger Pacific Pearl – in New Zealand. Analysis shows that each cruise ship passenger contributes between $200 and $300 to the Auckland economy... Research carried out for the Government in 2008 showed that a new cruise terminal on Queens Wharf could generate an additional $713 million in direct expenditure over the next 10 years. Many have been surprised at the remarkable renaissance of passenger shipping in recent years – which most travel experts had written-off long ago as superseded by air travel. But given that Auckland, largely thanks to the magnificent Hauraki Gulf and Waitemata Harbour, has been presented with this opportunity it is important in terms of the overall economic development of the region that we seize it with both hands.... Our current facilities are outmoded and overloaded and there is no room to grow. We also need to match the standard of visitor facilities being provided by Australian Ports. If anyone doubts this I suggest they visit Princes Wharf when a cruise ship is alongside and see the long lines of jet-lagged passengers...."

You get the picture. ARC's Chairman is VERY enthusiastic about cruise ships and the cruise ship industry. He still wants BOTH sides of Queens Wharf to be available for cruise ships - that's why he likes the picture he has in his report with 3 cruise ships.

I have had to push very hard to get the idea of public space provision on Queens Wharf to be included at the same level in ARC's thinking - as the cruise ship terminal. It's there, as you can see in the Chairman's report, but I think public space and public amenity continues to be vulnerable to the pressure for Queens Wharf to be Auckland's PRIMARY cruise ship terminal.

But I digress again. This picture shows the Diamond Princess docked at Princes Wharf. She's 925 feet long. Close to the maximum length cruise ship that can dock at Princes Wharf. You can see how she towers over the Hilton Hotel, and imagine the views of those living in the Princes Wharf apartments. I sometimes wonder whether reverse sensitivity issues are driving the cruise ship industry onto Queens Wharf....

So - what can I tell you about the confidential meeting? Well. It seems that the powers that be are interested in doing rather more than the $10 million Party Central do-up that the NZ Herald reported a few weeks ago.

Behind the scenes a lot of work has been going on to titivate and tart up the design competition winning entry (described above), so that it meets the expectations of those same powers that be who would quite like to get the whole thing done in time for Rugby World Cup. The detail of all of that was provided at the meeting. Of course there are conversations to be had, and deals to be done, and funding to be found and finalised, and other design details to be worked through, and nothing was actually finalised.

But it's a worry. Not quite in the spirit of due process.

A strong whiff of ad hockery. Another classic Auckland moment. Reminiscent of Mallard's stadium Auckland moment. Is this the only way Auckland can do anything? And if we seriously believe Auckland governance needs to be changed to get good decisions, do we really think it appropriate to allow the existing dying regime - or even a fragment of it - to decide anything as precious as the waterfront?

I won't say any more about that meeting. But I am happy to share some of the concerns I had, and some of the research I carried out before the meeting. First of all I am aware that the Design Competition Panel prepared a final report. This recommends that QW04 is the winning entry. My understanding is that the main reason it won is that it scraps Shed 10, to ensure that the cruise ship terminal part of its design can deliver the rigid requirements of the design competition brief. The brief is onerous. It talks about the need for 8000 square metres of cruise ship building space. It talks about other building requirements to meet the needs of the cruise ship industry. It turns out that there is no way these specified needs can, or could, be met by any adaptive re-use of Shed 10. That is a principle reason why QW04 won.

In other words, the price of the cruise ship terminal, is Shed 10. The Design Panel basically found that you can't have both. And clearly the security and other needs of the cruise ship terminal will always rule when it comes to public space and provision as well. And if the ARC Chairman has his way, both sides of Queens Wharf will be sacrificed to cruise ship heaven. To P&O et al.

Question: where do cruise ships to Sydney dock? Do they tie up by the Opera House - ie slap bang in the middle of downtown CBD? Answer: No they don't. Here's one place. Nice location by the bridge. But not in the heart of the CBD. And take a look at the buildings used for the ship. Beautiful use when the ship's not there. Question: Where are they planning to put the Wellington Cruise Ship terminal? In the heart of Wellington's downtown waterfront CBD? Answer: No. The plan is to put it between Te Papa and the Freyberg Pool. Well away from Wellington's downtown waterfront.

It is plain stupid to shove ships into and almost onto Auckland's downtown CBD waterfront. This space needs to be reserved for promenading and public amenity and public fun.

And here's the other thing I spoke about at the confidential meeting. Remember when Queen Mary 2 came to Auckland? Fantastic wasn't it. Everybody wanted to see her. Here she is. Parked at a container terminal. She was too big for Princes Wharf. And she's too big for Queens Wharf. So. Even if the powers that be spend a whole heap of money building the titivated cruise ship terminal on Queens Wharf, the Queen Mary will still have to park at Auckland's container terminal. How World Class is that? Queen Mary 2 is 1132 feet long. That's almost 200 feet longer than the Diamond Princess photographed at Princes Wharf above. When I asked the question about this, at the confidential meeting, I was advised that Queens Wharf needs to be strengthened to take a ship as heavy as Queen Mary 2, and lengthened as well. I was also advised that the contract with Ports of Auckland does allow for lengthening, but that the cost for lengthening has not be budgeted for. Last time I looked the resource consent process for lengthening Auckland's wharves had not suddenly become any easier. I checked the internet to see what the trend was for cruise ships. Queen Mary 2 was - for a short time - the longest cruise ship in the world. However I learned that Royal Carribean - a major competitor for P&O - has completed, or almost completed, two cruise ships that are bigger than Queen Mary 2. One's called Oasis of the Seas (1187 feet), the other's called Genesis (1180 feet). And apparently larger cruise ship vessels are on the horizon.

How world class would Auckland look if ships like these, and Queen Mary 2, had to dock at a container wharf? Remember the big container ship debate? Auckland was going to lose out on the world shipping stage if it didn't dredge Rangitoto Channel and expand Ferguson Terminal. These monty container ships needed water depth and berth length. So we spent the money. Why not take a whole of waterfront perspective in planning for cruise ships AND public space. No need to cram everything onto Queens Wharf. Take a bigger look.

What is happening is not a positive reflection on Auckland planning. I say, let's stop this waterfront ad hockery. By all means spend $10 million - or even $20 million - on Party Central on Queens Wharf. But don't rush something ill-thought-out onto Queens Wharf. It's too precious.

POSTSCRIPT (dated 15th January 2010). You will have noted the discussion in NZ Herald over the past few days. Orsman's front page reveal all was triggered by this blog. The subsequent debate has engaged the attention of the PM who has blocked proposals for a major and hasty redevelopment. Interestingly, Cooper and Company have come up with a "redevelop 30 metres of land behind the red fence and keep Quay Street as it is". Which has a degree of popularity about it. I think it's another short term fix. Quay Street's use has to change otherwise Auckland CBD will be separated from its waterfront by a traffic artery/sewer.

Auckland Leaders want WOW on the Waterfront

The commentators have used up all the words for the Queens Wharf Design Competition: farce, mockery, joke, sow's ear.... Senior officials have mentioned the sheer number fo design competitions that have been had, but not built.

Something's wrong in the state of Auckland.

I think we are trying to wrestle our city out of a state of urban barbarianism.

This barbarianism shines out for all to see when elected leaders make pronouncements about "wow factors", "iconic buildings" and Auckland being "world-class". Some Herald writers are just as bad. In Auckland, mayors, chairs and leader writers are not where they are because they are fantastic designers, or great urban designers, or even architects.

Most of them would say to this, "yeah, but I know what I like, and I don't like that..."

Some cities do things differently, and I guess we can learn from them, but more likely we'll just learn from our mistakes. I just hope we don't make too many more. At least Queens Wharf is on the back-burner. Wanton and hurried destruction followed by hasty construction won't happen.

I went with a dozen invited officials and local government politicians to Curitiba, Brazil, to see what they do there, and to understand the local government process. Morgan Williams, parliamentary commissioner for environment organised the study visit. In a nutshell, I learned this about City Hall:

- 30 years ago, or so, local business and community interests decided their city needed good governance if it was going to get anywhere;
- their plan was to get skilled people into Council;
- a design competition was held at the local university, architects and planners were invited to enter. The objective? A Master Plan for Curitiba; - a bunch of winning entries were selected. The prize? A couple of years post-graduate study in the Sorbonne in Paris, and the opportunity to implement the Master Plan, provided they got elected to Curitiba City Hall on their return

You get the picture. Jaime Lerner - Curitiba's famous mayor, who I met and talked with, trained as an architect. He was elected to Curitiba Council with a bunch of fellow councillors who were also architects, designers, and planners. Their mandate? to implement the Master Plan. And that's what they've been doing...

All this process took a couple of decades. The results are excellent.

Auckland has a lot of design and planning talent. You see them employed privately and in consultancies and agencies. A good number are also employed in Auckland local government. Many from the private sector got involved in the Queens Wharf design competition. Many did not because they felt the design brief was flawed (Cruise ship terminal would compromise Queens Wharf, inadequate budget, insufficient design time etc....). And some were included in the Design Panel, where they provided professional advice about the entries. Advice to Auckland Leaders and Ministers Gerry Brownlee and Murray McCully.

I get the impression their advice was ignored.

The "we know best" approach won the day.

Getting the best out of Queens Wharf and Auckland's waterfront should not be about Cruise Ships and iconic buildings. Nor should it be about one politician's idea of WOW.

I think Auckland people have been short-changed on their waterfront for decades. That is the need that should be addressed, and that is why I see the need for Urban Design and Urban Planning down there, long before I see the need for Architectural Designs.

In the past decade there have been two responsible initiatives at Auckland's waterfront. The first was Britomart - in the time of Mayor Fletcher. That project was a success - sure Queen Elizbeth Square could be improved and it still can be - but the overall result (including Takutai Square behind the railstation), the retention of heritage buildings, and the station restoration itself is outstanding.

The other project - in the time of Mayor Hubbard - was a visionary look Quay Street and the whole waterfront from Ferguson through to Westhaven. Didn't go anywhere fast, because ARC had not been involved in that visionary look and was concerned to protect the viability of Ports of Auckland.

And there's the rub. Ports of Auckland, and its viability, its appetite for wharf space and container space and cruise ship space, continues to be the tail that wags the dog of Auckland's waterfront. Perhaps SuperCity will keep it chained, and allow some sort of design renaissance to flourish in Auckland, beginning with Queens Wharf and Quay Street.

Queens Wharf - Let Sleeping Dogs Lie....

There's wisdom in the more considered remarks of Hamish Keith in today's NZ Herald, and also in the letter there by Architect and ideas man Stephen Smythe.

Their advice calls to mind a wise comment made to me by an experienced former councillor. He said, "a good day in council is one where a bad decision was not made..."

The Queens Wharf design brief was a bad decision because ARC wanted to turn Queens Wharf into Auckland's primary Cruise Ship Terminal - with Cruise Ships allowed on both sides. That's what killed the plan to have a great public space there.

ARC's plan - led by its Chair - should have been put out for public consultation, along with other broad ideas for the use of Queens Wharf - like emphasising its public purpose and ferry use and using its heritage buildings for other purposes - long before Auckland's design community was put to work designing a dog of a design. Trying to make a silk purse out of a dog's ear.

Government's idea of Party Central was always a good simple idea, because all it called for was some temporary renovation and structures. Put them up in time for the Rugby Event and take them down afterward. Use the time as an opportunity to experiment with ideas - as I wrote in the Herald months ago.

I have always wanted to see much more effort put into fixing the Cruise Ship terminal on Princes Wharf. Making it work better than it does now. I've seen reports which indicate that the Cruise Ship industry is not unhappy with Princes Wharf. Sure they'd like it to be better, and two terminals are always better than one, but hey - we only have a couple of these big wharves downtown.

In my opinion the Cruise Ship industry can have access to one of these - but we'll have the other one thank you very much. If there must be another cruise ship terminal, then allocate wharf space further east. Learn - again - from where Wellington is locating its new cruise ship terminal.

My objective through this whole sorry process is to ensure that the existing sheds are not lost and denigrated in a fervour of Iconic Cruise Ship terminalitis.

It has been disappointing to see politicians normally keen to save wooden hospital buildings and historic railway station buildings - all dilapidated and crumbly before careful conservation - jump so quickly to disparage and demolish Queens Wharf's extraordinary sheds. The Heritage Assessments I have read - which have yet to be shared with the public - indicate these are treasures of national importance.

The NZ Historic Places Trust’s Northern Registrar, Martin Jones, who is researching the history of the sheds and wharf, says this in his account of the role this infrastructure played: “The sheds on Queen’s Wharf are the last remaining structures associated with that huge ‘machinery’ of export and as such are an extremely important part of the country’s economic as well as social heritage.” He writes: "The history of Queen’s Wharf sheds and their place in the maritime landscape make them every bit as important as the iconic Ferry Building...”

“The Sydney Blue Gum joists and decking, riveted metal frames, and original electric lifts add character to both buildings which are striking for their modern ‘industrial’ appearance. They have considerable potential to be successfully readapted for new use both inside and out.”

Martin notes further: “The sheds are the last link to a waterfront history that shaped Auckland, but which has all but disappeared.... Cities overseas have shown what buildings like these can become with a little creativity and investment. In the right hands, the Queen’s Wharf sheds could become some of the waterfront’s most prized assets,” he says.

Show some leadership guys. Do the right thing.

Look at Queens Wharf Designs - Put yourself in the picture...

Did you know that the Auckland Sydney Opera House design competition almost brought down the Government? It's true. Totally polarised the community...

Hasn't gone that far in Auckland. Storm in a tea cup by comparison. But remember the screams over the proposed waterfront stadium? I don't mind admitting I was in favour of an stadium on Bledisloe Wharf. An appropriate one - scaleable. Could have up to 60,000 seats, but otherwise an open-ended structure with views to CBD and Rangitoto, and a base of around 30,000 seats on each side. Plenty of examples around the world. But I digress....

The tyranny of the majority (or do I really mean: of the uninformed) threatens what has been an action packed and highly participated and idea-filled design competition. Sure the brief is tight: short-term party central, longer term legacy opportunity, keep the sheds vs demolish the sheds, cruise ship terminal, $47 million. But actually: money is tight, time is tight, and there's lot that's mighty fine about the ideas that have been put up.

I've selected a few images here from among finalist designs. They are beautifully executed, and show real care for the purpose: people space, gathering space, Auckland.

Put yourself in these pictures.
They are not oil paintings - to be looked at from a distance.
They are places for people to go and see and enjoy themselves.

Take a look at them. Go down to Quay Street and understand them.
Or look at them yourself on the website: http://www.queenswharf.org.nz/

And don't be put off by the baying of politicians.


From Design 8


From Design 4


From Design 6

From Design 3

From Design 2

Put yourself in these pictures.
They are not oil paintings - to be looked at from a distance.
They are places for Auckland local people to go, and see, and enjoy themselves.
And don't be put off by the baying of politicians.

Queens Wharf Designs - Not a flop

Dear NZ Herald Editor,

ARC’s Chairman Mike Lee has every right to express his opinion that the Queens Wharf design competition is a flop and that the hundred year old sheds should be demolished.

I don’t agree with him and nor does ARC policy.

And, so far, the ARC hasn’t agreed to become an advocate for the Society of Iconic Building Architects, nor for the P&O Cruise Ship Company.

What Auckland needs on its CBD waterfront is a popular people place. Aucklanders need a well designed and active public experience on Queens Wharf, far more than they need iconic buildings and cruise ships.

To be successful, Queens Wharf will need structures, but these should primarily serve the public need ahead of shipping profits and design egos.

Many of the design competition entries illustrate how the hundred year old bones of Queens Wharf’s sheds can be respected and utilised to spectacular effect.

Attractive waterfronts around the world have brilliantly renovated sheds, and we should do a Pacific job on ours.

It is time to embrace the ideas of our best designers and get on with the job. This should not be a political football.

Yours sincerely, Joel Cayford

Where is Auckland's "Pacific Culture" in Queens Wharf designs?

Interesting that none of the 5 short-listed designs for the Queens Wharf design competition reflect or celebrate - as far as I can see anyway - Auckland's Pacific culture.

I wonder why....

Especially when you consider the criteria that were agreed by each of the three main institutions - ARC, Auckland City Council and Central Government. The design competition criteria, which I voted for at ARC, include these:

2. To achieve a high quality work of contemporary architecture, heritage and public open space which celebrates Auckland’s maritime and Pacific culture and New Zealand’s innovative and creative culture in an exemplary way that attracts local, national and international acclaim.
3. To create a distinctly Auckland place that showcases our harbour environment, history, diversity and Pacific culture.

Points 2 and 3 clearly refer to the importance of Auckland’s "maritime culture” and “Pacific” culture. These criteria were also in Design Compteition Stage 1 brief. I went and looked at the 237 designs that were submitted and many of the actual designs submitted at Stage 1 did reference a number of cultural images and symbols, - maritime, Pacific and Maori. As well as built forms and so on....

But none of those got through the judging process. This process included selections from the Panel, and then a final selection decision by ARC, ACC and Government representatives. And no mention is made of this requirement in the panel's further guidance for Stage 2.

So. Do these criteria also apply to the panel and those who are making decisions?
Or are they there to appease.... encourage Pacific culture related designs for appearances sake... and lack real commitment and force when it comes to implementation... ?

I am asking these questions internally within the ARC, but not getting very far.

Queens Wharf Design Competition - Stage 2 - Developments

If you are interested in this, you will have seen the results in NZ Herald last week of Stage 1.
5 Designs were selected, and 3 Design Teams.
The winning designs can seen at: http://www.queenswharf.org.nz/ (which by the way is a very interesting website, and contains images and info about all of the entries.)

For the most part the winning designs were prepared by small design consultancies.
The brief for stage two of the competition says this:

"...To participate in Stage 2, ‘Stage 1: ideas or concept plan proposal’ finalists will need to work with a team of proven capability. Finalists may propose their own consultant team and submit this team for approval, or join a team submitting a satisfactory team entry from the ‘Stage 1: team proposal’.
‘Stage 1: team proposal’ finalists are eligible to participate in Stage 2 in their own capacity but are also allowed to form a working relationship with any ‘Stage 1: ideas or concept plan proposal’ competition finalist. Any changes of membership from their Stage 1 team proposal must be submitted to the Project Sponsors for approval.
Stage 2 contestants are expected to provide all the necessary consultancy services, including but not limited to the architectural, landscaping/urban design, civil/structural and building services to complete the design of the proposed development. The Project Sponsors intent to separately appoint consultant services for regulatory planning, quantity surveying, project management, and heritage review and advice..."

So you can see that what will happen is that small design entry people are being encouraged to form partnerships with recognised teams - so they can offer the capability necessary to take design ideas forward toward implementation. I am advised that some 25 Team Entries were received in stage 1. The panel has announced the top teams, and 3 of these have generally been named in the media. However the panel has also named a further 4 teams - those who did the next best - as satisfying their criteria. Winning contestants can also choose to team up with any one of these.

This means that the 5 winning entries have 7 teams to choose from. And it appears that the 3 top teams could also choose to put up their own entries at stage 2. They don't need to team up with any of the winning entries - unless they want to.

So. There could be a maximum of 8 entries at the end of stage 2 - one from each of the original 5 winning designers, and one from each of the winning teams. But it seems likely that there will be a joining of forces.

Everybody has learned a lot from the 237 design entries that were received. Comments about those designs have been made public by the design panel. And the panel has provided further design information that has arisen from this consideration. I think this is valuable and interesting information, and I quote it here, with panel's explanatory comments:

"...The advisory panel views both the Stage 1 and Stage 2 design submissions as part of an evolutionary development process for Queens Wharf. The preparation of the wharf for the Rugby World Cup will represent a further step in this process, with the final steps in the development process necessarily occurring after the RWC event. For these reasons the panel considers that the focus of the design competition needs to be as much about identifying design strategies capable of guiding both the immediate and longer term redevelopment of the wharf as it is about envisioning a specific design outcome.The panel considers that Stage 2 competitors will benefit from an opportunity to become informed about the design approaches and strategies on which the Stage 1 designs have been based, together with the views of the advisory panel on the relative merits of these. In this way, the collective understandings gained during the Stage 1 process might guide the second stage. This report summarizes a number of key issues during the Stage 1 judging process, and these are presented below:

3.1 Inviting the public onto Queens Wharf
A number of design features will assist in achieving this objective. These include:
· developing strong connections to Quay Street and lower Queen Street
· including facilities, or a significant focal point of interest, at the southern end of the wharf that will attract daily visitation and use
· clearly indicating pedestrian routes to future ferry berths along the western edge of the wharf
· developing a sequence of distinctive experiences along the full length of the wharf
· creating a “destination” at the northern end of the wharf.

3.2 Harbour view protection
In respect of the extensive view protection area occupying the southern part of Queens Wharf (as indicated on the Auckland Regional Coastal Maps), the advisory panel considers that full public access to the wharf will make available a new range of extensive harbour views which have not previously been possible. In the changed circumstances of public access to the wharf, there will be a need to provide shelter to and activation of southern end of the wharf. The current view protection provisions would unnecessarily restrict opportunities to do so.

3.3 Dealing with the challenge of empty space
It will be important for Queens Wharf to offer an inviting public realm experience throughout the year and in a diversity of situations, ranging from large scale to micro events, and during periods when the wharf is minimally active.

3.4 Dealing with the challenge of scale
Queens Wharf and its harbour setting offer experiences of a large scale. The presence of cruise ships will add to this scale impact. While these large scale conditions will be a distinctive aspect of the visitor experience, the individual visitor should not feel overpowered. Development of the wharf should also offer experiences at a more intimate scale. Opportunities for developing a balance between ‘prospect’ and ‘refuge’ should be explored by Stage 2 design teams.

3.5 Celebrating multiple activities
The wharf needs to allow for multiple activities to take place simultaneously, and to be developed in a way that will promote this. People using the wharf should be able to become aware of and appreciate activities associated with a variety of uses, including associated pedestrian and vehicle movements. At times when cruise ships are not using the terminal it should be possible for the public to move seamlessly throughout the wharf and enjoy the terminal building as a public amenity.
3.6 Recognizing the potential of the western edge
The western edge of the wharf will not only accommodate future ferry terminal expansion (with associated pedestrian movements), but offers sunny and potentially protected vantage points for viewing activity within the water space between Queens and Princes Wharves. Given the need to establish a secure zone along the eastern edge of the wharf during cruise ship visits, the western edge in contrast offers opportunities for uninterrupted public engagement with the water, possibly including access to the water, temporary berthing for leisure craft, etc.

3.7 Recognizing that the wharf will be approached from the sea as well as the land
In addition to temporary berths for leisure craft, the northern end of the wharf has the potential to be developed as a ceremonial space of arrival from the sea. However, any development of the water space at the northern end of the wharf would need to take account of shipping movements.

3.8 Creative responses to delivering authentic visitor experiences
The offering of authentic experiences that reveal our history, geography and cultures is a key factor in New Zealand’s strong global position as an attractive visitor destination. For some of these visitors Queens Wharf will become an important point of arrival and departure. The development of the wharf should make authentic references to its setting and its history, recognize that the wharf is built structure rather than a natural landform, and avoid overt and superficial references or themes. Design integrity will therefore be important in responding to this key issue.

3.9 Opportunities to be above and below the wharf surface
The existing wharf is a large and relatively undifferentiated horizontal surface. Opportunities for the public to move to higher and lower vantage points could significantly enhance the visitor experience of the wharf.

3.10 The importance of shelter
Provision of shelter will be critical both for creating inviting conditions and for all-weather use of the wharf. Effective shelter will require both horizontal and vertical protection. However, extensive areas of permanently sheltered open space potentially limit the use of such spaces in a variety of ways. The provision of structures capable of supporting temporary canopies and screens should be considered. While some activities and events will require marquees and similar purpose-specific enclosures, the ability to readily create sheltered spaces at minimal cost will be important in attracting a variety of public activities to the wharf. This will be particularly so where risk management of weather conditions and cost parameters are critical.

3.11 Designing for events
Event promoters typically seek to create settings specifically tailored to the particular event and will thus wish to temporarily transform a part of the wharf. The wharf open spaces will need to be intrinsically adaptable in order to enable such temporary transformations, quite apart from the flexibility which comes from repositioning or adding elements. Some types of event or performance will require spaces in which natural light can be reduced or excluded.

3.12 Possibilities for creative lighting of the wharf
In addition to the possible introduction of creative lighting associated with large events on the wharf, the potential to dramatically light the wharf and its structures at other times should be considered, particularly in view of the fact that the wharf will be viewed from a number of vantage points, including from points around the harbor. A related consideration is the use of special lighting to reveal the space between the wharf deck and the water surface at night

3.13 Resolving potential conflicts between vehicular and pedestrian movements
The wharf should remain inviting for pedestrians during periods of intensive vehicle movement associated with cruise ship terminal operations. It will also be important to provide conveniently located vehicle drop off facilities for the existing ferry terminal should the current drop off area become unavailable.

3.14 RWC and the progressive redevelopment of Queens Wharf The panel considers that preparation of the wharf for the RWC event should represent a positive contribution to the longer term development, and not simply a temporary measure in order to meet RWC deadlines and requirements.

I look forward to the next stage of this interesting process.
Each entry must present 4 x A1 sheets, by noon 23rd October, as far as I understand.

Queens Wharf Design Competition Stage 1 - Selected Images

If you get the chance - go down to the Northern Steamship Company building in Quay Street and take look at the competition entries. Really worthwhile. Very interesting. There are 250 separate entries - each on its own A1 sheet. Great way to see what's what....

I've selected a few pics. This one is Party Central in the Cool Shed...

...and so is this one. From outside looking toward Queen Street.

...the entries come in all styles and finishes. Was interested in this one's interest in glassed verandahs. Queens Wharf can be a windy and wet place. So shelter and shade are needed. Not sure about grass...

This is an idiosyncratic one I've included because it's fun. The theme apparently - for the yellow shapes - is the randomness of a bouncing rugby ball....

This one's given the Briton Pier finish to Shed 10. Lots of glazing along the roof ridge, and a seriously in-keeping with the times, and ornamental addition at the end of the building. And what about those lamp standards!

Several point out that this is Queen Street Extension. One even explains that historically Queens Wharf was actually named: "Queen Street Wharf". Probably before it got blocked off with the red fence. Interesting ironwork here - including elevated walkways...

High style here. Street art and continuation of Nikau Palms from Queen Street. Not also the greenery in the building which replaces Shed 10 in this entry...

This entry extends the garden idea. Garden on Queens Wharf idea. Even a formal garden, places to sit...

I guess those sheds do have the outline of a tomato house...

And here we get into some glass and an elegant adaptation and renovation of Shed 10. Looks pretty flash in Merino (one of those Resene Paint whites if my memory serves me right...). Also got a few trees...

This is inside Shed 10. The bones are on display. It's reminiscent of the exposure of bones you can see inside Britomart Station. Not really sure about huge trees inside this elegant treatment. But interesting to bring and extend some Queen Street greenery here...

This is a seriously interesting treatment of the end of the wharf. Specially when you look into that flating structure at the end - complete with wind shelters, places to jump, swim and dive off. Even launch and float a canoe. The seating and shading designed for events at the end - not a stadium - but an amphitheatre. One that you can see through. An event place. And Shed 10 survives too...

This idea would have to be one of my favorites. Called "Arrival Hall", it's at the Queen Street end of Shed 10. The floor is removed at one end to achieve this stunning effect....


...and at night, looking toward Shed 10 from Queen Street a light and neon show inside would make spectacular drawcard onto the wharf...

(By the way, about half the entries in the competition are what I would describe as architectural visions for the whole wharf, which involve starting from scratch. Blank slate approach. Which I don't personally support, and which I consider to be unaffordable. That's my bias. I support adaptive reuse of the sheds.)



The end of the Cool Shed gets the Marae treatment here, plus a waka moored close by. Many of the entries showed Koru and other Maori motif patterns, but it was interesting to see some buildings getting the treatment...

Many and varied treatments to deal to the weather and generally provide enclosed or sheltered space...

This is the real wood treatment for the sheds and wharf decking. Nikau presence again, and special glass light ports into the roofing of the sheds. Again, a really enthusiastic end of wharf space for fishers, swimmers and paddlers alike. Get your feet wet here...

... and again...

Many of the entries recognise the need for shelter from the elements, and provide shade structures ranging from sails to shade houses to stretched sail type arrangements. This one was a bit different, and combined the ability to shade a pathway to the end of the wharf, while retaining the shape of an iconic kiwi image. The Silver Fern.

.... and again.

I repeat, this is a very interesting exhibition of ideas. I would encourage you to go - look - and complete a few forms down there, about what you think of the ideas you will see.

Rugby Ball Shows on Queens Wharf....

Continuing with these designs on Queens Wharf, what I'm really looking forward to is the removal of that fence that separates Queens Wharf from the Ferry Terminal. And, removing the structural walls (concrete block and grey) that separates the Ferry Terminal itself from Queens Wharf. You can see that wall in the background, in this pic, just over the roof of Shed 10....

But before I go there, closer, here's another pic of Queens Wharf, looking over the Cool Shed to Shed 10. Wonder what that "egg" is in the background....?

Looking down Queen Street, between the existing buildings there, you can see along Queens Wharf. You can still see the heritage fence that lines Quay Street, but the fence by Ferry Terminal buildings has gone. So have the car parks there. No way should there be office commuter car parks on Queens Wharf. Banish them. This is a social place...

The "egg" is the Paris Rugby Ball. Built for the last Rugby World Cup event. A building to showcase New Zealand. Continuous film shows on the interior walls. An exhibition of all that's the best about New Zealand - for locals and visitors alike.

It would fit nicely on Queens Wharf for the 2011 Rugby World Cup. Part of the life on the city end of Queens Wharf. With tables and brollies spilling out from the newly activated edge of the Ferry Building...

It would be part of the transformation of Queens Wharf into a premier downtown showcase, show place for Auckland and New Zealand...

We are all looking forward to a bunch of fantastic ideas from the design competition. It's a very interesting project .... Go well....