Laurence Murphy: Waterfront redevelopment requires real vision

Differing opinions have emerged for Queens Wharf since plans to redevelop it were announced. Photo / Brett Phibbs

Opinion

The evolving saga of Auckland's Queens Wharf development encapsulates some of the major dilemmas facing cities seeking to capitalise on their waterfront assets.

Since the 1970s, city competition has grown around the world and - as a consequence - central and local governments have become more entrepreneurial in their willingness to fund projects that are seen to promote economic growth and attract the much-sought-after consumer/tourist dollar.

The resultant "urban entrepreneurialism" includes tax-funded city marketing, competition for spectacular hallmark events - such as the Olympics and the Rugby World Cup - and property-led urban regeneration.

City governments have taken on property development roles as they have sought to position their cities as "unique experience" destinations within the global division of consumption. At the forefront of these urban makeovers have been urban waterfront areas.

Large-scale public/private partnerships, where the state (either central or local) takes on the role of pump-priming the land development process, have helped transform disused docks into vibrant consumer landscapes such as Baltimore Harbour and the London Docklands.

These developments are inherently speculative and always have the potential to fail. The Canary Wharf in London's Docklands, for example, opened in the middle of a huge property crash in the early 1990s but has become successful over time. There were concerns that Auckland's Viaduct Harbour would die following the loss of the America's Cup, but the Viaduct has developed its own cultural, if exclusive, niche in the inner city.

Yet places do fail, and some cities carry the burden of hallmark events for years after the closing ceremonies.

The Queens Wharf redevelopment is a property project caught up in the needs of a global sporting event and a political desire to attract tourist dollars. It is also a place at the heart of the waterfront where Aucklanders want to celebrate and display their city.

Significantly, it is a place primarily for Aucklanders, and not just revelling overseas rugby supporters or visiting cruise line passengers.

In reflecting on the benefits of "spectacular" event-based urban regeneration, there is a consensus that simply building "event" venues (or party centrals) is problematic. Successful city regeneration, such as in Spain's Barcelona, involves good urban development that can accommodate large events. Good urban development produces benefits for citizens and visitors alike.

The proposed redevelopment of the existing sheds on Queens Wharf as a cruise terminal involves public expenditure that is comparable to the monies spent by local and central government agencies on the Viaduct Harbour, and Wellington City's expenditure of $130 million on its "city to sea" walkway development.

These have been successful developments characterised by quality design. Their success rests on their multi-functional character, their connectedness to the rest of the inner city, and the emerging ways in which people (local and visitor) use and engage with these spaces.

Since the announcement of the purchase of Queens Wharf, different visions for the redevelopment have emerged from within the Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council. The practical concerns of functionality and cost are already being implicated in the emerging architectural debates around "cheap and nasty" versus "iconic statement".

Any development carries costs, including upfront development costs and long-term opportunity costs, and once constructed, a building becomes a deadweight on future possibilities.

Moreover, meeting the needs of the cruise liner industry and/or seeking to build an iconic development are actions that carry risks. Ports of call are always subject to fashion, and this year's iconic architectural statement can become last year's modernist or post-modernist monstrosity. Fashions change but buildings tend to stay around for a long time.

The search for spectacle - be it a Rugby World Cup, the arrival of large cruise ships or developing a landmark building - is a demanding challenge. The urgency of the World Cup deadline has proved to be the catalyst for the wharf's purchase, but urgency is not always the best context for successful property development.

The immediate need for a Rugby World Cup "party central" offers the opportunity for reflection. The fleeting demands for a party place require a space that is inherently transient; a place designed for spectators to congregate and watch the hopes of nations flicker overhead on large video screens.

The long-term redevelopment of Queens Wharf demands serious reflection and vision. The sales agreement with the Ports of Auckland requires a cruise liner terminal, but a terminal need not be the end of the vision.

The redevelopment needs to be more than a building (iconic or not). This site offers the potential for a truly public space on the seafront that is open to all citizens and not just consumers. Close to the transport hub of Britomart and public buses, the wharf is ideally located for suburban residents to come and enjoy.

The development of Queens Wharf will produce a built environment that will outlast the current city council and the Rugby World Cup. It marks an important component in the remaking of the waterfront.

If it is to be successful, it demands more than an asphalt makeover. Given that its development is funded by citizens of this city, it needs to be a place that is attractive to, and used by, all Aucklanders.

* Professor Laurence Murphy works in the department of property at the University of Auckland's Business School.