KEY POINTS:
The only positive to come out of the waterfront stadium fiasco was the way it concentrated our minds on what we were about to lose - the hope of one day gaining public access to more of the downtown waterfront.
Having risked the wrath of government to defend this dream, it seems a shame to walk away with the task unfinished.
What emerged during the frenzied two-week tussle was that public access was more than a pipe dream. Throughout, Ports of Auckland argued that the enemy of building a waterfront stadium by 2011 was not space, but time. If the Government had been able to guarantee the port "time to build substitute facilities ... without interruption of its service to its customers", all would have been OK.
Ever the optimist, I take that as meaning if someone came up with a feasible proposition to free Queens Wharf, for example, to public access much sooner than the 10 to 25 years currently being proposed by the port's regional council owners, then ports would be willing to talk.
Particularly encouraging are the words of ports managing director Geoff Vaze to the National Business Review last week that with the completion in three months of Fergusson container terminal's new 5.5ha reclamation, "we have some spare capacity".
This being so, would it be so hard, with the help of a nudge from its regional council owners, to store the used-car imports that currently dominate Queen's Wharf on this spare capacity instead?
For that matter, would it be so hard to get these cars off the port, either to the port's new Pikes Point car storage facility, or better still, straight into the hands of the importers? The Government also spoke, during the stadium debate, of cutting through the red tape associated with car imports. It shouldn't need a stadium to introduce these efficiencies.
It's hard to go past the frequent assurances to government during the stadium debate, that if only the minister had made his request a year earlier, anything might have been possible.
If it is possible to free 5ha or more for a stadium - given a little more time - then surely the same must be possible in order to open up a wharf or two for the enjoyment of the ultimate owners of the port, the people of Auckland.
And if Mr Vazey argues he'll have to fast track the 4ha second stage of the Fergusson reclamation as compensation, then that could solve the problem of what to do with the fill that will have to be excavated for the planned 67-storey skyscraper on the corner of Victoria and Elliott streets.
Of course there's always a chance the port company might not protest so loudly at all.
With merger talks with Ports of Tauranga under way and reports that both companies will supposedly emerge as equal partners, this suggests that asset-rich Ports of Auckland will have to divest itself of some of its land-holdings to even things up.
Recently it was announced the Tank Farm land was to be removed from the port's books. Maybe Queens Wharf could, too.
For years Auckland City, the regional council and the port company laboured over Auckland Waterfront Vision 2040, which was released last year. Since then there's been a battle royal over the redevelopment of the Tank Farm. Unfortunately, the planners and politicians see the vision as moving from left to right. This means downtown Auckland is going to be the last to see action.
The public outcry against the planned waterfront stadium was partly driven by concern it would be just as big a barrier to public access as the existing red fences.
Public response during the 2005 visioning exercise highlighted what we want. Public access to and enjoyment of the port topped the wish list with 66 per cent.
The regional council saved the downtown waterfront from the white elephant. What better way to celebrate than to create a people-friendly space in its place.