Editorial: Seize chance to transform Queens Wharf

Opinion

If ever the case for a single city was clinched it was last week on Queens Wharf. The old wharf, a terminus for Gulf ferries but otherwise little used, could be purchased from Ports of Auckland for $20 million and turned into the public centrepiece of the waterfront in time for the Rugby World Cup 2011.

That remains the hope of the Government, the Auckland City Council and practically everyone who looks forward to the day Auckland's central city opens itself to the sea. The Government is in a generous mood, offering to pay for the wharf purchase if the city or the Auckland Regional Council can find perhaps $100 million for strengthening the structure and building something impressive on it.

But, as always, the city is only one of four main metropolitan councils in the urban region, and just a day before the Prime Minister outlined the plans for World Cup "party central" at Queens Wharf, a city council committee had chosen Aotea Square for that role. Co-ordination is plainly lacking in all directions. Meanwhile, the regional council struggles to give a lead.

Behind the indecision lurks an old canard that because the port is publicly owned no public body should have to pay for a wharf. Let's deal with that argument once and for all. It is perfectly sensible that if one public entity wants the asset of another, it should pay for it. That is how the public sector keeps track of costs and performance, just as private sector conglomerates isolate different profit centres and make financial transactions between them.

There is no question the Auckland port company should be paid for the loss of the use of Queens Wharf and any others that might be acquired for a civic development. The only questions are how much and which council should pay. The port appears to make very low-value use of the old finger wharves behind its infamous red fence but the $20 million price seems to have been accepted in principle. When it comes to who should pay, plainly all the councils of the region should be offering to contribute.

They are not, of course. The mayors of Manukau, North Shore and Waitakere cities, inveterate opponents of the single-city plan, have missed an opportunity to show that progress is possible with the present set-up. They are disinclined to share the Queens Wharf development lest Auckland City's mayor and council take the lion's share of the credit.

With a Super City transition board appointed and empowered to take effective control of councils' spending it should be possible to get this project under way. A Super City surely would not hesitate to put up a fair proportion of the cost of something suitably imposing on the site.

A cruise ship terminal is proposed. Auckland certainly needs one. Cruise tourism is enjoying a rebirth worldwide, reflected in the number of ships calling at Auckland during the summer. They tie up at Princes Wharf where their cabins look directly into the windows of apartments and there are minimal facilities to greet them. Or, worse, they use the embarrassing, existing shed on the dilapidated Queens Wharf.

But if a cruise terminal is to be the prime function of a new Queens Wharf building, it must be more than a processing shed. It needs to have features that attract foot traffic every day, which should not be difficult considering the popularity of Auckland's limited public waterfront spaces at present.

As for World Cup party central? Hopefully there will be several lively sites claiming that status in the spring of 2011. But a development worthy of Queens Wharf could be the cup's lasting legacy if Auckland can get itself together.