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.

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....

Queens Wharf - another ad hoc Auckland accident?

Until yesterday, my understanding about what was happening down on Queens Wharf was pretty much as had been reported by NZ Herald on the 8th December:

"Queens Wharf is to be spruced up for the Rugby World Cup at a cost of about $10 million.

It is understood there is no political appetite or funding to proceed with a grand design for the wharf in the foreseeable future.

Last month, political leaders called a halt to the much-maligned design contest to turn Queens Wharf into a combined cruise ship terminal and "party central" venue for the 2011 Cup.

A joint entry from architects Jasmax and Architectus, featuring a ramp to the water at the end of Queens Wharf, was the winning design for the $47 million budget...."

The Herald even ran a picture of the winning design with that story. The winning entry was known as QW04.

I quite liked the variant of that design that was in the design competition. One of the reasons I liked it was because the Cool Shed was retained, and featured.

Anyway. I digress. Things have been moving along apace. Yesterday, an extraordinary meeting of ARC Council was called by ARC's Chairman.

It was all about Queens Wharf. I can't really go into detail here - because the item was in confidential. A slim majority of councillors were able to attend - almost half the ARC councillors had made other Xmas arrangements and were elsewhere.

So a bare quorum attended. I was not happy to be considering such an important matter with so little time to think about it, and with so few councillors there. And there was no real sense of urgency. A strong whiff of expediency or ad hockery (if that's a word) was in the air....

The Chairman of ARC has made no secret of his desire to get rid of the Queens Wharf sheds, and to build Auckland's primary cruise ship terminal there. Quite a few other councillors, not to mention a fair slice of Auckland's media and public are concerned by that proposal. That it will restrict the opportunities to provide for public waterfront amenity. Crowd Auckland's CBD waterfront with cruise ships and basically give over the cruise ship industry a fantastic slice of Auckland's central waterfront. Here's how ARC's Chairman describes what he wants in his November report to Council. This photo is part of his report:

"A lot of public and media attention has been given to Queens Wharf in recent weeks – especially with the decision taken by the government, Auckland City and ourselves to ditch the cruise ship terminal design competition. ...My own comments on the standard of the designs is on the record and I am determined that we do not accept a second rate building on such a magnificent site. These opportunities come perhaps once in a lifetime and should not be squandered. If the job is worth doing its worth doing well.... As you might have guessed given the interest of the public I have been inundated with design ideas (especially gigantic waka and oversized rugby balls) which are at least more interesting than the standard boring post modern stodge offered up by the architectural experts. With all the controversy flying about the designs it is important not to lose sight of why we resolved to acquire Queens Wharf from POAL in the first place. That was for a new cruise ship terminal for Auckland and for public open space. One thing is for certain the wharf will be formally handed over to the ARC and the NZ government in April next year and we will be opening it up to the public. In regard to cruise ships, the 2008/09 cruise ship season was the largest yet, with New Zealand receiving 118,976 passengers. As the country’s key hub port, Auckland received a significant proportion of the 2008/09 cruise ship passengers (112,870). Growth in passenger numbers is expected to steadily increase, helped by announcements such as the one P&O Cruises made in October that it is going to base its newest superliner – the 1800 passenger Pacific Pearl – in New Zealand. Analysis shows that each cruise ship passenger contributes between $200 and $300 to the Auckland economy... Research carried out for the Government in 2008 showed that a new cruise terminal on Queens Wharf could generate an additional $713 million in direct expenditure over the next 10 years. Many have been surprised at the remarkable renaissance of passenger shipping in recent years – which most travel experts had written-off long ago as superseded by air travel. But given that Auckland, largely thanks to the magnificent Hauraki Gulf and Waitemata Harbour, has been presented with this opportunity it is important in terms of the overall economic development of the region that we seize it with both hands.... Our current facilities are outmoded and overloaded and there is no room to grow. We also need to match the standard of visitor facilities being provided by Australian Ports. If anyone doubts this I suggest they visit Princes Wharf when a cruise ship is alongside and see the long lines of jet-lagged passengers...."

You get the picture. ARC's Chairman is VERY enthusiastic about cruise ships and the cruise ship industry. He still wants BOTH sides of Queens Wharf to be available for cruise ships - that's why he likes the picture he has in his report with 3 cruise ships.

I have had to push very hard to get the idea of public space provision on Queens Wharf to be included at the same level in ARC's thinking - as the cruise ship terminal. It's there, as you can see in the Chairman's report, but I think public space and public amenity continues to be vulnerable to the pressure for Queens Wharf to be Auckland's PRIMARY cruise ship terminal.

But I digress again. This picture shows the Diamond Princess docked at Princes Wharf. She's 925 feet long. Close to the maximum length cruise ship that can dock at Princes Wharf. You can see how she towers over the Hilton Hotel, and imagine the views of those living in the Princes Wharf apartments. I sometimes wonder whether reverse sensitivity issues are driving the cruise ship industry onto Queens Wharf....

So - what can I tell you about the confidential meeting? Well. It seems that the powers that be are interested in doing rather more than the $10 million Party Central do-up that the NZ Herald reported a few weeks ago.

Behind the scenes a lot of work has been going on to titivate and tart up the design competition winning entry (described above), so that it meets the expectations of those same powers that be who would quite like to get the whole thing done in time for Rugby World Cup. The detail of all of that was provided at the meeting. Of course there are conversations to be had, and deals to be done, and funding to be found and finalised, and other design details to be worked through, and nothing was actually finalised.

But it's a worry. Not quite in the spirit of due process.

A strong whiff of ad hockery. Another classic Auckland moment. Reminiscent of Mallard's stadium Auckland moment. Is this the only way Auckland can do anything? And if we seriously believe Auckland governance needs to be changed to get good decisions, do we really think it appropriate to allow the existing dying regime - or even a fragment of it - to decide anything as precious as the waterfront?

I won't say any more about that meeting. But I am happy to share some of the concerns I had, and some of the research I carried out before the meeting. First of all I am aware that the Design Competition Panel prepared a final report. This recommends that QW04 is the winning entry. My understanding is that the main reason it won is that it scraps Shed 10, to ensure that the cruise ship terminal part of its design can deliver the rigid requirements of the design competition brief. The brief is onerous. It talks about the need for 8000 square metres of cruise ship building space. It talks about other building requirements to meet the needs of the cruise ship industry. It turns out that there is no way these specified needs can, or could, be met by any adaptive re-use of Shed 10. That is a principle reason why QW04 won.

In other words, the price of the cruise ship terminal, is Shed 10. The Design Panel basically found that you can't have both. And clearly the security and other needs of the cruise ship terminal will always rule when it comes to public space and provision as well. And if the ARC Chairman has his way, both sides of Queens Wharf will be sacrificed to cruise ship heaven. To P&O et al.

Question: where do cruise ships to Sydney dock? Do they tie up by the Opera House - ie slap bang in the middle of downtown CBD? Answer: No they don't. Here's one place. Nice location by the bridge. But not in the heart of the CBD. And take a look at the buildings used for the ship. Beautiful use when the ship's not there. Question: Where are they planning to put the Wellington Cruise Ship terminal? In the heart of Wellington's downtown waterfront CBD? Answer: No. The plan is to put it between Te Papa and the Freyberg Pool. Well away from Wellington's downtown waterfront.

It is plain stupid to shove ships into and almost onto Auckland's downtown CBD waterfront. This space needs to be reserved for promenading and public amenity and public fun.

And here's the other thing I spoke about at the confidential meeting. Remember when Queen Mary 2 came to Auckland? Fantastic wasn't it. Everybody wanted to see her. Here she is. Parked at a container terminal. She was too big for Princes Wharf. And she's too big for Queens Wharf. So. Even if the powers that be spend a whole heap of money building the titivated cruise ship terminal on Queens Wharf, the Queen Mary will still have to park at Auckland's container terminal. How World Class is that? Queen Mary 2 is 1132 feet long. That's almost 200 feet longer than the Diamond Princess photographed at Princes Wharf above. When I asked the question about this, at the confidential meeting, I was advised that Queens Wharf needs to be strengthened to take a ship as heavy as Queen Mary 2, and lengthened as well. I was also advised that the contract with Ports of Auckland does allow for lengthening, but that the cost for lengthening has not be budgeted for. Last time I looked the resource consent process for lengthening Auckland's wharves had not suddenly become any easier. I checked the internet to see what the trend was for cruise ships. Queen Mary 2 was - for a short time - the longest cruise ship in the world. However I learned that Royal Carribean - a major competitor for P&O - has completed, or almost completed, two cruise ships that are bigger than Queen Mary 2. One's called Oasis of the Seas (1187 feet), the other's called Genesis (1180 feet). And apparently larger cruise ship vessels are on the horizon.

How world class would Auckland look if ships like these, and Queen Mary 2, had to dock at a container wharf? Remember the big container ship debate? Auckland was going to lose out on the world shipping stage if it didn't dredge Rangitoto Channel and expand Ferguson Terminal. These monty container ships needed water depth and berth length. So we spent the money. Why not take a whole of waterfront perspective in planning for cruise ships AND public space. No need to cram everything onto Queens Wharf. Take a bigger look.

What is happening is not a positive reflection on Auckland planning. I say, let's stop this waterfront ad hockery. By all means spend $10 million - or even $20 million - on Party Central on Queens Wharf. But don't rush something ill-thought-out onto Queens Wharf. It's too precious.

POSTSCRIPT (dated 15th January 2010). You will have noted the discussion in NZ Herald over the past few days. Orsman's front page reveal all was triggered by this blog. The subsequent debate has engaged the attention of the PM who has blocked proposals for a major and hasty redevelopment. Interestingly, Cooper and Company have come up with a "redevelop 30 metres of land behind the red fence and keep Quay Street as it is". Which has a degree of popularity about it. I think it's another short term fix. Quay Street's use has to change otherwise Auckland CBD will be separated from its waterfront by a traffic artery/sewer.