Editorial: Waterfront a bust but it could boom

When my Kiwi partner asked me in London if I would move back to New Zealand with him, I agreed only if I could choose which city we lived in.

I chose Tauranga. After five years here, I still love this town, but if there is one issue that seriously worries me it is the waterfront.

The water, both harbour and beaches, is Tauranga's greatest asset but we do not harness its value. The city does not connect to the water.

A successful waterfront development has the potential to make or break this city economically and aesthetically. We cannot afford to get it wrong.

Finally, the waterfront project is under way but as James Fuller

reports

, it is not pleasing all business owners on the Strand.

This is concerning because for many years councillors, business owners and ratepayers have debated how the prime waterfront land should be best utilised.

This protracted delay has hampered Tauranga's growth. It has also highlighted the extent to which the city is at the mercy of council control.

The council has a key role in city planning in funding and regulation, but such a vital development as the waterfront should have been more strongly driven by the business community.

The waterfront needs to be a dynamic environment that will attract and retain visitors - locals and tourists. I believe this needs to include a strong commercial element.

Auckland's Wynyard Quarter and the Viaduct Development are superb examples of how a well-developed waterfront adds vibrancy to a city. The Wynyard Quarter includes more "passive" elements such as a public plaza, cobbled walkway, trams and a park but significantly includes restaurants and bars that open up to the promenade.

However, in Tauranga's waterfront plan the bars and restaurants remain separated from the development by a road and a railway.

Why was it not possible for the Strand business owners to group together as part of the waterfront plan to move over the road? Or to totally pedestrianise the whole Strand area to marry it to the waterfront?

This could have been done either through total private enterprise or a public-private partnership.

It is a pity that attempts at such partnerships have not come to fruition. Businessman Mark Scapens spent years trying to realise a $5.6 million plan to develop Coronation Pier into a dynamic commercial development housing tourist and hospitality activities such as restaurants, markets, booking and information offices as well as a 19-berth pier to connect tourist operators and ferries with other parts of the region.

The plan was shelved when the recession hit and it was not possible to reach commercial agreement with the council.

As James reports, the original plan for the waterfront has now been downscaled due to the economic climate.

Despite tough times, the waterfront remains one of the vital areas in which the council should be funding. If money is the issue, then why have they not been able to reach agreements with private business?

As it stands, the waterfront plan with its landscaped parkland setting may be a neat place to hang out or eat sandwiches at lunch but how is it going to help the city thrive? Is it really a drawcard for tourists? What will they do there? They will not be spending.

In the current plan, there are no bars or restaurants directly on the waterfront where people in the summer will queue to spend dollars as they do in the Viaduct. Nor does the waterfront connect seamlessly to the rest of the city.

The fact that statues of characters from a children's book are touted as the centrepiece of our waterfront is, in my view, at best embarrassing and at worst shows how dramatically the council has failed ratepayers and businesses in its city planning.