Barry Copeland: Back to drawing board for design to rival Sydney Opera

Queens Wharf in the 1890s, with easy connection to Queen St. File photo / NZ Herald

The Government and the Auckland Regional Council took an enlightened initiative in June this year, acquiring Queens Wharf for restoration and use as a cruise ship terminal and party central for the 2011 Rugby World Cup.

The Auckland City Council responded within 72 hours of the announcement, approving a budget of $84 million to convert the existing 97-year-old sheds - opting for restoration instead of building new a basic terminal for $112 million or an iconic terminal for $144 million.

Encouragingly, all three levels of government joined in partnership to quickly come up with a scheme to be implemented within an affordable budget and in time for the great event.

Afterwards a design competition was launched with a new lower budget of $47 million, and 4 months later there are eight final designs to choose from.

There are still important functional issues not yet resolved: None of these designs address the issue of operating two cruise ships across the wharf (part of the ARC's brief). Only one seriously addresses the issue of shelter for the 20,000 anticipated cup revellers.

Many propose ambitious and attractive plans to erode the wharf edges to create urban beaches, add jetties for small craft including waka, extend the ferry terminal, and provide huge areas of paving and landscape features.

But are any capable of meeting time and budget constraints? Most importantly, does any one of them embody a clear vision that can be recognised by New Zealanders as a worthy projection of our country to the world in September 2011, and then beyond?

There has been widespread criticism, and now Mike Lee and John Banks have both publicly recognised the competition has been a flop, it is certainly time to pause for thought.

Everyone senses this is the key site. We were all excited when we saw those old photographs and realised that the wharf was once part and parcel of Queen Street.

The competition has heightened public awareness about the potential of the wharf.

Every New Zealander craves a national icon like the Sydney Opera House, and this site at centre of both the city and harbour is pivotal. Much is now riding on the outcome.

The purpose of an open design competition was presumably to achieve something beyond the norm, outside the box, a vision which everybody can get behind and push forward.

The competition brief was vague on architecture, but had many specific urban design requirements.

This brief, the selection of the first stage schemes, and the guidance given to the second stage contestants by the ACC competition organisers, have resulted in the current result.

Clearly there is no lack of energy or design talent here in the second stage designs.

But they have all followed a particular direction in order to please the panel of experts. There were many boxes to tick, but they are all small boxes - where are the three or four big boxes that relate to the strategic thinking and an overarching vision?

Schemes which displayed lateral thinking away from the preconceived ACC agenda were filtered out at the first stage.

To achieve a physical result by September 2011, something has to be quickly pulled out of the bag. The hardest part is first to achieve agreement between all three governance groups on the way forward.

Here is another way to think about things. Reduce it to a very small list of essentials. As time and money are tight, it is important not to bite off more than we can chew.

Surely the key ingredients are:

1. A simple functional solution to handling cruise ships on both sides of the wharf.

2. Shelter for 20,000 people, because the wharf is exposed and Auckland can be very wet in September.

3. A design vision celebrating the public's re-occupation of the wharf that Auckland will be proud to broadcast across the world's television screens at Cup time 2011.

4. To do no harm and leave options open for the future.

Solving just those four issues well is achievable within the time and the budget, and would be legacy enough for now. Everything else could and should wait until afterwards. It is short-sighted and frenetic to replace the existing buildings before the Rugby World Cup. This site is too valuable to be devoted solely to a cruise ship terminal.

Time is needed to develop a visionary brief (and appropriate funding) for a new cultural icon that will be the match of a Sydney Opera House or a Bilbao Museum. The cruise facility can be incorporated as part of it.

People have not had access to the wharf for 30 years - once it starts to be used again possibilities will emerge. This is the place, but not quite yet the time.

What should be the next step? A respected design mentor from overseas should be brought in to chair a new judging panel.

Pull the other schemes out of the wastepaper basket and run an independent professional audit. Involve a representative from each of the three governing bodies as well as the experts.

The design community has already invested not just energy and talent but a huge amount of time and money. The best way forward is probably there already - it has just been missed.

* Barry Copeland is director of Copeland Associates Architects, one of the 237 design groups who took part in the competition.