Two visions for one waterfront

An aerial view of Queens Wharf, Auckland, as it is today. One of the debates about how best to utilise the area is whether or not to refurbish the two sheds. Photo / Brett Phibbs

I'm sitting on the dock of the bay
watching the tide roll away
ooh I'm just sitting on the dock of the bay
wastin' time.

- Otis Redding

It could only happen in Auckland. Only in this city, says Mike Lee, would the public takeover of the wharf at the foot of Queen St be greeted with such negativity.

"This is wonderful news. It would be neurotic if the people of Auckland grizzled about it after it's been forsaken. There's no better news around."

The regional council chairman thinks the prospect of breaking through the red fence to promenade on Queens Wharf should have us dancing on Quay St. Instead there's a wave of dissent over what to do with the space. How ungrateful.

Lee is keen to talk up this "intervention" ahead of the Rugby World Cup in 2011 which, he says, will leave the city with a legacy in the form of a cruise ship terminal, superceding the one on Princes Wharf.

It will be a "quantum enhancement", with Queens Wharf the "jewel in the crown". He says the Government and regional council had those goals in mind when they paid the port company $40 million to vacate the wharf by April next year.

What Lee glosses over is the strings attached to the deal. These include the cost of developing a base for up to 20,000 fans in time for the rugby, the need to spend millions just to make the wharf structurally sound and pave over its deep cracks and the apparent fait accompli that Queens Wharf must house a cruise ship terminal.

Conflicting agendas have emerged, as always with Auckland.

The Auckland City Council had long fought to buy the wharf to develop it as a people mecca with linkages to Queen St, the Britomart precinct and the Viaduct Basin. That doesn't necessarily fit with calls for an "iconic" structure on the wharf to define Auckland internationally - our Sydney Opera House or Bilbao Guggenheim to attract tourists, as well as act as a local drawcard.

Then there's the Auckland Theatre Company's campaign for an "architecturally stunning" multi-purpose building for drama and dance on the end of the wharf.

With the clock ticking towards 2011, the differing objectives have become entwined in frenzied debate about what to do. So far, so very Auckland.

Cynics see the wharf as a pawn in a power struggle between the heavyweight contenders to lead the new single city council: the ARC's Lee and Auckland Mayor John Banks. Unfortunately for Auckland City, the ARC is now in the box seat as part-owner of the wharf.

Both parties are conscious that in 15 months time their functions will be combined in the new greater Auckland council. But in the meantime, crucial decisions must be made.

It's marrying the short, medium and long-term objectives that's the problem. The Rugby World Cup fanzone requirements are straightforward: sheltered spaces with big screens to watch the games, entertainment areas, bars, food stalls, toilets.

Queens Wharf has more than enough room to make a spectacular venue, including Tourism NZ's giant inflatable ball for promotions and merchandising.

Rugby World Cup event organiser Rachael Dacy says the fanzone will be beamed around the rugby-watching world as part of the cup opening night extravaganza "so we need to think about how we present that site."

She says the live broadcast is an opportunity to show "fantastic imagery" of the city skyline and waterfront. As for the venue, she wants to see room for families as well as partying rugby fans.

The big fear is that what's in place for the Rugby World Cup could jeopardise the wharf's long-term potential.

Right now, all sides are trying to agree on a solution so work can start by early next year. But when the city council proposed refurbishing the sheds, the negativity was led by regional council chairman Mike Lee.

Lee argues it's possible to create a "legacy" from the World Cup by marrying the "fanzone" facilities with a cruise ship terminal. Access and egress facilities are needed anyway for the later stages of the Cup, when cruise ships will be docked on both sides of the wharf to accommodate overseas fans. He sees the facility then replacing Princes Wharf as the main cruise ship venue.

"Fans don't need cargo sheds for having a party. Maybe the sheds will be fine if the sheds are still there but it's not something that should have high priority. The first thing should be to secure the wharf for cruise ship berths for the Rugby World Cup.

"It's physically possible but this is Auckland - everything seems to take a long time."

But how does a wharf dominated by a terminal, with its access restrictions and loss of views while ships are berthed, fit with long-term visions of a "people place"?

Lee wants pragmatic expenditure on the fanzone with most funding directed to a terminal. The ARC's preliminary concept plan shows a three-storey building which would service ships on both sides of the wharf. A terminal at the foot of Queen St would safeguard the city's status as a cruise destination and enhance the economic benefits, he says.

Auckland City's plan is for a more modest redevelopment, refurbishing the wharf's two remaining historic sheds and preserving more of the wharf for public use. The eastern shed would be a multi-purpose building catering for cruise ships. Other facilities could be developed after a proper planning and consultation process, says Mayor Banks.

Until the purchase a fortnight ago, Banks had been touting the idea of a 3000-seat convention centre on Bledisloe Wharf to the east, which could double as a cruise ship terminal while putting the city on the lucrative international conventions circuit.

Banks was looking 15 months down the track, when the port company will be no longer an arms-length offshoot of the ARC but an offshoot of the new greater Auckland council with its own waterfront development agency. But he also knows a facility as large as a convention centre is years away in the current economic climate.

So a shed redevelopment which caters for cruises allows more scope to develop the wharf for the people.

"Our design is not about creating iconic buildings but creating an iconic waterfront. We could have iconic buildings if we could get our hands on some iconic cash but the citizens of Auckland don't have iconic cash.

"If we put on another of Auckland's iconic buildings it closes all options for the future. This is something that's sensible and affordable in recessionary times. It's a really good start - nothing more."

No one seems to be challenging the assumption that Princes Wharf's limitations as a cruise ship terminal can't be fixed, with Queens Wharf as a backup. It's a stone's throw from Queen St. Internationally, there are plenty of examples of rudimentary terminals in world class destinations - passengers do not visit for the terminal.

As for development costs, there's still considerable uncertainty. The ARC's $30 million estimate is for the terminal only. The city council's $84 million figure is a "worst case" estimate for the whole wharf, including a $20 million allowance for structural upgrade which Lee says may not be needed.

Lee last week condemned the city's $11.5 million allowance for paving and resurfacing as "gold plating." But the figure is for wharf amenities including lighting, furniture and a $6 million allowance for brick or bluestone at key entrances and on walkways. City development manager John Duthie says the bill could be reduced by resorting to concrete.

But the wharf surface is far from level - dips thought to be old loading bays could pose an injury risk to rugby revellers.

For all the uncertainty about the outcome, there's no denying the breakthrough deal creates a wonderful opportunity to create a world-class waterfront. It's just that Auckland's track record, with its divided governance, doesn't inspire boundless optimism. And the 11th-hour aspect of the deal means - sorry Otis Redding - but there's no time to waste.