ARC votes to combine Slug & Shed on QW!

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

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

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

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

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

Navy Adapts Heritage Sheds

This is a great little story and I am proud to share it with greater Auckland. This is a view of North Head Devonport, from Mt Victoria. You can see the old military base buildings on North Head - now occupied by DOC. Dept of Conservation.

Looking closer, down by the water, you can see the Navy land at Torpedo Bay. That's the refurbished Torpedo Wharf.

And even closer you can see two shed like buildings on the waterfront, overlooked by residential buildings - many of them heritage villas.

This is the larger of the two sheds, and will soon open as the Navy Museum. I understand the opening of the museum is sometime in October this year. You can see Mt Victoria in the background.

The shed has been reclad in corrugated iron, but retains many of its features. The original shed was built over a hundred years ago, and was an important part of the harbour's defences against seaborn invasion.

This view of the shed frontage shows a modern style entry area has been designed for public entry and also to house a sea view cafe.

The windows are original - old drawings of the original shed showed these windows in this position. A heritage architect was retained by the Navy to get the detail as right as they could for their tight budget of less than $1.5 million for the whole job.

Inside the entry is the white reception and interpretation area. The original ironwork supporting the roof is a feature.

The main part of the museum is in sharp dark contrast. Again the original roof structure is evident. When first built this area was where the mines were assembled before being put in position across the harbour entrance. The wooden structures are being added later - within the shed envelope - to house the Navy's collection of exhibits and museum displays.

Again, this dark space is lined with the original doors that led to the areas where the mines and explosives were stored.

There are 3 mine and explosive storage areas. These have the highest historic values I understand, and their restoration will be more detailed and painstaking. You can see on the floor the original rail tracks used for the trollies that carried the mines and their makings into the assembly area.

This picture shows the roof, which is curved, around 2 feet thick of concrete, which was poured into shape and supported by rail-lines structures that you can see in the ceiling.

The doorways, windows and walls are around 2 feet thick concrete also. Designed to withstand a significant explosion.

The explosives storage areas fit against the cliff with its coastal pohutakawa. Creating interesting spaces for education and coffee away from the wind.

The whole area has many interesting places to sit and explore. Whereever possible the design has incorporated the old and original woodwork and corrugated iron work and concrete.

Somehow it all blends into the surrounding Devonport landscape.

And here's the other shed, which sits alongside Torpedo Wharf.

It's an old structure too, needed some serious love and attention.

It was the Boat Shed at Torpedo Bay.

And inside it's a magic place. Well done Navy. You've shown Auckland what can be done within a tight budget, working with the Historic Places Trust, to adaptively reuse your old sheds. Fantastic.

Save Our Iconic Sheds

New Zealand loves its sheds. Corrugated iron ones especially. This rail shed is an iconic part of the Otago Rail Trail - one of New Zealand's tourism success stories.

They make great paintings. Iconic paintings and images. Recalling our history and our attachment to it. Grahame Sydney painted this one.

And all over New Zealand, when the old shed gets a bit too tired, because the galvanize has failed and there's not been any paint around, you can always replace it with another one. But the old one remains. A memory.

So let's paint our sheds red for the time being and enjoy them for a while. At least till after the rugby world cup in 2011. That's if you like barn red as a colour...

Or green if you feel like the Wedderburn touch. Maybe a bit lurid. But fun all the same...

Or red and green. Should never be seen...

Or just plain old black and white - a black one and a white one.

And then you can add the fern. Great look for Auckland and the visiting cruise ships. Don't demolish them. Re-use them. Go down there on Sunday. This Sunday the 25th April. The sheds are open to view on Queens Wharf from 1:00pm to 5:00pm or so, and it's party time down there. Acts, theatre, food, fun. Bring the family. Make your claim to these iconic New Zealand sheds.

Queens Wharf Designs - Not a flop

Dear NZ Herald Editor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely, Joel Cayford

Queens Wharf Design Competition underway...

About time. A few conflicted agendas to sort out, but at last the competition is underway. I am delighted to see that the competition provides for "adaptive reuse" of the existing sheds. It also provides for the option of an iconic disruption of the wharf as well....

Time will tell. It looks like the total duration of the competition - it is in 2 stages - is about 8 weeks. That's for those who make it into stage 2....

I think this space needs to become a social space for Auckland and Aucklanders.

Think of it as: myspace.auckland.com

Sure it's a big place, and can be used for other purposes from time to time, like docking cruise-ships, but its downtown location and proximity to public transport links screams out that this needs to become a public space. A social place.....

The organisers/key agencies for this competition have set up a website.
Check it out at: http://www.queenswharf.org.nz/

The timetable for the competition is:

Mon 24 August 2009
Stage 1 design competition opens
» Learn More
Fri 28 August 2009
Design contestant briefing and Q&A session (optional)

Fri 11 September 2009
Stage 1 design competition closes, 12 noon

Sun 13 September 2009
Public exhibition of designs opens
» Learn More
Sun 13 September 2009
Queens Wharf public access day
» Learn More
Mon 14 September 2009
Evaluation starts on submitted designs
Fri 25 September 2009
Short list of designs to go forward announced
Mon 28 September 2009
Start of detailed development for short list designs (Stage 2)

Fri 16 October 2009
Close of detailed development for short list designs, 12 noon

Mon 19 October 2009
Evaluation starts on detailed designs

Fri 30 October 2009
Conclusion of the evaluation of detailed designs

Mon 06 November 2009
Winner announced during this week

So. get on down there for the site visit on Sunday 13th September.
Liberate the place with your presence.
Take your camera and take lots of pictures.

Queens Wharf - a couple of shed pics from the old days

I've mentioned the fact the Queens Wharf sheds had verandahs in times past.

Thought you might be interested in the evidence.

The wharves also had a couple of other interesting building shapes.

Thought you might be interested in those too. See the picture below.

Don't forget, the wooden structure that makes up the ferry terminal today, is the heritage outline from those same times....

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 - Access, working, and sheds

Wellington waterfront. Midwinter pictures. Access 1.

These steps lead down from Oriental Parade.
From the street. Inviting. Immediate.
Wellington waterfront. Midwinter pictures. Access 2.

This inner harbour shingle beach is easily accessed by these steps. Not just for the birds. Covered at high tide, but fun at low tide. Throw a few stones. Paddle maybe...

Wellington waterfront. Midwinter pictures. Access 3.

Or more serious step down access.
Sit with your feet in the water.
Choose the right step. Nice...


Wellington waterfront. Midwinter pictures. Access 4.

If you want to launch a canoe or other small boat, this is the access for you. Inviting, convenient...

Wellington waterfront. Midwinter pictures. Men at work 1.

Boats from the fishing fleet moor here, so you can look. And see...

Wellington waterfront. Midwinter pictures. Men at work 2.

This cafe is across the walkway and waterfront from the heavy lift and mast stepping workplace. Coffee or a beer while they work away...

Wellington waterfront. Midwinter pictures. Blue shed 1.

There's nothing like a few sheds...

Wellington waterfront. Midwinter pictures. Blue shed 2.

Especially one with an open door. Tempting...

Wellington waterfront. Midwinter pictures. Blue shed 3.

You never know what's behind the door...