Submission: Economic Development Strategy

Introduction Auckland faces challenges because of its geographical remoteness (which is also a strength), small local economy (which produces independent and confident children), and small scale of businesses (which is useful in building start-ups which can then spread internationally). These words are partly drawn from the Auckland Council Draft Economic Development Strategy document section: Where Our Challenges Lie (Pg 27), which is the most honest and clear section of this narrowly focussed document. The document starts with a broad vision (Page 4), which then gets narrowed on Page 31 to a vision which requires: “…a step change in exports and internationalisation…” No other economic development visions are articulated. A vision based around a “step change in exports” necessarily involves an expansion in Port facilities. However there are other economic development visions which are not considered in this strategy. There are significant costs and dis-benefits associated with this single economic development vision, because of its narrow emphasis on Port expansion, which have not been articulated in the present draft economic development strategy. The following submission primarily relates to the Ports technical document entitled Waterfront Plan_Working Paper-Port (WPP). New Zealand needs a National Port Strategy – before Auckland agrees POAL's expansion plan There are many acknowledgements in the WPP of the infrastructural issues confronting New Zealand Inc of proceeding with uncoordinated development of New Zealand container handling capacity. That risk is container handling capacity in every port, price-cutting competition in every port, massive duplication in investment, and exporters and shipping companies laughing all the way to the bank. Section 4.2 of the WPP admits to: “Potential for duplication of infrastructure if investment is not co-ordinated…” This is a major problem for New Zealand and for Auckland. Arguably, the cost of port infrastructure is at least as important as roading infrastructure, whose development is closely coordinated by New Zealand Transport Authority. The WPP states at Pg 9 “…there is intense competition for container trade between POAL and Ports of Tauranga (POT)…” I can atest to that from my experiences as a Councillor on Auckland Regional Council (which owned POAL through its subsidiary Auckland Regional Holdings while I was a councillor from 2004 to 2010.) I received regular confidential reports outlining the negotiating strategy which was pursued by POAL and ARH, in the price war that emerged between POT and POAL in trying to gain the Maersk contract which was heavily driven by Fonterra’s desire to drive down the costs of its milk fat freight logistics supply chain. Their priority had no regard for the public cost of meeting that objective. The final price that was offered by POAL to Maersk was little more than $200/container, close to cost, and significantly lower than the handling charges over the Tasman which were nearly twice that. I well remember the justification for this cut-throat price from those in support of it: “it’s all about volume…”. However, whether it’s one million containers/year, or two million containers/year, the mathematician in me is acutely aware that one million times bugger all is still bugger all. The subsidy is born by the owners of POAL, and by those who need to share the transport corridors with all of these containers - many of which are empty, and by those of us who believe the uses of the Waitemata should be very carefully balanced. The WPP notes the existence of an ARH report prepared in 2009 which calls for: “a need to rationalise our port sector expansion, adopt a coordinated approach to infrastructure planning…”.

Submission 1: A partnership with central government and other New Zealand ports be established to rationalise port sector expansion and adopt a coordinated approach to port infrastructure planning.

Submissions D: Waterfront Plan

Ports Growth Plans What happens to Auckland’s Port in the next decade or two will have a major influence on the rest of the waterfront. Anticipated effects from an expansion of Ports and import/export shipping include traffic effects (both in the water and on road and rail), view effects, and demand for berthage which could be allocated to other uses – eg cruise ships. The WDA acts for Auckland in respect to the rest of the waterfront and must have a view on what those Port expansion plan effects will be, how they should be managed, and whether they are sufficiently adverse to merit some re-consideration of Port development plans. It is submitted that the DWP fails to properly address this matter, which means that the DWP fails to address the Auckland waterfront in an integrated way. It is submitted that simply incorporating POAL development plans into the DWP is insufficient. Other options need to be investigated. The expansion proposals for Ports assume that another 20 hectares – or thereabouts – of waterfront will be reclaimed for Ports activities. This needs to be put in perspective. For example the proposed headland park will be about 3 hectares. Queens Wharf is about 2.5 hectares. The benefits to Auckland’s visitor economy of a successful public waterfront space need to be weighed against the disbenefits that will arise from a significant port expansion.

Submission 4: Ports plan assumptions need to be re-visited, and regard be had for their impact on Auckland’s local and international visitor economy.

Submissions F: Waterfront Plan

Cruise on Queens Because of the anticipated volume of cruise ship visits to Auckland there is an obvious attraction in using Queens Wharf out to the medium term to support that industry. However I believe it is essential that authorities recognise that Auckland is poorly served in terms of waterfront public space/capita. This was evidenced by the crowding that occurred on Auckland’s waterfront (despite the availalability of Quay Street, QE Elizabeth Square, Queens Wharf, Captain Cook Wharf, Princes Wharf, Te Whero, and Wynyard Quarter) during RWC festivities with quite modest crowds. It is critical that any utilisation of Queens Wharf and Shed 10 is subject to stringent controls which protect public access to Queens Wharf and public amenity on Queens Wharf. Authorities must not give in to demands from cruise ship operators for “Rolls Royce” terminal provision. For example, I am advised that recent cruise ship visits using the Princes Wharf facilities have rated well with cruise ship passengers. The Cruise industry have made those facilities work well - despite their complaints and lobbying of public officials for more central city crusie ship parking. Cruise ship visits to Queens Wharf during the Rugby World Cup also worked passably well – despite not having access to Shed 10 – and little space on Queens Wharf itself. Auckland will only be in the black economically from cruise ship visits if public investment is tightly constrained. Whereas Central Auckland benefitted significantly from the 1,000,000 visitors to Queens Wharf during RWC. The majority of these were locals. Their contribution to Central Auckland’s visitor economy is often ignored by those who persist in talking up the contribution from the much smaller number of cruise ship visitors. The obvious answer to this conundrum is to provide for both sets of visitors, and both economic contributions. But this will require a much more balanced approach to the planning of Queens Wharf than has been evidenced to date. It will require the depth of planning that has been associated with Wynyard Quarter.

Submission 6: A Plan Change to the Regional Plan Coastal relating to proposed uses on Queens Wharf be publicly notified to ensure the owners and operators of Queens Wharf are in compliance with the RMA.

Submission 7: That the Agreement relating to Queens Wharf with Ports of Auckland Ltd be re-visited to establish conditions to constrain non-public uses of Queens Wharf and Shed 10 (by the cruise ship industry for example). These conditions: should restrict the area of Queens Wharf that can be used for non-public activities; should expressly establish a five year lease for such activties – such leases being renewable subject to Council approval – thereby sending the message that non-public uses of Queens Wharf are of a temporary basis; should contain a maximum number of days and preferably a specific set of dates when Queens Wharf facilities can be used for cruise ship visits (to ensure there are opportunities and to provide the certainty needed for planning of other activities and events on Queens Wharf).

Port Plans Will Cut Views

This map shows part of the inner Waitemata Harbour. Devonport is to the North - and you can make out the Mt Victoria and North Head volcanic cones. You can also make out Queens Wharf and Princes Wharf - and more particularly the Port. The Waterfront Development Agency, with the support of Auckland Council, recommends that the Port be almost doubled in size...

The Auckland Council Master Plan, and the Auckland Waterfront Development Agency plans show a huge expansion of the Port through reclamation. If you don't support such huge expansion - then you need to put in a submission about this - if nothing else. Does it matter? Yes it does....

This picture is from the end of Queens Wharf looking out to the Harbour entrance. You can see Mt Victoria and North Head to the left. A signature view from Auckland's public waterfront.

The arrow indicates the view line from the end of Queens Wharf. Other view corridors in Auckland have protection in the Regional Policy Statement. Why is this view not protected? Because - for expedient reasons - neither Council nor Central Government (which own Queens Wharf) have sought a Plan Change for the new activities that now happen on Queens Wharf. So this great view is not protected in the public interest.

This image shows how that view will change after the reclamation. In fact it is likely to be even worse because Ports want to stack containers very high on their newly reclaimed land to cope with an almost doubling of container volumes. These volumes will cause serious congestion on surrounding streets also. Isn't about time there was some collaboration with Ports of Tauranga?

But it could get worse than containers. We had three cruise ships in for the semi-finals on Friday. Quite festive and fun if it only happens when there's a big event, and downtown parking and accommodation is at a premium...

The closer you get, the bigger they become...

You can see how the Pacific Dawn totally dominates Queens Wharf, and blocks the morning sunshine and public views. Shed 10 is almost lost alongside the ship - which isn't even the biggest ship to visit Auckland.

This is the Queen Mary II. (This is another of my computer models - all to scale). In fact Queen Mary II has never berthed alongside Queens Wharf because the ship is too long. That's why there are proposals to put a "dolphin" - a support structure off the end of Queens Wharf - to moor the ship. Docked there it will block views from Queens Wharf totally - without any help from Ports reclamation. If you want to protect Queens Wharf so it can be used as Queens Park (not a cruise ship park), then you need to put in a submission about that too.

Auckland Heritage Festival 2009 on Queens Wharf

The Auckland Heritage Festival, delivered by Auckland City Council, ran from 19 September to 4 October 2009. The two-week festival, comprising more than 100 events encompassing art, architecture, fashion, music, ecology and sociology, was a chance for Aucklanders to embrace and discover everything that is unique about their city. The year’s theme was living heritage – the customs, stories and traditions we keep alive today....

The opening of the festival was held on Queens Wharf - while it was still owned by Ports of Auckland.

A few characters brought Shed 10 back to life, as it was...

Welcomed the honourable guests...

Who came for the music and festivities...

...speeches about heritage, culture, Auckland, and the meaning of it all... (That's Shadbolt in the background waiting his turn at the Microphone.) ...and outside the sliding doors modern Auckland looks on....

...as the music wound up...

...and other acts and music unfolded for those there in Shed 1o to celebrate Auckland's Heritage....

...over a few wines...

The news item ran: "A special opening event on Friday, 18 September – the anniversary of Auckland’s founding – kicks off this year’s Auckland Heritage Festival 2009. From 6.30pm, the public can head to Quay Street’s red fence and view a dramatic display of historical Auckland maritime footage projected onto the front of Shed 10, Queens Wharf...." Didn't find a picture of what they projected onto Shed 10. Sounds fun!

It's a big space inside Shed 10 - easily accommodates a classic event like this...

Auckland City Council's Planning Manager John Duthie explains - as evening falls outside...

Shadbolt gets his chance at last, and outside, waiting to take people for a heritage ride is the Daldy.

As POAL's media release at the time reads: "Ports of Auckland is inviting Aucklanders to experience a ‘living’ part of the city’s maritime history through a series of free heritage tours during the upcoming Auckland Heritage Festival. This year, for the first time, the tours will be hosted on board the historic steam tugboat, the William C Daldy.“We are very excited to offer the Auckland public a chance to experience a part of their city’s history firsthand,” said Managing Director Jens Madsen.Built in 1935, the William C Daldy was one of the Auckland port’s first tug boats, and worked welcoming and departing ships on the Waitemata Harbour for more than 40 years.The hour-long, family-friendly tours will cruise through the commercial wharves, providing a close-up view of port operations. The trip will also include a special stop at the Auckland Harbour Bridge, where the William C Daldy proved its might salvaging a runaway piece of the bridge during its construction in 1958.

Queens Wharf too short for Queen Mary II

Auckland Regional Council's hastily planned Queens Wharf Cruise Ship Terminal would be too little for big ships like Queen Mary II. Don't support it. Don't build it. Auckland needs a big picture waterfront vision - not another short-term embarrassment. This is a case of: "build it and they won't be able to come...." There's a lot of pressure being exerted on Auckland right now, to gain support for this pet project, by ARC's Chairman Mike Lee and his bag man the Hon Murray McCully. They've whipped up support from a bunch of Auckland Mayors (Harvey, Williams and Brown). None of these mayors have a mandate from their councils. None of these mayors have put any public money into this project. None of them have been as immersed in the waterfront as Auckland City Councillors and Auckland Regional Councillors - let alone the Mayor of Auckland City Council. Stop Press 1: Rumour has it that certain Govt Ministers are so keen on this they have offered ARC a $100 million loan to do it. But the loan would be a charge on the new Auckland Council. No free lunch here - ratepayers could be paying for this short-term pet-project for years. And, wait for it, there are suggestions that any Coastal consents needed by ARC for this project could be rushed through Parliament with the next round of Resource Management Act changes. Imagine that! Wouldn't you like that sort of support for a factory farm in the McKenzie Basin! Stop Press 2: Auckland's Heart of the City organisation is also concerned about these proposals. You can support their campaign and get your views across by completing their Queens Wharf is a Mistake survey at: http://www.hotcity.co.nz/takeover/ Here's a few Q&As lurking in public minds: Q: Surely we need to get on with it and build something on Queens Wharf. Otherwise it's paralysis by analysis? A: That statement is not supported by Auckland's recent waterfront history. The Princes Wharf debacle (cruise ship terminal and Hilton Hotel), got consent and construction commenced a matter of months after it became surplus to POAL requirements. Construction started on North Wharf at Wynyard Quarter not much more than two years after it came into public ownership, and before land use plan changes have been settled. Its roaring ahead. And the Viaduct development got consent and was built, as planned, in time for America's Cup. BTW - Queens Wharf has not yet shifted into public ownership. That happens this April. Any suggestion that Auckland waterfront development is slow, or delayed, is a lie. Q: Doesn't Auckland needs a cruise ship terminal and it needs it now, otherwise the city and region will forgo economic benefits? A: In fact the recession has hit the cruise ship industry. I understand that previous schedules suggested there would be about 60 cruise ship visits in the current season. NZ Herald has reported this has been revised down to 47. Even so, as we see today and yesterday, Auckland still gets 2 cruise ships at once and needs places to berth them. This happens now on Queens Wharf, or - in the case of bigger cruise ships like Queen Mary II, they have to berth at the POAL container wharf. So. A new improved cruise ship terminal would be preferred by the industry, but the facts are the ships still come, and they still berth, and the benefits are still evident - even without a fancy new terminal. We do need to plan better for cruise ships, but we don't need to take out the one remaining downtown wharf for that. Q: Doesn't Auckland need a "world class" cruise ship terminal building on Queens Wharf that has iconic architectural character? A: Actually, neither Auckland, nor the cruise ship industry require a "world class" and "iconic design" cruise ship terminal. We just need something fit for purpose, and in a sensible place that does not compromise other waterfront activities and public opportunities. This could be achieved by a relatively simple, two level building, of unexceptionable design. The ideal location for both wharf space and building is Ferguson Terminal. Q: A cruise ship terminal on Ferguson Terminal would take 10 years + to negotiate with Ports of Auckland Ltd. It will never happen. The fight with business that rely on POAL would never end? A: Again. Hardly a question. More of a rhetorical statement. Auckland's whole of waterfront planning needs to include the POAL. Auckland's Ports facility is running at a loss now. It is not the cash cow it once was. Not quite run into the sea - but not the success it was. This part of New Zealand is "over-ported" - what with Ports of Tauranga and Marsden Point (both deep water ports with huge land areas for cargo and container storage). Auckland no longer needs to subsidise the low cost container freight aspirations of POAL - about 1,000,000 a year - at very low cost (only the shipping companies and exporters & importers win) - while Auckland has to look at walls of containers on its waterfront and tolerate lines of trucks on its local roads and state highways driving empty containers from A to B. Time for an integrated change. Time to rethink POAL container wharves AND allow serious public amenity and activity and provision on Auckland's waterfront. Something like Wellington. Q: But isn't it too windy on Queens Wharf. Aren't we kidding ourselves that people will want to "play" on Queens Wharf - after all - it's only a wharf? A: You only have to remember what the weather has been like in Auckland over December and January. It was magnificent with gentle westerly breezes. The beaches were packed. The CBD waterfront was not - of course - because there's nothing there for people to do. It's a myth that Auckland's waterfront is too windy/weather too bad for a public playground on the CBD waterfront. Again - look at Wellington's waterfront. Packed with people even in bad weather. Think of Queens Wharf as being part of a CBD waterfront promenade - with amenity and activity (like a market, like some places to sit and watch - without a waiter hovering, areas to read and enjoy some peace at lunchtime, places to take your sandwiches during a fine day....) Q: Shouldn't the waterfront be about economic activity, about the bustle of business, the banging of containers and ship anchors, and the rustling of cheque books and money? A: Many world city waterfront have been just like that, but large areas have changed to let people back to their waterfronts. Auckland is ripe for this. As POAL get ship-shape, it's time for Auckland's citizens to reclaim their waterfront for some fun....

Auckland Leaders want WOW on the Waterfront

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

Something's wrong in the state of Auckland.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I get the impression their advice was ignored.

The "we know best" approach won the day.

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

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

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

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

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

Queens Wharf - A Site Visit - Shed 10

Shed 10 is the one on Queens Wharf nearest Quay Street. Here we are at the front door. Ready for a site visit of ARC councillors and staff involved in this interesting and exciting project. For a start, you can get an idea of the size of the ground floor level of Shed 10 from this picture. You can drive a fleet of buses inside this doorway...

It might not be very pretty on the outside at the moment. Needs a certain amount of tlc. And you can see along the side, more or less where those pipes are, where an oxy-acetylene torch has been used to cut away the supports that would have held those big verandahs...

Interesting inside when the big roller doors are slid open. Pretty much as they were built....

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. 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...

Some temporary openings in the side walls give an idea of the perspective you get, looking out...

And again. I liked the feel of the building. Good bones.

How Sad is Princes Wharf? (Part 2)

This continues the story about Princes Wharf, and how the present development came about… I’ll try to be pithy. This is not an Environment Court submission. It's the court of public opinion. I need to explain the planning history a bit...

The stories I tell in this posting are:

1. Ports of Auckland’s decision to commercially develop Princes Wharf


2. Waitemata Harbour Maritime Planning Scheme Change No 4: (Princes Wharf)


3. Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal adapted to include Port Management Area 3


4. POAL’s decision to sell its leasehold interests in Princes Wharf to Kitchener Group


5. Clinton Bird’s certification for Kitchener Group’s redevelopment of Princes Wharf


6. Subsequent events

1. Ports of Auckland’s decision to commercially develop Princes Wharf

From what I can glean from people who were around in the mid 1980’s, Princes Wharf was in a pretty run-down state. And the then Auckland Port Authority became interested in the possibility of a commercial development. Money could be made. It appears a sort of design competition was held for ideas. About 15 groups contributed. There was a short-list. The best was chosen. I haven’t seen any documents about this process.

It’s my guess that the process for changing the Waitemata Harbour Maritime Planning Scheme must have been triggered by this opportunity. Apparently there was considerable public debate – I wasn’t in Auckland then – maybe someone can shed some light (add a comment). It appears the whole thing went before the Planning Tribunal which made the final decision.

However enthusiasm for the development idea evaporated after the 1987 crash.

2. Waitemata Harbour Maritime Planning Scheme Change No 4: (Princes Wharf)

Scheme Change No 4 (Princes Wharf), was finally determined by the Planning Tribunal in May 1990. Must've taken a while. It seems there was a lot of public interest. The scheme change created a new Port Zone C. It relates to Princes Wharf. The purpose of the zone:

“is to provide for the development and operation of port facilities
(particularly those serving overseas and ferry passengers and visitors) and the
redevelopment of the ferry wharves, Quayside and Princes Wharf in a way which
will retain and promote the visual and public access links between downtown
Auckland and the harbour, provide a range of activities which will encourage
public use and create a vibrant social environment focussing on the maritime
setting, and which will have a sound economic base…”

This sounds remarkably positive and upbeat – reminscent even of the words used for Tankfarm. And no mention of the need to optimise revenue! The scheme change included special requirements for uses on Princes Wharf. These make interesting reading in hindsight:

“…it is a fundamental objective of the redevelopment of Princes Wharf that it should contain an appropriate mix of uses so as to achieve a balance between commercial activity and public access and enjoyment of the Wharf. To ensure that an appropriate mix and balance of uses is provided and maintained, there is a requirement for a minimum percentage of the development to be of publicly orientated uses – 'people places' – such as Art Galleries, Museums, Theatres, Entertainment or Educational Facilities, and in addition certain 'private commercial' uses shall be limited to maximum percentages of the development. There is a further requirement for minimum percentages of internal and external public spaces….”

This is even more positive. Imagine if that had actually happened.

But the zone starts to come undone a bit with the specifics. The fine print. The planning detail includes various specific requirements, more words:

"...that the maximum gross floor area of all buildings shall not exceed 100,000
square metres; and not less than 25% of that maximum GFA shall be occupied “…by
a museum and a threatre or cinema, and one or more of any of the following other
publicly orientated uses; passenger terminal, retail market place, taverns,
bars, restaurants, foodhalls, cafes, additional museums, cinemas and theatres,
art galleries and other entertainment facilities…”

Sticking the passenger terminal in there, along with Cinemas and Museums – especially the passenger terminal we have to tolerate on Princes Wharf – hardly a public place – soaks up this 25% quickly. Without really delivering on the nice words in the objective.

Then there are the specifics for public space. The scheme distinguishes between external public space (public space outside the building footprint) and internal public space (public space within the building footprint). These requirements are stated as:

* A minimum of 35% of the wharf deck area shall be retained as external public space (I assume this includes the central street, cross streets, as well as wharf perimeter and end areas);
* A minimum of 30% of the required external public space shall be located within the northern third of the wharf area (ie at the end);
* Not less than 15% of the gross floor area of the wharf deck level, and the first
upper level of all buildings shall be in the form of internal public places and
pedestrian circulation areas…
* A minimum width of 6 metres of external public space shall be provided for the
full perimeter of the wharf.

It’s obvious now that the 6 metre external walkway is too narrow and dominated. Hard to change now. A good example not to follow. And I'm doubtful about the public nature of the streets. They seem highly private. More like driveways. Basically car parks.

What is less obvious is the nature and quality of internal public spaces. Where might I find those within the development? That's a rhetorical question - by the way.

The scheme change goes into some detail, however, describing how the public space at the northern end of Princes Wharf should work. It states that

“a length of 64 metres shall be provided at and around the northern end of the
development within the building envelope as external public space containing
flights of public steps, ramps, associated elevated landings… for the purpose
of:
* providing public access from within the development to the public areas
at the end….
* Enhancing the quality and aspect of the northern extremities of
the building as public space…
* Ensuring that visually and functionally the public facilities at and about the northern end of the development are attractive and encourage public use…”

You’d have to say that there is a whole swag of problems at the end of Princes Wharf (for example the design of the public spaces and steps – which might be attractive - do not encourage public use. If anything the design actively discourages public use.).

3. Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal adapted to include Port Management Area 3

You’re doing well if you got here. Basically the ARC incorporated the Waitemata Harbour Maritime Planning Scheme Change No 4, into ARC's Plan Coastal which was prepared under the newly enacted Resource Management Act 1989.

The Port Management Area 3 chapter of the ARC Plan Coastal notes that by 1991 the development that had been originally envisaged by Ports of Auckland had not taken place, and states:

“… the upgrading and modernisation of facilities on Princes Wharf could
significantly benefit tourism, recreation, and the public amenity values of the
waterfront. Any development would need to complement the urban landscape, be in
scale with adjacent land-based development, and retain views of the harbour from
surrounding locations. A high level of public access would need to be
maintained, particularly around the northern end of Princes Wharf…”

Nice words. But very hard to reconcile with what got built there. In retrospect I find it quite extraordinary that the ARC decided that it need only retain a tiny amount of discretion in considering any resource consent application for Princes Wharf. Probably because the Scheme Change had already been argued in front of the Planning Tribunal. Basically ARC’s Plan Coastal said that anything that fitted within a horrendous building envelope 37 metres high, sloping to 22 metres and 15 metres high at the sides, and running solid along the wharf, could be built as of right, as a fully complying activity. No notification necessary. Apply and you’ll get consent.

Ports of Auckland had their wicked way. In it for the money.

The tiny bit of planning discretion retained by the ARC - the foot-in-the-planning-door - that the ARC did give itself, was that the ARC:

“had control over… the extent to which the design and external appearance of any
buildings or structures recognises the city/harbour relationship, the prominent
maritime setting of the site, and the public use of the development…”

That was pretty feeble. I’d love to have been a fly on the wall as the ARC capitulated, and almost entirely abrogated its public interest RMA responsibilities over Princes Wharf. It’s as if the RMA had never been written. The Act’s high ideals and principles could’ve been used to relitigate this pre 1987 crash proposal. But instead the old style Waitemata Harbour Scheme Change was simply incorporated. Rolled over. Pretty much unchanged. Note to self: check out the ARC committee reports around this time.

With a planning regime like that in place, it was only a matter of time before a resource consent application to develop Princes Wharf would be received.


4. Ports of Auckland’s sells its interests in Princes Wharf to Kitchener Group

In the mid 1990's, with the fallout of the 1987 crash long forgotten, development in Auckland took off again. It was business as usual.

On the 18th June 1997, Ports of Auckland Ltd issued a media release through NZX (Capital Markets) which announced the sale of POAL’s leasehold interests (98 years) in Princes Wharf to Kitchener Group of Companies for $25.752 million.

The media release noted that the proceeds of the sale “will be used for general business purposes…”, I wonder what those were. The release also noted that the sale “is the result of Ports of Auckland’s review of its asset base and continuing focus on its core port operational activities…”


5. Clinton Bird certifies Kitchener Group’s redevelopment of Princes Wharf

Now we get to the business end of this. The Scheme Change, which was mostly incorporated into ARC’s Plan Coastal, required that the developer should obtain a certificate from an independent registered architect. That person needed to formally certify: “that the design and appearance of the proposed development of Princes Wharf is responsive to the city/harbour relationship, the prominent maritime setting of the site and the public use of the development and its setting…” You might recognise those words from ARC's Plan Coastal (above).

The issues that certifier should consider were all listed in the Scheme Change. Some of these filtered through into ARC’s Plan Coastal. But not all. Not even the obligation to have a certifier. Not sure why. Anyway. The ARC did decide to get a certifier in. They wanted someone who knew stuff about urban design issues to look at the plans. They chose Clinton Bird. After he’d done the work, it turned out that Mr Bird wasn’t actually a registered architect. So ARC had another architect who was registered, endorse and certify Mr Bird’s report. This was Diane Brand. She didn’t go through the process that Mr Bird went through, but commissioners were satisfied the process as a whole complied with the intent of the Scheme Change.

In his introduction to his Princes Wharf project design and appearance certification report, Mr Bird describes how he worked:

“…throughout the … process, regular contact and close dialogue has been maintained with the manager of the Kitchener Group.., his architect, and his planning consultant. This approach was considered to be the most positive, efficient, and constructive, given the collective aspiration to extract the best possible architectural and urban design result from the opportunity to develop Princes Wharf…”

I have to say this sort of collaboration gives me the heebie jeebies. They all work together. Then commissioners get to see the document. Everything all sorted out. And how expert and independent was Mr Bird? And what urban design prejudices and opinions might he bring to this process? I'm concerned because my academic and practical experience of urban design issues and questions is that they are never clearcut. Lots of subjectivity and little objectivity. There is lots of fluffy opinion. Hard for commissioners to see the wood for the trees in all this fluff.

First I'll note some facts from Mr Bird’s report.

He notes that there is a contractual agreement between the Kitchener Group and Ports of Auckland which imposes constraints on the proposed development. Some of these constraints are summarised by Mr Bird. He states that these include a commitment to: "....retaining the structure of the six existing sheds..." and "....re-establishing the two way central ‘street’ which was traditionally a busy thoroughfare associated with loading and unloading in the ‘heart’ of the wharf...."

I bolded these because they seem pretty important commitments. The quote marks round 'street' and 'heart' are Mr Bird's. There is much talk in his certification document of the centrality in the design proposal of the streets on Princes Wharf, and of the retention of the existing character sheds.

There is also an assurance that the proposed building “is not an iconic building…” Interesting.

In the guts of his report, Mr Bird provides the following reassuring text:

“By retaining the existing sheds, the development relates not only to the earlier wharf structures, but also to the dominant texture of the city. The resulting city texture on the wharf would be not too dissimilar to assembling six slightly longer but similarly wide and high Ferry buildings in the same pattern of layout…”

(Pardon my language. This is so misleading.)

And he writes:

“Within this new city texture, the development contributes a new city street running north-south down the centre of the wharf, two pedestrian waterside promenades along the eastern and western sides of the wharf, a series of colonades on both sides of the central street and on one side of the waterside promenades, together with a major new public space at the northern extremity of the wharf…”

(Again. What a misrepresentation of reality. So misleading. Not a word of caution. No suggestion of conditions that might deliver the reality of this vision. Beware the silver-tongued urban design expert with an agenda.)

His pen runs on:

“Also evident in this plan is the good neighbourly relationships the redevelopment establishes with respect to other civic uses in the vicinity. For example, the ocean racing yacht architectural design imagery is entirely appropriate to the Maritime Museum uses and small yacht harbour to its immediate west. The same imagery will also provide a counterfoil to the industrial shed-like imagery of the Maritime Museum architecture….”

(Boy oh boy. This is why you have design competitions. This is why you involve the public and try out a few ideas. Here all we have is an apologist for a single idea. )

But the Bird opinion that really gets me is this:

“Although the height of the buildings will be greater than those currently existing on the wharf, and greater than those currently on Queens Wharf to the east, the additional height proposed will help to achieve a sense of enclosure and definition to the harbour space in front of the Ferry building. The proposed development will act like a ‘constructed headland’… this will assist in restoring a more visually interesting and spatially attractive city waterfront which, as a result of of successive harbour reclamations since the founding of the city, has been reduced to a relatively flat, straight edge…”.

(Fantastic. In fact the opposite is the case. The best view of Auckland’s waterfront now is the end of Tankfarm. You have an extraordinary sense of space, left to the Harbour Bridge, right to Mt Victoria and Rangitoto. The notion that Auckland city’s waterfront view should somehow be “enclosed” is narrow, and somehow very sad. Like - you are only entitled to a really decent view of Auckland’s harbour if you are employed in a highrise office. Or own an apartment on Princes Wharf.)

But I do owe Mr Bird thanks for a couple of recommendations. He was worried about signs, and he worried about seats and other amenity in the public areas. (NB: I think it totally deficient that there are no public toilets at the end of Princes Wharf. How many public parks and spaces can you think of that don't provide public toilets? )

Mr Bird called for a further stage of design and appearance certification for the design of the urban landscape, and he also reckoned the same sort of process should apply to the design of signage and visual identification.

Not sure what happened there. Eg the “Hilton” sign on public assets. How did that get permitted? And the lack of seats on the wharf deck area (mind you – if the deck edge is a race track for Hilton-bound taxis and shuttles – seats would get in the way, wouldn’t they.)

6. Subsequent events

This brings me to the end. Of this posting anyway. More about Princes Wharf to come later.

I am aware that more than one ARC councillor is embarrassed by Princes Wharf.

There was even a court case over the fence/gate that’s there to prevent public access when a cruise ship might come. That gate was closed even when there was no ship. That's been fixed it seems. Now that side of the wharf gets used as a car park. You often see cars stacked up between the colonades that will be kept “free for pedestrian acceess…”.

And then there are the elevated viewing platforms at the end. Story was that private tenants would come out and scare the public away. Not really public at all. So in a celebrated picnic, Cllr Walbran went there with family, but couldn’t gain access because of padlocks on the gates. It was all reported by Rudman:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10342524
But nothing much has changed since. Sure the padlocks have gone. But it’s still a forbidding place to find some public peace. Hard to untangle public space from all those private hands.

Professional urban design investigation would involve placing a video camera and analysing how people actually use the end of the wharf. It’s all very well to stamp down there as Chair of Regional Strategy and Policy – knowing what the rules are. It’s quite another to hesitantly go down there (why would you anyway?) – confronted by all the signs saying thou shalt not fish, sit, stand…. Hilton branding everywhere - and find that quiet people place.

The one good thing about ARC’s resource consent that permitted the Princes Wharf development is the standard review clause. It’s a review condition. It states that the conditions of consent may be reviewed by the ARC in order to deal with any adverse effect on the environment which may arise from the exercise of this consent.

It also provides for the ARC to carry out a review of the conditions of consent including altering monitoring requirements … in light of results carried out from investigations. Time for some formal investigation I think.

The ARC owes the public a review of the conditions of consent for the Princes Wharf development. We can’t keep our back turned. Not forever. Not for 98 years. It's time to fix this.

Time to wind up Auckland Regional Holdings

The Auckland Regional Council's treasury - Auckland Regional Holdings (aka ARH) - has been getting some bad press lately: Ports profits down; huge losses on global bond and global equity investments; property industry decline impacting returns from proposed waterfront developments. I accept that this downturn has been significantly worsened by the global financial meltdown. But the seeds were sown for this failure 2 and 3 years ago. That was when ARH recommended to ARC:

1. that sweet-heart deal with Maersk (driven by an absurb combative attitude to Ports of Tauranga, and which has led to Ports of Auckland almost subsidising container handling the prices are so low, and Maersk laughing all the way to the bank - Cllr Walbran told us: "it's all about volume" - I say: "a million times bugger-all is still bugger-all..."), and
2. that around $300 million of carefully garnered public cash (set aside for public transport investment), be thrown to the wolves of international fund markets.

There was advice then, in front of councillors, that there were risks with these courses of action. Votes were taken in confidential meetings where there was significant opposition. But the majority won, and now the region reaps the consequences.

The problem now is that these reduced assets are not able to generate the returns anticipated and expected to fund the region's share of either the purchase of an effective electric rail system, nor its operation. Desperate measures are being considered including the rapid windup of the global investments - when paper losses will become real, but the region will have most of its money back.

So what to do?

It has always been an option for ARC to significantly reduce the role and workload of ARH, by transferring assets and responsibilities back under the direct control and management of ARC. ARC has a highly experienced and skilled bunch of financial managers, as well as those whose job it has been to monitor the performance and effectiveness of ARH itself. There is significant duplicated effort. There is also a lot of cost associated with the monthly, quarterly, and annual processes currently required between ARC and ARH.

ARH has already transferred one significant asset to ARC, and that is the waterfront parkland at the end of Wynyard Point (half under control of Auckland City Council, and half with ARC).

It is time to cut the losses imposed by the relationship between ARC and ARH, and by the conflicting purposes inherent in ARH:

• by transferring Ports of Auckland Ltd to ARC;
• by transferring all cash and financial investment assets to the ARC's own highly effective treasury function;
• and by moving Sea + City to the ARC, where it would be governed by the ARC's Transport and Urban Development Committee and expert staff.

The Port company would retain its own board (as would Sea + City) - as at present - and operate somewhat akin to the way ARTA now runs - governed by ARC, but at arms length.

Running Auckland Regional Holdings costs the region annually about $2.3 million in admin expenditure, it spends about $2 million annually in managing its falling global investments, and has authorised significant planning and consulting costs in their efforts to "optimise" return from private development of Auckland's waterfront. There's also the cost of running a whole layer of governance and the ARH Board whose responsibilities would largely shift to ARC and existing staff.

It's time to fix this.