KEY POINTS:
To be an Aucklander is to cringe repeatedly at missed opportunities, about-faces and inept decisions. To be a non-Aucklander is to laugh out loud as the city, sometimes aided and abetted by Wellington, shoots itself in the foot again.
The Rugby World Cup stadium fiasco is the latest addition to a hall of shame which includes the Aotea Centre, the "Think Big" Britomart scheme, rapid rail and the V8 street race.
Just a year ago Auckland was the big winner as New Zealand presented a united front to secure the 2011 Rugby World Cup. The final, and key knockout games would be on the hallowed rugby turf of Eden Park, upgraded to seat 60,000.
New Zealand was the bolter in a field of three bidding to host the world's third-biggest sporting event, but swayed the International Rugby Board with its cohesion and passion.
Prime Minister Helen Clark, and Tana Umaga, then All Blacks captain, were a match made in heaven. The Rugby Union had the Government as an equal partner and New Zealanders salivated at the prospect of the rugby and its economic spin-offs.
But as with all marriages of convenience, diverging agendas have emerged to test the relationship.
Glossed over was that no funding was in place for an Eden Park upgrade and there was only a ballpark estimate of $160 million as the cost.
One year on, not a sledgehammer has been swung at Eden Park. The rest of New Zealand is bemused at the prospect that, as a last resort, the final might be taken away from Auckland, while the international rugby community will be experiencing a sense of deja vu. Still smarting from the "clean stadiums" debacle which cost us the 2003 World Cup co-hosting role, the Rugby Union no longer knows which stadium to clean up.
The Government has benched certain success and put the World Cup on the line in order to chase wider economic and political goals.
The need for substantial taxpayer funding for Eden Park, the possibility that residents' objections could delay completion, and a growing fixation with the economic potential of a national stadium prompted the Government to explore alternatives.
Since the waterfront alternative emerged in public from nowhere in September it has gained unstoppable momentum - despite a price tag likely to double that of Eden Park.
The Government has linked the idea of a national stadium to economic transformation and Auckland's development as an internationally competitive city.
Finance Minister Michael Cullen is suddenly portraying an upgraded Eden Park as "simply an Auckland stadium. A waterfront stadium might be a New Zealand stadium" he said on Wednesday.
Auckland mayor Dick Hubbard - pictured in July leaping for joy beneath Eden Park's goalposts in support of the $320 million upgrade plans - was quick to switch horses.
Hubbard is talking-up the "unique nature" of a waterfront stadium and the impression it will make on international audiences; the injection of people and spending which stadium events will bring to the central business district; the potential for big concerts as well as rugby and cricket; and the "wow factor - it's perceived as bold and big and adventurous and imaginative." He hailed the site's proximity to the Britomart transport centre and the "mix and match" possibilities nearby at the council's new 12,000-seat Vector Arena.
The Government proposal was also a political lifeline for the council - this year's furore over rate rises would be repeated in election year if Auckland residents had to pump $150 million into Eden Park.
The danger is that the supposed Christmas cracker could blow up in Auckland's face. The short-term risk, with so little investigation and design time, is that construction complications could see Auckland lose prime World Cup games altogether.
The long-term risk is that a 37m high bowl near the foot of Queen St will destroy the long-term goal of connecting the heart of the city with its best asset - its harbour. Instead of Rangitoto, the backdrop to the planned Quay St promenade could be a white elephant.
But there's no time to consider aesthetic impacts - a decision is needed yesterday. The usual democratic processes - tendering and public consultation - have been short-circuited.
The frenzied debate has pitted port against city council against regional council against business leaders.
The Government's rethink has brought North Harbour, Mt Smart, Carlaw Park and the Manukau Harbour mudflats into play.
The preferred option last week was Bledisloe Wharf. This week - after Ports of Auckland wagged the dog - it was a site straddling Captain Cook Wharf and Marsden Wharf, even closer to Queen St.
Architects, engineers and construction consultants are split over whether a 60,000-seat stadium is do-able or desirable in either location.
The city council has been pilloried for its flip-flops and lack of leadership, while its best-laid plans to open up the waterfront have been trampled over.
The ports company insists it will need to reclaim equivalent wharf space from the harbour before work can start. And the Eden Park Trust Board is left to kick its ball around like a lonely kid in a paddock.
What prompted the Government to destroy the facade of unity? Support for Eden Park was always lukewarm among Labour stalwarts both in local and central government.
The leafy villas which surround the stadium are peppered with party faithful - Helen Clark lives a beer cup's throw from the notorious terraces. Increased ground capacity would usher in more use of the stadium and more disruption for neighbours.
The prospect that resource consent objections could seriously threaten the upgrade timetable remained dim until June 30, when Eden Park unveiled its $320 million redevelopment proposal. The new stands were higher, and would cause greater shadowing, than neighbours said they had been led to believe.
Politicians say Eden Park's plan to permanently expand capacity, rather than use temporary seating, came as a surprise. But what really caused local and national politicians to blink was the cost - double the earlier estimates without a fully enclosed arena.
The proposal called for a ratepayer contribution of $75 million from Auckland City, $75 million from other Auckland councils and $95 million from the Government. The rest would come from naming rights, sponsorship, loans and the rugby union.
But at that time, Auckland councils were under siege from residents outraged at double-figure rate rises.
Just before Eden Park went public, the funding issue had opened a rift in the council's centre-left majority.
A move to increase its 10-year funding commitment for "international facilities" (not just for Eden Park) to $100 million was passed, but with the dissent of six councillors, including the three Eden-Albert representatives. And Auckland City was miffed that North Shore, Waitakere and Manukau weren't planning to help Eden Park.
When the true extent of Eden Park's funding need was disclosed, it became "politically unacceptable", Mayor Hubbard revealed last week.
The first indication of Government unease came in August, when Eden Park development committee chairman Rob Fisher was surprised to receive a call at home from Trevor Mallard, Minister of Sport and Minister of Economic Development.
"He said he had come up with an alternative site on the waterfront which needed to be chased up to see if it was viable. I wouldn't even call it second thoughts. I think he thought it would be evaluated and dismissed."
Fisher himself may have unwittingly contributed to the rethink when he spoke to an Auckland Metro Project seminar in May on the potential economic benefits of RWC 2011. He talked about the international exposure and continuing impact of staging big events.
Australia had demonstrated in 2003 that the Rugby World Cup was an internationally big moneyspinner; New Zealand had the America's Cup and the 2005 Lions Tour as pointers.
A scrum of officials from the Ministry of Economic Development were soon poring over studies on the economic spinoffs of big events and the catalyst effect of stadiums in various locations.
They were swayed by reports that a stadium close to CBD hotels and nightlife would make the most of the benefits - even though Eden Park's consultants argue that location makes little difference.
Government officials regarded Eden Park's residential setting and distance from the CBD as constraints.
Architects Warren and Mahoney, designers of the Westpac Stadium in Wellington, were asked to draw up concept plans for a waterfront site.
Ports chief executive Geoff Vazey says that each time his company pointed out the expected difficulties for its operations, the Government came back with alternatives. "The working group's approach was: 'Here's a map of the ports, here's a sketch of where it might possibly go, how will that impact the ports, and is it do-able?' And we've seen a lot of those.
"I've yet to see work that convinces me that the substitute wharf facilities can be done in time to make the site available in time to start when they need to start."
On September 12, Mallard went public with the waterfront option. "Proximity to good transport hubs, hospitality facilities, hotels, parking and the CBD are key to a city being able to leverage off this investment," he said.
As Mallard went public, union chairman Jock Hobbs was presenting the RWC 2011 masterplan and budget to the International Rugby Board n Edmonton, Canada. He was not amused. "I don't know if there is a real option outside Eden Park," he told the Herald. "We support Eden Park. It is the only live option."
In truth, the New Zealand Rugby Union has always supported the idea of a national stadium and was never wedded to Eden Park.
But the lack of alternative sites and willing funders made Eden Park the default option. What has happened happened since then has been cloaked in secrecy, despite a dambreak of opposition and support from interested groups.
Although many share the Government's enthusiasm for a big idea to put Auckland on the international events circuit, is a stadium at a prime spot on the waterfront the answer? Will affected parties have the right to object? Do Aucklanders want another 5ha of the harbour reclaimed to compensate the port? Is there time to design a stadium that would enhance a people-friendly waterfront? Can it be built in time?
Most architects and engineers say no. Those advising the Government say yes. But until this week, even the city council had not seen the concept in detail. It wants its urban design team to influence the process.
Maybe Auckland has only itself to blame. CBD alternatives to Eden Park have been explored for years, but opportunities were missed or the timing was wrong.
With Carlaw Park, too much land was sold off.
In 1997, the Hillary Commission recommended the old railyards (Quay Park) but the land was returned to Ngati Whatua. With the tank farm, long-term leases were the obstacle. And the ports company always insisted that its needs take precedence over Aucklanders' desire to free-up the waterfront.
Only in recent years has it talked about concentrating port activities to the east, freeing up Queen's Wharf and, later on, Marsden Wharf and Captain Cook Wharf. Eventually.
Plenty of people would applaud the Government for cutting through the inertia. But it will still need to satisfy the ports company's demands before a start is made - the ports company's hold on the city at this point includes the Rugby World Cup.
Heart of the City's Alex Swney says the debacle has exposed the city's leadership vacuum. "Council is just wandering around shaking their heads, bemused. Where have they been in this process?"
Mayor Hubbard says a regional stadium should be a regional council responsibility and Auckland City came in only "on the basis that it was on our patch, it would require some of our money, but we have no direct responsibility.
"Almost by default it was left to Eden Park to come up with a workable proposition and then Auckland city ratepayers made it plain that they struggled with the concept of taking a big dollop of their money into an upgraded Eden Park if the other councils and the ARC weren't putting any money in at all.
"That's one of the big arguments that I've been using for an overhaul of regional governance. There was no one leader of Auckland who could front up and say: This has got to happen."
The parallels with a previous Auckland folly are unmissable. Two decades ago, Aucklanders were consumed by debate about the location, design and cost of a performing arts centre - and who would pay.
But a pragmatic Auckland City Council under Mayor Cath Tizard voted to build the Aotea Centre near the Town Hall - without a final design - for $68 million.
Under the fast-track design-as-you-go method, the project was a construction nightmare. The 30-month timetable ran nearly two years late and the budget nearly doubled to $128 million, with ratepayers footing the bill.
Cursed with patchy acoustics and nicknamed the concrete bunker, it proved a drain on ratepayers for years to come. The waterfront site is too important for there to be a repeat fast-track design process and enduring mediocrity.
