Queens Wharf: Let's decide exactly what we want

Some of the designs concentrated on the cruise ship aspect, while others were more concerned with the provision of public space. Many, like this one, tried to do both. Photo / Supplied

When our illustrious leaders chose to pause for a cuppa, the Queens Wharf design teams were left in a state of limbo, uncertain whether they could, or should, comment publicly.

There has since been much gritting of teeth among my colleagues, while politicians and members of the third and fourth estates have accused the design profession of that most heinous of crimes - being boring. The detractors have been egged on by a couple of our brethren, whose formidable talents failed to be recognised in the competition's first stage, and who also discern a general lack of "wow" factor among the eight schemes.

Members of the design professions love to solve problems; the stickier the better. The competition brief asked how to put a cruise ship passenger terminal on the wharf, how to create great public open space and how to provide areas for events.

It soon became obvious for designers that the Rugby World Cup venue requirements in themselves are not a limiting factor on the long-term shape of Queens Wharf. As many have since pointed out, it will be easy enough to throw up the marquees, tidy up a shed and install the bars.

During the competition, some of the best brains in the New Zealand and overseas design industry debated the issues of city/sea linkage, the gateway quality of the site and the cruise terminal, the use and availability of public space, the on-water and aerial view of the site, potential other uses for the site, etc. There is no doubt in my mind that finalists have answered the question posed in the competition - but was it the right question?

The call by some for an iconic building is a time-honoured reaction to an empty site in a prominent city location (eg, the Wynyard Pt debate). Given the unique location of this wharf, at the bottom of Auckland's main street, this may well be the place for a moment of bravura, but is it possible to plan for "iconic-ness"?

After all, even the designer of Bilbao's Guggenheim, Frank Gehry, has 100 other shiny buildings that don't reach the same apogee of public recognition, and I don't believe it is through want of trying.

Architects are often blamed for designing far more than the client can afford. With the $47 million put aside for this project, only enough to cover the stated requirements of the brief, any additional public buildings are likely to be something for the future.

All the teams recognised the need for a long-term view in this context. Some chose to make the cruise terminal the dominant element of the project. Some chose to combine the public open-space function with the cruise terminal building, by creating a public rooftop ramp/walkway. Others concentrated on the provision of public open-space on the wharf, and showed the integration with a future major public building. One scheme went so far as to postulate what that major public building might be (a theatre) and showed it in place.

So, a variety of visions for the site - and three politicians charged with choosing one to go with - in the year before the amalgamation and a major election of a single Auckland mayor.

Of course they went for a cup of tea! The risk of having an unfinished and unloved project hanging around their necks leading up to an election is just too great.

So, where to from here? First of all, there needs to be some closure on this current process. Despite Brian Rudman's comments about "big-name firms who couldn't resist entering a fatally flawed competition", there have probably been at least 500 people from all sizes of companies who have given their skills and time for this city - probably a donation of more than $2 million.

While the rest of the city may have moved on as soon as Mike Lee declared himself underwhelmed, the hundreds of people who worked on the project are aware that the enormous amount of research built up and ideas developed in the past three months should not be wasted.

Eventually, when the politicians figure out how to extract themselves from ownership of the process, and the respected members of the advisory panel, including Ian Athfield and John Hunt, are allowed to speak, there should be an appraisal of what has been learned.

The competition sponsors should now be encouraged to promote a thoughtful and in-depth public discussion on the long-term use of the site. Obviously, there needs to be some work done to plan for the temporary requirements of the Rugby World Cup, and the obvious solution is to develop a new short-term brief and work with the authors of the scheme recommended by the advisory panel.

A brief for the long term is a complex proposition, and cannot be resolved quickly just because of the immediate need of the Rugby World Cup. Let the new Super City or Waterfront Development Agency, public discussion and the evolving public use of the wharf inform this brief, to ensure we are asking the right questions.

Aaron Sills is an architect and director of Sills van Bohemen Architecture, and was a member of a finalist team in the Queens Wharf Design Competition.