Brian Rudman: Let's see Britomart finalists

In New York, the public debate over replacement buildings for the Twin Towers was intense. Public displeasure with the first selection of designs was so universal that the authorities had to go back to square one and hold another contest.

Back here, all we get asked about these days are our views on the tarting up of Queen St. And never one to miss an opportunity, I will.

My desires for the golden mile are basic. I want paving slabs that no longer slosh about when it rains, squirting muddy water up my trouser legs, and I want shop verandahs that don't leak.

But it's Auckland's own equivalent to the Twin Towers site that I'd really like to be consulted on before the final decision is made.

I'm talking of the huge waterfront Britomart redevelopment site, stretching from Queen Elizabeth Square eastwards over and around the new downtown rail station.

This month the city council, which owns the site, came up with a shortlist of four potential purchaser/developers from an original group of 14 hopefuls.

By the end of next month the four hopefuls have to provide the council with comprehensive development plans, timetables and financial details.

At that stage an evaluation panel - which includes five senior council staff, two former staff acting as consultants and two independent members (Professor John Hunt and Wellington architect Ian Athfield) of the panel that selected the winner in the railway station design contest - will make a choice.

The final decision will then be made at the June meeting of the city council.

Where, you might ask, is the public input? This is, after all, downtown's most important and large-scale development since the Viaduct Basin redevelopment.

The council argues we've already had our say and our views have been noted.

And up to now, that's true.

The public consultation surrounding the redevelopment of the site, which included debate on the future of the whole block, including the old Chief Post Office and the adjacent wharf area, was a huge success.

In February 2000, advertisements appeared asking, "What do you think?"

We were told: "The power to choose how your waterfront develops is in your hands ... It's your waterfront. Let us know what you want."

Even old cynics like myself were impressed at the results. A total of 153 entries were received in the redesign competition - major design companies competing alongside committed amateurs.

More than 300,000 people reportedly filed through the exhibits. Thousands filled in forms, expressing opinions and voting for their choice.

Some clear preferences emerged. We wanted a human-scale development. We wanted the old buildings retained. We wanted parks. We wanted water brought on site. We wanted mixed uses. We wanted a safe but vibrant environment.

From this comprehensive consultative process, a list of criteria was drawn up to ensure the competing proposals followed the people's wishes.

The council now argues that because the above consultation process was so thorough and because the watchdogs from the earlier rounds, Professor Hunt and Ian Athfield, are part of the new selection panel, there is no need for further public consultation.

Perhaps they're right. But having whetted our appetite for consultation in the earlier rounds, I find it hard to take the refusal to let us view the final four entries before a decision is made.

The council argument is they have to protect the commercial confidentiality of the entrants and that the losers might want to take their designs away to recycle elsewhere.

I don't see how public consultation stops them doing that anyway.

My guess is that, within the strict parameters laid down by the judges, there will be plenty of scope for individual flair and choice for the four finalists. I don't see the harm in seeking the public's views on the opposing solutions before the council makes a final decision.

In New York, public outrage last June at the lack of imagination shown in the first submissions for a Twin Towers substitute forced the authorities back to the drawing boards.

This year two new finalists appeared and a stormy and passionate public debate erupted. The corporation charged with finding a replacement initially selected the design by a team called THINK.

But public opinion had the last word, and the competing design by Daniel Libeskind eventually won out.

Aucklanders mightn't have cause to feel quite as emotional about the Britomart site, but by any standards our waterfront development is a major public undertaking.

It started with a textbook public consultation process.

It would be nice to finish it off the same way. It might even help to produce a better scheme.