The Auckland Harbour Bridge and Sky Tower are two classic signatures of the city. Photo / Getty Images
The Auckland Harbour Bridge and Sky Tower are two classic signatures of the city. Photo / Getty Images
OPINION
Auckland has three things that are truly iconic, three outstanding features of its landscape that are not just beautiful but so distinctive that their image is often used to “say” Auckland. One is Rangitoto, another is the Sky Tower, the third is the harbour bridge.
Of the three, thebridge is the most vulnerable. It would take another volcanic eruption to possibly ruin the perfect lines of Rangitoto, a very big earthquake to topple to Sky Tower, but the scenic value of the bridge could be destroyed without anyone or anything touching it.
All we would need to do is put another one in the picture.
If you are wondering why I am stating the obvious, God bless you. None of what follows should need to be said. But if that were so, Aucklanders would never be asked whether they would prefer an additional harbour crossing to be a bridge or a tunnel.
Transport Minister Michael Wood is one Aucklander who clearly doesn’t appreciate the singular value of the existing bridge. Not long ago he proposed a bike bridge alongside it. Now he is back with a bigger project, a harbour crossing of some sort, for modes of travel yet to be decided, and has invited us all to suggest what it should be.
So let me try to put into words what the eye takes for granted.
A second bridge from the Auckland isthmus to the North Shore would be nothing less than a visual disaster, no matter how well it was designed. Two bridges would ruin the sublime picture of Auckland that features on every stand of postcards and in every book of New Zealand scenery.
The Waitematā is one of the most beautiful urban inlets in the world - wider than Sydney’s, which it resembles in its length and abundance of bays, and, like Sydney’s, Auckland’s single harbour bridge is always in the photo.
A second bridge from the Auckland isthmus to the North Shore would be nothing less than a visual disaster, writes John Roughan. Photo / Brett Phibbs
It has to be in the photo. It doesn’t matter whether it’s central or far in the distance, it will make the photo. It is the signature feature, the bow tied on nature’s gift, the buckle at the harbour’s narrow waist binding the city together.
A single bridge is a minimal intrusion on the landscape, respecting it and enhancing it. A second within sight of the first would visually diminish the Waitematā, its expanse overwhelmed by civil engineering.
Wood’s bike bridge was going to be designed to look like a widening of the existing structure. I don’t believe that’s possible. A parallel structure, no matter how close, would unbalance its appearance.
I thought the beauty of the bridge was obvious to all Aucklanders until I made reference to it in a previous column and was astonished to discover not all agreed. Some were amazed I could find it attractive. Architects, I’m told, don’t rate it either.
Beauty is subjective, of course, and there’s no accounting for taste, but the bridge is threatened now. It is time detractors took another look.
Its lines are simple and elegant. It’s not ornate or grandiose, it’s a Kiwi bridge, a plain arch of functional steel that looks stunning in different ways from every angle, even close up underneath at either end.
I remember the first time I saw it. I had just arrived in Auckland to stay with friends in Freemans Bay. Outside their house the next morning, I glanced left and saw, rising above the rooftops, an extraordinary road, full of traffic. It looked almost vertical and very close. It took me a moment to realise this must be the fabled harbour bridge.
That was 50 years ago. I fell in love with Auckland on that first visit and when I moved here I came to appreciate the functional attributes of the bridge as a daily commuter. It is usually the least congested stretch of the northern motorway.
When you are crawling in three lanes of traffic you know it will improve when you reach the approaches to the bridge with its four lanes, or five with the moveable barrier. A second harbour crossing is not Auckland’s most urgent need.
It would be comforting to have an alternative in case anything happens to the bridge but that is not a good reason to build one a decade earlier than the national transport agency thinks necessary. The reason the Government is bringing it forward is to provide a “pipeline of projects” for engineers.
Wood has them designing light rail and has recently let contracts for harbour crossing options too. His public consultation will bring as many different suggestions as there are Aucklanders with a view. But I wish we could agree another bridge should be out of the question.
