Auckland Plan = Step Backwards

The Mayor Len Brown said it all this morning on National Radio as he talked up the economic growth targets of the Auckland Plan. Describing the Plan itself he said, "frankly, this is the easy bit, now we have to achieve it...". Radio New Zealand commentary this morning noted that, "Central Government supports most of the Auckland Plan...." It's not hard to see why:

• The Metropolitan Urban Limit - which has largely held firm since 1998 and which still contains substantial developable land - has been relaxed significantly, opening up development opportunities and quick profits for those holding land at the edges whose advocates were very squeaky wheels during submissions;
• The challenge of meeting the need for affordable housing within existing city communities has thus been side-stepped (they can live in new houses in greenfields and form new markets for greenfield developers with new infrastructure costs heavily subsidised by existing ratepayers);
• Despite setting a significant increase in passenger transport targets, the Auckland Plan strongly emphasises investment in roading infrastructure for cars.

Central Government has made no secret of its support for these initiatives, and has Auckland Council's arm up its back by with-holding financial support for major public transport projects backed by Council and the wider Auckland community.

The Auckland Plan could be described as a balance. But that would be charitable.

It was always open for Auckland Council to seize the Compact City baton, and develop a set of grunty policy tools, support frameworks and incentives that would deliver the vision on the ground. There was room for that in the Spatial Plan specification enshrined in legislation by Central Government. Instead Auckland Council has fallen into step with central government's policy direction that New Zealand's economic development be led by urbanisation catalysed by motorway building and roading, as well as port expansion. And so history repeats. Auckland's embryonic plans for more responsible and self-sufficient development are stymied again, (though I am relieved that following well organised and effective public reaction, Auckland Port Expansion Plans are on ice pending a review....)

I understand that the finished Auckland Plan looks very beautiful. No expense spared. But then most development prospectus documents look and feel like that. Glossy. Thick paper. The very best photographs. Endlessly edited. Give confidence to investors. Let the market deliver growth and prosperity to all of Auckland.

We've tried that. It doesn't work for large parts of the Auckland population who live in crowded houses, have to drive long distances to work, shop, go to school, whose energy costs are increasing ahead of inflation, and whose children and parents have few options to own their own homes in the neighbourhood. The market is not interested in developing the self-sufficient communities that are central to delivering a compact and efficient city.

Supporters of the Auckland Plan argue that the old urban limits and plans to contain 75% of new population within existing boundaries "are not achievable", and that even maintaining population growth within the relaxed target of 60% (plus I hasten to add some 1400 hectares of new greenfield land for business), "might not be achievable".

Of course it won't be achievable. Especially if Auckland Council does not take its planning responsibilities seriously, and if it leaves these sorts of planning outcomes to the development market.

You only have to look at the latest piece of Auckland greenfield development that is happening at Hobsonville, North West Auckland to see what happens when the market takes over. The original vision for this inner harbour community was of a mixed development with employment, village centre, and an integrated mix of state housing and high quality private development. That was the plan the Auckland Regional Council was presented with when I was on that Council, and when we had the job of signing off the relevant District Plans. I was one of those arguing that development needed to be staged to ensure the mixed vision was in fact steadily implemented on the ground. With triggers before the next stage could proceed. Man oh man did Waitakere City Council and assorted developers kick back against that idea.

Trust us they said. Don't constrain the market.

What has happened? First up Central Government walked away from funding any State Housing there. Next up Super City had the job of finalising various appeals outstanding. No such thing as Chinese Walls now. The self-sufficient community vision for Hobsonville has now been reduced to an expensive coastal development with big box shopping - like you see at Westgate and Albany Mega Centre. These are not communities. These are development opportunities.

These are the future communities that will be permitted under the Auckland Plan.

All that glitters is not economic gold...

We had the budget last week. Many expected a more savage set of cuts and a more concerted attack on the deficit. Most commentators who traditionally support the Key Government have been muted at best about it. It's really business as usual with the Christchurch earthquake being the only place where the rubber is really hitting the road. It's so public there. So many peoples' lives and assets affected.

The budget predicts GDP growth to be 4% in 2014. Though where that growth will come from is not clear. Even IRD don't agree with Government tax revenue forecasts. Burble burble. Economics, economics. Not my forte. Just trying to get lined up for my main message here.

What I'm picking up is that more and more commentators are asking the question: what is New Zealand's economic development going to be based on in future? What is the long term plan for that development? What do we need to be doing now, so we can be in good shape to deliver on that longer term economic development plan?

Fool's Gold hurts national wellbeing...False Gold. This is my main message. The National Government has - more than any other Government that I can remember - acted as if New Zealand has just been colonised. It's slash and burn and extract the quick gold. Emphasis has been on extraction at all costs - at any cost. These last few weeks the media has been chocka with stories about what dairy farming is doing to New Zealand's environment.

White Gold....The Business pages are stacked with graphs and tables about butter fat prices. White Gold. So worth having that landscapes no self-respecting farmer would ever have turned into a dairy farm - are now stacked with cows - and irrigated from dawn till dusk. I talked to an accountant mate about this. He told me about his training, "what we first got told was unwritten Rule Number 1. Rule number 1 in New Zealand is farmers pay no tax." I asked him about this and he said, "simple. They're in debt. They've got loans from overseas investors to buy their land and farm plant. All the revenues get ploughed back into interest payments. New Zealand doesn't see any of that money - bugger all anyway. Revenues from dairy don't benefit the New Zealand economy. And the IRD hardly gets a cent...."

And this is where the real cost is. For New Zealand. I'd like to see an honest benefit/cost calculation done on NZ's white gold industry. It makes a grown trout-fisherman cry to see what's happened to the lakes around Rotorua due to dairy farming. And long term data suggests it's doing the same to Lake Taupo and to rivers in parts of Southland. Nitrates from cow piss and poo that are in the ground now will flow into our natural water courses for another 20 years. Even if dairy farming stopped now. And as technology has transformed dairy farming (think of all those automated milking factories funded by overseas investment) it's not as if there's lots of farm labourers being paid, taking that wage into local shops and feeding the local economy. Far from it. They're unemployed now - lots of them - can barely afford a block of cheese and a litre of milk. Any capital gains once debt is repaid are not subject to tax either. Untaxed extraction benefits subsidised by nitrated natural waters and an increasingly methaned atmosphere.

Black Gold.... Whether it's fantastic coking coal from places like Pikes River coalmine, or lignite from Southland, the Government is right behind it. We might not burn it here, and if we don't then there's always China after a bit of cheap fossil fuel energy. I haven't seen recent financial analyses of this "economic" activity. But you can bet your bottom dollar that apart from a little bit of royalty that the government might be able to extract, coal mining's a bit like white gold mining because the mining companies have had to invest so much in building the mine, the tunnelling, and all of the other stuff, that the revenue from the coal will again be paying the bank, the overseas investor.

And where does this cost get factored in? What would happen if the coal companies were required to pay the carbon charge as soon as the black gold was hauled out of the ground? This picture shows the painful truth of what happens to that coal - and sometimes to the lignite when it can be forced to burn clean by blowing in lots of air, and by having pollution cleaners in the stacks. The truth is that clean-burning coal doesn't look as if it's doing anything bad. A bit like cow piss and poos. That nice white steam is chocka with Carbon Dioxide. Yes we breathe it out - but not on this scale. Look at this post: Earth's air before coal. That's the subsidy cost we give to our children.

Gold Gold.... And here we have the real McCoy. Gold gold. Sure I know gold is used for other activities. Funny how gold (and silver) prices rocket in a recession. The Government got pretty keen on allowing gold mining on the Dept of Conservation Estates. Gold mining still happens in New Zealand - quite big scale in MacCraes Flat, Central Otago. Is this what New Zealand has to do, to keep up with Australia? Thing is - our geology is very recent compared with Australia. The easy gold has gone from here. There never was that much in the first place. Went in a big rush in a few years. That wealth probably did do something for NZ's economy back then. Some miners stayed here to spend it. But today's gold mining operations are big investments. Again, overseas investors heavily involved. Largely automated operations. Not much employment...

Doesn't really matter which gold mine you look at in New Zealand, they're all pretty damaging. Just now the Government has agreed to spend millions cleaning up the Tui mine tailings at Te Aroha. This picture's at Waihi. The Martha Hill mine. Big deep pit in the heart of Waihi. In the background the tailings area. Heavy metal etc contaminated fines. Sure they're all contained behind tailings dams. But not very pretty. Risky. It's all so short term. That's the essence of a colonial approach to economic activity. Slash and burn. And for NZ it's death by a thousand cuts. None of this "gold rush" does New Zealand any real long term good. Because it's all going to come to a sticky end when the resource runs out. By definition.

Green Gold.... Which brings me to Green Gold. The last frontier outside most city metropolitan urban limits. So many hearts set on subdivision. The rhetoric is all about housing affordability and so on. But these arguments are fundamentally about freeing up rural land for another form of short-term wealth extraction. When it's over, it's over. Can't do it again. But that's not the plan. The plan is, now, we, want, to turn this paddock into money. Developers do it because they can. Serious quick profits can be made, and have been made. All it takes is to convince Government to change the laws around MULs, allow developers to take quick profits from subdivision, rather than requiring a true cost contribution to the real costs of the infrastructure that will network those new lots into the existing urban framework.

The true costs of the sort of unplanned sprawl that New Zealand developer larikans love and want and argue for, is hard to quantify and disputed. The apparent freedom that goes with living the lifestyle dream in the country is that somewhere else, someone has to dig up more of the black gold that is needed to power the cars that are needed to get you to the amenity most families rely on: schools, shops, cafes, entertainment. Let the new "happy" homeowners pay the true costs of their alienation from urban amenity, for decades. And don't forget: bail-out the development companies that took the biggest risks with this particular "gold mine".

As we know from going to the dentist, the thing about extractive economic activities is that they leave a great gaping hole. Tomorrow's children can't go to those places and do that thing again. It's gone.

Which brings us back to the start of this.

So when will we get some of that long term thinking that most are calling for from our Government? Some investment in economic development that is not so devastatingly extractive. And I haven't even talked about silver gold (fish), and pine gold (monoculture forestry).

Auckland and Wellington sit high in the Mercer Quality of Life Surveys - not because of our extractive approach to economic growth, but despite it. But boy oh boy, New Zealand's economic future is teetering on the brink of a black hole.

Super City Reforms - Stirred but Unshaken

The Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill that was reported back from the Auckland Governance Legislation Select Committee yesterday makes for an interesting - and long - read. There are 60 pages of explanation from the Select Committee - most of these pages are taken up with the "majority" view (of National and Act members presumably), while some are dedicated to the "minority" views of the Labour, Green and Maori Parties. And there are 320 pages of the Bill complete with cross-outs (deletions from the first draft) and new sections.

The majority recommendation introduction conveys the tone of the Select Committee's thinking:

"...In our consideration of the bill we faced the challenge of finding the appropriate balance between specifying in the legislation the details of the governance structure and allowing Auckland Council appropriate flexibility to decide its own structure and processes. In finding this balance we have been mindful of Auckland's long-standing difficulties in providing integrated governance of the region. We have tried to devise a governance structure and legislative framework that can help the region progress. We are confident the new Auckland Council will take up this challenge, that it will listen to and represent its many diverse communities, and that it will overcome factionalised interests and work for the good of all Aucklanders..."

The key words to note in the above introduction are: "appropriate balance" and "integrated governance of the region" and "overcome factionalised interests".

The Good Bits

There are some good bits in the Bill. The Select Committee did listen to the tonnage of submissions that were made to this Bill. But remember, this is the third bill. There have been two other Bills that more or less set the course for these reforms. I was one of many submitters who tackled the specifics of Bill 3, rather than the fundamentals of the Government's reforms of Auckland governance. The last few sentences of my submission were these:

"....Throughout the process of Auckland Governance reform I have expressed strong concerns about both the process and the direction of these reforms. For the purposes of this submission I have set aside my broader concerns, and concentrated on the specific provisions in the Bill which I submit need to change in order to deliver the Government’s stated purpose of the Bill, namely: “…to create one Auckland, which has strong regional governance, integrated decision making, greater community engagement and improved value for money…....”
(You can see my submission at: http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2010/02/my-submission-on-auckland-supercity.html)

Many people and groups made submissions to the Bill with this caveat. We were trying to make the best out of a bad design. Trying to make a silk purse from a sow's ear. And there have been improvements made by the Select Ctte. To this sow's ear of a SuperCity governance structure.

These include:

* Auckland Council being able to hire and fire directors of any of the CCOs. (Though in my experience of CCO's and Council owned entities - which includes Watercare, ARTA, ARH, Sea + City, POAL - we have never actually fired a director. A few didn't get their terms renewed after 2 or 3 years service. The major effort is in the initial appointments.)

* Auckland Council NOT being able to appoint councillors as directors to CCO's - except it can appoint 2 councillors onto the Board of the Auckland Transport CCO. (I agree that if Auckland Council must have CCOs then governance becomes problematic if you have councillors on CCO boards. The reason Select Ctte accepts having councillors on the board of Auckland Transport is because of the amount of money spent by that CCO, and the need - therefore - for increased accountability. This is tacit acceptance of the lack of accountability that goes with any CCO structure).

* Auckland Council being able to appoint the Chair and Deputy Chair of all CCO's.

* The Select Ctte setting out a comprehensive example of the non-regulatory activities that it recommends Local Boards should be empowered to decide and determine. (I am inclined to accept the view that the Select Ctte did not have the expertise to decide in detail what Local Boards should and should not be enabled to have power over. However the Auckland Transition Agency - which has been empowered to make this call - will have its work cut out in making these jurisdictional allocations in time for would-be candidates to know what Local Boards will be tasked with after elections later this year.) It is also appropriate to set a minimum timeframe of 18 months after the election before Auckland Council can reduce any powers that are allocated to Local Boards by the ATA, noting also that at any time - subject to consultation -Auckland Council can delegate additional powers and responsibilities to Local Boards.

* included in the list of activities for Local Board are economic development activities related to town centre upgrades, and where those "affect the Auckland transport system" then the local board would need to "work with Auckland Transport". The interaction with Auckland Transport specified in this exemplar includes decisions about: "Local policy positions on draft statements of intent for CCO's" - which presumably include Auckland Transport. (These are significant roles. However they may just be proxies for consultation that may be ignored. ATA's work now becomes critical. That is what Auckland council will inherit on day 1 - and can be in place for at least 18 months.)

* new accountability policy power for Auckland council over its CCOs. "This policy would allow the Auckland Council to articulate more clearly its day-to-day accountability expectations regarding its substantive CCOs..." (By the way, note the Bill sets up TWO types of CCOs - substantive CCOs - including Auckland Transport - and smaller ones.) The accountability policy specifies Auckland Council's wants re: "CCOs contribution to, and alignment with, the Council's and the Government's objectives and priorities; planning requirements of Auckland Council; requirements that CCOs operate according to LGOIMA; management of strategic assets....". The ctte suggest this accountability policy goes into Auckland Council's LTCCP.

* the Select Ctte recommends a new clause (45/75A) requiring "all substantive CCOs to give effect to all relevant aspects of the Auckland Council's LTCCP and to act consistently with all relevant aspects of other strategies and plans of Auckland Council, including its local boards, as specified by the governing body..." (This is significant. It pust the onus on Auckland Council to adopt relevant strategies that will influence the decisions of CCOs.)

* the Select Ctte has dabbled a bit with the spatial plan provisions. More below about these. But what is interesting is that there is explicit inclusion of "social and cultural infrastructure", and a new section dealing with spatial plan implementation.

* there is also a new provision allowing Auckland Council to set the "rules" for each CCO, but these appear to largely relate to the constitution for each CCO, and appear to be more administrative. (For example I don't think a rule would be allowed for Auckland Transport's CCO constitution requiring its directors to give effect to the Regional Land Transport Strategy!)

The Media's handling so far

NZ Herald has fallen at the first hurdle on this. Their coverage headlined: "U-Turn" is a complete misrepresentation of what the Select Ctte has delivered. The Select Ctte has improved what is fundamentally flawed, but the reforms are resolutely in the same direction. And of course the incoming council will work hard to get the best out of these reforms. That is its duty. But talk about being handed some pretty poorly designed tools to get the job done.

Also the Herald's editorial suggested all was well and we can all wait happily till November 1. Well. The news is that the transition work has really only just got properly started. The ATA must allocate the jurisdictional responsibilities and decision-making responsibilities - along the lines suggested by the Select Committee - to each and every board in the next few months. And each one is different. Not to forget "diverse". Much focussing of media microscopes will continue to be needed to ensure the best outcome. No washing of hands just yet please.

Back to the fundamentals

What is really happening with transport? The Select Ctte's explanation is helpful. It recommends: "...inserting a new section 41(eb) to specify that Auckland Transport is also repsonsible for undertaking any functions or exercising any powers in relation to the management of the State Highway system that the New Zealand Transport Authority has delegated to it.... " It is also clear from briefing papers prior to the first version of this Bill that the purpose of the spatial plan (which was closely linked with the National Infrastructure Plan) was to ensure that Auckland would be ready to receive infrastructure projects that had been centrally planning and funded.

Now, under Select Ctte recommendations, the spatial plan is to include social and cultural infrastructure that is being funded by central government. That could mean schools or prisons. And normally that would be good and appropriate for Auckland planning if there was a fully integrated approach to planning here. But that is not what is proposed. The integration that is proposed and argued for is all about vertical integration. It is about Auckland Council decisions being integrated with central government infrastructure decisions. And that is where the government's ideas about integration begin and end.

The spatial plan and Auckland's governance structure could become tools for rolling out Government economic growth policies. Not only will there be reduced red tape for private sector developments, But potentially central government's development plans for Auckland are also to be smoothly rolled out, the way smoothed by a nationally driven spatial plan, delivered by a super Transport CCO, with a side-lined Auckland Council tut-tutting noisily but ineffectually.

We all need to remember the importance of local place-making in all of the argument and discussion that led to the Royal Commission. Those discussions recognised the importance of horizontal integration, as well as vertical integration. Yes there needed to be better integration between Council and central government, but yes, there also needed to be much more joined up thinking at local level around local place-making plans.

It is at local level that the most sustained and sustainable economic development can occur. It should be through local master plans that infrastructure needs are identified - including for local roads and new allocations of existing road space. That is also the level for good integrated decisions around land use, and land use changes, and transport. Let alone transport energy use.

I have much more to say about this. But in later blogs.

I will end this by drawing attention to the new provisions for spatial planning in the Bill:

66A. Development, adoption, and implementation of spatial plan.
(1) The Auckland Council must involve central government, infrastructure providers (including network utility operators), the communities of Auckland, the private sector, and other parties (as appropriate) throughout the preparation and development of the spatial plan.
....
(5) The Auckland Council must endeavour to secure and maintain the support and co-operation of central government, infrastructure providers (including network utility operators), the communities of Auckland, the private sector, and other parties (as appropriate) in the implementation of the spatial plan.

This includes most people, I guess, but not Local Boards explicitly - though they are part of Auckland council. But a key purpose, probably THE key purpose of the spatial plan is to:

(c) enable coherent and co-ordinated decision making by Auckland Council (as the spatial planning agency) and other parties to determine the future location and timing of critical infrastructure, services, and investment within Auckland in accordance with the strategy; and
(d) provide a basis for aligning the implementation plans, regulatory plans, and funding programmes of the Auckland Council

Despite the sprinkled inclusion by the Select Ctte of the four well-beings throughout its recommendations, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the broad quadruple bottom-line goals that informed the commencement of Auckland local government reforms have been transformed into a political restructuring that supports an economic growth oriented infrastructure program driven by central government.

The contest of ideas and ideologies that have led to Auckland governance reform will continue to influence its implementation. The proposed Spatial Plan could become a tool to be used solely to support a narrow economic growth program, or it could be used to assist Auckland’s economic development more broadly. But to do that it must be enabled to act locally, and to integrate horizontally, not just vertically to satisfy central government appetites for infrastructure led economic growth.

Best practice spatial planning in Europe and Britain suggests a process that needs to be followed in Auckland to deliver the best planning framework for the future, and also to make a decisive break with Auckland’s bad planning habits of the past.

* Select the issues: Public process of identifying and defining a limited number of strategic issues; build public confidence through involvement and perception that the real issues are being addressed

* Develop a long term plan: Take account of power structures (including land owners, businesses, local boards, central government); develop decision-making structures and processes (to enable implementation to happen); develop conflict solving processes and structures that enable and ensure action and implementation

* Build consensus: Ensure vertical integration in planning process through effective involvement of central government in regional decisions; ensure horizontal integration in planning process through effective involvement of local boards and local stakeholders in local decisions

* Sustainable development: Ensure compliance with four well-being principles of Local Government Act and public consultation requirements; address issues of social exclusion in decision-making; respect and emphasise priority of local place-making alongside regional development objectives

Modern spatial planning is about much more than a map of new infrastructure projects. It is also not about "overcoming factionalised interests" as the Select Ctte appears to want.

It is about changing the way Auckland goes about implementing its strategic economic development plan. Unless these process changes are made in Auckland, then old problems will remain and history will repeat.

Party Central Will Happen at Queens Wharf

A good ten years ago it was fellow North Shore City Councillor Andrew Eaglen who - when schooling me in the art of being a councillor - advised: "... a good council meeting is one where a bad decision has not been made..."

I breathed a sigh of relief on Friday. A bad decision had not been made. Government has committed to Party Central on Queens Wharf - but no big cruise ship terminal.

It's media release - under the name of the Hon Murray McCully states:

Rugby World Cup Minister Murray McCully says the Government and the Auckland Regional Council are "fully committed to delivering Party Central at Queens Wharf in Auckland for next year’s Rugby World Cup", but have decided to delay the construction of a cruise terminal until after the event....

“While there is clear public support for a cruise terminal it is also clear that the debate has left some with a concern that the proposal might be rushed in order to meet the World Cup timetable next year. For that reason the Government and the ARC have decided to delay the development of a cruise terminal until after the World Cup.

"In the meantime, the Government and the ARC will work in partnership to deliver Party Central on Queens Wharf. We want Aucklanders and the city’s visitors to be able to enjoy a new public entertainment space that was purchased as a legacy asset.

“We will also put in place temporary cruise facilities of a suitable standard to ensure that our reputation does not suffer during the period of intense cruise activity next year....

While the ARC's media release on Friday states:

"The ARC is very pleased to be working in partnership with the Government to deliver party central on Queens Wharf in time for the cup,” ARC Chairman Mike Lee said.

“We are disappointed – due to the negative attitude of some Auckland mayors – that we’ll be unable to develop a permanent cruise ship terminal within the same timeframe. However, we will make sure appropriate facilities are available on the wharf to cope with the cruise ships being used as hotel accommodation during the cup....

“The ARC will throw Queens Wharf open to the public in April. This will remind everyone what a great asset the ARC and the Government have bought for Auckland, and how proud we will all be once Aucklanders can again get close to the harbour and ships,” said Mr Lee.

It has been interesting and frustrating time, as this Auckland story has surged along with a momentum all of its own. ARC's 8th Feb media release is a salutory reminder...:

It’s encouraging to see Auckland mayors supporting moving ahead with a cruise ship terminal on Queens Wharf, ARC Chairman Mike Lee said today.

“The ARC and Government bought Queens Wharf so Auckland and the rest of New Zealand could capitalise on the country’s growing international cruise ship industry.

“We also bought it to open up access to the waterfront so Aucklanders and visitors to the region could make the most of an outstanding venue for events, and as a public place just to relax and enjoy the harbour.

“The ARC has been absolutely consistent about the need for a decent cruise ship terminal on Queens Wharf. This is why we and the Government bought it.

“While earlier designs were disappointing, I am confident the latest design options for Queens Wharf have considerable potential to match this superb location,” said Mr Lee.

“However, as we have stated consistently, we need to look carefully at the cost and ensure what is built provides value for money in the long run.”

Auckland is expecting 60 cruise ship visits this season – including the Queen Mary II – and 71 next season. February is the busiest month. Seven cruise ships will visit Auckland this week – on three of those days two cruise ships will be in at the same time. Last week there were three cruise ships in Auckland at once.

Research done by the ARC, Government and Auckland City Council shows that on average, each cruise ship passenger spends between $200 and $300 in Auckland each day they are here.

Government research shows the cruise ship industry contributed $117 million to GDP during the 2007-2008 season.

“This research shows without question just how important the cruise ship industry is. It would be silly to allow petty politics and political campaigning to delay Auckland having a welcoming, world-class cruise ship terminal that would enable the city and country to take full advantage of growth in the industry and tourist dollars,” said Mr Lee.

It is interesting to note that a number of New Zealand ports are visited regularly by cruise ships as they make their way around our coastline. It's not just Auckland that is thinking about this stuff.

For example, the Dawn Princess and the Sun Princess both promote tours that include Sydney and Melbourne, and which visit, in New Zealand: Fiordland, Dunedin, Christchurch, Wellington, Napier, Gisborne, Tauranga, Auckland, and the Bay of Islands.

Here is how the Cruise Ship program promotes the various New Zealand ports of call in their brochure:

Day 4 Monday February 8, 2010 Fjordland National Park
Today we cruise through some of the most spectacular scenery in New Zealand as we visit Milford, Dusky and Doubtful Sounds. These spectacular fjords will be a highlight of the cruise, with spectacular scenery and fascinating wildlife. The day will be free for you to enjoy the grand views or take part in some of the many activities available aboard Sun Princess.

Day 5 Tuesday February 9, 2010 Dunedin (Port Chalmers)
We arrive in the city of Dunedin this morning. Originally founded by Scottish settlers and known as the “Edinburgh of the South”, it now consists of beautifully preserved buildings overlooking parklands. We will visit the historic Jacobean style Olveston House, containing a treasure trove of art and antiques, as we explore this attractive city.

Day 6 Wednesday February 10, 2010 Christchurch (Akaroa)
Today we call into the village of Akaroa. Originally founded by the French, it is now a delightful town, still retaining the ambience of France. We have a sightseeing tour of Christchurch with its very English feel. It is the largest city on the South Island of New Zealand. The city boasts modern architecture and historic buildings set against beautiful parks, gardens, rivers and beaches. We return to Akaroa where there will be some time at leisure.

Day 7 Thursday February 11, 2010 Wellington
Today we will have a sightseeing tour of the main sights of Wellington including the Houses of Parliament known as “the Beehive”. We visit Mount Victoria, where we have 360 degree views of the city, then travel by cable car to the Botanical Gardens.

Day 8 Friday February 12, 2010 Napier
Today we visit the city of Napier. We will have a city tour, during which our local guide will provide in depth information about Art Deco style architecture of the city. We will see the National Tobacco building and many shops and houses designed in this popular 1930s style. In February 1931, an earthquake registering 7.9 on the Richter scale levelled almost all the buildings of Napier and raised the sea bed by two and a half meters.

Day 9 Saturday February 13, 2010 Tauranga
We arrive in Tauranga this morning. Tauranga has a thriving commercial and business centre and is a very busy port. Dominating the scene is the harbour and Mount Maunganui. We travel to Rotorua, a small city on the shores of Lake Rotorua, where we explore the geothermal activity of geysers, boiling mud pools and steaming craters. We will see a geyser display, where boiling water shoots many metres into the air and the blue and green lakes named for their reflective qualities.

Day 10 Sunday February 14, 2010 Auckland
Auckland is the largest city and commercial centre of New Zealand. Our morning city
tour takes in the main sights of Auckland, including the Harbour Bridge, which spans the beautiful Waitemata Harbour, Mount Eden, where we get a panoramic view of the city, the Auckland Museum and the quaint and stylish shopping area of Parnell. We will board the Sun Princess early afternoon. Be up on deck as we sail out of the gorgeous Auckland harbour at 6.00pm

Day 11 Monday February 15, 2010 Bay of Islands
Today we call into the far north of New Zealand and visit the spectacular Bay of Islands. We have a morning sightseeing tour and we visit Waitangi House, overlooking the Bay of Islands, where on February 6th, 1840, that the Treaty of Waitangi was first signed between Maori and the British Crown. The Treaty House – built for the first British Resident, James Busby and his family is one of New Zealand’s oldest and most visited historic homes. The afternoon is free....

It is interesting to read what how the industry sees each of these "destinations". What is attractive. What is the reason to visit. I hope that one day, Auckland's waterfront will rate a mention as a key attraction. And I emphasise - just having a cruise ship terminal does not a waterfront make.

BTW, I was talking to someone involved in the Christchurch/Lyttleton cruise ship terminal project: should we have a fancy cruise ship terminal - or not. Economic advice for the Port Company - assuming about 60 cruise ship visits annually - was that there was economic justification for the port company to build a $15 million cruise ship terminal. Then, if you added the economic benefit arising from the spending of cruise ship passengers in Christchurch, there was a further economic justification of an additional $10 million investment in a cruise ship terminal. This gives a total of $25 million for a cruise ship terminal - based on their economic evaluation.

And a further BTW. Here's my anecdotal experience of what cruise ship passengers do. One indicator of how they spend their money, is based on the ferry loads who go over to Devonport Wharf, and the Village. I usually get my hair cut on the Devonport Wharf. There's a Navy Haircut establishment there. Also does Blue Rinses (I don't get those. Yet.) When there's a cruise ship in, there's a queue of cruise ship women waiting for a blue rinse. The hairdresser told me the secret: "I do them for $25, but it costs them $50 on the ship...". Hardly spend-thrifts! And apparently the other indicator is the steady procession of cruise ship passengers trudging back and forward along Quay Street going to the Supermarket. Cheap wine or gin maybe? I know these are anecdotal. But these observations hardly support the assertion that cruise ship passengers each "...spend $300 a day..." when they are in Auckland.

Anyway. Friday was a good day. We didn't make a bad decision.

Vos Building - Maritime Heritage at Wynyard Quarter

This blog is about heritage buildings, and the marine heritage industry at Wynyard Quarter down on Auckland's waterfront. It is about the need to take an integrated approach to Heritage Planning on that part of Auckland's waterfront. This blog tries to argue in support of the huge value to the Auckland economy of its waterfront maritime heritage and its visitor potential.

It also notes that unless Auckland's public authorities grab this opportunity, then there is a risk that the drive for new development will steamroll over this potential, and the possibility of truly worldclass mixed use waterfront regeneration project will be lost.

The blog ends with a few images from the Roskilde Waterfront development in Denmark. This exemplar is there for Auckland to learn from. I'm sure there are others.

This is a Google aerial of the Western Reclamation, aka Wynyard Quarter on Auckland's waterfront. There are many heritage buildings and sites and structures on the land. The yellow ring marks one of them....

Here it is closer. It is the Vos Building and slipway, currently operated under lease by Sanfords. It is located on Hamer Street. The slipways run out into the waters used for access to Westhaven Marina...

Here's a group of ARC Councillors there on Tuesday this week for a site visit. As you can see the frontage of the Vos Building today - lined in corrugated iron - does not present a very pre-possessing street frontage. Yet it conceals a number of treasures that a few Aucklanders are aware of, and believe hold a wealth of opportunities for the future...

Round the back there is plenty of obvious evidence of the bits and pieces of rusty iron-mongery that characterise a long relationship with boats and chandlery...

And it's the slipways that immediately grab your attention. There are two main slipways to the left, and in the foreground is a hard stand. You can see the basalt stonework on the floor of the hardstand in the foreground, and the narrow - and quite special - basalt rivetements that line the main slipways. In the background you can make out the Auckland Harbour Bridge.

The two main slipways can each haul out boats up to one hundred tonnes. Sanfords use the site from time to time to service fishing boats. The facility is a little run down today - like many of the heritage opportunities on Wynyard Quarter. Many of the pictures below were taken inside the building you can see behind the two boat trailers...

Where-ever you look there are interesting piles of marine ironworks from the past...

This is the interior of the main wood and boat carpentery workshop on the site... It is very original, and while it is used - I understand from time to time today - it has become more of a storage shed than a very active workshop.

The machinery, floor, and furnishings breathe the history of the place...

A great deal of character....

If walls could talk...

Here's how the street frontage of the Vos Building looked during World War II, and here's the workforce outside on the occasion of the launch of its most recent creation...

...an all wood Fairmile motorboat. These are the boats that rolled off the Vos Building slipways then. It's fishing boats today. It could become a major part of the New Zealand classic boat industry, where classic wooden boats are repaired, restored and maintained. And in such a way that it becomes an important tourist and visitor destination.

Roskilde, Denmark, shows a way forward. This time around Viking Longboats, and other important vessels from Nordic history...

This image is from the walkway that runs through the Roskilde industrial waterfront. You can see a few Viking Longboat replicas tied up closeby. In the background are modern sailing boats and the local fishing fleet...

This workshop - part of the tourist circuit - is where all wooden boats are maintained and built...

This is another view of the waterfront at Roskilde. We need to think more broadly in Auckland for the Wynyard Quarter - and for the whole of the waterfront - than just the plastic fantastic boat industry. You can see more pictures of Roskilde at: http://www.places4people.org.nz/roskilde.htm#line1

ARC's waterfront development objectives changed

This is a big one for me. I've been working on this issue for three years. You might think the result doesn't go far enough - but believe me - it will make a difference.

Before I go on more, this blog is about Wynyard Quarter / Western Reclamation / Tank Farm redevelopment. A central chunk of Auckland's waterfront. My issue with what has been proposed is that ARH (Auckland Regional Holdings) have been instructed by ARC to "...optimise revenue..." from the development. Those directions also go on about the development being "...world class..." without saying anything about the nature or purpose of any development.

Last week, ARC's Finance Ctte voted this way:

That the Chairman of the Finance Committee writes to Auckland Regional Holdings:

(i) requesting Auckland Regional Holdings to address any inconsistencies
in the draft 2009-19 Long Term Funding Plan, and to confirm that it will
provide the distributions specified in the Auckland Regional Council’s
2009-19 Long Term Council Community Plan.
(ii) requesting Auckland Regional Holdings to keep the Auckland Regional
Council fully informed of its leasing strategy for the Wynyard quarter,
and related financial implications;
(iii) advising that the previous objective in respect of the waterfront
investment property “to enable the creation of a world-class, mixed-use,
urban waterfront redevelopment incorporating high-quality and
accessible public spaces and high-quality private works” is amended to
“to enable the creation of a world-class, mixed-use, urban waterfront
redevelopment that becomes a visitor destination by delivering high quality
and accessible public spaces and attractions alongside high quality
private works”.

I moved the change that is in (iii) above. You might have to read it a couple of times to spot the difference. But this change should make a significant difference. It provides direction to ARH and Sea+City about the purpose of the development, and what needs to be provided to meet that purpose.

Greywacke pebbles on the beach south of Timaru. I like beaches and flotsam and jetsam...