Alex Swney: When organising a party, think of the morning after

Opinion

The Herald got it right - getting one wharf is better than none.

The key tests of what we do with Queens Wharf for 2011, however, are that Aucklanders should be proud of what is there after the Rugby World Cup and "party central" is over. And that the solution is an integral part of an overall plan for a broader central city waterfront. The two-shed do-up isn't a long-term answer for a cruise ship terminal on Queens Wharf and therefore does not merit an $84 million spend-up.

To avoid a blunder we need to separate the needs of "party central" for the Rugby World Cup and the best location for a cruise ship terminal for Auckland.

The former is a one-off event for rugby supporters and the opportunity to showcase our city, and should be planned as such. The cruise ship terminal needs to be planned thoughtfully with other tourism infrastructure.

Last week, Mayor John Banks talked about a temporary Queens Wharf solution using one of the sheds as a cruise terminal, and both sheds for party central in 2011. And then pressing ahead with the better long-term plan to build fantastic cruise, convention and exhibition facilities on Bledisloe terminal.

That makes more sense. This suggestion received fulsome applause when he spoke of it two weeks ago.

The cruise industry has been forced to use the sheds in their current state, which is an appalling situation. But a refurbished shed would be better and could be used for an interim period after the Rugby World Cup.

By the end of last week, however, the Auckland City Council had hatched a plan to spend $84 million on the wharf, a sum that does not spell temporary in anyone's book.

Someone pinch me. Next year we are forming a new council that will have reporting to it a single Waterfront Development Agency responsible for the cohesive long term development of our CBD waterfront.

Having waited so long to get behind the red fence, the last thing we need is a kneejerk response driven by a rugby event. Our problem now is that we have central government, Auckland City, the Auckland Regional Council and its subsidiaries Auckland Regional Holdings and Ports of Auckland all muscling over the central wharves. It is becoming a clumsy muddle ground lacking vision for the city. Hopefully this time the Government will assist with planning and funding a great waterfront for future generations, even if the final use of Queens Wharf cannot be decided before the 2011 whistle blows.

Some will argue that an event like the Rugby World Cup can unlock an asset and be the fillip for new development. But that development needs to be top-notch. Rather than do several things poorly our councils should concentrate on developing one waterfront area extremely well. After all, they keep espousing world-class aspirations.

The Wynyard Quarter is already under way. We'd do better to take part of the $84 million and investing it in the Jellicoe St and Marine Events Centre projects planned there.

The Marine Events Centre is a major piece of permanent CBD waterfront infrastructure which the council has committed to building on the Halsey Extension Wharf.

Let's complete one project extremely well rather than do three or four things poorly.

As for heritage, there's a better waterfront project with stronger legs and support than the sheds, and that is restoring the bascule bridge at Te Wero. The bascule bridge can be restored to allow passage for all the boats that enter the Viaduct Harbour and can accommodate modern street cars across it in the future.

If Mike Lee was to lend his support to the heritage bridge option, described by navigation experts as workable, we'd be able to get on with the project that links the Viaduct with the new events centre.

During the Rugby World Cup, many of the fans at Eden Park may be subject to the same conditions as at Westpac Stadium in Wellington last Saturday. But the sheds on Queens Wharf would provide shelter for party central fans.

Why not refurbish them for the World Cup, but for a lot less than $84 million?

And as for a cruise ship terminal, a sensible but much smaller investment on the Queens Wharf shed nearer Queen St could provide an interim solution, so long as it has a multifunction capability and can be adapted for a different future use. That shed has greater attributes than the northern one, where a new building may be more appropriate at a later date.

Sooner rather than later we should be building a better facility for the cruise industry, with other tourism-focused economic activators, on Bledisloe.

We can do this and at the same time work with the ports company on its future development opportunities.

Cruise ship terminals require high-security components for customs, MAF and quarantine reasons, and decent roading to move passengers and for ship provisioning. Bledisloe can support the transport infrastructure for these facilities better.

This will require Government working with Aucklanders to make more important decisions about our waterfront than hosting "party central" for the Rugby World Cup.

* Alex Swney is chief executive of Auckland's Heart of the City.