Fran O'Sullivan: Berlin's party central the way to go

What sort of collective madness has overtaken the Auckland City Council to react Pavlovian-style to John Key's dictate that Queens Wharf should be "party central" during Rugby World Cup 2011?

Don't get me wrong here. The Government and the Auckland Regional Council did a mighty thing by stumping up $20 million each to buy the wharf off the ailing Ports of Auckland as the site for a new cruise ship terminal. But the Government should either back off or come to the party with a lot more cash if it wants to play a role in the next phase.

Aucklanders have finally been presented with the opportunity to consider putting an iconic, new, mixed-use building on the wharf rather than a simple refurbishment of the existing turn-of-last-century sheds.

But two issues stand in the way of "open sky" thinking.

First, the economic recession. This has already been cited by the Auckland City Council as a reason for not investing some $144 million in a new "iconic" terminal which presumably could also house other attractions like the Auckland Theatre Company.

Instead, it now plans to invest $84 million in refurbishing the two existing Queens Wharf sheds - one to be a cruise terminal, the other John Key's "party central".

But even Auckland Regional Council boss Mike Lee - who theoretically has a say as his council is part-owner of the wharf - thinks this is too "gold-plated".

There is in fact no reason why one of the cargo sheds couldn't be revamped on a temporary basis to provide more room for more cruise ships to tie up in Auckland while the Cup is on. (That is, if they really will be needed for extra accommodation).

That could be done while the new Auckland Council undertakes a proper investigation on whether a really internationally competitive iconic building could be built on the wharf at an economically sustainable price.

What is really stunning is that the Auckland City Council was also prepared to consider spending $52.1 million to plop a "fan zone" on the wharf for the Rugby World Cup.

This is barking stuff given the council has already been beefing up Aotea Square as the site of just such a venue. What is wrong with simply following the well-trodden path set by other nations that host major sporting events?

Take World Cup 2006, arguably the best thing to happen to Germany's branding image since the fall of the Berlin Wall. For decades, Germany's image had been perceived as masculine, technologically oriented, organisationally superior, dour, reserved and formal.

But the spirit with which the Germans embraced their role as host of this major sporting event certainly changed perceptions for those - including myself - that trekked to Berlin to take part in the "fan fest" and soak up German culture.

What Berlin did was simply block off the main road that runs through the Tiergarten from the Brandenburg Gate through to the Victory column and erect a series of giant screens where fans could watch the games, enjoy rock bands and other entertainment. Admittedly, the World Cup was held in warmer weather - not the marginal seasonal timing that the international rugby chiefs prefer.

But the point of this illustration is that Germany preferred to leverage existing assets, realising that the three million extra visitors they attracted for the Cup would only require temporary fan zone facilities.

Where Germany did invest large was in its stadia and ensuring visitors had the opportunity to enjoy major cultural experiences. It showed Germany as the "Land of Ideas" - leveraging its vast literature, classical music and scientific history.

Who could not fail to be inspired by its outdoor book sculptures showing off authors like Goethe, or Einstein's E=MC2 sculpture and the exhibitions that stood testimony to modern Germany's artistic outpourings.

Surely it would be a simple thing to similarly close off Auckland's Quay Street between Foodtown and the Viaduct Basin to traffic for a six-week period and create our own version of the Berlin Tiergarten fanfest at a fraction of the $54 million the Council was prepared to consider at Queen's Wharf?

Putting giant screens and marquees down Quay street would ensure other existing restaurants and bars at Viaduct Harbour, Princes Wharf and Britomart would also get plenty of action through directly shouldering "party central".

This would leave cash over to invest in what New Zealand might want to be remembered for - like cultural events and investment opportunities.

The other issue standing in the way of "open sky thinking" is governance. Auckland City Council and the Auckland Regional Council will each be out of business when the Super City goes into effect late next year. This puts Auckland transition authority boss Mark Ford in an impossible position.

Ford will be asked to adjudicate between Auckland City Council, Mayor John Banks, who wants to spend $84 million now, and Auckland Regional Council boss Mike Lee, who wants to ensure what goes on his wharf is economically sustainable.

This is a long-term issue that the new city's ratepayers should resolve.

In the meantime, what's wrong with a Berlin-type solution?