Make way: Move the port

 

Auckland was born and grew up because of its port, but in its maturity that doesn’t mean its harbour should be saddled with it.

Oliver Hartwich wonders whether “having a port in the middle of Auckland is really the best possible use of land.

Or more to the point, whether having a giant car park filled with Japanese used vehicles makes much sense just 500 metres away from busy Queen Street.
    I readily admit that I find the whole discussion about the Auckland port expansion rather odd. Not just for aesthetic reasons. Auckland is blessed with a stunning natural harbour. Why on earth you would spoil it by having container shipping, car parks and the like in the centre of the city is beyond me.
    From an economics perspective too, I also wonder whether this inner city land might not yield more value if put to different uses.

He talks about the re-development of Sydney’s Pyrmont suburb after port activities were moved away.

Among the most sought after locations you find in Sydney is the inner-city suburb of Pyrmont. It is not only home to headquarters of major companies such as American Express, Accenture, Vodafone, and Google. It has also become a major media hub with Fairfax, Seven West Media, and several radio stations all operating in the area.
    Pyrmont is among the priciest suburbs in the whole of Sydney to buy an apartment. Besides, at 13,850 residents per square kilometre it is the most densely populated suburb in all of Australia.
    Nobody would have seen Pyrmont’s rise coming 25 years ago. Back then, its population had dropped to under 1,000 people. The relocation of port activities from inner-city Pyrmont to the deep-water seaport located in Botany Bay had hit the area hard. But then Sydney discovered that a much better use of this conveniently located inner city area was not as a port facility but as a mixture of residential development and a hub for high-value add, white collar industries.

Clearly, New Zealand needs ports – and we don’t have another readily available deepwater option in Auckland.

But with two deepwater ports within three hours travel and the modern transport technology now available, we shouldn’t just be asking why the port needs to keep growing, but why New Zealand’s major port even needs to be in its major city at all?

Ports of Auckland: Remove the blinkers

Plan of the Auckland waterfront ca. 1930, with the older coastline
of 1841 also shown as a darker line [Pic Wikipedia Commons]

Since 1841 the Waitemata Harbour has been eaten into and ‘reclaimed’ many times. Point Britomart has long gone,  its fill forming the first great reclamation of 1880,and its name the title of a station and a trendy part of town. Other new  wharves and spaces have been added since, some of them now forming spaces on which to park cars.

The latest might seem like just another increment, but that little bit of land you see on the right-hand top corner of the video above? That’s the North Shore. And it’s a whole lot closer now than it was in 1866 (below). And increment by increment, both sides are getting closer.

Plan of North Shore, 1866
[Auckland City Library, George Grey Special Collections]

Yes, Ports of Auckland “own” the wharves, and all-but own the inner harbour, so on the face of it they do have the right to take more.  But that ownership is the ownership of a government monopoly – no care, and no responsibility.

Daniel Silva of the Importers Institute, who is in favour of the port expansion, makes an important point however (as he so often does):

The port of Auckland is having a hard time trying to keep up with growth. They need to make the wharves longer and to reclaim some land for port operations. It is perhaps unfortunate that the port is located in the centre of a city run by people who would rather enjoy their lattes on waterfront promenades, instead of having them cluttered with cranes and containers.
    They Grey Lynn aesthetes may be just indulging in their favourite sport, which is to remind the rest of us of their refined sensitivities and moral superiority. Or, they may well be on to something. Perhaps, the best solution would be to move the port to Whangarei, Tauranga or somewhere in the Firth of Thames. Anywhere, in fact, as long as it is as far away as possible from their backyards.
    The only problem is that a move to Whangarei would require massive investments in rail and road harbour bridges or tunnels to Auckland, a move to Tauranga would need new tunnels in the Kaimai ranges and a whole new port would require a massive investment in new facilities, in addition to the new road and rail links. And the problem is that in New Zealand, these days, we just don’t do massive infrastructure. It simply not possible to undertake any of those public works without upsetting the habitat of some snails, kauri saplings or taniwhas. So, it is not going to happen.
    The alternative to allowing the port to keep up with growth is to condemn it – and the city – to a graceful decline. The bigger container and cruise ships would sail by and Auckland would gradually become a commercial and industrial backwater. Like Wellington.

See, he has a point: as he sees it it’s the old battle between NIMBYism and development.  But to do you see the constraints within which the point makes sense?

The problem is that in New Zealand, these days, we just don’t do massive new infrastructure. Too many taniwhas in the way. So even if the best solution for an expanding port might be a port somewhere that’s able to expand, in a country that still worships at the altar of the Resource Management Act -- offering up occasional sacrifices of developers and entrepreneurs foolish enough to dream dreams and spend their own money on them --  new infrastructure for a new port just isn’t going to happen.

So we’re stuck instead with a politicised battle over an increment-by-increment harbour takeover by a local government monopoly.

Release those constraints however, remove the power of taniwhas and aesthetes, recognise real property rights, and then something more organic might be allowed to happen.

In other words, remove the blinkers.

If only.

" Wait until you see the Waitemata … the Isthmus of Corinth of the Antipodes”

Today’s snippet from NZ  history comes from businessman John Logan Campbell’s very readable memoirs of him making a life in early NZ. His first glimpse of the place that was to become Auckland bowled him over…

The Isthmus of Corinth of the Antipodes

BEAUTIFUL was Remuera's wooded shore, sloping gently to Waitemata's sunlit waters in the days of which I write. The palm fern-tree was there, with its crown of graceful bending fronds and black feathery-looking young shoots ; and the karaka with its brilliantly-polished green leaves and golden yellow fruit ; contrasting with the darker, crimped and varnished leaf of the puriri, with its bright cherry-like berry. Evergreen shrubs grew on all sides of every shade from palest to deepest green ; lovely flowering creepers mounted high over- head, leaping from tree to tree and hanging in rich festoons ; of beautiful ferns there was a profusion under foot. The tui, with his grand rich note, made the wood musical ; the great, fat, stupid pigeon cooed down upon you almost within reach, nor took the trouble to fly away.

There was nothing to run away from us ; for Nature, however prodigal in other respects, had not been so in vouchsafing any four-footed game. Fish in plenty, fowl but scanty, flesh none, save a rat, so poor Tongata Maori had to fall back upon himself when the craving for animal food seized him, and thus it may perhaps be inferred that land squabbles had ofttimes a bellicose origin in more senses than one, and that the organ of destructiveness was called upon to administer to that of alimentiveness, and cannibal feasts were the result.

But Tongata Maori's transition epoch had already set in… We had not taken long to decide that Waipeha's praises of the Waitemata were not exaggerated, and on no more fitting shores could a township be located. And it appeared to us on that bright and lovely morning that no town could lie on a more beautiful spot than the slopes of that shore. As we gained the summit of the ridge and turned to look seaward we stood entranced at the panorama revealed — stood entranced in mute amazement at the wonderful beauty of the glorious landscape…

Waipeha had unfolded to us the grand and beautiful isthmus which we were now traversing. Well justified was he, truly, in having said at the Herekino table d'hote in mysterious yet oracular tone, " Wait until you see the Waitemata" — we came, we saw, and we were conquered. Without one dissentient word we succumbed; we now all swore by the Waitemata, and were jubilant exceedingly as we walked along the native  footpath, the high fern and tupaki proclaiming the richness of the soil.

An hour's walk brought us to the base of a volcanic mount, some five hundred feet high, rising suddenly from the plain, the name of which Waipeha told us was Mungakiekie, but as it had one solitary large tree on its crater summit we christened it " One-Tree Hill," which for ever obliterated the Maori name from Pakeha vocabulary, but the grand old tree has passed away, causing later-day arrivals to wonder why the hill bears its name.

Alas that native names should have been replaced by Mount Eden, Wellington, Hobson, Smart ! — as if we were that smart people who would have changed them to Mount One, Two, and so on. And the islands in and around the harbour had better have been called A, B, C Islands, rather than change Motu Korea to Broion^s Island. What a blessed thing that Rangitoto has escaped the sacrilege of being named for ever as perhaps '^Two-Pap Peak Hill!" Had it been smitten with such an indignity the very name would have marred the beauty of that island's lovely out- line, and the landscape would not have been the same with such hideous words paining the ear. And why not say Remuera instead of Hobson? Great heavens! Hobson as against Remuera — Selwyn's Failure as against Kohiraaramara ! What's in a name? Everything — the rose wouldn't smell as sweet by any other, just because imagination is more than half the battle, and our senses ever befool us unwittingly.

But I must retrace my steps to the base of Mungakiekie, and where we first looked down upon, and felt the fresh breezes from, the western waters of the Manukau, these opened up to our sight resembling a great inland lake hemmed in by the sea -coast range of high forest-clad land. Through a break in the range — the entrance, in fact, to the harbour — we got a glimpse of the sea on the west coast. Underneath us, away at the foot of the slope which stretched from where we stood to the shore, close to the beach we could see the blue smoke rising from the native settlement to which we were bound. We walked slowly down the winding, sloping footpath, endeavouring to understand the topography of the landscape which revealed the head-lands of both the east and west coast, interlacing each other in a manner so puzzling that we were unable to unravel them and know which were which. The cool southerly wind blowing over the great Manukau basin we inhaled with positive physical enjoyment. In after-life I have only known such crisp delicious air when on Alpine summits or Highland moorlands in early autumn with the first of the clear northerly winds.

As we neared the settlement we walked through a large kumera plantation, and upon coming near the huts and being descried by the natives were welcomed with the customary cry of welcome, 'Haeremai, haeremai!’ and waving of their mats. We had arrived most opportunely; the steam was just arising from their hangis as these were being uncovered, and we were all soon served, each with a little freshly-plaited flax-leaf basket filled with most deliciously cooked kumeras, potatoes, and peppies...

As we reached the base of Mount Remuera, which the footpath skirted, I proposed that we should venture a scramble to the summit ; but of the other three cannies two were too cannie to face it, Cook and Makiniki making straight for our camping ground, whilst we " ither twa" braced the hill. It was pretty stiff scrambling over the top of high fern ; for sometimes, when unable to creep through it, we had to trample over it as best we could, but at last we gained the crater-top.

Ah ! I shall never forget the feelings of gratified amazement with which I gazed on the wonderful panorama which lay revealed to my sight for the first time on that now long-ago day. " Age cannot wither nor Time stale" its infinite beauty in my eyes. Since that day I have travelled far and wide, have stood on the Acropolis of Corinth and looked on its isthmus, and sea on either shore. I have seen Napoli La Bella and didn't die, have gazed on panoramas from Alpine and Apennine summits, but in later years, when I again stood on that self-same spot on Remuera's Mount, and gazed across Waitemata's waters and its many islands to Rangitoto's Peaks and the Cape Colville Range, I confess that to me it surpassed all I had ever seen elsewhere — stood forth pre-eminent, unequalled, unsurpassed.*

    * This panegyric received confirmation a score of years after it was written, tliuswise : — Two
    travellers making " le tour du monde," not " en quatre-vinr/t jours," stood upon a spot where a much
    more circumscribed view of the same landscape lay stretched before tlicm, and, just as a friend of mine
     passed them, the one exclaimed to the other — "Well, Harry, after this the Bay of Naples may shut up !"

---

John Logan Campbell came to New Zealand in 1840, arriving first in Coromandel and then the then capital of New Zealand, Auckland, which had been founded by Governor William Hobson. Campbell and William Brown (a Scottish lawyer) who arrived at the same time, were the first Europeans to settle in the area.
Logan Campbell and Brown built the first house in Auckland (Acacia Cottage,which still survives), set up the first business, opened the first shop and was the first exporter.
He was a world traveller, witnessing the great fires of San Francisco of 1851 and the grandeur of Europe, and lived a remarkably long life for those days, celebrating his 85th birthday by walking briskly up Rangitoto.
He quickly became prominent in Auckland, both in business circles and in public life. He was a co-founder of the ASB; a director of the BNZ and NZI; bankrolled the major newspaper, the Southern Cross; was superintendent of the province; he became an MP, Cabinet minister and Mayor of Auckland. He drove the first electric tram.
    He made an enormous amount of money from, among other things, what became Lion Breweries and was a renowned philanthropist. He also profited from his business exploits in shipping, timber, flax, kauri gum and manganese.

The account comes from his book Poenamo, which you can enjoy online as part of the Auckland Uni Early NZ Books archive.  Send me the gems you find.

[Pic: Sir John Logan Campbell, as painted by artist Louis John Steele. Picture / Auckland Art Gallery Toi o Tamaki]

Would-be Queens Wharf architects would throw their toys over two sheds [updated]

It’s amusing to hear that twenty-one Auckland architects have signed a letter protesting the demolition of the Queens Wharf cargo sheds, otherwise known as eyesores in the face of one of the world’s great harbours.

It’s amusing for one reason, because they say these eyesores are in fact “among the few good examples of early industrial architecture left in Auckland.”  They call them “noble,” without any hint of a wink. That’s highly amusing.

And it’s amusing for another reason because of the eight architects listed by the Herald as having signed the letter, at least four of them sent designs into the original Queens Wharf ‘Party Central’ competition (Gordon Moller was so excited he sent in two entries), at least three were slated to be part of the second stage once the competition winners were thrown out, and at least two were seriously upset to later get canned.

Not one of them, at any stage, in any of their designs, retained the sheds.

Yet now they’re all bemoaning their demolition.

Can anyone spell “sour grapes”?

Or is this just twenty-one under-employed architects saying a very loud “Gizza job.”

PS: For your homework, a) see if you can spot how many on the list are or have been part of Auckland City Council’s “Urban Design Panel,” who have total subjective say-so over so much of Auckland’s architecture, with complete veto powers over your next project; and b) what their aesthetic judgement about these sheds says about their qualification for such a position?

PPS: “I’m fed up with the bloody sheds… Forget about the sheds, they don’t matter.”

UPDATE: AUT historian Paul Moon, for whom I have increasing respect, argues in the Weekend Herald that we should shed no tears over those eyesores.

Their aesthetic value, even if they were restored to pristine condition, would be negligible, except for those with very fanciful imaginations… The fact is that the sheds on the Wharf were designed purely for functional reasons, in an age where aesthetic appeal in industrial buildings was considered even less important than it is now. To elevate them to anything even resembling architectural merit is disingenuous…
   “… it is surely a fallacy that just because something is (relatively) old, it therefore deserves a protective case placed over it so that it can be preserved in perpetuity. And all the time that the space is being held hostage by these grim buildings, the opportunity for our present generation of architects to shine by designing something genuinely inspirational on Queen's Wharf is kept out of reach.
    “That, surely, is the bigger architectural offence.”

Queens Wharf: Putting RWC Party Central into business [updated]

The big red gates were swung open today and Auckland’s Queens Wharf was opened to the public – for a few hours anyway, although by the speeches of the politicians holding the keys you’d have thought they were about to part the Red Sea for good.

This is the chosen site for Rugby World Cup’s Party Central, so it’s not just curiosity that sent people through those gates this afternoon: There were any number of Citroen owners out there too – i.e., architects keen to see how their designs for the ‘Party Central’ architectural competition stacked up on the site itself.

Queens Wharf up close and personal is vast and windswept, even on a sunny day like today, and the entries for the design competition to fill it for Rugby World Cup and beyond were also posted today, both online and ‘in person’ at the Union Fish Co building down on Quay St.  One or two of these ideas are probably going to cost you a lot of money between now and 2011 -- and only a few look like they’re be able to make any of it back --  so you owe it to yourself (so to speak) to see where your money might be going.  And even if ways can be found to make any of these pay for themselves, whatever’s built there is going to preside over Auckland’s harbour and be beamed out to the world during Rugby World Cup, 2011 – so you’d want it to be done right, wouldn‘t you.

Which is really my way of saying that you should take a look at what’s been designed for down there.  Here’s the official website.  Here’s the brief. Here’s the whole pageful of designs. Here’s your information about the exhibition of designs.

There are 233 designs produced from this short two-week competition – just enough time to get a strong idea, and almost enough time to present it well – in many of whom the words sails, sustainability, “elegant sheds” and “flax baskets” figure prominently, as do knock-offs of some of the world’s most well-known architects, along with wakas, silver ferns and rugby balls by the dozen.  No surprises there. Other more rigorous and more original architectural themes are also evident, which you’d expect when  Auckland’s best and brightest architects put their minds to the same site: a site whose situation is, lets face it, a stunner.

When it’s finished whatever’s built there will become, or should become, the way for Aucklanders in what’s now a shambles of a downtown to head out from the heart of their city and experience the Hauraki Gulf and one of the world’s best harbours.  But it has some challenges:

• Even with the red fence removed it’s still not easy getting there over all the roads – and the new bus terminal at the foot of Queen St is more a barrier than a link
• The scale of the harbour itself is so vast (like Sydney’s only several times larger) and the population so small (like Sydney only several times smaller) that to make something work there is a real challenge.
• Windswept wastelands litter the world as a result of architectural competitions for public space, and this site and its context offers more opportunity than most for this to happen again.
• A bill for development that neither the government nor the two councils involved – or, I’ll wager, most of their ratepayers and taxpayers -- really wants to pick up. Which is why two sheds are supposed to be retained which are so unattractive that if they were on a back block in Piopio you’d probably knock them down – yet here they are in a prime spot about to have the world’s eyes on them, and all the talk is how to bodge up some way to ‘make them work.’

So how have the designers solved these problems and summed up the site?  The brief was to put a Cruise Ship Terminal, Rugby World Cup ‘Party Central’ and a rigorous and  lasting public space down there. Most of the better solutions have included at least a few of the following features:

1. Good pedestrian links to Queen St and Quay St.
2. Sheltered (and  partially covered) amphitheatres as gathering spaces.
3. ‘Look-outs’ at the end of the wharf to present the Hauraki Gulf to visitors, and to act as a ‘destination’ for pedestrians at wharf’s end.
4. Offering the chance for dining over water – something strangely absent in what should be the world’s best maritime city.
5. Use of podiums to remove the Cruise Ship services and parking away from public spaces.

And here’s what I spotted doing some of these things well. To see them properly click on the image and a PDF image of the one-page design submission should open up.  As the designs are all submitted anonymously, they’re referred to only by numbers (disclaimer, one of these may or may not be my own contribution):

032, What it Does Well: Raising the podium and making it an expanded ferry terminal makes it an active working wharf (just as long as there are ferry services sufficient to fill it) and provides much interest across the wharf’s axis instead of just along it.  Good strong link to Quay St, which should give good visual presence from the foot of Queen St.

033, What it Does Well: Provides a strong sculptural integration of Terminal Building and (covered) public space.

  055, What it Does Well: Its ‘entrance poles’ give a strong visual presence to Queen Street, and give a nod to  the theme of ‘opening the red fence.’ Brings smaller scale marine activity into downtown. Reduces wharf’s enormous scale, retaining 'promenades.’

097, What it Does Well: A simple concept that takes visitors out to the water’s edge, with a ‘Lookout Tower’ offering views northwest out to the world’s best harbour.

096, What it Does Well: It uses the existing shed well (if you must) to produce a structural motif leading from entrance to wharf’s end.  Brings in water to the public space.

125, What it Does Well: It’s bold, it’s strong, it links pedestrians to the complex, and it elegantly solves the problem of integrating the Cruise Terminal by using it as the ‘soundstage and screen’ for the outdoor amphitheatre.

146, What it Does Well: A seductively simple concept that elegantly solves the problem of integrating the Cruise Terminal and the raised public space.

161, What it Does Well: It’s bold, it’s strong, it embraces the scale and sweep of the harbour; its lettable space could pay for itself. It takes pedestrian from all sides of Quay St and offers them bridges over and ramps that sweep into and around (on several interlocking levels) to become first an amphitheatre, then the Cruise Terminal, and out to a ‘Lookout’ from which to enjoy the Gulf .

197, What it Does Well: Takes the wharf down to the water with a ‘beach,’ gives protected open space, and gives a ‘Lookout’ from which to enjoy the Gulf (you see what I mean by “some common themes”?).

205, What it Does Well: Brings the city to the water’s edge by bringing the harbour right into the city – to regenerate Quay St as well as the two wharves.

211, What it Does Well: Uses its curving geometry to give scale to the site; puts its' public amphitheatre in the right spot; offers a unique Lookout Tower to give visitors ‘an eye’ on the whole Hauraki Gulf. There’s humour in it.

And finally, at least numerically, 211. What it Does Well: Brings Calatrava to Auckland.

So those are the ones that caught my eye. And what will probably win?  Probably none of these.  Probably something like one of these two: something that’s simple and box-like and could just as easily be in a suburban park; something unchallenging that re-uses the two existing barns; something with open plazas so windswept and vast – so pedestrian and unimaginative – it’ll feel like Red Square by the Water; something without a hope of earning back its construction costs, so that you’d wonder whether it would even be worth the bother and the expense.  Nice pictures but.

 

UPDATE:  Clearly while all the architects were wandering around starry eyed on the wharf yesterday, the politicians were doing a deal.  From Radio NZ comes news that "Government is not ruling out more Queen's Wharf cash" :

    “The Government is now open to the idea of pumping additional money into the redevelopment of Queen's Wharf in Auckland. . . .
    “The Government bought the wharf jointly with the Auckland Regional Council in June for $40 million and warned it did not want to spend any more on it.
    However Prime Minister John Key now says the Government could contribute further.”

My guess is that John Banks showed John Key the amount the parlous ratepayer could afford, pointed to something like the sad picture above and said something like: “Unless your taxpayers pony up, that’s all you’re gonna get.”  That’s just a guess, mind you.  ;^)

Tanking the Tank Farm before building even begins ...

It would be amusing to watch all the political wrangling over Auckland's Tank farm precinct if only the future of one of the most important pieces of Auckland's future wasn't at stake.

As the Herald says, "just average" is just "not good enough for the waterfront," but with some exceptions "just average" is all we can expect from what's become a highly politicised wrangle.

The present hearing, which that Herald article presaged, was ostensively designed to "plan" the future of what's now being called Wynyard Quarter -- "the former bulk oil storage facility and industrial properties will house bars, restaurants, office blocks and apartments, while a 4 hectare harbour-edge park will form part of the development," insist the politicians -- but as we know politicians couldn't organise a piss in a paper bag. 

Radio NZ's Todd Nyall summarises the problems so far [audio here], which include the inability of the competing political bodies to agree, the inability of politicians and planners to understand that current owners and tenants of long-standing such as most of the fishing and marine industry might have some rights too -- and that there are good economic reasons why they're there -- and the largely arbitrary placement and decisions regarding apartments and office space and 'boulevards', which have largely ignored the existing owners and tenants, and in the case of one boulevard, runs right over one corner of Sanfords' fish processing plant.

Just think for a moment about that quote two paragraphs above about what "will" go there -- there at the will of time-servers and power-lusters, not because they necessarily make any sense.  These are people who only know what's been done before, not what's possible to the imagination in this world class location!  That is, I suggest, the biggest (and unspoken) problem.

Frankly, these are people with all the imagination of, well, politicians and planners.  They neither know enough to know what should go there and nor do they have the imagination to wonder about what might go there, in other words what makes both economic and architectural sense in this once-in-a generation opportunity for Auckland to get it right and transform itself, and nor do they have the right to go trampling over existing ownership rights. 

I suggest there are two simple ways to depoliticise the whole process before it turns into the Sovietised centrally planned suburban embarrassment it is likely to become, instead of the urban waterside jewel in Auckland's crown that it should be.  Instead of braindead political wrangling over what will form part of the development, here's what the two competing councils could do:

1. Announce that the whole precinct is to become an officially mandated Enterprise Zone in which all zoning, planning and other restrictions on imagination are removed -- hell, why not go the whole hog and make it a Free Tax and Free Trade zone and really let enterprise rip -- leaving property owners and entrepreneurs free to give vent to their own imaginations, instead of being held down to the imagination of those who couldn't get a job outside the council, and protected in their property rights by a simple codification of common law rights that could be introduced as voluntary covenants.  Can you just imagine the wonders we would see?
2. Announce that the property interests that both councils hold in the area will be sold to lower the council rates bill (which is going up for another year, in case you haven't heard), but not before announcing that one special part of the area will be subject to a competition for an iconic building -- something of the stature of Sydney's Opera House -- something that is backed by a private development team -- something that will proudly hold its place, and recognise the special place that is the Waitemata waterfront.  Who knows what delights we might see emerge, and what opportunities?

Stadium choice: Two false alternatives

Three events today will see chances for the waterfront behemoth advance, or recede.

• A meeting to protest the waterfront stadium and the railroading through of the waterfront option will be held in Auckland's Aotea Square at 12:30pm, with speakers from Rodney Hide to Keith Locke.
• The protest meeting is in advance of the Auckland City Council's meeting this evening to vote on their preference.
• That vote may be delayed by the court hearing this morning seeking an injunction on any vote, on the basis that councils are acting illegally by allowing insufficient time for consultation.

And it's worth reminding readers that the short time for a decision isn't the only railroading going on here: cheaper and better options were peremptorily ruled out by Minister Mallard in order to oppose as two false alternatives one expensive white elephant with another in order for the Bedpan to be the favoured choice.

Because it's clear if you list the stadiums in order of preference (my preference) based on either quoted costs (or estimated costs of $9,000/seat) and their long-term potential for actually being used regularly and contributing to the city, neither the full Eden Park option nor the Bedpan would figure highly.

1. Eden Park -- temporary stands (about $45-100m)
2. Jade Stadium -- additions to 60,000 ($80m)
3. North Harbour -- additions to 60,000 ($226m)
4. Carlaw Park -- new stadium and Domain renovations (say $750m, minus Eden Park's sale)
5. Wiri - new stadium and rail lines (say $750m, minus Eden Park's sale)
6. Telstra Stadium, Sydney -- (you could buy ownership for just A$200m -- Stadium New Zealand in Sydney!)
   
7. Waka Stadium -- what cost?
   
8. Eden Park -- gold-plated option ($385m plus)
9. Bedpan -- new stadium, plus new facility for Ports ($1 billion plus)

It's also worth remembering that the Eden Park Trust Board helped bring this whole farce about when they saw their chance at piles of government money coming their way, and they went from what was a proposal for essentially temporary stands to the current bout of grandomania.

RELATED: Stadium, Politics-NZ, Auckland

Stadium drawings deceptive

Union House on Quay Street measures just under 44m high to the top of the braced frame, with an interstorey height of 3.4m. That's a dimensioned elevation of it at left, and in the picture below it's the white building in the foreground with diagonal braces, pictured just to the right of the stadium. (See it also in the picture at right.)

Do you think the stadium in the picture below (one of the suite of officially released drawings of the proposal [pdf]) has been drawn to a height of just two floors below the top of Union House's structural frame?

And if not, why do you think it hasn't been?

UPDATE 1: Robin from RobiNZ CAD Blog has put together a model with Architectural Desktop and Google Earth, just to see what the height really looks like and how dominant the thing is when drawn to its actual, stated height. See the results below (Union House, used as a datum, is shown red). The top picture is from the same viewpoint as the presentation drawing above so you can easily compare the two. It seems that stadium architects Warren and Mahoney have been using more than a little airbrush...

Now, why do you think they would do that? What does it mean when they have to lie to convince you?

UPDATE 2: Whale Oil has a post on the same subject, showing approximately a 7m discrepancy between the stated height of the stadium and the height shown in the official presentation sketches.

UPDATE 3: Bear in mind that the waterfront stadium proposal includes provision to extend Bledisloe Wharf by a further 65m closer to Devonport. Extend it too much further and we'll be presented with our second harbour crossing...

UPDATE 4: "A source" tells me that "the graphic artists were told by the architects to use 34 metres, which kinda means they cheated on purpose." Looks that way, doesn't it. [Removed because "the source of the source" says this isn't what he said.]

UPDATE 5: David Slack has an account of last night's Devonport meeting to oppose the waterfront stadium. And he has a prediction:

The ACC vote will only establish whether they will be willingly giving up their ratepayers' wallets. The whole thing will turn on how the ARC decide to lay their bets, looking at the Ports on one side and the Government on the other. I predict they will try to push the Government into making the IRB or NZRFU dig deep to come up with an 80 million dollar resolution of the 12,000-odd seat shortage for the final. They'll propose that we do something splendid on the Tank Farm in due course, without suspending the RMA and democratic process and call it a National Stadium. This stadium would be funded by the government rather then the people of Auckland. That's the way they do it with 'National' buildings in Wellington.

UPDATE 6: Photo of Union House added, and extent of dimensions clarified in the text.

UPDATE 7: Pics below of stadium bulk from Quay St East (top) and Quay St West (below) using Robin's Architectural Desktop sketch over Google Earth (click on the pics for a larger image). That's Union House in red (used as the datum) and the Ferry Building shown in yellow. The stadium is unfortunately shown in sea green...


UPDATE 8: Den has supplied a far better screen grab of the official stadium pictures showing the relationship between proposed stadium and Union House, which we've been using for our datum, so you can much easier answer the question posed initially, ie.: has the stadium in the picture below (one of the suite of officially released drawings of the proposal [pdf]) been drawn to a height of just two floors below the top of Union House's structural frame:
Your call.

RELATED: Stadium, Politics-NZ, Auckland

"No!" to waterfront stadium

Blogging this afternoon's public meeting co-hosted by Keith Locke and Rodney Hide to oppose Mallard's waterfront stadium: the meeting ended with a unanimous vote against the proposal.

It's not often I go to a 300-strong public meeting on a political hot potato and don't heckle -- or don't need to. It's even less often that I would be found applauding (loudly) Keith Locke, Rodney Hide, John Minto, several Auckland City Councillors and the architect of Wellington's Te Papa (in fact, I can assure you it's never happened before).

Today, however, was that day.

On the simple issue of saying "No" to Trevor Mallard's Auckland waterfront stadium, there was no need to heckle and every reason to applaud since at this afternoon 's meeting to oppose the stadium, all spoke in opposition to the waterfront stadum, and all made perfect sense -- and over the course of a two-hour meeting, they were joined by several other speakers who also made perfect sense across a surprising similarity of themes: the lack of information, and the lying about the information given; a government intent on railroading this thing through; the outright inability for a project like this to fit that site; the enormous cost both for the stadium and for the moving of the port facilities; Here's a brief summary of what the main speakers said, who where:

• Keith Locke: The decision-making in evidence here is an affront to democracy; the proposal undermines what has been happening to open up the waterfront; there is no evidence for it invigorating the CBD as claimed; it will be a huge economic cost; there is no specific design here, just a sketch on a piece of paper. Right on all five.
• Dianne Brand, from the Auckland Architecture School, and member of Dick Hubbard's 'Urban Design Panel': Theatre and stadium design, she says, is commercially all about bums on seats. Architecturally, this stadium as designed is "all bum, from all directions." It is "disproportionately large" for that site -- and evidence offered later in the meeting is that the few drawings released distort the scale to hide the real size; and in an effort to make the thing fit, it has over the last week been given "the tutu treatment": a man-made beach to the north, in the middle of the commercial shipping lanes (as one wag said later, something only a Wellington architect would propose), and a "commercially unviable western park." It doesn't fit. At all.
• Architect Pete Bossley: Bossley, responsible for Te Papa, told the meeting he and others have repeatedly asked to see the reports on urban design issues for the stadium. "We've asked. They haven't been done." No examination has been done on issues of wind, scale, transport. The stadium is out of all proportion for the site (and he would know). It buries the finger wharves that could eventually be usedThe architectural effect of the stadium needs to be considered when empty, with all the lights off, just as it will be for ninety-five percent of the time, not as the pretty pictures show it bathed in a halo of light.
• Lynette Wells (hotel industry): pointed out the iniquity of the proposed method of funding, that is, the bed tax and the airport tax. There is "alarm" within her industry at what this would do to tourism; tax and ratepayers should be alarmed at the price, and the potential for other councils to levy similar taxes in their areas if this is approved; the hotel industry is "vehemently opposed" to both.
• Cathy Casey (Auckland City Councillor): Councillors, who are expected to make a decision on this with two weeks, "have been treated like mushrooms -- kept in the dark and fed with shit." The Herald this morning is "lying," she said, when they reported "Councillors in shock stadium u-turn " on the waterfront stadium. "There has been no such U-turn. [Herald journalist] Janet Savage made that up." A Press Council complaint is being prepared. Casey later supplied a list of the councillors and where they stand (see below). Five against the bedpan, eight for, and eight 'floating' councillors.
  
• Christine Caughey (Auckland City Councillor): The stadium is an affront to the process being worked through by Auckland City to open up the waterfront. Submissions have repeatedly shown, for example, that people want viewshafts opened up to the Hauraki Gulf islands. Councillors have been "ambushed by the Minister." They have asked for a firm design ... there is none. For evidence on costings ... there is none. For evidence of urban design analysis, or transport studies, or economic impact reports ... there are none.
  
• Robyn Hughes (ARC councillor): The ARC owns the port, not the government. She does not want "a giant used condom" down there. Speaking to me before the meeting, Hughes confirmed to me that the proposal presently on the table for moving the port is to extend Bledisloe Wharf into the harbour by another 65m (that's half a rugby field).
• Tessa Duder (author and historian): Duder talked of quotes she had found describing the site of Auckland, and compared them to what is proposed. [I remember architect Claude Megson, for example, talking about the Auckland as one thin strip of land hung suspended between the sparkling waters of two harbours, and anchored by two sets of hills to east and west.] The imagery of what has been proposed "is seen from flattering angles, is doctored and dishonest," (on that, see below). "That gently glowing, translucent, floating white cloud will certainly be a 10 to 12-storey wall along much of Quay St - a monstrous, cancerous protrusion into the harbour." With what is proposed for the edge of those sparkling waters, she would no longer look forward to taking her guests and grandchildren up Mt Eden and North Head since she couldn't explain to them how such a monstrosity could have been built; "I will have difficulty holding back my tears."
• Waterfront resident Susan Grimsdale: Received assurances from council when buying her apartment that there was an 18m height limit for ports area -- stadium sketch is said to be 37m (about twelve stories). BUT: the presentation pictures (see right) are a lie. The light standard to the right of the stadium in the picture to the right is 30m high, but the stadium is shown lower. "This is pure deception" [something, as we know, that is not unfamiliar to Mallard]. "Think Big" in a different guise. [Check back later for a properly-scaled sketch of the stadium based on released information.]
  
• John Minto [yes, that John Minto]: "Trevor Mallard accuses Auckland of "a lack of vision." But when you see Trevor Mallard, so you see "vision"?" When NZ won the 2011 World Cup, it was based on spending $45m for temporary stands to increase the capacity of Eden Park. As a resident, Minto is all in favour of that proposal. And as he pointed out, Mallard has told schools they need to run cake stalls to fund any extras at their schools. "Why doesn't the Eden Park Trust Board start baking cakes to raise their $45m?" [Why not, indeed?]
• Steve [?] Bagley (Auckland Rugby Union): ARU will lose $20m over the World Cup. Waterfront Stadium estimates are "dishonest," he says. Eden Park is costed on $9,000 per seat, which is consistent with the costs of the last eleven stadiums to be built in this part of the world. Waterfront Stadium costed at just $6,000 per seat, plus the plattform and piling, plus the cost of removing the port operations [including extending Bledisloe Wharf by 65m]. Think one billion. At least.
• David Thornton (No More Rates): Three questions still not answered, but we can all guesstimate for ourselves what the answers will be: How much will it cost? At least one billion. Who pays? Us. Who will own it, and who will pay the operating losses? Er ...
• Bill Hodge (constitutional law specialist): Four main legal issues with the ramming through of the waterfront stadium with enabling legislation that are going to cause "immense damage to our constitutional fabric." 1. The common law issues of tort, nuisance etc. that are to be overridden without consultation. 2. The overriding, without consultation, of statutory controls on nuisance, eg, the RMA. 3. The overriding, without consultation, of commercial legislation, such as the Local Government Act, the Port Companies Act and the Public Finance Act. 4. The overriding, without consultation, of Treaty of Waitangi issues. The Government's answer for all four sets of issues is clear: Enabling legislation in the same form as the Thing Big legislation of 1982 for the Clyde Dam that overrides the Local Government Act, the Resource Management Act, the Public Finance Act, the Port Companies Act and others. And therein lies a lesson for any politicians voting in favour of the 2006 version: they should remember what happened to Social Credit, who decided to vote for Muldoon's Thing Big legislation, and were deservedly buried by the voters.
• Rodney Hide (ACT leader): From discussion with Mallard, Mallard has confirmed that for the waterfront stadium to go ahead: 1. he needs a majority from both the Auckland Regional Council and the Auckland City Council (so get those letters, emails and phone calls out to those councillors); 2. he needs the National Party to agree on the Bed Tax, on Enabling Legislation, and on a Kafka-esque Consent Authority to rubber stamp a consent that overrides all the legislative protections outlined by Bill Hodge (so get those emails, letters and phone calls out to all the National MPs, and tell them you don't want a billion dollars of your money wasted on a Monument to Mallard).

SO, WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Auckland City Council will meet Thursday night to vote on their decision. Auckland Regional Council will meet Friday. Lobbying of National Party MPs will be undertaken all week (look out for deals being done this week). You have just one week to sway the argument.

A PUBLIC PROTEST is organised for AOTEA SQUARE Thursday lunchtime, 12:30pm, in advance of the Auckland City Council vote. Get on down there.

Cathey Casey issued a list of the eight "floating" Auckland City councillors who need to hear from you: Leila Boyle cr.boyle@aucklandcity.govt.nz, Bill Christian cr.christian@aucklandcity.govt.nz, Glenda Fryer cr.fryer@aucklandcity.govt.nz, John Hinchcliffe cr.hinchcliff@aucklandcity.govt.nz, Toni Miller cr.millar@aucklandcity.govt.nz, Penny Sefuiva cr.sefuiva@aucklandcity.govt.nz, Faye Storer cr.storer@aucklandcity.govt.nz, Bruce Hucker cr.hucker@aucklandcity.govt.nz.

Here are the addresses for the Auckland Regional Councillors who need to hear from you: dianne.glenn@arc.govt.nz; christine.rose@arc.govt.nz;
sandra.coney@arc.govt.nz; hoadley.consultants@xtra.co.nz; mbarnett@chamber.co.nz; david@khh.co.nz; bill.burrill@arc.govt.nz; robyn.hughes@arc.govt.nz; craig.little@arc.govt.nz; joelc@kiwilink.co.nz.

Auckland's mayors: Bob.Harvey@waitakere.govt.nz; George.Wood@northshorecity.govt.nz;
contactus@manukau.govt.nz; mayor@aucklandcity.govt.nz.

Auckland's MPs, and those who are (or should be) taking an interest: tmallard@ministers.govt.nz; mcullen@ministers.govt.nz;
pm@ministers.govt.nz; judith.tizard@parliament.govt.nz; don.brash@national.org.nz;
murray.mccully@national.org.nz; jonathan.coleman@parliament.govt.nz; john.key@parliament.govt.nz; wayne.mapp@parliament.govt.nz; clem.simich@parliament.govt.nz;
peter.dunne@parliament.govt.nz; wpeters@ministers.govt.nz; ; jeanette.fitzsimons@parliament.govt.nz; pita.sharples@parliament.govt.nz.

And you can contact all the National Party MPs here to discourage them NOT to support either enabling legislation to override existing law, or the imposition of any new taxes: www.national.org.nz. (And, if you're keen, download contact details for all 121 MPs here [pdf].) Tell them you'll remember both at the next election.

Get on to it!

UPDATE: Herald has a report of the meeting, and their own story on how Auckland's councillors will be voting. They claim six councillors are floating, as against Cathy Casey's eight: "Two of those yet to decide - Citizens and Ratepayers Now councillors Doug Armstrong and Toni Millar - indicated last night they would support a waterfront stadium if the Government agreed to build it further east, on Bledisloe Wharf." But as Armstrong wasn't on Casey's list of "floaters" (she had him backing Hubbard) and Bledisloe has already been rejected (as Brian Rudman reports) ... They also have Christian and Storer as Eden Park supporters, and Glenda Fryer as a yes, whereas Casey has all three as "floaters."

It's going to be tight.
RELATED: Stadium, Politics-NZ, Auckland

Dullard lashes out

By jillikers, Mallard snarls when he's spurned, doesn't he. Clearly the meeting with Auckland councillors yesterday went as well for him as the various stadium votes around the place.

• Aucklanders have "no vision" he says -- or could it just be we dislike his vision, and really don't like being railroaded.
• "Waterfront opponents" are guilty of "a viral campaign" against him, he charges.
• Eden Park trustees are incompetent, he suggests, for offering him a $385 million option for just 14,528 extra seats.

"Trust him," he says, despite his venom and despite him -- in just one week -- lying about Eden park piling and the price of the waterfront stadium; insisting that the Government's own legal avenues for development be sidestepped by the Government; declaring last week he needs "unanimity" in the stadium choice and this week (when things are going against him) that all he needs to go ahead with the waterfront is just a rump that agrees with him; and it being revealed this morning that the piling contract for the waterfront option may have been illegally let (never mind, eh, that's what retrospective legislation is for!).

And I note that "Aucklanders" have been instructed to "decide" on just two stadium choices in just two weeks -- as Jim Hopkins summarises: "Here are your options. Pick one or it goes to Jade!" -- without anything like adequate information being presented to explain the Government's preferred option; without any explanation at all what the plans are for the displaced port operations; without any explanation why other options such as Wiri, Carlaw Park and North Harbour were so summarily rejected, apparently without adequate investigation -- even as he dismisses "phone-in" polls that reject his baby as "unscientific."

Is it any wonder this person and his methods of operation are held in such contempt -- and I say that in the full knowledge that Parliament's speaker "may treat as a contempt reflections on the character or conduct of a member in the member’s capacity as a member of the House."

But tell me this, has anyone seen anything clarifying how those decisions are to be communicated to he who likes to be obeyed? Or is it really just Auckland City and Auckland Regional Councillors who get to decide? Or can we just expect a declaration by the Sports Minister about this time next week decreeing what he has discerned"we" actually want?

Minister, you are contemptible. I fart in your general direction.

UPDATE: Confirmation this morning too that Mallard lied about Carlaw Park, which he said was dismissed for three reasons which included the problem that "roading runs too close to the proposed area for the park, leaving inadequate space for people filling a 60,000 seat stadium to spill out on to afterwards." As I noted at the time, the 'problem' just isn't there at Carlaw Park (see a proposed Carlaw Park plan to the right with concourses effecting the dispersal), but it is there in spades with Mallard's bedpan as traffic engineer Graham Steverson confirms this morning:

A fundamental requirement would be closing Quay St for rugby cup games and other big events.

"That is essential because it is the only side of the compass you have got to get everybody out of the stadium, so you can't have a live road there."

The question of where Quay St's regular traffic would go was "a biggie."

It is. Mr Steverson can't just be dismissed because he's Eden Park's traffic engineer. It is a biggie. See NZ HERALD - Stadium decision: Street closure and tunnel on cards [Hat tip Whale Oil]

RELATED: Stadium, Sport, Politics-NZ, Auckland

What about the architecture?

Mathew Brown at the Auckland Architectural Association has noted that "its not often that architecture hogs the headlines," but with the stadium debate that's what we've seen. However, as he's noted, "it has given an insight into architecture’s place in New Zealand’s culture."

The discussion has been framed in terms of buildability, expenditure, heritage, public transport, democratic participation (or lack thereof), but as he says:

What does it say about architecture’s place in New Zealand’s society when the extent of design discussion is, in the end, reduced to some 3D renderings?

Up until the unveiling of Warren and Mahoney’s proposal in the weekend papers, the graphics guy at the New Zealand Herald had done more with photoshop to describe the possibilities of a waterfront stadium than any commentary offered by our profession...

And as Robin notes of that ninety-second 3d rendering:

All the flashy Weta effects can’t hide the bulk of Mallards Stadium New Zealand. Sitting on the waterfront like a giant turdthat’s washed up in a spring tide, making it translucent doesn’t hide the size. Interesting it’s only shown at dusk and never from Quay Street which is how it will be seen by most and where the impact of it’s bulk will be the worst.

Mathew concludes:

The architecture profession in New Zealand needs to provide the public with the skills to participate in a design discussion. That way, when a situation like this presents itself, we might expect the public to seek a good architectural response.

Instead we find ourselves in a position where “Auckland” has two weeks to decide which option they want. That’s right, design by public opinion. Now that the ratepayers have heard what the builder, quantity surveyor, minister for sports (and economic development) and prominent rugby players have said, we’ll turn around and ask them what they think. Does that sound like a successful design process?

Does it?

UPDATE 1: We've now been treated by waterfront stadium architects Warren and Mahoney to a brief view of their proposal from Quay St (right, courtesy of the Herald), and a more informative one by that stalwart Herald graphic artist.

UPDATE 2: Meanwhile, Sports Minister Trevor Mallard, fresh from claiming Fletcher Building had been talking down the Eden Park foundations (a claim denied by Fletchers) has come out accusing Eden Park supporters mounting a "viral" campaign against his baby, of pushing "unscientific" polls, of "a lack of vision," and of peddling misinformation. Minister Mallard is now undergoing treatment for an overdose of irony.

LINK: Ahem...what about architecture? - Mathew Brown, Auckland Architecture Association
Mallard's translucent turd by the harbour - Stadium NZ - RobiNZ Personal Blog
Mallard accuses waterfront opponents of 'viral' campaign - NZ Herald

RELATED: Stadium, Architecture, Sport, Politics-NZ, Auckland

Another Auckland bridge, another 'b' word

It's been a week of nonsense from Auckland councillors, and it still keeps coming.

Following on from proposals to enact literal highway robbery on Auckland's motorists and those just passing through, and the helpful suggestion by the chairman of Auckland's transport committee to demolish Auckland's Harbour bridge ("past its use-by date" says the twit) and the same twit's earlier claim that cars are "eating" Auckland, we learn today that "cars [are] to be banned from Grafton Bridge" -- at the time of its completion in 1910 (see pictures at bottom) the biggest span reinforced concrete arch bridge in the world.

Of course that was when Auckland's city fathers thought big. Not any more.

Not content with having destroyed the visual appeal of the bridge a few years back with Soviet-era safety screens (left) that make crossing Grafton Bridge on foot somewhat like crossing Checkpoint Charlie instead of the occasion it had become with the removal of the wire suicide screens (above), the council now want to destroy it as a vehicle amenity. "This is one of the initiatives to improve public transport," said Mayor Mother Hubbard. You can certainly see why his friends call him 'Dick.'

LINKS: Cars to be banned from Grafton Bridge - NZ Herald

TAGS: Auckland Economics Urban_Design, Architecture

Idiots 'eating' Auckland

On Friday I quoted Auckland City's Transport Committee chair Richard Simpson as saying that cars are "eating" Auckland. You may have seen yesterday that this same twit now wants to demolish the Auckland Harbour Bridge.

And he's serious.

And you wonder again why Auckland's roads don't function well, when gentlemen of this calibre chair Transport Committee deal with their functioning. If anything's 'eating' Auckland its idiots like this being in charge of something about which they have no ability whatsoever.

UPDATE: Incidentally, the idiot even has to lie to make his point, such as it is.

Mr Simpson intends to put his suggestions for alleviating traffic congestion and pollution to the council. His prime concern is Auckland's extremely high rate of car ownership, with 1.7 per household instead of 1.4 for the likes of San Francisco, a city he says he admires.

From the San Francisco Metropolitan Transport Commission: "In 2000, the number of cars owned regionwide totaled more than 4.5 million — about 1.85 cars per household." Spot the difference? Not 1.4 but 1.85, which I'm sure even Mr Simpson realises is greater than 1.7 (or 1.66 to use the exact figure for car ownership in Metropolitan Auckland.). So if Simpson has to lie to make his point, do you think he really has one? Is he truly duplicitous or just an idiot? Answers on a postcard please.

LINKS: Traffic chief wants to demolish the harbour bridge - NZ Herald [Hat tip DPF]
New Auckland car tax voted for closer look - Not PC
Bay Area transportation basics - San Francisco Metropolitan Transport Commission

TAGS: Auckland, Economics