Auckland Waterfront Lacks Leadership

Went to the Auckland Waterfront Forum yesterday. Four presentations: Feedback from Waterfront Development Agency "Masterplan" consultation; Wynyard Quarter Public Space Project; Queens Wharf Development; and Westhaven. Very interesting. Then questions. Major concerns emerged from the floor. Not well handled from the front. Hence this open letter....

Dear Bob,

You're not going to like this letter but you like robust feedback. One of the things I liked about the way you got the meeting going was when you spoke directly to Alex Swney and told him you respected what he was doing with 'Heart of the City'. You reflected and said, "we don't care enough about enough in this city..."

And I liked the breakfast. Man that Bircher Muesli was the best I've had in ages. And great idea to serve it in those fancy cocktail glasses. Must've cost an arm and a leg though. Thought we were on a budget....

Enjoyed Brenna's feedback presentation. I can imagine how much effort went into smoothing out the wrinkles. You clearly liked the fact that 83% of the feedback was positive. Well. The public like what they see on Wynyard - and most were duped by the glossy images in the coffee table publication you put out. A few of us understood enough, saw behind the pictures enough, and cared enough, to put in submissions of concern about the 1989 Port-Expansion plans that were buried in there and the hasty Cruise-on-Queens plans. These concerns did get a mention from Brenna.

What also got a mention was the Peer Review you had done by Arup Australia of your Waterfront Development Plan consultation process. This has to be a must-read. I saw there in the fine print of Brenna's presentation on screen that you guys got a 'tick' for heritage and stuff, but you got a 'cross' for environment and leadership. That must've come as a bit of a shock to the Board.

After Brenna we had Henry Crother's excellent work on Wynyard's public spaces. And then Queens Wharf by staff member John Smith who I remember well from my time at Auckland Regional Council. Then Westhaven. And then questions. And statements.

It was pretty much sitting room only in the Floating Pavillion which had gently rocked us all throughout. Not to the point the Bircher Muesli was threatened, but a few of us were a bit seasick.

Jasmax Principal, Richard Harris made the ballsiest statement. It was ballsy because Jasmax have been retained to do the Queens Wharf Shed 10 Cruise Ship Terminal design. You hardly every hear from contractors, or would-be contractors, in an environment like that. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. But these are the guys who know their onions. And they care. But there is a sort of misplaced code of ethics that shuts most of them up - just when you really need to hear from them. So we heard you Richard. Richard said loud and clear that the Waterfront Masterplan was not an Integrated Plan - because it had not properly considered the Port Expansion plans. His was a leadership statement.

I hope you heard what Richard said, Bob. Really heard. Because if you didn't you're in the wrong job.

Greg McKeown also asked you a question, Bob. But you didn't really answer it. Greg started by saying he was heartened by your sympathetic words recognising public concerns about the Port plans, but that he couldn't quite reconcile those words with the technical papers and policy positions on your website. I don't think you heard what Greg was saying. He is always polite. Or maybe you decided to smile and move on. But you're not a man averse to a down-trou, so I'll say it plain. You're being two-faced about the Port, Bob. Is that your Board's position too?

There is that big Arup 'X' against your leadership....

To be fair, Bob, you did describe the Port as 'the elephant in the room...'

But the Port isn't the only elephant.

In Brenna's presentation the Waterfront Forum was advised that Queens Wharf Cruise Ship terminal Resource Consents would be 'granted in July 2012'. I used my question to ask John Smith what consents were being applied for, what the process would be, and whether the applications would be notified.

John told the meeting that discussions were occurring with Council staff, and that he would get back to me when he had more information.

I have to tell you Bob, that I was somewhat disappointed to hear this. You praise the planning work that delivered what we see at Wynyard. You probably know that Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council sweated blood over the plan changes and resource consent applications and public hearings that hammered out the planning framework for what we see today. So John's answer to my question should concern you and your Board. It's shonky.

Bit like that stormwater pipe in Glen Eden. Shonky.

You guys are planning a major change in the use of Queens Wharf (Cruise Ship Terminal), with a whole pile of different environmental effects (traffic on Quay Street, passengers in buses and taxis, conflicts with public access - all different from before), without going through due process.

Would you allow a private developer to do what you plan to do with Queens Wharf without a decent set of resource consents and conditions?

Auckland Council is the other elephant that was in the room yesterday. The biggest elephant in fact.

Show your board and Auckland some leadership Bob. Then we'll give you a 'TICK'.

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.

Wynyard Quarter Playground Con Job

This picture features prominently in the Auckland Council Waterfront Development Plan. I think it was taken from the top of one of the cement silos. Great picture. Symbolises all that the public have come to love about the Wynyard Quarter. It is called Silo Park after all. So it feels like a park, the section with seating and cildren's playground and wide open spaces. It feels like a park because no-one's near enough to ask you for money. But.... As Heart of the City have highlighted in their public campaign: it's a con. The very popular open spaces that make up the children's playground and other delightful public spaces today are planned for buildings tomorrow. Not public spaces....

I produced this image from a computer model of the proposed Wynyard Quarter development. I made it while serving as an ARC Councillor a few years ago to get a better picture of what was planned. I've put a children's playground in here - around about where it is today. You will see there is a lot of empty space in the graphic - like you see today. You can see the two buildings that have been built on North Wharf on either side of the NetShed (which is hidden between them). You can also see Sanford's fish restaurant which is beside the modelled ASB tower building that's going up now...

All that's changed in this graphic is that I've taken away the children's playground from the model. I've taken it away because it won't be there when the development that has been planned goes ahead. The next few images show what is planned for this part of Wynyard Quarter over the next decade or so....

So here's the "mixed use" building planned for the site of the children's playground and the sandy area. The building will be about 5 stories high.... By the way, in the bottom left of the image you can see the top of a cement silo. Which is around about where the Waterfront Development Plan photo was taken from...

Anothern five storey building is planned along the Jellicoe Street alignment. It will run close to the silos as you can see in this picture. It will complete the northern wall of buildings along the northern side of Jellicoe Street.

Two buildings have been added here. A five storey mixed use building on the left side of the Sanford's Restaurant is provided for in the plans. This building will be almost as high as the section of the ASB building on the other side (RHS) of Sanfords. You can get an idea from this image how tiny the Sanfords building will look compared to its new modern neighbours. (I wasn't the only one worried by the lack of heritage respect.) The other new building is the "cheese wedge" to the left, along Wynyard Wharf. This is planned to be 5 stories high and is intended to be a residential development block.

This image shows the rest of the planned development along the southern edge of Jellicoe. Building heights range from 5 to 8 (I think) stories high. Mostly mixed use. Some activation at Jellicoe Street level. This image gives an idea of the urban canyon design that is planned for Jellicoe Street. (Love the open space feel it now has - while you can.)

This image shows the rest of the planned development approximately in alignment with the gantry structure that has been erected. These buildings are planned to house a mix of commercial and light industrial uses and will be built on sites presently occupied by some of the storage tanks.

TEXT

This image gives an impression of what you will see from a lower elevation, looking along Jellicoe at about the 3rd storey. (NB: At the end of Jellicoe there is the walking bridge which is not shown in this graphic.) The purpose of my computer generated impression is to convey a sense of the urban design that is actually planned for Jellicoe when all of the anticipated building development is complete. It is not a park at all. A far cry from what you see now, and from the misleading impression in the photographs used in the Waterfront Development Plan. Why? You might think. Well. The Waterfront Development Plan as it stands is like a coffee table prospectus for future investors in Wynyard Quarter. They will love the pictures of smiling people. Future customers for their future developments. It's a brochure for investors rather than genuine consultation. I think the kind of public confusion that these images cause, can lead to a false sense of comfort, a false feeling that - at last - Council is taking seriously public calls for quality waterfront public space. It is also why I am concerned that the same sort of private development overcrowding will occur elsewhere on Auckland's waterfront (as it did on Princes Wharf). I had hoped for a more honest communication from Waterfront Development Agency. It does not augur well for what is planned behind closed doors for Queens Wharf.

Auckland Waterfront Plan Conflict

Transformational Move 8 -
Revitalising the Waterfront -
Water City...

This is the heading for the part of the Auckland CBD MasterPlan draft (voted on by Auckland Council at its Future Vision Ctte meeying on August 31st) that deals with the waterfront.

Interesting that this is given advance airing on this agenda. Before the Waterfront Development Agency has said much publicly. Or released its own draft plan. A sign perhaps that Auckland Council is tightening its control of its CCOs. Apart from Watercare.... Not necessarily a sign of conflict. But certainly a sign of control...

I have looked through the various documents to discern the Council's logic and vision for Queens Wharf. And this is what I have found out so far, in the proposed plans, which are being put out for public consultation later this month:

That Queens Wharf is to become part of what is termed the "cruise hub" terminal for New Zealand for the "next 15 years".... This will require "the redevelopment of Shed 10, supported by the Cloud structure together with a secondary terminal at Princes Wharf". Apparently this: "cruise terminal project (2012-2018) will deliver a world-class, multi-cruise terminal on Queens Wharf..."

Comment: The fine print here suggests that the Cloud will stay for 15 years. The fine print also indicates it is planned that the Queens Wharf cruise terminal is planned for at least 2 cruise ships at a time (multi-ship). While the words "cruise hub" don't say "hubbing terminal", that is the clear inference.

Both of these plans seriously threaten the public use of, and access to, Queens Wharf. I find them completely out of place on a people's waterfront.

The numbers used to support this use of Queens Wharf are hard to find. But one is quoted in the report to councillors. It states: "each year 2.5 million visitors arrive in Auckland by air or cruise ship...the challenge is to make them stay longer...".

Comment: We know Auckland is a tourist gateway. And it's good to retain the tourism dollar in Auckland. But Auckland is also home to 1.5 million locals. And it would be good to retain some of their visitor dollars in Auckland also - and one way to do that - as we are belatedly discovering at Wynyard Quarter - is provide high quality, full of activities, waterfront public spaces and places.

But if you really believed Auckland's economic salvation from the visitor economy was tourists, and if you get really picky, even naive, you might think it's better to drop those unsuspecting tourists as close to Queens Street as you can get them. Queens Wharf is closer than Auckland International Airport after all. But how many passengers are we talking about here, and how much do they spend while they are here - compared to Auckland's 1.5 million residents for example?

If you take a guess, and estimate 60 cruise ship visits with 1000 passengers each, and they seem to stay for 36 hours on average, that boils down to 90,000 visitor days a year. From cruise ship visits. And that's why the Council's quoted figure of "2.5 million" cruise ship and jet plane visitors each year is so misleading. Why? Well let me explain. For example, according to ShareChat's website on the performance of Auckland International airport, "Overall inbound tourism for the twelve months ended February 28 was up 2.5% to 2.5 million". Doesn't leave much room for cruise ship visitors does it? You can see from those two figures that the proportion of visitors coming by cruise ship is tiny - infinitesimal in fact. So this hardly justifies sacrificing a second central city wharf to their activities.

All Auckland would be doing would be providing free-parking for Carnival Australia CEO Ann Sherry's cruise ships. At great cost to Aucklanders.

And then there are the various visions and goals and outcomes in the CBD Masterplan. It appears that the Waterfront Development Agency have set four goals in its statement of intent, which it appears is being put out for consultation, but buried in the detail of Auckland Council's CBD Master Plan. The WDA wants this:

* A public waterfront: A place for all Aucklanders and visitors to Auckland, a destination that is recognised for its outstanding design and architecture, natural environmental quality, public spaces, facilities and events; a place where we can express our cultural heritage and history, and celebrate our great achievements as a city and nation.
* A working waterfront: a place for marine industries and businesses, local and international port activities; an attractor of further high value business investment and activity, the location that supports authentic and gritty waterfront activities that must locate here.
* A growing waterfront: The critical location of sustainable urban transformation and renewal in Auckland, where we must demonstrate international best practice and innovation; achieve a significant lift in Auckland’s and NZ’s productivity; the most liveable of New Zealand’s central city urban communities; a vibrant mix of residents, business and employees, visitors, and activities.
* A connected waterfront: A place where people are highly connected locally and with the inner city, to the rest of Auckland and New Zealand; that is highly accessible and safe for pedestrians, cyclists, and passengers, with telecommunications that support connectivity.

Comment: I quite liked these. Well. Apart from the "A growing waterfront" one. Strange words. Calls to mind a doubling of POAL reclamation. You know. Heaps more containers. It's about growth. rather than development. So not really good for the "S" word. The sustainability word. But I love the top one. That's about a public waterfront first (for all Aucklanders and visitors to Auckland - fantastic - love those words), and a working waterfront second.

But what's really interesting is that Auckland Council has taken these goals, and used them to assess its "cruise hub" plan for Queens Wharf. They come to this conclusion:

Man oh man. Auckland Councillors actually voted for this. They seriously believe that a multi-ship hubbing cruise ship terminal on Queens Wharf is going to: "enhance public access to, and enjoyment of, Queens Wharf...", and thereby deliver on the Waterfront Development Agency's vision. Think again guys.

And again. Have you done the cost benefit analysis? Have you really weighed the social costs against the economic benefits (remember the tiny numbers) so that you put your hands up and say, yes, we genuinely believe, that a multi-ship hubbing cruise ship terminal on Queens Wharf: "enhances the waterfront as a visitor and waterfront destination, resulting in economic benefits..."

Because that's what you voted for. You voted to double, maybe even triple, central cruise-ship parking places in the heart of Auckland. Thankfully you are consulting over it. Wonder what the WDA thinks about this?

What is it about cruise ships?

Talk about being taken for a ride.