 These are the two faces of Queens Wharf today.Murray McCully is a Government Minister and Minister of the Rugby World Cup. Mike Lee is Chairman of the ARC. The Government owns 50% of Queens Wharf, and so does the New Zealand Government. An unusual arrangement to say the least. This blog provides some information and background to that arrangement and the relationship. In Mike Lee's 26th April report to the ARC Mike wrote about the media conference where the picture was taken: "At the well attended media conference, hosted by the Minister for the Rugby World Cup Hon Murray McCully and myself, Mr McCully revealed plans for the government and ARC to build temporary ‘cruise terminal and entertainment facility’ in time for the Rugby World Cup. I stated that given the failure of leadership of the city’s mayors which meant a new cruise ship terminal was no longer feasible in the short term the ARC fully supported the government proposal which the government will pay for. Our preferred approach subject to consultation with the NZ Historic Places Trust is to dismantle the sheds and re-use salvageable materials in the permanent structure. Consultation will be undertaken in good faith not just on the future of the sheds but on all other historic features of the Wharf." The day before, Anzac Day, in his speech at the opening of Queens Wharf, Chairman Mike Lee ended with these words: "...today we begin a new chapter of Auckland's historical Queens Wharf - for nearly 100 years locked away - by opening it to the people once again. 2.75 hectares of superb public open space - close to the CBD and the Britomart Transport Centre - where people can come for passive recreation, to walk, to fish, to commune with the sea. Which we believe will enhance the quality of life for Aucklanders and our visitors. This is a legacy the ARC is beqeathing to the people of the region. The ARC trusts that the new Auckland Council, the new Super City will carry on our mission to redevelop the waterfront. But one thing we can be certain about - Queens Wharf as our 27th regional park if you will - will remain in the public ownership of the people of Auckland in perpetuity. My thanks once again to the government - to Prime Minister John Key and to Minister Murray McCully. My fellow Aucklanders - Queen's Wharf is now the Peoples Wharf." No mention of a cruise ship terminal in those words. Sounds like a park. If it was park any building - let alone 100 year old cargo shed heritage - would be guarded passionately. What is difficult to untangle in all these words is what is really happening. And what is rational and what is emotional. The whole Queens Wharf thing got legs to begin with when the PM spoke about "Party Central". He asked rhetorically, "where will everyone go to celebrate and have a good time when it's all on?" That was his question. At the time, Ports of Auckland were cash strapped, the stars aligned and the deal was done. But the deal has transmogrified and morphed as various other individuals and organisations have got their hooks into it. "The purposes of the Joint Venture are: General: To hold and operate Queens Wharf and manage the development of it, for the benefit of the public; The problem with this wishlist is the classic one of not being able to have your cake and eat it. You can't have the kind of cruise ship terminal that GUEDO wants on Queens Wharf - that is Auckland's Primary Cruise Ship Terminal - that supports Cruise Origination and Termination - and have the kind of open space described in these purposes. The uses are in conflict and there is not enough room. And it is ironic that the purpose speaks of a space that "reflects ... culture and heritage", but has in mind a space that is devoid of heritage buildings. The Queens Wharf Joint venture Agreement contains the sort of detail that might be expected in such a document, including the establishment of an Owners Committee which is quorate if the Minister of the Rugby World Cup and the the Chairman of the ARC are present. It is concerning to note however, that the agreement states that: "The decisions of the Owners Committee are binding on the parties. The parties must take all reasonable steps to give effect to those decisions. If a party cannot give effect to a decision after taking all reasonable steps, the matter must be referred back to the Owners Committee for reconsideration." The agreement goes on to provide for the existence of a Management Committee, whose first big job is the preparation of an Approved Business Plan", which must be prepared "at least 2 months prior to the end of each financial year". The Agreement defines that date as 30 June "unless otherwise determined by the Owners Committee". So where does that leave us all? Hard to say really. The ARC has not been asked to agree or endorse the Queens Wharf Joint Venture Agreement which has been signed on its behalf by its Chairman. The ARC has not been provided with a copy of the Approved Business Plan which should have been prepared a month ago. And which is important because the Agreement requires the ARC to: "take all reasonable steps to give effect to those decisions..." What has the ARC agreed to do on Queens Wharf? Be nice to know. It feels a bit like Government has found a way to control Auckland. And what if there's a dispute? Imagine that the ARC is being faced with staunch arguments from the Historic Places Trust in its consultation. Imagine that the ARC is under pressure to adaptively re-use the Sheds that are on Queens Wharf. A lot of pressure. How will that pressure affect the Minister for the Rugby World Cup? What are his obligations to understand the ARC's obligations? Interestingly, the Queens Wharf Joint Venture Agreement does have a tiny bit of light at the end of its rather dark tunnel. It says: "Any agreement entered into by the Joint Venture with a third party must not place a party in breach of any legislation applicable to it, including.... in the case of the ARC, the Local Government Act 2002." Thank goodness for that. But what if the parties agree something among themselves that has that effect? What if the ARC - aware of the deal its has signed up to with Government and the decisions that make up that deal - in its determination to "take all reasonable steps to give effect to those decisions", steps just a wee bit over the line. Like skimping on its public duties to consult over things like: Cargo Shed removal; deciding the temporary slug/tent replacement; providing Queens Wharf Development budgets; changing Auckland's cruise ship terminal locations and functions. And the word "skimping" is charitable. What then? |
Showing posts with label Joint Venture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joint Venture. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Two Faces Over Queens Wharf
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Queens Wharf - Has it come to this?
 So here we have Queens Wharf, as ARC and the Government - according to its joint media release - would like it to be. The glowing thing is the plastic structure - aka the tent. Though we are told it is not a tent. It is a temporary structure that is not a tent.Apparently it can be slapped up and together for under $10 million. Cheap and reasonably tacky. There's a big screen outside on the end of Queens Wharf, and a possible Rugby Ball. September... |
I was advised that the reason the cargo sheds needed to go to make room for it, is because they want the tent also to be used as a cruise ship terminal. Can't get away from that Cruise Ship terminal on Queens Wharf imperative... |
 I think Auckland will love hosting a Party Central. We did it during the America's Cup. Here's a picture of how they hosted America's Cup Party Central in Valencia: The Woolshed. A real kiwi idea. People could shelter from direct sunshine, or rain, or wind - but there was plenty of air blowing through... |
 This facility worked really well in Valencia. People loved it. It would work well on Queens Wharf too. In the old sheds.Big screens strategically placed. Some areas had seating, others a bit more casual. Needs to be good for families, for young people wanting a good time, for older people too. A people's place... |
 Lots of people will actually go to rugby matches (unlike the yachting where it's hard for people to get out there and watch a race - TV is better for most).But with seat tickets going for a King's Ransom for NZ's Rugby World Cup, and with matches happening all over the country, a lot of Aucklanders will be watching TV screens, just as they watched yachting in Valencia.... |
 And it's quite fun to do that in a big group, especially when there are fans around from other countries doing the same - in the same space.So far, it is planned that surplus Rugby fan accommodation will be provided by a Cruise Ship moored at Queens Wharf. This will provide a critical mass of rugby fans, rights on the spot - could a be a few thousand - the Queens Wharf shed(s) could become their TV viewing room. Places where they can invite NZ guests, places where Aucklanders can go to enjoy the fun too. Because Queens Wharf will be very busy place with the comings and goings of fans and their friends and guests. |
 Have you been on Queens Wharf yet? Have you been inside the Sheds? Have you experienced the views?Hardly anybody has. So go donw there this Sunday. Anzac Day. And have a good look. Would you renovate the house you just bought before you've lived in it for a while. Not likely! Same goes for Queens Wharf. Auckland needs to live on it for a while. Auckland needs to feel what it's like to have Queens Wharf for public uses. We need to experiment. Before we do anything permament down there. |
 I've been lucky enough to have a walk-over. Before I did I thought we should bowl the sheds. But then I went into them....This is the cast iron footing for one of the ceiling/1st floor supports.... |
 And this gives an idea of the underside of the 1st floor. This picture gives no idea of size, but I reckon the joist timbers are around 50x20 cms. That's a very hefty joist. |
 And this picture shows a close up of the floor timbers. They look about the cross section of railway sleepers, and are coach-nailed into the joists. It was like walking on concrete. You had no idea it was a floor with a big open space below... |
 This long character-filled space was evocative of all the work that has gone on in there for almost a century. Apparently a lot of the work was about wool bales. Our own wool shed. Even with just a few sky-lights on a grey day the light was great... |
 Apparently the roof trusses, and probably quite a lot more of the original stucture, was floated out here from Britain complete. Just needed bolting together... |
| Party Central on Queens Wharf is a good idea. Kills lots of birds with one stone. Has many, many benefits for Auckland and for Aucklanders. Let alone the Rugby World Cup event. |
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Queens Wharf: ARC and Government JV Meeting on Thursday
A little bit of pre-amble first, to get to the point of this blog....
Auckland Regional Council met yesterday to consider its Draft Annual Plan for the first 4 months of the 2010-2011 year. It's only 4 months, because that's all the time left to ARC (from end of June) to abolition at the end of October 2010.
The public meeting of ARC's full Council considered the ARC's activities, and provided budget and activity reviews for each ARC department. In particular, the activities listed for the ARC's Transport and urban Development Department to 31 october 2010 included the item:
One councillor (not me) queried this item. In fact I was curious as to what "the agreed option" was, and who had agreed it.
The CEO (Peter Winder) gave a one sentence response, and then stated to the effect: "... there will be a meeting of the Unincorporated Joint Venture this Thursday, between Government and ARC, given the alignment between the parties..."
This was an interesting revelation. I was not aware such a JV was in existence.
The ARC has not considered the matter of Queens Wharf, or re-considered its position, since it last considered it at a confidential meeting that was held on the 22nd December 2009, which was attended by just 7 councillors. That meeting was the subject of my last December blog: http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/12/queens-wharf-another-ad-hoc-auckland.html. At that meeting the ARC learned of proposals for a $100 million Cruise Ship terminal, which it voted to support (though I voted against).
In the last few months this project has been opposed by all Auckland's Councils and their Mayors. There have been statements from the Prime Minister and also the Hon Murray McCully (Minister of for Rugby World Cup and supporter of Cruise Ship Terminal).
The ARC's position has not been revisited in the light of these events.
Later in yesterday's ARC Council meeting I asked two further questions about Queens Wharf: "What is the agenda for the Thursday meeting? and "When will the item be reported back?"
The CEO responded. He stated that the Queens Wharf JV meeting would be conducted: "within the framework agreed at the December 22nd meeting" and that "the numbers will be within that...". He also noted that the item would be reported back after that meeting, and that it would be either to a meeting of full Council or of the Transport & Urban Development Committee.
The mention of "the numbers" rang alarm-bells with me. There has been considerable discussion behind the scenes following the Mayoral Forum meeting which decided against the proposed $100 million Cruise Ship Terminal. The option still exists - in theory at least - of Government and ARC proceeding independently to develop the Cruise Ship Terminal - despite the opposition of all of Auckland's Councils.
This option exists because the ARC and Government co-own Queens Wharf. In addition ARC would be the consent authority because Queens Wharf is a structure over water. Queens Wharf is not on land, so is not subject to the planning jurisdiction of Auckland City Council.
A problem would be the funding. Who would pay for the Cruise Ship Terminal? Government has indicated it was prepared to invest in the Cruise Ship Terminal - but I understand this would be in the form of a loan. This loan would become a charge on the incoming Auckland Council. So ratepayers would still be expected to pay for the Terminal. It would not be a gift.
There are other options. Chairman Mike Lee has made no secret of his desire to demolish the sheds that are on Queens Wharf. I am advised that the Hon Murray McCully shares this scorched wharf enthusiasm. Neither see any value in retaining these character buildings.
I - and many other don't agree with immediate demolition. I think Auckland should have the opportunity of using these buildings - as part of Party Central -and as part of reclaiming and rediscovering how we might use this new public waterfront asset and its amenity.
At the Confidential December 22nd meeting of Council, ARC made a number of key decisions, none of which I am freely able to disclose. However, I choose here to disclose some details, because of the public interest matters this issue raises, and because I don't believe due process is being followed.
In particular, at the Confidential December 22nd meeting of Council, ARC decided that:
Secondly, at that meeting, the ARC also "endorsed the CEO to negotiate a contribution by the ARC ..... towards the 2009-10 cost of redeveloping Queens Wharf..." I cannot reveal the precise details of the amount voted on (somewhere between $5 million and $10 million), but it seems entirely appropriate to reveal some of the works and their costs that the ARC considered would be part of the Queens Wharf Redevelopment.
ARC estimates in the report circulated for the meeting provide a figure of $1.1 million for: "Site Preparation", including: "demolish sheds, remove redundant services"....
So. Without any reports or further consideration it was assumed that the sheds would be demolished. ARC hasn't actually voted on that issue. But you can see how intriguing this is. The ARC would be the regulatory body considering any application its JV might make to demolish the sheds to make way for anything else - be it Party Central or a Cruise Ship Terminal.
So where are we now?
So far, Auckland's Councils don't support a Cruise Ship Terminal. But Government and ARC - according to its December 22nd decision - both do.
And we have learned there's a meeting of The ARC and Government Queens Wharf JV on Thursday, where ARC's position will not have been clarified and established in advance by the meeting it resolved to have.
Not good process.
Auckland Regional Council met yesterday to consider its Draft Annual Plan for the first 4 months of the 2010-2011 year. It's only 4 months, because that's all the time left to ARC (from end of June) to abolition at the end of October 2010.
The public meeting of ARC's full Council considered the ARC's activities, and provided budget and activity reviews for each ARC department. In particular, the activities listed for the ARC's Transport and urban Development Department to 31 october 2010 included the item:
In terms of Queens Wharf, work will progress on the agreed option for the redevelopment of wharf for the Rugby World Cup.
One councillor (not me) queried this item. In fact I was curious as to what "the agreed option" was, and who had agreed it.
The CEO (Peter Winder) gave a one sentence response, and then stated to the effect: "... there will be a meeting of the Unincorporated Joint Venture this Thursday, between Government and ARC, given the alignment between the parties..."
This was an interesting revelation. I was not aware such a JV was in existence.
The ARC has not considered the matter of Queens Wharf, or re-considered its position, since it last considered it at a confidential meeting that was held on the 22nd December 2009, which was attended by just 7 councillors. That meeting was the subject of my last December blog: http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/12/queens-wharf-another-ad-hoc-auckland.html. At that meeting the ARC learned of proposals for a $100 million Cruise Ship terminal, which it voted to support (though I voted against).
In the last few months this project has been opposed by all Auckland's Councils and their Mayors. There have been statements from the Prime Minister and also the Hon Murray McCully (Minister of for Rugby World Cup and supporter of Cruise Ship Terminal).
The ARC's position has not been revisited in the light of these events.
Later in yesterday's ARC Council meeting I asked two further questions about Queens Wharf: "What is the agenda for the Thursday meeting? and "When will the item be reported back?"
The CEO responded. He stated that the Queens Wharf JV meeting would be conducted: "within the framework agreed at the December 22nd meeting" and that "the numbers will be within that...". He also noted that the item would be reported back after that meeting, and that it would be either to a meeting of full Council or of the Transport & Urban Development Committee.
The mention of "the numbers" rang alarm-bells with me. There has been considerable discussion behind the scenes following the Mayoral Forum meeting which decided against the proposed $100 million Cruise Ship Terminal. The option still exists - in theory at least - of Government and ARC proceeding independently to develop the Cruise Ship Terminal - despite the opposition of all of Auckland's Councils.
This option exists because the ARC and Government co-own Queens Wharf. In addition ARC would be the consent authority because Queens Wharf is a structure over water. Queens Wharf is not on land, so is not subject to the planning jurisdiction of Auckland City Council.
A problem would be the funding. Who would pay for the Cruise Ship Terminal? Government has indicated it was prepared to invest in the Cruise Ship Terminal - but I understand this would be in the form of a loan. This loan would become a charge on the incoming Auckland Council. So ratepayers would still be expected to pay for the Terminal. It would not be a gift.
There are other options. Chairman Mike Lee has made no secret of his desire to demolish the sheds that are on Queens Wharf. I am advised that the Hon Murray McCully shares this scorched wharf enthusiasm. Neither see any value in retaining these character buildings.
I - and many other don't agree with immediate demolition. I think Auckland should have the opportunity of using these buildings - as part of Party Central -and as part of reclaiming and rediscovering how we might use this new public waterfront asset and its amenity.
At the Confidential December 22nd meeting of Council, ARC made a number of key decisions, none of which I am freely able to disclose. However, I choose here to disclose some details, because of the public interest matters this issue raises, and because I don't believe due process is being followed.
In particular, at the Confidential December 22nd meeting of Council, ARC decided that:
In the absence of an agreement by Auckland City Council to progress and finance the development, the Chief Executive investigate an exclusive partnership between the Auckland Regional Council and Government and report back to Council in January 2010.This motion refers to the development of Queens Wharf including the $100 million Cruise Ship Terminal. Auckland City Council has clearly not supported that project. Now it appears the ARC and Government have set up an Unincorporated Joint Venture. However there was no report to Council in January - as decided in the resolution. Nor one in February. Now we hear informally about a meeting of this JV happening this week. Without the ARC receiving a formal report as agreed. Not good process.
Secondly, at that meeting, the ARC also "endorsed the CEO to negotiate a contribution by the ARC ..... towards the 2009-10 cost of redeveloping Queens Wharf..." I cannot reveal the precise details of the amount voted on (somewhere between $5 million and $10 million), but it seems entirely appropriate to reveal some of the works and their costs that the ARC considered would be part of the Queens Wharf Redevelopment.
ARC estimates in the report circulated for the meeting provide a figure of $1.1 million for: "Site Preparation", including: "demolish sheds, remove redundant services"....
So. Without any reports or further consideration it was assumed that the sheds would be demolished. ARC hasn't actually voted on that issue. But you can see how intriguing this is. The ARC would be the regulatory body considering any application its JV might make to demolish the sheds to make way for anything else - be it Party Central or a Cruise Ship Terminal.
So where are we now?
So far, Auckland's Councils don't support a Cruise Ship Terminal. But Government and ARC - according to its December 22nd decision - both do.
And we have learned there's a meeting of The ARC and Government Queens Wharf JV on Thursday, where ARC's position will not have been clarified and established in advance by the meeting it resolved to have.
Not good process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Showing posts with label Joint Venture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joint Venture. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Two Faces Over Queens Wharf
| These are the two faces of Queens Wharf today. Murray McCully is a Government Minister and Minister of the Rugby World Cup. Mike Lee is Chairman of the ARC. The Government owns 50% of Queens Wharf, and so does the New Zealand Government. An unusual arrangement to say the least. This blog provides some information and background to that arrangement and the relationship. In Mike Lee's 26th April report to the ARC Mike wrote about the media conference where the picture was taken: "At the well attended media conference, hosted by the Minister for the Rugby World Cup Hon Murray McCully and myself, Mr McCully revealed plans for the government and ARC to build temporary ‘cruise terminal and entertainment facility’ in time for the Rugby World Cup. I stated that given the failure of leadership of the city’s mayors which meant a new cruise ship terminal was no longer feasible in the short term the ARC fully supported the government proposal which the government will pay for. Our preferred approach subject to consultation with the NZ Historic Places Trust is to dismantle the sheds and re-use salvageable materials in the permanent structure. Consultation will be undertaken in good faith not just on the future of the sheds but on all other historic features of the Wharf." The day before, Anzac Day, in his speech at the opening of Queens Wharf, Chairman Mike Lee ended with these words: "...today we begin a new chapter of Auckland's historical Queens Wharf - for nearly 100 years locked away - by opening it to the people once again. 2.75 hectares of superb public open space - close to the CBD and the Britomart Transport Centre - where people can come for passive recreation, to walk, to fish, to commune with the sea. Which we believe will enhance the quality of life for Aucklanders and our visitors. This is a legacy the ARC is beqeathing to the people of the region. The ARC trusts that the new Auckland Council, the new Super City will carry on our mission to redevelop the waterfront. But one thing we can be certain about - Queens Wharf as our 27th regional park if you will - will remain in the public ownership of the people of Auckland in perpetuity. My thanks once again to the government - to Prime Minister John Key and to Minister Murray McCully. My fellow Aucklanders - Queen's Wharf is now the Peoples Wharf." No mention of a cruise ship terminal in those words. Sounds like a park. If it was park any building - let alone 100 year old cargo shed heritage - would be guarded passionately. What is difficult to untangle in all these words is what is really happening. And what is rational and what is emotional. The whole Queens Wharf thing got legs to begin with when the PM spoke about "Party Central". He asked rhetorically, "where will everyone go to celebrate and have a good time when it's all on?" That was his question. At the time, Ports of Auckland were cash strapped, the stars aligned and the deal was done. But the deal has transmogrified and morphed as various other individuals and organisations have got their hooks into it. "The purposes of the Joint Venture are: General: To hold and operate Queens Wharf and manage the development of it, for the benefit of the public; The problem with this wishlist is the classic one of not being able to have your cake and eat it. You can't have the kind of cruise ship terminal that GUEDO wants on Queens Wharf - that is Auckland's Primary Cruise Ship Terminal - that supports Cruise Origination and Termination - and have the kind of open space described in these purposes. The uses are in conflict and there is not enough room. And it is ironic that the purpose speaks of a space that "reflects ... culture and heritage", but has in mind a space that is devoid of heritage buildings. The Queens Wharf Joint venture Agreement contains the sort of detail that might be expected in such a document, including the establishment of an Owners Committee which is quorate if the Minister of the Rugby World Cup and the the Chairman of the ARC are present. It is concerning to note however, that the agreement states that: "The decisions of the Owners Committee are binding on the parties. The parties must take all reasonable steps to give effect to those decisions. If a party cannot give effect to a decision after taking all reasonable steps, the matter must be referred back to the Owners Committee for reconsideration." The agreement goes on to provide for the existence of a Management Committee, whose first big job is the preparation of an Approved Business Plan", which must be prepared "at least 2 months prior to the end of each financial year". The Agreement defines that date as 30 June "unless otherwise determined by the Owners Committee". So where does that leave us all? Hard to say really. The ARC has not been asked to agree or endorse the Queens Wharf Joint Venture Agreement which has been signed on its behalf by its Chairman. The ARC has not been provided with a copy of the Approved Business Plan which should have been prepared a month ago. And which is important because the Agreement requires the ARC to: "take all reasonable steps to give effect to those decisions..." What has the ARC agreed to do on Queens Wharf? Be nice to know. It feels a bit like Government has found a way to control Auckland. And what if there's a dispute? Imagine that the ARC is being faced with staunch arguments from the Historic Places Trust in its consultation. Imagine that the ARC is under pressure to adaptively re-use the Sheds that are on Queens Wharf. A lot of pressure. How will that pressure affect the Minister for the Rugby World Cup? What are his obligations to understand the ARC's obligations? Interestingly, the Queens Wharf Joint Venture Agreement does have a tiny bit of light at the end of its rather dark tunnel. It says: "Any agreement entered into by the Joint Venture with a third party must not place a party in breach of any legislation applicable to it, including.... in the case of the ARC, the Local Government Act 2002." Thank goodness for that. But what if the parties agree something among themselves that has that effect? What if the ARC - aware of the deal its has signed up to with Government and the decisions that make up that deal - in its determination to "take all reasonable steps to give effect to those decisions", steps just a wee bit over the line. Like skimping on its public duties to consult over things like: Cargo Shed removal; deciding the temporary slug/tent replacement; providing Queens Wharf Development budgets; changing Auckland's cruise ship terminal locations and functions. And the word "skimping" is charitable. What then? |
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Queens Wharf - Has it come to this?
| So here we have Queens Wharf, as ARC and the Government - according to its joint media release - would like it to be. The glowing thing is the plastic structure - aka the tent. Though we are told it is not a tent. It is a temporary structure that is not a tent. Apparently it can be slapped up and together for under $10 million. Cheap and reasonably tacky. There's a big screen outside on the end of Queens Wharf, and a possible Rugby Ball. September... |
I was advised that the reason the cargo sheds needed to go to make room for it, is because they want the tent also to be used as a cruise ship terminal. Can't get away from that Cruise Ship terminal on Queens Wharf imperative... |
I think Auckland will love hosting a Party Central. We did it during the America's Cup. Here's a picture of how they hosted America's Cup Party Central in Valencia: The Woolshed. A real kiwi idea. People could shelter from direct sunshine, or rain, or wind - but there was plenty of air blowing through... |
| This facility worked really well in Valencia. People loved it. It would work well on Queens Wharf too. In the old sheds. Big screens strategically placed. Some areas had seating, others a bit more casual. Needs to be good for families, for young people wanting a good time, for older people too. A people's place... |
| Lots of people will actually go to rugby matches (unlike the yachting where it's hard for people to get out there and watch a race - TV is better for most). But with seat tickets going for a King's Ransom for NZ's Rugby World Cup, and with matches happening all over the country, a lot of Aucklanders will be watching TV screens, just as they watched yachting in Valencia.... |
| And it's quite fun to do that in a big group, especially when there are fans around from other countries doing the same - in the same space. So far, it is planned that surplus Rugby fan accommodation will be provided by a Cruise Ship moored at Queens Wharf. This will provide a critical mass of rugby fans, rights on the spot - could a be a few thousand - the Queens Wharf shed(s) could become their TV viewing room. Places where they can invite NZ guests, places where Aucklanders can go to enjoy the fun too. Because Queens Wharf will be very busy place with the comings and goings of fans and their friends and guests. |
| Have you been on Queens Wharf yet? Have you been inside the Sheds? Have you experienced the views? Hardly anybody has. So go donw there this Sunday. Anzac Day. And have a good look. Would you renovate the house you just bought before you've lived in it for a while. Not likely! Same goes for Queens Wharf. Auckland needs to live on it for a while. Auckland needs to feel what it's like to have Queens Wharf for public uses. We need to experiment. Before we do anything permament down there. |
| I've been lucky enough to have a walk-over. Before I did I thought we should bowl the sheds. But then I went into them.... This is the cast iron footing for one of the ceiling/1st floor supports.... |
| And this gives an idea of the underside of the 1st floor. This picture gives no idea of size, but I reckon the joist timbers are around 50x20 cms. That's a very hefty joist. |
| And this picture shows a close up of the floor timbers. They look about the cross section of railway sleepers, and are coach-nailed into the joists. It was like walking on concrete. You had no idea it was a floor with a big open space below... |
| This long character-filled space was evocative of all the work that has gone on in there for almost a century. Apparently a lot of the work was about wool bales. Our own wool shed. Even with just a few sky-lights on a grey day the light was great... |
| Apparently the roof trusses, and probably quite a lot more of the original stucture, was floated out here from Britain complete. Just needed bolting together... |
| Party Central on Queens Wharf is a good idea. Kills lots of birds with one stone. Has many, many benefits for Auckland and for Aucklanders. Let alone the Rugby World Cup event. |
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Queens Wharf: ARC and Government JV Meeting on Thursday
A little bit of pre-amble first, to get to the point of this blog....
Auckland Regional Council met yesterday to consider its Draft Annual Plan for the first 4 months of the 2010-2011 year. It's only 4 months, because that's all the time left to ARC (from end of June) to abolition at the end of October 2010.
The public meeting of ARC's full Council considered the ARC's activities, and provided budget and activity reviews for each ARC department. In particular, the activities listed for the ARC's Transport and urban Development Department to 31 october 2010 included the item:
One councillor (not me) queried this item. In fact I was curious as to what "the agreed option" was, and who had agreed it.
The CEO (Peter Winder) gave a one sentence response, and then stated to the effect: "... there will be a meeting of the Unincorporated Joint Venture this Thursday, between Government and ARC, given the alignment between the parties..."
This was an interesting revelation. I was not aware such a JV was in existence.
The ARC has not considered the matter of Queens Wharf, or re-considered its position, since it last considered it at a confidential meeting that was held on the 22nd December 2009, which was attended by just 7 councillors. That meeting was the subject of my last December blog: http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/12/queens-wharf-another-ad-hoc-auckland.html. At that meeting the ARC learned of proposals for a $100 million Cruise Ship terminal, which it voted to support (though I voted against).
In the last few months this project has been opposed by all Auckland's Councils and their Mayors. There have been statements from the Prime Minister and also the Hon Murray McCully (Minister of for Rugby World Cup and supporter of Cruise Ship Terminal).
The ARC's position has not been revisited in the light of these events.
Later in yesterday's ARC Council meeting I asked two further questions about Queens Wharf: "What is the agenda for the Thursday meeting? and "When will the item be reported back?"
The CEO responded. He stated that the Queens Wharf JV meeting would be conducted: "within the framework agreed at the December 22nd meeting" and that "the numbers will be within that...". He also noted that the item would be reported back after that meeting, and that it would be either to a meeting of full Council or of the Transport & Urban Development Committee.
The mention of "the numbers" rang alarm-bells with me. There has been considerable discussion behind the scenes following the Mayoral Forum meeting which decided against the proposed $100 million Cruise Ship Terminal. The option still exists - in theory at least - of Government and ARC proceeding independently to develop the Cruise Ship Terminal - despite the opposition of all of Auckland's Councils.
This option exists because the ARC and Government co-own Queens Wharf. In addition ARC would be the consent authority because Queens Wharf is a structure over water. Queens Wharf is not on land, so is not subject to the planning jurisdiction of Auckland City Council.
A problem would be the funding. Who would pay for the Cruise Ship Terminal? Government has indicated it was prepared to invest in the Cruise Ship Terminal - but I understand this would be in the form of a loan. This loan would become a charge on the incoming Auckland Council. So ratepayers would still be expected to pay for the Terminal. It would not be a gift.
There are other options. Chairman Mike Lee has made no secret of his desire to demolish the sheds that are on Queens Wharf. I am advised that the Hon Murray McCully shares this scorched wharf enthusiasm. Neither see any value in retaining these character buildings.
I - and many other don't agree with immediate demolition. I think Auckland should have the opportunity of using these buildings - as part of Party Central -and as part of reclaiming and rediscovering how we might use this new public waterfront asset and its amenity.
At the Confidential December 22nd meeting of Council, ARC made a number of key decisions, none of which I am freely able to disclose. However, I choose here to disclose some details, because of the public interest matters this issue raises, and because I don't believe due process is being followed.
In particular, at the Confidential December 22nd meeting of Council, ARC decided that:
Secondly, at that meeting, the ARC also "endorsed the CEO to negotiate a contribution by the ARC ..... towards the 2009-10 cost of redeveloping Queens Wharf..." I cannot reveal the precise details of the amount voted on (somewhere between $5 million and $10 million), but it seems entirely appropriate to reveal some of the works and their costs that the ARC considered would be part of the Queens Wharf Redevelopment.
ARC estimates in the report circulated for the meeting provide a figure of $1.1 million for: "Site Preparation", including: "demolish sheds, remove redundant services"....
So. Without any reports or further consideration it was assumed that the sheds would be demolished. ARC hasn't actually voted on that issue. But you can see how intriguing this is. The ARC would be the regulatory body considering any application its JV might make to demolish the sheds to make way for anything else - be it Party Central or a Cruise Ship Terminal.
So where are we now?
So far, Auckland's Councils don't support a Cruise Ship Terminal. But Government and ARC - according to its December 22nd decision - both do.
And we have learned there's a meeting of The ARC and Government Queens Wharf JV on Thursday, where ARC's position will not have been clarified and established in advance by the meeting it resolved to have.
Not good process.
Auckland Regional Council met yesterday to consider its Draft Annual Plan for the first 4 months of the 2010-2011 year. It's only 4 months, because that's all the time left to ARC (from end of June) to abolition at the end of October 2010.
The public meeting of ARC's full Council considered the ARC's activities, and provided budget and activity reviews for each ARC department. In particular, the activities listed for the ARC's Transport and urban Development Department to 31 october 2010 included the item:
In terms of Queens Wharf, work will progress on the agreed option for the redevelopment of wharf for the Rugby World Cup.
One councillor (not me) queried this item. In fact I was curious as to what "the agreed option" was, and who had agreed it.
The CEO (Peter Winder) gave a one sentence response, and then stated to the effect: "... there will be a meeting of the Unincorporated Joint Venture this Thursday, between Government and ARC, given the alignment between the parties..."
This was an interesting revelation. I was not aware such a JV was in existence.
The ARC has not considered the matter of Queens Wharf, or re-considered its position, since it last considered it at a confidential meeting that was held on the 22nd December 2009, which was attended by just 7 councillors. That meeting was the subject of my last December blog: http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/12/queens-wharf-another-ad-hoc-auckland.html. At that meeting the ARC learned of proposals for a $100 million Cruise Ship terminal, which it voted to support (though I voted against).
In the last few months this project has been opposed by all Auckland's Councils and their Mayors. There have been statements from the Prime Minister and also the Hon Murray McCully (Minister of for Rugby World Cup and supporter of Cruise Ship Terminal).
The ARC's position has not been revisited in the light of these events.
Later in yesterday's ARC Council meeting I asked two further questions about Queens Wharf: "What is the agenda for the Thursday meeting? and "When will the item be reported back?"
The CEO responded. He stated that the Queens Wharf JV meeting would be conducted: "within the framework agreed at the December 22nd meeting" and that "the numbers will be within that...". He also noted that the item would be reported back after that meeting, and that it would be either to a meeting of full Council or of the Transport & Urban Development Committee.
The mention of "the numbers" rang alarm-bells with me. There has been considerable discussion behind the scenes following the Mayoral Forum meeting which decided against the proposed $100 million Cruise Ship Terminal. The option still exists - in theory at least - of Government and ARC proceeding independently to develop the Cruise Ship Terminal - despite the opposition of all of Auckland's Councils.
This option exists because the ARC and Government co-own Queens Wharf. In addition ARC would be the consent authority because Queens Wharf is a structure over water. Queens Wharf is not on land, so is not subject to the planning jurisdiction of Auckland City Council.
A problem would be the funding. Who would pay for the Cruise Ship Terminal? Government has indicated it was prepared to invest in the Cruise Ship Terminal - but I understand this would be in the form of a loan. This loan would become a charge on the incoming Auckland Council. So ratepayers would still be expected to pay for the Terminal. It would not be a gift.
There are other options. Chairman Mike Lee has made no secret of his desire to demolish the sheds that are on Queens Wharf. I am advised that the Hon Murray McCully shares this scorched wharf enthusiasm. Neither see any value in retaining these character buildings.
I - and many other don't agree with immediate demolition. I think Auckland should have the opportunity of using these buildings - as part of Party Central -and as part of reclaiming and rediscovering how we might use this new public waterfront asset and its amenity.
At the Confidential December 22nd meeting of Council, ARC made a number of key decisions, none of which I am freely able to disclose. However, I choose here to disclose some details, because of the public interest matters this issue raises, and because I don't believe due process is being followed.
In particular, at the Confidential December 22nd meeting of Council, ARC decided that:
In the absence of an agreement by Auckland City Council to progress and finance the development, the Chief Executive investigate an exclusive partnership between the Auckland Regional Council and Government and report back to Council in January 2010.This motion refers to the development of Queens Wharf including the $100 million Cruise Ship Terminal. Auckland City Council has clearly not supported that project. Now it appears the ARC and Government have set up an Unincorporated Joint Venture. However there was no report to Council in January - as decided in the resolution. Nor one in February. Now we hear informally about a meeting of this JV happening this week. Without the ARC receiving a formal report as agreed. Not good process.
Secondly, at that meeting, the ARC also "endorsed the CEO to negotiate a contribution by the ARC ..... towards the 2009-10 cost of redeveloping Queens Wharf..." I cannot reveal the precise details of the amount voted on (somewhere between $5 million and $10 million), but it seems entirely appropriate to reveal some of the works and their costs that the ARC considered would be part of the Queens Wharf Redevelopment.
ARC estimates in the report circulated for the meeting provide a figure of $1.1 million for: "Site Preparation", including: "demolish sheds, remove redundant services"....
So. Without any reports or further consideration it was assumed that the sheds would be demolished. ARC hasn't actually voted on that issue. But you can see how intriguing this is. The ARC would be the regulatory body considering any application its JV might make to demolish the sheds to make way for anything else - be it Party Central or a Cruise Ship Terminal.
So where are we now?
So far, Auckland's Councils don't support a Cruise Ship Terminal. But Government and ARC - according to its December 22nd decision - both do.
And we have learned there's a meeting of The ARC and Government Queens Wharf JV on Thursday, where ARC's position will not have been clarified and established in advance by the meeting it resolved to have.
Not good process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
