Brian Rudman: Let the paper stay blank until we can fill it properly

It's a good bet the only Aucklanders saddened by the decision to pull the plug on the Queens Wharf design contest are the big-name architects who couldn't resist entering the fatally flawed competition.

They now have to live with the humiliation of Auckland mayor John Banks declaring their entries were "simply not good enough" and lacked the "wow factor", and Auckland Regional Council chairman Mike Lee delivering a final kick in the goolies by declaring "second best is not good enough."

No doubt there'll be lots of excuses from the design gurus about the inadequacy of the brief, the shortage of preparation time and the stinginess of the budget.

All of which is true. But all these shortcomings were obvious from the day the contest was announced. That's when the heavyweights of the architectural world should have spoken out, should have boycotted the exercise.

The two civic leaders met the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, Murray McCully, yesterday morning, and say the decision was swift and unanimous.

This is hardly surprising after Mr Lee's comment last week that the final eight entry designs were "lacklustre, underwhelming and mediocre" and the contest itself was a flop. Remarks with which Mr Banks said he had sympathy.

Mr Banks now says it's time for a cup of tea and a blank sheet of paper. Mr Lee continues to hold a candle for a cruise ship terminal, built, if possible, in time for the 2011 Rugby World Cup. To me, that's not a blank sheet of paper.

As the political owner of Port of Auckland, Mr Lee is hog-tied by the port company's desire for a new cruise ship terminal, especially one that can be paid for by Auckland City ratepayers, rather than via its own balance sheet.

I hope Mr Banks' truly blank sheet of paper prevails. Indeed I'd go further and say the paper should stay blank and the tea brewing until the new Waterfront Development Agency comes into existence as part of the Super City reforms.

If the Government persists in its desire to base World Cup "Party Central" on this bleak and windswept wharf then so be it.

But do it by throwing some bunting around one of the wharf sheds, turning it into a ye olde woolshed or whatever and give the visitors a good old backblocks rugby club experience at the lowest possible price. Once that's over, we can get on with the "legacy" project the politicians keep promising us without wasting our hard-earned "legacy-building" money.

Yesterday, Mr Banks said that if the current $76 million budget was considered inadequate "we may have to look at that again". Most Aucklanders expecting an "iconic" development on the site would say hurrah to that. But not if it means just a cruise ship terminal with gold fittings. A blank sheet of paper should mean just that.

"Waterfront Vision 2040", a strategy document backed by Auckland City and the ARC, talks of a world class destination that "is a place for all people, an area rich in character and activities that links people to the city and sea".

Government concern about Auckland's fragmented attempts to translate that vision into action led to the proposed Waterfront Development Agency, details of which are still to be announced.

Creation of the agency will finally allow an integrated approach to the control and future development of the whole waterfront.

Hopefully, if the decision is left to it, the development of Queens Wharf will be based on more than the desire of the port company for a cost-free passenger terminal.

Mr Banks, for example, has argued for a convention centre plus cruise ship terminal on adjacent Bledisloe Wharf. As part of an integrated development plan for the whole waterfront, that might make more sense than plonking one on Queens Wharf just because it happens to be there and available.

Of course politicians have a desperate desire to be seen doing something constructive.

Especially with a big election looming. But as Mr Banks pointed out yesterday, in these tight times there's not much money about to realise dreams anyway, unless you do it on the cheap. And the last thing we need on Queens Wharf is cheap and, as a consequence, nasty.