KEY POINTS:
If there's a silver lining to the proposal to retrofit a 21-storey hotel on to the historic Britomart precinct restoration project, it's the way it's shocked Auckland City Council urban design "champion" Ludo Campbell-Reid into a rare sortie out of his backroom and on to the ramparts.
His
description of the tower block as "alien" and out of step with the heritage and human-scale vision for the gentrification project a week ago has, in turn, flushed out developer Peter Cooper to defend his plans.
At Friday's fifth anniversary of the opening of the Britomart train station, he claimed the change of plans "isn't driven by commercial opportunism", that the "economics of doing a hotel are very poor" and "it would be much easier to do a low-rise office building."
If the above litany is true, then Mr Cooper can take my word that most Aucklanders would much prefer he stick to the easy road and complete the original agreement he reached with the city council in April 2004.
He and his team are now arguing that the Britomart precinct's waterfront location is such an "absolutely incredible site and opportunity" for a world-class hotel that it would be almost criminal not to take advantage of it. Depending on what the free spirits running Ports of Auckland decide to do with the wharf area directly across Quay St, this might indeed be a great site for a towering hotel. But that was not what Mr Cooper and his consortium were contracted to build.
After many negotiations in 2003-2004, the deal with site owners Auckland City Council was to transform this seedy, 5.2ha 100-year- old commercial zone into a low-rise urban village, full of New York-style loft apartments, upmarket shops selling global fashion brands, trendy offices, restaurants, hotels and a public square.
Under the deal with Mr Cooper and his Bluewater Consortium partners - the other parties have subsequently moved on - the council was paid $28 million for a 150-year lease on the 17 Victorian and Edwardian buildings and a renewable 50-year lease on six planned new buildings.
The old buildings were home to merchants, shipping agents and traders in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, including the Union Fishing Co building (1898) and the Wharf Police Station (1903). Stretching from the restored Britomart transport station eastwards, the task was proudly described by council finance committee chairman Doug Armstrong as New Zealand's largest heritage protection project.
It was to be Auckland's belated answer to Sydney's Rocks. It was a much-welcome reprieve for one of the remaining intact areas of old Auckland, after several abortive grand plans by the old Auckland Harbour Board and more recently the Les Mills council, to bulldoze the place and go high rise.
A month or so ago, Cooper and Company's chief executive, Matthew Cockram, showed off a model of the planned tower to the media. He argued that even if the high-rise hotel was built, "Britomart will be predominantly low-rise and heritage-based as envisaged in our agreement with Auckland City Council". But again "predominantly low-rise" wasn't the deal. It was all low-rise, fullstop.
I'm sure a high-rise tower on the waterfront would have its attractions. Though as most travellers are out and about during daylight hours, you wonder how important a harbourfront site is - particularly if the working port below is working all night when the travellers are trying to sleep. Believe it or not, there's evidence from overseas, but sadly not much in Auckland, that a tower block can be appealing from the outside too. But none of that is really the issue here.
The deal was to fulfil Auckland City's desire for a low-rise development, anchored on a sympathetic restoration of the existing Victorian-through-to-art deco commercial architecture. The developers can argue they plan "an elegant, iconic hotel building that will be a landmark for Auckland," but that wasn't what they signed up for.
Presumably the $28 million downpayment and the generous long lease agreements reflected the economics of restoring and operating a low-rise historic precinct. If this is so, why hasn't the city council insisted on the developers sticking to the bargain and nipped this plan in the bud?
That Mr Cooper denied "commercial opportunism" is the motivating factor in his change of plans shows he's aware what less-charitable Aucklanders are thinking. If there isn't a commercial gain, why risk his reputation pursuing what's not wanted?
