Parnell Pet Project Politics

Recognise these two faces? Two peas in a pod. Both let nothing stand in the way of pet projects. Both wanted the character sheds on Queens Wharf demolished. Both want a mega cruise ship terminal on Queens Wharf.

Both have track records of delivering personal pet projects, no matter the cost, no matter the fallout, a deal's a deal. Man oh man. Good qualities if you want a champion for a good project. But damaging and expensive otherwise....

Take the Helensville Rail trial service for example. Even as Chair of ARC's Transport Ctte I didn't see that train project coming. Thought it was just a bad idea. So did ARTA. So did Connex (now Veolia). All strongly advised against it. I was advised it would be cheaper to buy the few potential commuters a BMW each. But Mike Lee pushed it through. Every trick in the book. Never really held accountable for the cost of that failure. Blamed Connex. Blamed ARTA...

Now we have a brand new Parnell Railway station in the wrong place being manipulated into being by the same old Mike Lee up to his same old tricks.

Here's what ARC's report into the proposal had to say when a Parnell Railway possibility was considered by ARC's Transport and Urban Development Committee at its 4 June 2010 meeting. The report gave an update on planning investigations into 3 options for a station at Parnell shown in this graphic from the report. The Cheshire Street option is the one being pushed for by Mike Lee - for reasons which are not altogether clear. The report says this about that option:

The Cheshire St site provides the best access to Parnell centre. However the Cheshire St site has nearly 50% of its catchment in the Domain meaning intensive business or residential development could not take place in this half of the station’s catchment, and the walking catchment is more limited.

The report comments on the Parnell Road Overbridge option like this:

The Parnell road over-bridge site was originally favoured by Auckland City Council and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. The Newmarket/Parnell Area Plan, part of the Future Planning Framework, approved by Auckland City Council, located the station close to the Parnell Road over-bridge site because it served the busiest catchment, was closest to the University and would assist the development of the business node at Beach Road/Stanley Street.

The "middle" option - Carlaw Park - is described like this:

The Carlaw Park site appears to combine the advantages of both sites. It can service the university and the Beach Rd/Stanley St business node while providing better access to Parnell centre. The Carlaw Park site is approximately 200 metres from the Cheshire St site and can provide access to Parnell centre within a four minute walk....

The report does not make happy reading for supporters of the Cheshire Street option (like Mike Lee - who appears to be suppressing ARTA and ARC's consideration of this matter.)

There is potential to reduce car trips and hence congestion if the station is located with good access for university students. In the University’s Travel Plan (2007) 15,710 students and 584 staff indicated that they would replace car travel with other modes of travel. Approximately 50% of this group indicated the proximity of public transport to the campus would be a factor in this decision.

The Auckland City Council has looked at pedestrian accessibility, including walking
distances, gradients and safety. In comparing the options, it identifies a number of
safety issues, in particular isolation and personal safety concerns, for the Cheshire
site, and the difficulties of the track to the museum for the aged and infirm....

The 4 June 2010 ARC meeting report also summarises ARTA's position on the matter, along with this tabulation of the relative merits of the two different options that ARTA looked at. It appears that ARTA conducted preliminary investigations into the feasibility of siting a station on the existing rail track between Parnell Road tunnel and the Stanley Street Bridge. Its findings include:

...While no conclusions have been reached, both the northern (former Carlaw Park) and southern (Cheshire St/Mainline Steam) locations are considered to be feasible options. It is apparent that a balance may need to be found between serving different catchments such as museum visitors, Parnell and Carlaw Park business node residents and visitors, and university students....

But it is when land use considerations are brought into play that the Mike Lee option runs into serious treacle. As the report notes:

It is important that development of a station and the wider site in Parnell is based on good urban design principles and leads to a high quality development. Master planning will be essential to ensure that the benefits go beyond the site and that it works for Parnell and wider communities....

The report includes a fair summary of the ideas of Parnell Mainstreet whose concept at Cheshire Street is to consolidate transport infrastructure around the heart of a community, utilizing the existing rail network, an established rail depot, character railway buildings and undeveloped railway land. The ‘idea’ centres on establishment of a ‘destination’ train station, not just a purely ‘commuter’ station nor university station.

In a sense this is a heritage idea driving Auckland's rail network design. A Mike Lee hobby horse - a bit like heritage trams running around the Wynyard Loop.

The report concludes fairly categorically:

One key consideration is the potential for transit oriented development around the station in the medium to longer term.

From the analysis completed by the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and ACC to date it is apparent that a station at Carlaw Park would support the business node, university, Vector Arena and provide reasonable access to the Parnell centre, irrespective of any future land use changes in the vicinity of the station.

A station at Cheshire Street will be reliant on significant redevelopment in the area as part of comprehensive masterplan. The KiwiRail site is strategically important, close to Parnell, offers wide views and amenity, overlooking the open space of the Domain, likely to have high land values (assist redevelopment), enable growth of Parnell without affecting the heritage character of the main street, etc.

If a significant redevelopment can be delivered in conjunction with station development, then this location for a future station should be supported.

If the future use of the Cheshire Street site is not transit supportive (i.e. it provides for few residents or employees, is not designed to support walking and PT use and is designed for vehicles) then the location of the station should not be supported.

The report also mentions that The Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) had committed $1.5 million to Parnell station design in 2011/12 (Regional Land Transport Programme, 2009/10-2011/12).

Those are the only funds that had been allocated to that project by Auckland Regional Council and ARTA before their abolition at the end of 2010. The matter was considered by ARC's Transport Committee (items for information only ) twice more before Council ended.

However the Parnell Station was considered for decision at ARC's last Council meeting on the 27th September 2010. The last hurrah. After ARTA had been pushed into agreeing to Mike's project...

The report makes little mention of the need for Transit Oriented Development, or of the need to connect with the greatest number of land uses. It provides this rough concept outline of where the station would go, which confirms the wilderness nature of its location, and the lack of development opportunities, given the determination to retain the heritage buildings.

Here is the executive summary of that Council report:

A concept design for a new station at Parnell has been developed by ARTA in conjunction with KiwiRail. It has been determined that the preferred location is one adjacent to the existing Main Line Steam (MLS) Depot off Cheshire Street and preliminary design is now being progressed with associated costings.

A total cost of $13.2-15.2 million has been estimated. This includes $5.5m for track
modifications and between $3.5 to $5.5m for platforms, overbridges, lifts, platform
equipment and retailing walls.

Relocation and refurbishment of the Newmarket Heritage Building has a budget of
$4.2m carried forward by Kiwirail from an earlier government commitment. While
there is no detailed costing available at this stage, unspent funds could be utilized for other purposes such as track modifications.

Enabling works for electrification between Newmarket Tunnel and The Strand are
currently programmed to take place in July or August 2011. Re-grading of the track
along this section would involve significant rework of the electrification infrastructure.

This would suggest that a decision on the future Parnell station should be addressed
by Auckland Council and Auckland Transport with urgency, in order to integrate
works and avoid costly reworking.

Thus not only are the Mainline Steam site buildings to be retained, but the old wooden heritage station from Newmarket Station is to be restored there as well. This may be a good idea for a heritage park - but it makes little sense to be developed into a modern station on a line that is destined to carry tens of thousands of commuters/hour. The devil is in the detail. Final extracts from the Council report indicate the rushed nature of Mike's Parnell Project:

In order to meet rail and platform gradient requirements the rail track will need to be re-graded over approximately a kilometre of track and crossover points critical for access to The Strand will need to be relocated. Modification of the access tracks to the MLS Depot is also required. KiwiRail have undertaken preliminary track design and have determined that these modifications are feasible.... (and all before Christmas it seems)

This Kiwirail owned site clearly has potential for development as an integrated transit oriented development, and this could potentially provide opportunities for private sector funding. Parnell Inc have shared their views with the council that in their view that the MLS building could be used for alternative suitable uses, such as a museum and space for local exhibitions and small businesses, etc, and include rail heritage.... (all very preliminary and potential, could this, could that...)

Preliminary modelling has indicated that a Parnell Station would influence rail service frequencies and more analysis would be required to identify any necessary mitigation measures.... (Man oh man)

There are no financial and resourcing implications arising from this report. The cost of a future Parnell Station is estimated in this report and will need to be considered by the Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and Kiwirail.... (And that's the big one. No budget has been previously agreed for this by ARC or ARTA)

So suck on that Auckland Council. And do your job properly. It's about time pet projects like this bottom-of-the-priority-list Parnell Station option get the full once over before being included in any Auckland Council budget approval. That means integrating public transport planning with land use planning.

ARC votes to combine Slug & Shed on QW!

This blog is about the last 10 days of QW drama. I'd agreed to be silent while things progress, but now's the time for a blog. BTW at the end of this blog you will find a link to the Campbell Live look last night at QW. This is recommended viewing. The pictures in this blog are of ARC's Jasmax / Architectus artist impressions of how Shed 10 could be adapted and refurbished at a cost of around $18 million to provide for Party Central AND a floor area of 6000 square metres. You will see in the pictures that Shed 11 is to be removed. In its place is the Rugby Ball. And on the opposite corner of Queens Wharf is a large video screen. You will note that the pictures are reminiscent of designs submitted in the much criticised Queens Wharf Design Competition. You can see some of these at: Blog: queens-wharf-design-competition-stage-1

But the main purpose of this blog is to provide an update on where things are at - as of 7th July. Today ARC held a short notice full council meeting. All the media were in attendance. The purpose of the meeting was to present ARC's new designs, and also to acquaint the public with the fact that the Hon Murray McCully does not support the ARC's change of course. A rather odd resolution was passed without dissent. The guts of it is this: "...that recognising ARC's provisional agreement with NZ Historic Places Trust and the willingness of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to explore options that retain Shed 10, the Council authorises the CEO to commission urgent work from the Council's architects on options that combine the retention of Shed 10 and the Minister's preferred temporary building..." I asked at the meeting, rhetorically of course, "what do you get when you combine a heritage shed with a plastic slug?" Is it a shug...? or is it a sled....? It's a nonsense of course. Like the nonsense that drove the other compromise - the removal of Shed 11. The only reason it's gone - according to ARC's council report - is to "improve views", and to "create more public space". As if there's not already vast amounts of public space on this 27th ARC Regional Park. And as if we really need better views from QW of the Hilton Hotel on Princes Wharf. In fact I find the "improve views" reason hypocritical. How can you say that Shed 10 should be retained because it's heritage, and also say that Shed 11 (which is much the same externally and relates really well with Shed 10 - it's brother or sister if you like) should be removed because it's somehow not heritage, and the view we have had of it for the past 100 years should be replaced with a view we can see today with Shed 11 left where it is? Letters on the agenda from the Historical Places Trust state its assessment that: "...NZHPT's strong preference would have been for Shed 11 to remain in its original location, however under the circumstances we accept that relocation is possible...." and notes further that: "...we understand that one of the rationales for relocating Shed 11 is to enable views to be opened up from Queens Street to the Harbour...". This illustrates the depth of the compromises.

The ARC Councillors first learned about this alternative design, and Mike Lee's change of heart toward Shed 10, through a confidential item on the council meeting agenda held last Monday 28th of June. Councillors were advised that his attitude about Shed 10 changed in the course of meetings held with the Historic Places Trust, some of which were attended by the Hon Murray McCully. It appears the Minister was forthright in expressing his view that the sheds should go, and make way for his preferred cloud structure, aka the slug. It also appears that the Minister was not for turning. ARC's Chairman was concerned that a divergence of views was emerging (between him and the Minister) and so he wrote to the PM about it on 17 June, putting a strong argument for the adaptive re-use of Shed 10. The Minister for the RWC replied to that letter on the 28th of June. Interesting that he replied, and not the PM. I can imagine the conversation about that. Something like, "you write the letter Murray, you're the Minister, but if you haven't got this sorted out in 10 days I'll have to put it back on the Cabinet agenda..."

Anyway, the letter goes, "...I was therefore surprised to read the correspondence between the ARC and the Historic Places Trust where you in effect reverse the agreement reached with the HPT on 27 April and develop an entirely new plan. That clearly goes much further than the obligation to consult over the agreed proposal and I am at a loss to understand how this could have occurred..." The letter goes on state that: "the Government remains committed to the announced proposals..." This letter arrived on the day of the 28th June Council meeting, and Chairman Lee read it out to Councillors who were meeting informally before the Council meeting. They were concerned that this situation should not lead to a meltdown in relations. There were also suggestions that dialogue should be opened up between ARC and Auckland City Council, now that ARC's proposals involved retention of Shed 10 and its adaptive re-use. This type of approach was supported by Auckland City Council and budget had been set aside for Queens Wharf work on condition that its sheds were refurbished as part of that work. For completeness I note here that in April 2010 Auckland City Council's Combined Committee meeting voted for: "That the $21 million and $5 million capital expenditure budget for Queens Wharf in 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 be confirmed in the Annual Plan, subject to: These funds are only to be applied to a project that ensures the restoration/refurbishment of the sheds on Queens Wharf for the Rugby World Cup, and in the case of Shed 10 future medium term uses including the possible option of a cruise ship terminal."

At the 28th June ARC meeting, councillors were given a stark choice. Either to vote for the previously agreed "Cloud" / "Slug" approach (which had been voted on, and supported by a majority, at the ARC's 19th April Confidential Council meeting), or to support the new direction (shown in these pictures). The council voted for the latter course of action, which was a change in direction. That was last Monday. In the following week information was hard to come by as to what was happening. Especially what was happening between ARC and Auckland City Council. I understand informally that there was discussion, but no resolution. There are trust issues it seems.... The on Monday 5th July Kingsland Station was officially opened. Even the All Blacks turned up for this. I couldn't attend because I was on a hearing, but there were some interesting indications reported back by some who were there. ARTA's Rabin Rabindram was MC and he introduced Murray McCully who spoke first. Then - oddly - Rabin informed everybody that it was time for a cup of tea. This was a bit of a surprise because there were two speeches to go. One from Mike Lee and the other from John Banks. An Auckland City Councillor commented, "the Minister will not share the platform with Mike Lee." Raised eyebrows all round. Then after the cup of tea, when Mike Lee was acknowledging distinguished visitors it appeared that the Minister had already left the building.... But I digress. Then on Tuesday ARC councillors were advised there would be an extraordinary Council meeting about QW today (7th July). The rest is history. I have summarised the decision made, above. Another letter from Murray McCully, dated 6th July, accompanied the agenda. It restates that "Ministers have agreed that we remain committed to the decision Cabinet made on 19 April. We see no merit in the redevelopment of Shed 10 on its current site, as we agree with your earlier assertion that it is 'old and cheap and nasty'..." The letter goes on to offer two alternatives: (1) restore Shed 10 off the site and build the "cloud" as agreed; or (2) "we would be prepared to sell the Crown's share in Queens Wharf to the Auckland Regional council in order for you to pursue your alternative design..." To finish this I will repeat the advice that was contained in the report to councillors at today's meeting. The advice stated: "In considering its position, the Council will have to weight up the relative importance of: the heritage values of the Sheds; the use of Queens Wharf as a fan zone for the Rugby World Cup; the costs to ratepayers and taxpayers of alternative options; the flexibility available for future decision makers; the value for money afforded by the alternative options; the feasibility and risks of each option; the council's relationship with Government; and the expectations of the people of Auckland." In my comments at the meeting I expressed the view that, due to the consultation with the HPT, we needed to respect the heritage values of the sheds; secondly we needed to deliver the use of Queens Wharf as Party Central (that was the deal); thirdly that we should not do anything that precludes future options. That includes not dismantling or demolishing Shed 11. There is no credible argument for the demolition of Shed 11. And certainly not to make room for a view of the last World Cup's plastic rugby ball.... Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council need to sort this out together. It's about time this partnership worked. Auckland City can help ARC to buy the Government out, and then manage the Party Central fitout of the Queens Wharf sheds. Without precluding future. Campbell Live on Queens Wharf Campbell Live did Auckland a media service by doing a TV3 version of the Sunday documentary. But here's the difference: TV3 managed to get an interview with Chairman Lee. Campbell staked him out at the ARC's media conference yesterday, and grilled him over the cruise ship proposal. This is a must see. The TV3 report includes a walkover Shed 10 with the redoubtable Adam Mercer - from Auckland Architects Association. See it here: TV3 News: Queens-Wharf-debate---what-a-shambles This is a revealing insight into ARC cruise shp terminal thinking.

Queens Wharf Designs - Not a flop

Dear NZ Herald Editor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely, Joel Cayford