Went to the Auckland Waterfront Forum yesterday. Four presentations: Feedback from Waterfront Development Agency "Masterplan" consultation; Wynyard Quarter Public Space Project; Queens Wharf Development; and Westhaven. Very interesting. Then questions. Major concerns emerged from the floor. Not well handled from the front. Hence this open letter....
Dear Bob,
You're not going to like this letter but you like robust feedback. One of the things I liked about the way you got the meeting going was when you spoke directly to Alex Swney and told him you respected what he was doing with 'Heart of the City'. You reflected and said, "we don't care enough about enough in this city..."
And I liked the breakfast. Man that Bircher Muesli was the best I've had in ages. And great idea to serve it in those fancy cocktail glasses. Must've cost an arm and a leg though. Thought we were on a budget....
Enjoyed Brenna's feedback presentation. I can imagine how much effort went into smoothing out the wrinkles. You clearly liked the fact that 83% of the feedback was positive. Well. The public like what they see on Wynyard - and most were duped by the glossy images in the coffee table publication you put out. A few of us understood enough, saw behind the pictures enough, and cared enough, to put in submissions of concern about the 1989 Port-Expansion plans that were buried in there and the hasty Cruise-on-Queens plans. These concerns did get a mention from Brenna.
What also got a mention was the Peer Review you had done by Arup Australia of your Waterfront Development Plan consultation process. This has to be a must-read. I saw there in the fine print of Brenna's presentation on screen that you guys got a 'tick' for heritage and stuff, but you got a 'cross' for environment and leadership. That must've come as a bit of a shock to the Board.
After Brenna we had Henry Crother's excellent work on Wynyard's public spaces. And then Queens Wharf by staff member John Smith who I remember well from my time at Auckland Regional Council. Then Westhaven. And then questions. And statements.
It was pretty much sitting room only in the Floating Pavillion which had gently rocked us all throughout. Not to the point the Bircher Muesli was threatened, but a few of us were a bit seasick.
Jasmax Principal, Richard Harris made the ballsiest statement. It was ballsy because Jasmax have been retained to do the Queens Wharf Shed 10 Cruise Ship Terminal design. You hardly every hear from contractors, or would-be contractors, in an environment like that. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. But these are the guys who know their onions. And they care. But there is a sort of misplaced code of ethics that shuts most of them up - just when you really need to hear from them. So we heard you Richard. Richard said loud and clear that the Waterfront Masterplan was not an Integrated Plan - because it had not properly considered the Port Expansion plans. His was a leadership statement.
I hope you heard what Richard said, Bob. Really heard. Because if you didn't you're in the wrong job.
Greg McKeown also asked you a question, Bob. But you didn't really answer it. Greg started by saying he was heartened by your sympathetic words recognising public concerns about the Port plans, but that he couldn't quite reconcile those words with the technical papers and policy positions on your website. I don't think you heard what Greg was saying. He is always polite. Or maybe you decided to smile and move on. But you're not a man averse to a down-trou, so I'll say it plain. You're being two-faced about the Port, Bob. Is that your Board's position too?
There is that big Arup 'X' against your leadership....
To be fair, Bob, you did describe the Port as 'the elephant in the room...'
But the Port isn't the only elephant.
In Brenna's presentation the Waterfront Forum was advised that Queens Wharf Cruise Ship terminal Resource Consents would be 'granted in July 2012'. I used my question to ask John Smith what consents were being applied for, what the process would be, and whether the applications would be notified.
John told the meeting that discussions were occurring with Council staff, and that he would get back to me when he had more information.
I have to tell you Bob, that I was somewhat disappointed to hear this. You praise the planning work that delivered what we see at Wynyard. You probably know that Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council sweated blood over the plan changes and resource consent applications and public hearings that hammered out the planning framework for what we see today. So John's answer to my question should concern you and your Board. It's shonky.
Bit like that stormwater pipe in Glen Eden. Shonky.
You guys are planning a major change in the use of Queens Wharf (Cruise Ship Terminal), with a whole pile of different environmental effects (traffic on Quay Street, passengers in buses and taxis, conflicts with public access - all different from before), without going through due process.
Would you allow a private developer to do what you plan to do with Queens Wharf without a decent set of resource consents and conditions?
Auckland Council is the other elephant that was in the room yesterday. The biggest elephant in fact.
Show your board and Auckland some leadership Bob. Then we'll give you a 'TICK'.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Auckland Waterfront Lacks Leadership
Went to the Auckland Waterfront Forum yesterday. Four presentations: Feedback from Waterfront Development Agency "Masterplan" consultation; Wynyard Quarter Public Space Project; Queens Wharf Development; and Westhaven. Very interesting. Then questions. Major concerns emerged from the floor. Not well handled from the front. Hence this open letter....
Dear Bob,
You're not going to like this letter but you like robust feedback. One of the things I liked about the way you got the meeting going was when you spoke directly to Alex Swney and told him you respected what he was doing with 'Heart of the City'. You reflected and said, "we don't care enough about enough in this city..."
And I liked the breakfast. Man that Bircher Muesli was the best I've had in ages. And great idea to serve it in those fancy cocktail glasses. Must've cost an arm and a leg though. Thought we were on a budget....
Enjoyed Brenna's feedback presentation. I can imagine how much effort went into smoothing out the wrinkles. You clearly liked the fact that 83% of the feedback was positive. Well. The public like what they see on Wynyard - and most were duped by the glossy images in the coffee table publication you put out. A few of us understood enough, saw behind the pictures enough, and cared enough, to put in submissions of concern about the 1989 Port-Expansion plans that were buried in there and the hasty Cruise-on-Queens plans. These concerns did get a mention from Brenna.
What also got a mention was the Peer Review you had done by Arup Australia of your Waterfront Development Plan consultation process. This has to be a must-read. I saw there in the fine print of Brenna's presentation on screen that you guys got a 'tick' for heritage and stuff, but you got a 'cross' for environment and leadership. That must've come as a bit of a shock to the Board.
After Brenna we had Henry Crother's excellent work on Wynyard's public spaces. And then Queens Wharf by staff member John Smith who I remember well from my time at Auckland Regional Council. Then Westhaven. And then questions. And statements.
It was pretty much sitting room only in the Floating Pavillion which had gently rocked us all throughout. Not to the point the Bircher Muesli was threatened, but a few of us were a bit seasick.
Jasmax Principal, Richard Harris made the ballsiest statement. It was ballsy because Jasmax have been retained to do the Queens Wharf Shed 10 Cruise Ship Terminal design. You hardly every hear from contractors, or would-be contractors, in an environment like that. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. But these are the guys who know their onions. And they care. But there is a sort of misplaced code of ethics that shuts most of them up - just when you really need to hear from them. So we heard you Richard. Richard said loud and clear that the Waterfront Masterplan was not an Integrated Plan - because it had not properly considered the Port Expansion plans. His was a leadership statement.
I hope you heard what Richard said, Bob. Really heard. Because if you didn't you're in the wrong job.
Greg McKeown also asked you a question, Bob. But you didn't really answer it. Greg started by saying he was heartened by your sympathetic words recognising public concerns about the Port plans, but that he couldn't quite reconcile those words with the technical papers and policy positions on your website. I don't think you heard what Greg was saying. He is always polite. Or maybe you decided to smile and move on. But you're not a man averse to a down-trou, so I'll say it plain. You're being two-faced about the Port, Bob. Is that your Board's position too?
There is that big Arup 'X' against your leadership....
To be fair, Bob, you did describe the Port as 'the elephant in the room...'
But the Port isn't the only elephant.
In Brenna's presentation the Waterfront Forum was advised that Queens Wharf Cruise Ship terminal Resource Consents would be 'granted in July 2012'. I used my question to ask John Smith what consents were being applied for, what the process would be, and whether the applications would be notified.
John told the meeting that discussions were occurring with Council staff, and that he would get back to me when he had more information.
I have to tell you Bob, that I was somewhat disappointed to hear this. You praise the planning work that delivered what we see at Wynyard. You probably know that Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council sweated blood over the plan changes and resource consent applications and public hearings that hammered out the planning framework for what we see today. So John's answer to my question should concern you and your Board. It's shonky.
Bit like that stormwater pipe in Glen Eden. Shonky.
You guys are planning a major change in the use of Queens Wharf (Cruise Ship Terminal), with a whole pile of different environmental effects (traffic on Quay Street, passengers in buses and taxis, conflicts with public access - all different from before), without going through due process.
Would you allow a private developer to do what you plan to do with Queens Wharf without a decent set of resource consents and conditions?
Auckland Council is the other elephant that was in the room yesterday. The biggest elephant in fact.
Show your board and Auckland some leadership Bob. Then we'll give you a 'TICK'.
Dear Bob,
You're not going to like this letter but you like robust feedback. One of the things I liked about the way you got the meeting going was when you spoke directly to Alex Swney and told him you respected what he was doing with 'Heart of the City'. You reflected and said, "we don't care enough about enough in this city..."
And I liked the breakfast. Man that Bircher Muesli was the best I've had in ages. And great idea to serve it in those fancy cocktail glasses. Must've cost an arm and a leg though. Thought we were on a budget....
Enjoyed Brenna's feedback presentation. I can imagine how much effort went into smoothing out the wrinkles. You clearly liked the fact that 83% of the feedback was positive. Well. The public like what they see on Wynyard - and most were duped by the glossy images in the coffee table publication you put out. A few of us understood enough, saw behind the pictures enough, and cared enough, to put in submissions of concern about the 1989 Port-Expansion plans that were buried in there and the hasty Cruise-on-Queens plans. These concerns did get a mention from Brenna.
What also got a mention was the Peer Review you had done by Arup Australia of your Waterfront Development Plan consultation process. This has to be a must-read. I saw there in the fine print of Brenna's presentation on screen that you guys got a 'tick' for heritage and stuff, but you got a 'cross' for environment and leadership. That must've come as a bit of a shock to the Board.
After Brenna we had Henry Crother's excellent work on Wynyard's public spaces. And then Queens Wharf by staff member John Smith who I remember well from my time at Auckland Regional Council. Then Westhaven. And then questions. And statements.
It was pretty much sitting room only in the Floating Pavillion which had gently rocked us all throughout. Not to the point the Bircher Muesli was threatened, but a few of us were a bit seasick.
Jasmax Principal, Richard Harris made the ballsiest statement. It was ballsy because Jasmax have been retained to do the Queens Wharf Shed 10 Cruise Ship Terminal design. You hardly every hear from contractors, or would-be contractors, in an environment like that. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. But these are the guys who know their onions. And they care. But there is a sort of misplaced code of ethics that shuts most of them up - just when you really need to hear from them. So we heard you Richard. Richard said loud and clear that the Waterfront Masterplan was not an Integrated Plan - because it had not properly considered the Port Expansion plans. His was a leadership statement.
I hope you heard what Richard said, Bob. Really heard. Because if you didn't you're in the wrong job.
Greg McKeown also asked you a question, Bob. But you didn't really answer it. Greg started by saying he was heartened by your sympathetic words recognising public concerns about the Port plans, but that he couldn't quite reconcile those words with the technical papers and policy positions on your website. I don't think you heard what Greg was saying. He is always polite. Or maybe you decided to smile and move on. But you're not a man averse to a down-trou, so I'll say it plain. You're being two-faced about the Port, Bob. Is that your Board's position too?
There is that big Arup 'X' against your leadership....
To be fair, Bob, you did describe the Port as 'the elephant in the room...'
But the Port isn't the only elephant.
In Brenna's presentation the Waterfront Forum was advised that Queens Wharf Cruise Ship terminal Resource Consents would be 'granted in July 2012'. I used my question to ask John Smith what consents were being applied for, what the process would be, and whether the applications would be notified.
John told the meeting that discussions were occurring with Council staff, and that he would get back to me when he had more information.
I have to tell you Bob, that I was somewhat disappointed to hear this. You praise the planning work that delivered what we see at Wynyard. You probably know that Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council sweated blood over the plan changes and resource consent applications and public hearings that hammered out the planning framework for what we see today. So John's answer to my question should concern you and your Board. It's shonky.
Bit like that stormwater pipe in Glen Eden. Shonky.
You guys are planning a major change in the use of Queens Wharf (Cruise Ship Terminal), with a whole pile of different environmental effects (traffic on Quay Street, passengers in buses and taxis, conflicts with public access - all different from before), without going through due process.
Would you allow a private developer to do what you plan to do with Queens Wharf without a decent set of resource consents and conditions?
Auckland Council is the other elephant that was in the room yesterday. The biggest elephant in fact.
Show your board and Auckland some leadership Bob. Then we'll give you a 'TICK'.
1 comment:
-
Joel
You have to remember that Bob is an Auckland icon, an old adman used to working with smoke and mirrors, and recognised for often getting ahead of the game, sometimes usefully and other times not.
As well as having a blind eye for the port his latest faux pas is his comment in the last edition of the Listener as part of Jane Clifton's banner lead article "Rates Revolt" basically saying that Auckland is wonderful, it is expensive, and if you don't like that go and live somewhere else.
That cavalier "pay up or piss off" attitude to the massive rate increases facing the City is a real poke in the eye for the long suffering rate payers, particularly the old timers who have paid rates for forty or fifty years to make Auckland the wonderful place it is right now.
All right for the guys on the CCO Boards with their fat fees - not so hot for the pensioners.
Kia kaha
Bill Rayner -
February 25, 2012 at 10:05 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Joel
You have to remember that Bob is an Auckland icon, an old adman used to working with smoke and mirrors, and recognised for often getting ahead of the game, sometimes usefully and other times not.
As well as having a blind eye for the port his latest faux pas is his comment in the last edition of the Listener as part of Jane Clifton's banner lead article "Rates Revolt" basically saying that Auckland is wonderful, it is expensive, and if you don't like that go and live somewhere else.
That cavalier "pay up or piss off" attitude to the massive rate increases facing the City is a real poke in the eye for the long suffering rate payers, particularly the old timers who have paid rates for forty or fifty years to make Auckland the wonderful place it is right now.
All right for the guys on the CCO Boards with their fat fees - not so hot for the pensioners.
Kia kaha
Bill Rayner
Post a Comment