Masonic Hotel - Devonport - Evidence and History

Claudia Page is co-convenor of the Masonic Friendly Society Inc, an incorporated Society with a current membership of 389. The group was registered as an Incorporated Society on 19 August 2008, and registered with the Charities Commission on 10 June 2009. It has been fighting against destructive redevelopment of the Masonic Hotel in Devonport.

The Society has appealed to the Environment Court against a resource consent obtained from North Shore City Council by the owner of the Masonic Hotel to redevelop the site.

The case has yet to be heard. However, a very considerable body of evidence has been unearthed and researched by the Society. This information is of enormous value.

Given this material is now in the public domain, I have copied a tiny fraction of it below. Should anyone wish to see more, then I am sure a donation to the Masonic Friendly Society would secure copies of this material.

Below is a little snippet of the history of Masonic Hotel that has been uncovered by Susan Joffe, who is an independent historical researcher, and which is contained in her substantial evidence to the Environment Court....

Figure 1. Masonic Hotel, c.1879. J. Richardson.

3. Summary of History

3.1 Masonic Hotel was built in 1866 by George Beddoes under contract to Thomas John Duder. It was intended to be a resort for wealthy travelers and a holiday destination. With eleven bedrooms and two sitting rooms on the second storey all well decorated and furnished. The ground floor rooms catered to gentlemen’s
sports such a billiards and meeting rooms.

3.2 It immediately became the center of social and commercial activity in the new settlement of East Devonport. It was the watering hole for workers in the shipyards of Torpedo Bay and the meeting place for community groups, sports clubs and local government – Flagstaff Highway Board.

3.3 Photographs of this time show the thriving industry on the foreshore – ship
building, timber milling, wharves with unloading scows.

3.4 The 1883 extension added more bedrooms and kitchen was moved to in a separate building. The south and west facades were altered. It was renamed Pearce’s Masonic Hotel.

3.5 It remained the premier hotel in Devonport until the Esplanade 1902. At this time the commercial center had gradually moved to Victoria Road. However, the
community use of the facility for celebrations and meetings continued.

3.6 The hotel narrowly escaped a fire that damaged the separate two storied building housing servants rooms and the kitchen in 1905.

3.7 Masonic Hotel was sold out of the Duder family in 19247 and, after less than a
decade in private ownerships, was bought by Dominion Breweries in 1937.

3.8 Alterations in the 1960s included the filling in of the verandas.

3.9 With the extension of the licensing hours in 1967 it became Masonic Tavern and
no longer provided accommodation....


4. Historic Significance

There are many aspects to be considered when evaluating historical and cultural
significance. The Masonic Tavern (Hotel) is over 140 years and is therefore
valued for its age. Having been designed by one of Auckland’s early architects
and that the form and ornamentation are typical of public buildings of the time,
also attracts merit. However, it is the social and community values and the part it
has played in the history of the development of Devonport, the associations with
events and people that are of utmost importance in assigning historical
significance in this case.

Dr David Throsby Professor of Economics at Macquarie University, Melbourne
has researched and written widely on the cultural value of heritage buildings.
These values are multi faceted and include the aesthetic, spiritual, social, historic,
symbolic and educational. They are not easily translated into economics as there
is no single unit of account but attempts are being made. The non use values
include the fact that heritage buildings exist, are part of the landscape, are
pleasant to look at and contribute to a sense of well being and belonging.
Heritage buildings are cultural capital that demand a duty of care. There must be
a balancing of economic and cultural values to ensure that future generations have
equitable access to our heritage.

The following definitions are taken from the Auckland City Council assessment
criteria 2009 (draft)
4.1 People: Is the place directly associated with the life or works of well-known or
important individuals?

The Masonic Hotel’s association with person or persons is significant.

The name Duder is inextricably linked with the early Development of Devonport.

Thomas Duder owned the land the Masonic is built on, caused it to be built and the hotel remained in the family for nearly sixty years.

Robert Duder lived in the hotel for many years and many of the Duder enterprises were concentrated in the immediate vicinity.(Annex I p.19)

George Beddoes a pioneering shipbuilder, the first industry in Devonport, built the hotel.(Annex p.25)

Richard Keals one of New Zealand’s early architect who built many public
buildings, designed the hotel (Annex II p.22)

Edward Bartley architect of 1883 additions is recognized as a leading influence in colonial architecture, designed the 1883 alterations.(Annex II p.28)

4.2 Themes/subthemes: – does the place have a direct and demonstrable association with important aspects of historical significance?

4.2.1 Masonic’s role in the rivalry over the establishment of the commercial center of Devonport. The Masonic was built as a direct result of the opposition to the Holmes Bros. establishment of the Flagstaff Hotel on the foreshore at Victoria Road. The competition to have the center of commercial and civic activity at Church Street involved prominent leaders in the development of Devonport who – who are commemorated in place names.

4.2.2 Contribution to Devonport becoming a holiday destination .
The Masonic Hotel was designed for the holidaying families,
honeymooners and invalids and recuperating patients.
This was reported in the accounts of the opening which extol the well
appointed bedrooms, sitting rooms and sanitary facilities. Mr Cock in his
opening speech expressly mentions that he does not want to cultivate the
‘bar trade’. He also planned to build bathing sheds – salt water and
swimming was considered to have curative powers. The bathing machine
was built in 1869 by Mr James.

The tourism attractions in Devonport were expanded with the Esplanade
Hotel built in 1902 and the Ventnor on King Edward Parade.
The North Auckland Hotel at Stokes Point (Northcote) was built for
travelers going north or coming to the city. It was a holiday destination.
It burnt down and was replaced by the Northcote Tavern.
Masonic remained as a hotel until 1967 when it became a tavern.

4.3 Rarity: Is the place unique, uncommon at a district, regional or national level in relation to particular historic themes?

4.3.1 The Masonic is oldest hotel (tavern) in Devonport and arguably the oldest building in the area. The hotel has served the public in the same fashion for 143 years apart from offering accommodation, which ceased forty years ago.

4.3.2 The two other hotels opened in 1866 in Victoria Road, British Hotel and Victoria Hotel had both ceased to exist by mid 1880s.

4.4 Social Values: Community association Is the place important to a community
because of the associations and meaning developed through use and association?
Identity: Is the place a focus of community identity or sense of place, and
does it have social value and provide evidence of cultural or historical
continuity.

Throughout its history the Masonic has been a meeting place for locals,
and venue for social occasions. It is identified with the beginnings of
many of Devonport’s sports clubs – many of which are still functioning.

The Flagstaff hotel no longer exists and the Esplanade built in 1902 cannot claim to have played a similar role in the life of the community as the Masonic. Being forty years later it was not the center of the development of local politics, sports clubs and other social activities of the young settlement.

Even before it officially opened its doors the Masonic Hotel was the center of social activity in the community. In July 1866 a lunch was held to
celebrate the launching of a ship.

Significant to the yachting community from the early days of Auckland
Regatta to Peter Blake planning for his America’s Cup Campaign, the
Masonic has served this maritime community.

Throughout its existence the Masonic has played host to the various
defence forces occupying North Head and Fort Tamaki.

Of more recent times it has been the venue for developing musical talent
as being in a band has become a right of passage for Devonport youth.

4.5 Public esteem: Is the place held in high public esteem for its local or
district significance of cultural sentiment?

The Masonic Hotel and the buildings around are valued as evidence of the early days of Devonport and the industry and commerce that gave thrived there. It was the first public meeting space. The first local government entity, the Flagstaff Highway Board Annual Meeting 1867. The meeting for fund raising for the Devonport Hall was held there.

The hotel itself has been host to generations of Devonportians who enjoy
the knowledge that their grandfather celebrated in the same hotel.

It holds a special place as the venue for the beginnings of sports clubs
their meetings and after match celebrations....

Interesting, don't you think. And that's just a taste of the detail and colour that has been uncovered by Susan Joffe. Other affidavits add considerable architectural detail. Worth protecting that heritage and those historic connections with old Auckland. Great work guys.
You can see more at: http://www.masonicfriendlysociety.org/

North Shore - as recommended by Local Government Commission

This blog contains extracts from the Local Government Commission Super City Boundary, Ward and Board recommendations that relate to North Shore City. The LGC has recommended that North Shore be divided into one and a half, 2 member wards for SuperCity representation. The extra half of the northern ward is "taken" from Rodney District, to form a ward that extends from Mairangi Bay up and including the Whangapaoroa Peninsula....

These 2 Super City wards are made up of 3 Local Boards....

And each of these Local Boards are further divided into Subdivisions, which each have a quota of members. Candidates will stand for a specific subdivision. This is to ensure that each community of interest has representation on the Local Board...

The relevant maps are below...


North Shore Ward
This map shows the North Shore Ward of the proposed Auckland Council. It extends from Campbells Bay in the North, to Devonport in the South, across to Northcote, and up to Beachhaven. It will have two councillors elected at large across the ward. Thus voters will cast two votes, for their preferred two Auckland Councillors. It will have two Local Boards - maps shown further below.




Hibiscus-Albany-East Coast Bays Ward
This map shows the Hibiscus-Albany-East Coast Bays Ward of Auckland council. (By the way - the LGC expects submissions about names. What should this Ward be named?) This ward will have 2 Auckland Councillors elected at large from across the Ward. Voters will have two votes to cast for their ward councillors. This ward extends from Wairewa in the the north, to Mairangi Bay in the south. It includes Paremoremo and Greenhithe. It will have just one Local Board. Map below.










Glenfield/Birkenhead Local Board
This map shows the Glenfield/Birkenhead Local Board, which is contained in the North Shore Ward of Auckland City Council. This Local Board is divided into 2 subdivisions: The Glenfield subdivision will be represented by 3 members on that Local Board, while the Birkenhead subdivision will also be represented by 3 members on that Local Board. Giving a total of 6 members.

Devonport/Takapuna Local Board
This map shows the Devonport/Takapuna Local Board, which is contained in the North Shore Ward of Auckland City Council. This Local Board is divided into 2 subdivisions: The Devonport subdivision will be represented by 2 members on that Local Board, while the Takapuna subdivision will be represented by 3 members on that Local Board. Giving a total of 5 members. (This tends to suggest that Takapuna will always have a majority on that Board....)












Hibiscus/Albany/ECB Local Board
This map shows the Hibiscus/Albany/ECB Local Board, which is contained in the Hibiscus/Albany/East Coast Bays Ward of Auckland City Council. This Local Board is divided into 3 subdivisions: The Hibiscus subdivision will be represented by 3 members on that Local Board, and the Albany subdivision will also be represented by 3 members on that Local Board, and the East Coast Bays subdivision will also be represented by 3 members on that Local Board. Giving a total of 9 members.

Local Government Commission Recommendations for SuperCity

I went along to the Hyatt Auckland on Friday - with keen interest - to hear the Local Government Commission (LGC) announce its recommendations for SuperCity Ward and Local Board structure plus boundaries. About a hundred of us gathered in the darkened room, which probably had room for a hundred more at the while cloth covered tables that awaited us. One table at the back groaned under the weight of copies of map books and reports that contained the LGC recommendations (these were handed out after the Commissioners presented their power point summary.)

Sue Piper, Chair of the LGC, emphasised at the beginning that Auckland Council, plus the Local Boards, would be involved in: "shared decision-making". And that set the scene. We also heard from Grant Kirby and Gwen Bull - the other two commissioners.

I won't summarise the recommendations here, because these are reasonably public, but you can get the report (a good read), and the maps, at this link:
http://www.lgc.govt.nz/lgcwebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Auckland-Governance-Proposals-for-Wards-Local-Boards-and-Boundaries-for-Auckland!OpenDocument

The very broad numbers in the recommendations are these:

- there will be eight 2-member wards
- there will be four single-member wards (Rodney, Franklin, Maungawhau - Auckland CBD and environs plus Hauraki Gulf Islands, New Lynn)
- there are 19 Local Boards, of these 13 will have Subdivisions (with specific numbers of Board Members elected from each Subdivision)
- the Local Boards vary considerably in size, with from 5 to 9 members

I published my view about what was needed from the LGC, in September, at:
http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/09/supercity-boundaries-and-local.html

I argued there in support of Multi-Member Wards for Auckland City (ie not single member wards), and also in support of fewer and larger Local Boards - with no more than 3 for the present area of North Shore City.

The LGC recommendations are along these lines, and so I am relieved. I know that not everybody agrees with this approach, but in my view, provided Local Boards are delegated significant local responsibilities, duties, roles, powers, and commensurate funding tools - then the shared decision-making structure recommended by the LGC will make the best of the severe re-structuring of Auckland local government.

To conclude I quote a couple of chunks from the LGC report:

Re Multi-Member Wards:

...."Apart from the arrangements for the two single-member wards for rural
Rodney and Franklin, we have proposed two-member wards in most cases.
We have found that in Auckland, two-member wards provide greater
opportunities than single-member wards to combine like communities of
interest and in other cases to avoid splitting communities of interest. Two member
wards also provide potential for more diverse representation of
communities at the council table and will provide a choice for residents on
who to approach with local concerns following the election.

We also note that larger ward areas would not require the degree of boundary
changes over time, as smaller wards would, in order to comply with the ‘+/-
10% fair representation rule’. We see this as an important consideration in
our objective to establish an enduring representation structure.
On the other hand, wards larger than two members would mean that
councillors could be seen as that much more remote from local communities.

Large wards are also seen by many as likely to discourage independent
candidates from standing at elections given the resources required to
campaign in such wards. On balance we believe two-member wards are
generally an appropriate size for wards. We also noted a level of support for
two-member wards in the initial views we received....

On Local Boards:

...."we noted a number of other provisions in the
Local Government (Auckland Council) Act relevant to the establishment of
local boards. These provisions include the decision-making responsibilities of
the Auckland Council which are to be shared between the Council itself and
the local boards. Principles for the allocation of decision-making
responsibilities under the Act include that decision-making for non-regulatory
activities should be exercised by local boards unless, for particular prescribed
reasons, decisions should be made by the Auckland Council.

To us, this suggests that boards will need to be of a sufficient size to ensure
they can attract capable people to stand for the board and they have the
ability to generate sufficient resources to undertake effective local-decisionmaking.
For example, a local board may wish to request the Auckland
Council to levy a targeted rate in its area to fund a particular local service or
amenity. To ensure this is effective, the local board area will need to be an
appropriate size, have boundaries that relate to local service delivery, and
contain sufficient capacity to support decision-making on such local services.

We also noted other provisions in the Act which we believe should be taken
into account when establishing local boards. In particular, will the total
number of boards impact on the ability of the Auckland Council to meet its
responsibilities? These provisions include the powers of the mayor, which
include establishing processes and mechanisms for community engagement.

There is also a requirement for the Auckland Council to have an agreement
between it and each of the local boards and for these agreements to be
included in the Council’s long-term council community plan. Clearly a
particularly large number of boards will affect the Council’s ability to carry out
these tasks efficiently and effectively....

You can see more in the very readable LGC report, accessible at the link above. Submissions are due by 11th December. These will be considered by the LGC, and their final determination must be completed by 1st March 2010.

Proposed Auckland Transport Agency

On Friday 20th November, Auckland Transition Agency (ATA) released a "draft organisational structure" for Auckland's Transport Agency. This short document can be downloaded from the front page of: http://www.ata.govt.nz/

A few thoughts strike me. The first is this....

The draft contains "the top three tiers" of the Auckland Transport Agency. Looking at this structure plan, with all of the boxes and all of the activities, I was reminded of a typical Council Traffic Engineering Department. It's mainly about roads: planning new roads, project specs for new roads, planning options for new roads, assessing new road options, designing new roads. And of course I appreciate and understand that roads are part of the transport system.

However, in established and built up cities, new road projects are thin on the ground. Because there's no land left for more roads. Instead emphasis is on re-allocating space on existing road reserves, providing much better share and quality for pedestrians and cyclists, and very much improving the look and feel of road edges, so that local economic development and economic activity is stimulated and thrives and flourishes.

Auckland needs to move to that way of thinking if it is to ever climb out of its current sprawling, energy and transport time wasting habits. And it needs institutions that reflect that need. ARTA - what we have now - does reflect that need. Its emphasis is travel demand management. Its driver is a Regional Land Transport Strategy which - while recognising the role that roads play in transport - calls for the delivery of multiple objectives and co-benefits.

There is very little balance in this proposed Auckland Transport Agency structure. It reflects colonial times - roads, roads roads - and roading infrastructure construction priorities.

The second thought that strikes me is driven by one of the "guiding principles" that apparently have guided this draft structure.

It goes like this: "The Auckland Transport Agency will be the subject of legislation which will set out its accountabilities and reporting relationships with Auckland Council as a council-controlled organisation (CCO)....."

So. The Government has yet to show its hand in respect of how the Auckland Transport Agency will be governed, and also who will govern it.

As a systematic sort of person, I go with the general idea that form follows function. That means when you design something, you first of all figure out what you want it to do. That would be a reasonable guiding principle.

But here, with this draft Auckland Transport Agency we have what amounts to a stand alone Traffic Engineering Agency, without any understanding as to how it will be accountable to SuperCity (let alone the New Zealand Transport Agency or to Central Government), nor any understanding as to the governance arrangements around such planning matters as: project prioritisation; budget allocations across activity classes (ie split in funding between roads, public transport, sustainable modes, land use stimuli - such as stations, undergrounding and such like); relative emphasis on demand management rather than supply management; marketing and communications; modelling....

Planning matters. And so does the governance of planning. It includes strategic planning. It includes funding. It links with important tools such as developer levies - both at regional and local levels. And it very strongly links with regional land use planning.

A great deal of careful thought was put into these governance and accountability matters when ARTA was established a few years ago. And while there may have been complaints, the model has worked well for the Auckland region.

My third thought....

ATA's proposals for the Auckland Transport Agency look very like Watercare. This organisation has operated independently for almost a decade, largely free of public scrutiny, implementing strategic infrastructure, its pumps one of the biggest consumers of Auckland electrical energy. And while Watercare has successfully built a number of large scale projects, it is way behind the eight-ball when it comes to best practice for water and wastewater. Auckland's trade waste record is abysmal. The fact Watercare is determined to dump biosolids in Puketutu reflects badly on Auckland's reputation. The fact Watercare obstructs initiatives to enable non-potable reuse of significant amounts of highly treated wastewater is another example.

Watercare may be viewed as a success by some. It has been a successful business. It has supported a substantial water and wastewater infrastructure industry sector. But it represents old thinking, and it resists efforts to achieve the broader co-benefits that arise from integrated planning. It is driven by supply management objectives - not demand management objectives. That is a major risk of the proposed Auckland Transport Agency CCO also.

As a contender for role of SuperCity Councillor, I view with growing concern the ability of the SuperCity to shape the future of Auckland through the tiny lever of Annual Statements of Intent of a plethora of powerful, independent, narrowly focussed CCOs.

(I thought CCO meant "Council Controlled Organisations")

Victoria and Alfred Waterfront - Capetown

Looking around the world for waterfronts a bit like Auckland, I came across the Victoria and Alfred waterfront in Capetown, South Africa. Others who have been there have told me about it before, but I'm seeing it though new eyes right now. The redevelopment shares quite a few characteristics with Auckland - not least being the similar age and similar buildings.

Anyway. Here's a bit of the history, and a few photos of what they've done....

"...Calls for greater public access and a wider use of Cape Town's historic harbour started in the early 1970's. In 1988, the then landowner (State-owned transport corporation, Transnet Limited) established a wholly owned subsidiary company, Victoria & Alfred Waterfront (Pty) Limited, to redevelop the historic docklands....

...This was received with large-scale public acclaim.... Since its origins in 1860, the Port of Cape Town has been the scene of excavations, reclamations, harbour construction programmes and land based developments....

By the time Prince Alfred* tipped the first load of stone into the sea to initiate construction of Cape Town's harbour, the trade routes to the East had transformed the city into a hive of seafront activity. The discovery of gold and diamonds in South Africa meant that the first section of harbour, the Alfred Basin, had to be added to and the Victoria Basin was built.

The area is notable for its outstanding heritage buildings. It retains the charm of Victorian industrial architecture and the scale of a harbour built for sail and the early days of steam travel.

In the 1970s, containerisation had developed worldwide as the major method of cargo handling and transportation. It was this, together with South Africa's economic isolation at the time and the reopening of the Suez Canal, that led to a sharp reduction in the utilisation of land and harbour facilities surrounding the Victoria & Alfred Basins. At the time, Transnet was in the process of rationalising harbour facilities and reviewing its harbour and other land holdings with particular emphasis on the returns being generated by these assets.

The Victoria & Alfred Waterfront project is the culmination of nearly three decades of planning and development proposals....."

Helensville Rail Service Trial Cancelled

I was Chair of ARC's Transport Committee in 2007 when the ARC voted in support of the Helensville Rail Service trial. At the time I opposed the trial, based on advice received from ARTA and from Connex - the precursor of Veolia. The decision to support the Helensville trial service was made by ARC politicians in the absence of a comprehensive officer report.

There was a lot of enthusiasm for the trial service among some ARC politicians: there had been passenger rail services to Helensville little more than 20 years ago; the line was there and in use by freight services (albeit slow - because of the poor state of the track); and there was strong support from the local Nor-West Rail Support Group. At the time rail patronage was growing strongly across the region and there was a feeling of success in the air....

The advice from ARTA and Connex was predominantly to the effect that regional financial resources were tight, that rail public tranport services are expensive (on a per kilometre basis), and that emphasis must be placed on maintaining and building high patronage core services. I can't recall the exact numbers, but the CEO of Connex advised me that extending the rail service to Helensville was equivalent to extending the length of Auckland's passenger rail line services by about 30% - with all of the attendant servicing costs - but without the justification of significant patronage. I well remember the CEO saying to me at the time, "it would be cheaper to buy each Helensville rail commuter a BMW".

Perth has extended the periphery of its passenger rail services to areas of very high growth. And while Helensville and Huapai and Waimauku will grow, growth is slow in sheer population terms, and competing bus services offer a better service than rail in terms of trip times and frequency. I appreciate the argument that growth could be shaped by the provision of good rails services also. However we need to be mindful of priorities for the money we have.

The figures provided to the ARC yesterday about the performance of the Helensville trial spoke for themselves. The Helensville Trial Service comprised one morning and one evening service to Britomart. The trip time was between 93 and 98 minutes. Bus journeys are quicker. For example the 6:34am Helensville to Britomart bus arrives at 7:50am, 17 minutes before the 6:32am Helensville to Britomart rail service.

The ARC report states that the annual net operating cost to ARTA for the trial service was $367,027. (Though this figure excludes Track Access fees and Station Maintenance.)

On average 14 passengers took each train to/from Helensville. That equated to a subsidy of $45.72/passenger for each trip @ 99 cents/kilometre. Thus the subsidy for a commuter round trip to Britomart was $90. For a commuter using the train for a year - 200 working days - this equates to an annual subsidy of $18,000/Helensville-CBD commuter. And overall this equates to $250,000 annual subsidy for 14 people - a high price to get 14 cars off the road. Maybe the Connex CEO's prediction was understated.

The figures provided in the ARC report do not include the cost of line access. This is the fee charged by Ontrack/Kiwirail, to generate the revenues they are reliant upon to carry out track maintenance. At the meeting a figure of $1.5 million was mentioned as the annual track access fee that would normally be payable for the 30km or so of additional track that is involved with the Helensville service. Apparently Ontrack agreed to waive the fee for the period of the trial.

So. The trial is over. Some investment - $1.25 million - was spent to upgrade station infrastructure and basic amenity. That investment should be protected for the future. And we all learned something. It is a good idea to connect growth areas with good public transport services, to prevent motorcar dominance. But that idea's time, has not yet come to Helensville.

Auckland Leaders want WOW on the Waterfront

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

Something's wrong in the state of Auckland.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I get the impression their advice was ignored.

The "we know best" approach won the day.

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

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

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

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

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

Queens Wharf - Let Sleeping Dogs Lie....

There's wisdom in the more considered remarks of Hamish Keith in today's NZ Herald, and also in the letter there by Architect and ideas man Stephen Smythe.

Their advice calls to mind a wise comment made to me by an experienced former councillor. He said, "a good day in council is one where a bad decision was not made..."

The Queens Wharf design brief was a bad decision because ARC wanted to turn Queens Wharf into Auckland's primary Cruise Ship Terminal - with Cruise Ships allowed on both sides. That's what killed the plan to have a great public space there.

ARC's plan - led by its Chair - should have been put out for public consultation, along with other broad ideas for the use of Queens Wharf - like emphasising its public purpose and ferry use and using its heritage buildings for other purposes - long before Auckland's design community was put to work designing a dog of a design. Trying to make a silk purse out of a dog's ear.

Government's idea of Party Central was always a good simple idea, because all it called for was some temporary renovation and structures. Put them up in time for the Rugby Event and take them down afterward. Use the time as an opportunity to experiment with ideas - as I wrote in the Herald months ago.

I have always wanted to see much more effort put into fixing the Cruise Ship terminal on Princes Wharf. Making it work better than it does now. I've seen reports which indicate that the Cruise Ship industry is not unhappy with Princes Wharf. Sure they'd like it to be better, and two terminals are always better than one, but hey - we only have a couple of these big wharves downtown.

In my opinion the Cruise Ship industry can have access to one of these - but we'll have the other one thank you very much. If there must be another cruise ship terminal, then allocate wharf space further east. Learn - again - from where Wellington is locating its new cruise ship terminal.

My objective through this whole sorry process is to ensure that the existing sheds are not lost and denigrated in a fervour of Iconic Cruise Ship terminalitis.

It has been disappointing to see politicians normally keen to save wooden hospital buildings and historic railway station buildings - all dilapidated and crumbly before careful conservation - jump so quickly to disparage and demolish Queens Wharf's extraordinary sheds. The Heritage Assessments I have read - which have yet to be shared with the public - indicate these are treasures of national importance.

The NZ Historic Places Trust’s Northern Registrar, Martin Jones, who is researching the history of the sheds and wharf, says this in his account of the role this infrastructure played: “The sheds on Queen’s Wharf are the last remaining structures associated with that huge ‘machinery’ of export and as such are an extremely important part of the country’s economic as well as social heritage.” He writes: "The history of Queen’s Wharf sheds and their place in the maritime landscape make them every bit as important as the iconic Ferry Building...”

“The Sydney Blue Gum joists and decking, riveted metal frames, and original electric lifts add character to both buildings which are striking for their modern ‘industrial’ appearance. They have considerable potential to be successfully readapted for new use both inside and out.”

Martin notes further: “The sheds are the last link to a waterfront history that shaped Auckland, but which has all but disappeared.... Cities overseas have shown what buildings like these can become with a little creativity and investment. In the right hands, the Queen’s Wharf sheds could become some of the waterfront’s most prized assets,” he says.

Show some leadership guys. Do the right thing.