Editorial: Stop secrecy and rethink Wynyard deal

Heritage buildings under threat in the Wynyard Quarter. Photo / Paul Estcourt

Wynyard Quarter, the new name for Auckland's western waterfront between the Viaduct and Westhaven, contains some buildings that are worth preserving. They are not particularly old, nor particularly significant.

Their preservation is sought by admirers of art deco, a period of architecture that is not to everyone's taste. These buildings have more character than many of the structures deemed worthy of preservation in other places, but that is not the main reason to keep them either.

The main reason lies in the nature of the redevelopment. This part of Auckland's waterfront renewal cannot be another Viaduct Harbour. A city can have too much of a good thing. There are only so many bars, cafes and nightspots it can support.

Wynyard Quarter will need a different kind of life and the hope is that it can sustain more of the life it already has. It is an area of maritime light industry with yacht supplies and showrooms and the fish market.

Certainly its design envisages apartments, public promenades and a tram attraction that will link it to the Viaduct, but the essence of its survival will be its industry. Its attraction to residents and visitors alike will be the sights, sounds, colour, clutter and occasional comings and goings of boats and marine services.

The way to enhance that sort of attraction is not to remove everything that is there and build something entirely new, as was done well at the Viaduct.

Wynyard Quarter needs to grow from what is there. What remains is little enough, just 17 buildings that architects have deemed worthy of preservation. They leave ample space on Halsey and Beaumont Sts and the big empty blocks between them for larger scale developments.

Yet it seems only eight of the 17 will be preserved. The rest were sacrificed by the former Auckland City Council in a deal with the developers that is so sensitive its details remain a secret.

The new Auckland Council has been briefed on the deal, so has the inner city's local board. As a subsidiary of the council the Waitemata board can be ordered to say nothing about the deal but it has expressed support for the Art Deco Society's bid to save all 17 buildings.

Why the secrecy? What can the former council and the developers have agreed to do that can not be made public? Whatever it may be the deal is so sensitive that the former council would not confirm its existence. One who knows, Mike Lee, former chairman of the now defunct Auckland Regional Council which opposed the deal, describes it as "cynical in the extreme and profoundly against the best interests" of Auckland.

What civic benefits might have been secured in return for permission to demolish all but eight of the Wynyard Quarter's built heritage? If the benefits outweigh the loss why can they not be disclosed? Councils are too quick to agree to secrecy in commercial dealings.

They are not private entities answerable only to bankers or shareholders, they are public bodies and their obligations to the public are well known to commercial interests that want to do deals with them.

The reclaimed land between Victoria Park and the harbour could become some of Auckland's best inner-city real estate. The central business district is gradually going that way, enticed by the Viaduct development and repelled by the ugly apartment blocks that have walled off the eastern waterfront.

Development can surely be enticed to the western reclamation without concessions that will carry a cost to its character. The Auckland Council should take a closer look at the deal and its secrecy. There must be a way to advance the public interest without subterfuge.