Editorial: Let's debate the future of the Cloud

The Cloud on Queens Wharf. Photo / Sarah Ivey

Shorn of the catalyst of necessity, it is easy for planning to fall victim to lethargy. Such has happened to Queens Wharf, and more particularly the Cloud, following the excitement of last year's Rugby World Cup. Both now present a mundane face to the world as they await definitive verdicts on their futures. In the case of the Cloud, that may occur soon. The danger is that a decision will be taken for all the wrong reasons and without due regard to how this unique structure might complement the final shape of Queens Wharf.

Writing in the Herald last week, Michael Barnett, of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, warned that the Government-funded Cloud could become another victim of Wellington-Auckland ownership-management differences over the waterfront. The product of this disharmony, he said, was a mood of "it's all too hard". If this sentiment prevails, the $9.3 million Cloud could be pulled down, sold or shifted. That, said Mr Barnett, would represent the latest in a long line of missed opportunities for Auckland.

There is no doubt that the Cloud served its purpose well during the World Cup, despite its hurried design. It was particularly successful in showing off New Zealand business and presenting the image of an innovative and creative nation. As much has been confirmed by a Nielsen research report commissioned by New Zealand Trade and Enterprise.

Subsequently, its distinctive look has become a feature of the waterfront for those crossing the Waitemata Harbour. But it has been barely used. There have been none of the types of occasion that befit a structure with room for 5960 people. Only a number of small events have been held there.

There has been no shortage of ideas for the Cloud's future. Soon after its construction, it was offered as a gift to earthquake-stricken Christchurch. Nothing came of that. Immediately after the World Cup, the Government said Auckland could keep the Cloud if it wanted it. Now, Waterfront Auckland, which has a short-term contract to manage the structure, is about to report to the Auckland Council on options for it.

Waterfront Auckland's findings will, unfortunately, not be fully informed. An accurate picture of what value the Cloud might bring to the waterfront will not be possible until the future of Queens Wharf is decided. At the moment, we know only that a back-to-basics cruise-ship terminal is to be built there using Shed 10.

We do not know if other plans suggested in the latest waterfront plan, such as extending Shed 10 to eventually cover the length of the wharf, or building a large saltwater swimming pool on the west side, will come to anything. Or whether Mayor Len Brown's idea of an open space for promenading Aucklanders has sunk without a trace.

Until this is known, there should be no final decision on the Cloud. It is impossible to know whether the structure will complement other features of the wharf or, indeed, have a place. Equally, before the Auckland Council took ownership, there would need to be an investigation of whether the Cloud would be well used, given other options on the waterfront. The new Viaduct Events Centre is one competitor for the likes of exhibitions and functions. Shed 10, if extended, would presumably be another.

In time, it may be decided that the Cloud is too great a burden for Auckland ratepayers. Alternatively, it could become a permanent and productive fixture on Queens Wharf. What must not happen is that its fate is settled prematurely, with a malaise occasioned by Auckland-Wellington discord being the major factor.