Submissions E: Waterfront Plan

Princes Wharf It appears that Princes Wharf has been omitted from the DWP. Except for its suggested retention as the primary cruise ship terminal in the short term. No project proposals are mentioned in the DWP for Princes Wharf (Pg 10). I am advised that recent surveys by cruise ship operators of passengers who have used Pricnes Wharf facilities are positive (if councillors have not seen this information they should request it). The Cruise Ship industry can make Princes Wharf facilities work to the satisfaction of cruise ship passengers. It is submitted that Princes Wharf needs to continue as Auckland’s Primary Cruise Ship terminal for as long as reasonably possible. It is submitted that various requirements and conditions for the public use of and access to parts of Princes Wharf need to be actively enforced, so that the public vision and aspirations that accompanied the relevant resource consents for the Princes Wharf development are given effect. It is also submitted that options for re-use of the cruise ship terminal facilities - in the event they are vacated by the cruise ship industry - be explored, and that such options should include the activities and uses which were expected from the redevelopment of Princes Wharf.

Submission 5: The Draft Waterfront Plan needs to provide for Princes Wharf. Proposals are required to improve Cruise Ship handling facilities in the short term, and to ensure that the public amenity conditions of Princes Wharf resource consents are given effect.

Council's Relentless Waterfront Sale

"Where is Auckland Council's Waterfront Masterplan?" is the question I asked nobody in particular as I read NZ Herald's apparently innocuous news item about the sale of the Hilton Hotel on Princes Wharf.




The article ran in Granny Herald within the August 3rd Business section.

".....The five-star boutique Hilton Auckland has been put up for sale in an international campaign but its American operator will continue to run it and the property will stay a Hilton.

Dean Humphries, Jones Lang LaSalle Hotels' executive vice-president, who was appointed to sell the property exclusively said Hilton Hotels would manage it for the new owner as part of its operations here, which also include Hiltons at Taupo and Queenstown.

Brian Fitzgerald, an investor, said the property belonged to a number of parties including Willeston Capital.

"It's a great time to sell, never better. You won't sell just because of Rugby World Cup but it's performing well," Fitzgerald said.

Auckland Council records shows the Hilton, at 141 Quay St, was valued at $44.6 million in July 2008.

Its top floor is the quarter-acre apartment of bankrupt property developer David Henderson, whose Kitchener Group developed all six buildings on the wharf, creating bars, restaurants, covered carparking, apartments, offices and the hotel. Henderson still lives in the apartment, despite attempts to sell it for about $10 million.

All the wharf properties are on terminating leases, set to run for another 84 years, so that after then the buildings have no legal right to occupy the wharf space.

Hilton's restaurant White has been shut for some time as it undergoes a refurbishment and is expected to have a new name when it reopens.

Humphries said the ground-floor Overseas Passenger Terminal in the building was part of the sale deal.

That made me sit up. The Overseas Passenger Terminal on Princes Wharf is apparently up for sale along with the Hilton Hotel. Makes sense I suppose. One careful owner since 2001. Lock and stock and barrel up for sale.

The history of how this all got built, and shifted from public ownership and into private control is not a happy history - especially if you believe there needs to be much more in the way of a destination focus for Auckland's 1.4 million people down there. How many councillors understand that even council's own plans for Princes Wharf redevelopment included art galleries, museums, and a cinema.

Have a look at this if you need reminding: How Sad is Princes Wharf?, and How Sad is Princes Wharf - Part II

But I digress. Back to Granny Herald's story:

Humphries said the ground-floor Overseas Passenger Terminal in the building was part of the sale deal.

"This also acts as a conference and exhibition centre for the hotel.

So. Here we have the agent acting on behalf of the owners, talking up the alternative uses of what we know as Auckland's Overseas Passenger Terminal. So. Auckland didn't get a cinema, or a museum, or much else in the way of public waterfront amenity on Princes Wharf. The cruise ship industry has turned its nose up at the facilities it has had access to and use of for close to a decade. And now it's apparently for sale. So where are they going to go? Read further on in the story...

"Auckland Council has indicated that the passenger terminal will move to Queens Wharf in the 2012-13 cruise ship season, which will therefore allow the hotel to utilise this space more efficiently during future cruise ship seasons."

Man oh man. So that's the deal. Without even a whiff of a Waterfront Masterplan, Auckland Council has indicated that the passenger terminal will move to Queens Wharf.

So. Auckland's relentless and destructive policy of privatising waterfront amenity is still alive and well under King Len and his happy Councillors. And I thought the whole reason for having a Waterfront Development Agency was to take an integrated look at Auckland's whole waterfront.

This piecemeal sale of Princes Wharf is an injury by itself, but if that sale also inevitably leads to the sale of much of Queens Wharf's amenity to the cruise ship industry, then it will be an insult to Auckland.

Queen Victoria Comes to Auckland

Last Saturday, Queen Victoria made a scheduled "Port of Call" visit to Auckland, and berthed at Princes Wharf. (You can just make out the scaffolding and sheets being used while the leaky building issues are sorted out on those rooms at the end of Hotel Hilton.)

Queen Victoria looks a little smaller than Dawn Princess (pictured here at Princes Wharf last week). Queen Victoria is 90,000 tonnes gross tonnage. Length 294 metres. Beam 32.3 metres.

It appears that Princes Wharf is not standing up the strain of cruise ship visits that well. Not sure if this is because of Hilton Hotel or Apartment resident grumpiness, or if the wharf and cruise ship terminal fittings need maintenance. If so - get it done. BTW, at least one person has asked me: why don't we allow cruise ships to berth on both sides of Princes Wharf. Make it work for its living.

You can make out Queen Victoria to the right of this picture. On Princes Wharf. Queens Wharf is right of centre - with the brown ferry building behind. The red feright ship to the left is berthed at Bledisloe Wharf. This is where Queen Mark II could be berthed safely (length and strength is good for something the size of Queen Mary II.

Two Cruise Ships in Auckland Today

Tuesday 9th February, 2010. Here's the Dawn Princess berthed at Princes Wharf, Auckland. She's almost the biggest cruise ship that can safely berth here. She weighs about 77,000 tonnes, is 266 metres long, and her beam is 32 metres....

You can see here how she towers above the Hilton Hotel, and how her cabin dwellers can look straight across into the balconies and bedrooms of the Princes Wharf apartment owners!

Also on Tuesday 9th of February, Auckland was a Port of Call for P&O's Pacific Jewel. She had to berth at Queens Wharf. Pacific Jewel a little bit smaller than Dawn Princess. Pacific Jewel weighs in at 70,000 tonnes, is 245 metres long but has the same beam of 32 metres.

You can see both ships here. Clearly Dawn Princess has a few more stories of cabins than Pacific Jewel too! I caught the Devonport ferry at 4:00 in the afternoon. Usually a quiet crossing. This time it was packed with cruise ship visitors returning from their half day trip to Devonport. That's the main destination - believe it or not - for cruise ship passengers. Nothing much else to to do on Auckland's waterfront. That's what Queens Wharf and Quay Street and Britomart need to become. A destination. Not just a cruise ship terminal....

And here's a computer graphic of how big Queen Mary II is compared to Queens Wharf, and Auckland's waterfront to Princes Wharf. In fact she's too big to safely berth at either Queens Wharf or Princes Wharf. That's why she has to berth amongst a pile of containers at POAL's Ferguson or Bledisloe wharf. Queen Mary II weighs in at 150,000 tonnes (that's twice as heavy as Dawn Princess). And she's 345 metres long (nearly 80 metres longer than Dawn Princess). Her beam is 40 metres. She's a big, beautiful ship. It would be crazy for Auckland to spend $100 million on Queens Wharf building a cruise ship terminal - knowing that the Queen Mary II which is scheduled to visit Auckland regularly - would be too big to berth there.

Princes Wharf's Fall from Grace...

Just look at this. Here's how Princes Wharf - the street down the middle - looked in 1928, when this photo was taken. Looking west from the end of the wharf, you can see the buildings in downtown Auckland CBD. Lots of opportunity for heritage adaptation you'd think....

And what about this? Here's HMS Hood (remember "Sink the Bismark"). She came to visit in 1924, shortly after Princes Wharf was built. What a visit that must've been...


tAnd here's what we have now. Hilton Hotel. According to CityCentralMagazine, this, and a bunch of apartments, was developed by David Henderson, Kitchener Group for $200 million. This magazine notes: "when the America's Cup put New Zealand on the map investors in these apartments doubled their income..." It's only been about money. And as you can see in this picture - regulation is useless. Cars park where they should not with careless regard...

Just in case you missed them in the picture above, here's a closer picture. These vehicles are not supposed to park here, but they do anyway. Maybe wwe could arrange for the ghost of HMS Hood to come and blow them off the wharf... you wish...

Auckland’s waterfront needs iconic public places – not iconic buildings

This piece was submitted to NZ Herald on Wednesday last week, 24th June. You will read it here first. You might only read it here:

The Queens Wharf debate has been dominated by kneejerk calls for an iconic building. When Tank Farm/Wynyard Quarter was liberated from Ports control the debate then was about the need for an iconic building. And while original planning for Princes Wharf redevelopment advised against an iconic building, the Hilton Hotel got built there anyway. Big enough to block surrounding harbour views, and big enough to dominate the small public spaces squeezed around it.

Auckland needs iconic public spaces on its waterfront far more than it needs another iconic building.

Public space has been undervalued in Auckland’s CBD for as long as I can remember. The development of Aotea Square marked the start of public space decay. Conceived as a transformational urban project – together with Mayoral Drive, Aotea Theatre and new Council offices – its main driver was the need to decongest city traffic.

Much of central Auckland’s built heritage, character streets and public spaces were destroyed. Aotea Square works as a market place but is largely unsuccessful as a public place and remains unloved by Auckland. Queen Elizabeth Square is a more recent example of the decline in the quality of Auckland public places. Now a desolate bus park with a few struggling Kauri, though the addition of the glasshouse coffee kiosk has been an improvement.

Forty years ago American urbanist William H Whyte filmed people using New York’s public places in an attempt to analyse what made them successful. His findings boil down to a few simple amenities:

* toilets;
* seating;
* food;
* shops.

Whyte noted that the most attractive public places “retained heritage buildings” and “worked with the grain of the city”. He wrote later, “…(these findings) should have been staggeringly obvious to us had we thought of them in the first place…”

The absence of alcohol in these findings reflects the fact Whyte’s research encompassed the whole demographic. He was as interested in understanding what attracted children, families and the elderly to New York public places, as he was in the behaviour of youth and the upwardly mobile.

Last year I worked with a group of Auckland University Planning Masters students who analysed Auckland’s waterfront public places using Whyte’s observational methods. We added: harbour views; wind shelter; and activities of interest to Whyte’s criteria, allowing analysis of waterfront open space amenity.

We found that Waitemata Plaza in Viaduct Harbour is the only downtown Auckland waterfront space with public toilets. Compare, for example with Wellington’s waterfront. Wide harbour views can only be had from the end of Wynyard Point and the Hilton Hotel. Compare, again, with Wellington’s waterfront. There is limited provision of simple food (as opposed to restaurants and bars) or retail in and around Auckland’s waterfront public places.

The best waterfront public seating is across the road from the Price Waterhouse building. But there are no public toilets, no takeaway food or retail, and harbour views are obstructed by the Hilton Hotel building that dominates Princes Wharf.

Auckland must learn from its mistakes or they will be repeated on Queens Wharf.

The Hilton was consented just over ten years ago in 1998 by Auckland Regional Council. The application was not notified, so the public didn’t get a say. At the time relevant planning documents stated: “…a fundamental objective of the redevelopment of Princes Wharf is 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….”

Reading these words today it is hard to understand how the Hilton Hotel complex actually got built on Princes Wharf.

The ARC consenting process required formal certification of building plans by ARC’s appointed adviser: architect Clinton Bird. He advised commissioners of the proposed Hilton Hotel: “…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…”

It is hard to reconcile those words with what got built. Where are those sheds now on Princes Wharf? Where are theatres and art galleries? What about public enjoyment?

Today, after an investment of $40 million of public money Auckland has public control of Queens Wharf. I am relieved that a combination of the need to provide space for a Rugby World Cup party and scarcity of public funds, means one option is to tidy up the old sheds on Queens Wharf.

This presents an opportunity for civic experimentation and the creation of a successful waterfront public place. I agree with Alex Swney - now is not the time for hasty, iconic and embarrasingly permanent structures.

Instead lets bring theatres, food markets, and fashion shows into the sheds, and flag poles and light shows, moveable-feasts and treats-on-wheels onto the wharf.

Open up the Queens Wharf sheds and restore their verandahs, so that in 2012 when they are exactly hundred years old they are fit for purpose, providing for the needs of the public and fans from the floating hotels moored alongside.

And don’t forget toilets and seats sheltered from the wind.

That's what I think about Queens Wharf. By all means go down the road of iconic buildings when RWC is over. Perhaps. But let's have a good solid design competition first. At least as comprehensive as was deployed for Britomart Railway Station. Not a a bunch of architect's drawings slung together in a jury-rigged process. In the meantime, let's use those sheds.

Wellington Waterfront - Artworks and Wharfpiles

Wellington Waterfront. Midwinter pictures. Artwork 1.

He's about to dive.
People hold his hand.
Take lots of photos.
And there are no railings to clutter the picture, or the wharf...

Wellington Waterfront. Midwinter pictures. Artwork 2.

Whale of a tale in bronze.

Wellington Waterfront. Midwinter pictures. Artwork 3.

Water Whirler.
Bring on the wind.
Blow wind and crack your cheeks...


Wellington Waterfront. Midwinter pictures. Artwork 4.

Fountain of fun.



Wellington Waterfront. Midwinter pictures. Artwork 5.

... the last word in part of a line on wood at the edge of a wharf that reads: "...the sudden pull of kahawai or kingfish..."




Wellington Waterfront. Midwinter pictures. Wharf and piles 1.

Wellington Waterfront. Midwinter pictures. Wharf and piles 2.

You are welcome to jump off this one. Even a ladder up so you can do it again.

Wellington Waterfront. Midwinter pictures. Wharf and piles 3.

All those bollards, ropes, chains, and cracked-open hunks of hard wood.

Wellington Waterfront. Midwinter pictures. Wharf and piles 4.

... and again...

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.

How sad is Princes Wharf (Part 1)?

The Princes Wharf disaster is one of my main motivations for trying to get the public planning and public outcomes right for Wynyard Quarter. I don't want to see more Princes Wharf mistakes made again. But I have a bad feeling in my belly. The same people, and the same organisations are still involved. But I get ahead of myself.

To do this story justice it's necessary to start somewhere near the beginning. Based on the simple idea that if we don't learn from history we are sure to repeat it. Here's how Princes Wharf looked in the 1930's....



You can see that the buildings rose about 2 or 3 stories above the wharf. You can also see the classic and attractive architecture that was involved. This next picture is one of the few surviving pictures that I could find that looks down into the heart of Princes Wharf...

There are ships tied up. It was used mostly for cargo. You can see, on the right of the picture that the buildings on Princes Wharf consisted of two blocks with a street running up the centre, and the buildings had frontages to that street. I understand there were a couple of cross streets too. The uses changed a bit with time, and a public car park was established on the wharf at some later date.

I need to jump ahead now and include a few of pictures of how it looks today.

The central street idea is still sort of there - except it's basically a car park. You can see some of the colonades retained at street level. But basically it's a carpark, with its very own setof traffic lights, with a road up the centre. Cars go to and from their carparks, taxis and shuttles go to and from the Hilton hotel at the end. You can also see cars parked between the colonnades on the Eastern side of Princes Wharf - on public space. And any time of day you can see taxis and shuttles intruding on the public open space at the end of Princes Wharf. No penalties for driving all over a public park there!

And at the end there is a tiny remnant of the fine old architecture that was originally at the end of the wharf. That's the part that is emblazoned with the sign: "Hilton". It also frames a public viewing area - quite nice when you find it - one of the best kept public space secrets in Auckland.

Here's another picture of the viewing area - this time with 4 ARC Councillors checking it out.

The councillor on the left is Cllr Walbran. He was one of the ARC councillors who granted the resource consent needed to build the Hilton Hotel and the apartments. He was one of those who granted the consent in March 1998. Not that long ago when you think about it.

Intuitively, you'd think Auckland City Council would have been the one to grant these consents. After all, it's a building. After all, it's pretty in your face down there on Auckland's waterfront. And there's traffic issues and urban design issues.

In fact, the reason ARC granted the consent is that the building is not on land, it's on water. Or above the seabed to be precise. So the Plan the application was tested against was the ARC's Plan Coastal, and - presumably, its Regional Policy Statement. So Auckland City Council's fine-grained isthmus section of its District Plan didn't have jurisdiction.

That is also why ARC Councillors heard the application. When I say "heard" that's somewhat of a misnomer, because the application was not even notified. ARC Councillors made that decision too. That it didn't need to be notified. This was largely possible because an earlier Scheme Change going back to 1990 had been adopted to the Waitemata Horbour Maritime Planning Scheme. ARC councillors could quite easily have decided to notify the application - citing public interest issues and all that good stuff. But they did not.

Time to include another picture....

This one shows a bunch of ARC councillors checking out the East side of Princes Wharf. It's hard to believe, but one of those councillors was heard to opine, "I don't know what all the fuss is about. This is really good...".

When you read the councillor's decision to grant consent, and the conditions attached, you can see the emphasis of the ARC coming through. It's all about sewage, stormwater, sediment, and wind, with some mention of signs. These are classic issues for ARC with its adverse effects to environment regulatory hat on. But as for urban design, streetscape, traffic effects, public space design - all of the things that contribute to public amenity. Almost total silence.

I'm getting grumpy now, so I'll end this post while I'm still cheerful. There will be one or two more coming up, with a few more facts and figures. What I wanted to end with though, is the fact that this ARC consent was granted having complied with a rather unusual requirement. This was that the design and appearance of the building had to be certified by an independent architect. This was presumably so that the ARC councillors - with no experience in such matters - could rely on some independent planning advice.

The certification for this application was carried out by Clinton Bird, who at the time was Director of Clinton Bird Urban Design Ltd, and Associated Professor of Architecture at University of Auckland. His analysis is a revelation. So are some of the other facts behind this project. More to come later....

This is Auckland - Princes Wharf

Princes Wharf is one of the latest developments at Auckland's downtown waterfront. It has been carefully designed so that cars can be placed as near to the water as possible, and their amenity has been provided for to the maximum extent. There is no risk of any ultra violet damage to your car parked here, and there is little risk of salt air affecting metal parts. Highly recommended waterfront destination.