Critics willing to share harbour views

With so many of Auckland's design community bidding for the Queens Wharf job, independent commentary on the proposals is hard to come by. But the Weekend Herald found two critics of the process - regional councillor Joel Cayford and leading architect David Mitchell - who were happy to weigh up the designs.

Mitchell, an Institute of Architects gold medal winner, did not enter the competition because of the tight timeframe, budgetary pressures and confused brief. He believes the budget (about $47 million in council funding) is very low to solve "an incredibly complex, difficult task".

Given these constraints and the clientele, he is not expecting a radical choice but says more imaginative schemes could come after 2011.

He favours designs which call for staged development; some with elements happening 20 years down the track "rather than trying to answer everything in one hit".

"Leaving something for the future is a good idea. It's making it work slowly that's the issue. A captivating or emblematic building is really hard to achieve."

Mitchell sees potential in designs which remove part of the wharf to expose its "bones" or promote engagement with the harbour.

But he finds few plans which have what it takes to get people to the end of the wharf, which is "a real task".

"I've walked around dozens of waterfronts and most of them are empty as hell most of the time.

"There's a lot of designs with large open spaces that are called 'multifunctional event areas' but inevitably what you get is deserts. You can put patterns on the paving but it won't alter it."

Some are "patronising" in their use of cultural or natural symbols - such as silver fern patterns in paving and embryonic ponga frond designs.

"You don't build volcanoes when you can see the real thing from the end of the wharf."

But a long canopy in the shape of a silver fern has merit.

Some of the more intensive designs seem influenced by the Yokohama passenger terminal, a three-level building which covers an entire pier.

Mitchell is also wary of amphitheatres and permanent structures to cater for big events which may be few and far between.

But he likes the idea of the wharf as a marae or welcoming place for visitors.

Cayford, the ARC's urban design spokesman, has previously researched the possibilities for Queens Wharf as an academic project. He says there are clear conflicts between a cruise ship terminal with ancillary requirements and public use of the wharf.

"I have no doubt that, given the choice, Auckland would vote overwhelmingly for an attractive people's waterfront experience on Queens Wharf, as opposed to restricted access around a full-time cruise ship terminal and working wharf."

But he is heartened by the range of solutions put forward, particularly ideas "about what it is that activates spaces and drags people there".

He says several themes emerge from the plans. Many designs reflect Maori and Polynesian heritage and mythology, while some invoke native flora.

He's keen on "adaptive reuse" of existing structures, particularly those which use glass in the walls and ceilings to enhance light and views. "Quite a few use glazing and could look really spectacular from Queen St."

He also likes designs which "show the bones" - either with building framework or the wharf superstructure.

"Quite a few use the expression of a pavilion which goes with outdoor markets, exhibition spaces and the notion of arrival halls."

Many designs attempt to provide shelter from the elements, and he likes the silver fern canopy. "You don't have to have an iconic building but you can kill two birds with one stone with an iconic structure which deals with the problem of wind and rain."

A number have raised walkways and rooftop viewing platforms "but you want to make sure views aren't obstructed by the priority of an architectural idea."

Cayford says the Rugby World Cup 2011 deadline and funding constraints mean there's not enough time for iconic buildings. It's more important to think about "why will people go on to the wharf - how activated is the space, and boring things like providing toilets near the end of the wharf."

But the deadline also rules out grand plans that could backfire.

"It's a chance for experimentation - let's try a few things [for the World Cup] and see what works as a drawcard and build on that. The limited time frame and budget work in favour of that.

"There are two timeframes - one is party central in 2011 and what's appropriate for that. The next is what's appropriate in the long term."