KEY POINTS:
The debate over the World Cup stadium proposed for Auckland's waterfront was, however truncated, far from a waste of time. Revealed, as never before, were Aucklanders' passion for that part of the city and their keenness for this treasure to be enhanced in an appropriate manner. Most believed
a stadium would make an area disfigured by security fences and used cars even uglier. Their view prevailed.
But, almost without exception, they also wanted the waterfront opened to the public. The ambition now should be to have that wish realised by the time Auckland hosts the Rugby World Cup final in 2011.
Auckland City's Mayor, Dick Hubbard, and Prime Minister Helen Clark appear to have sensed the public appetite. Helen Clark has talked of other "exciting" projects to open up the waterfront. Both would have visited the many cities, notably in North America, that have located major visitor attractions on wharves after port operations were shifted from their centres. They also know that preserving such land for public use was one of the justifications supplied by the Auckland Regional Council when it took full ownership of Ports of Auckland.
Just now, that appears to have slipped far down the council's list of priorities. It seems almost in thrall to the port company's wish for its cargo business and planning to be unfettered by non-operational issues. Certainly, that was a key consideration when the councillors unanimously rejected the stadium proposal. A similar line of thinking pervades the Waterfront Vision 2040 document issued jointly with the city council last year. It indicates Aucklanders will have to wait at least a quarter of a century before Captain Cook Wharf is freed for redevelopment. Queens Wharf is slated for medium-term redevelopment between 2015 and 2030.
The stadium debate has rendered this timetable redundant. Issues of ownership and suchlike may delay the Tank Farm redevelopment, but there can be no excuse for thwarting the public's desire for access to the part of the waterfront closest to the city centre. Aucklanders are not demanding an overnight transformation. They recognise the importance of the port to the city's economy and would want it to have adequate time to move its operations eastwards and to be properly compensated. They also want a sufficient period to reach consensus on how the area should be redeveloped, perhaps using the guidance of an international design competition. This could determine, for example, whether the development would involve using the shed on Queens Wharf, perhaps for some sort of market, or whether the emphasis would be on open spaces.
It may be, as Ports of Auckland seems to suggest, that public access will stop at Captain Cook Wharf. Anything further east, including Marsden Wharf, will, with the Bledisloe and Fergusson container terminals, be an integral part of the port's long-term operations. Aucklanders would understand that. But they also recognise there is now an excellent opportunity to redevelop the the Queens and Captain Cook wharves in conjunction with the Britomart precinct. Again, the need for integration with Britomart was a substantial reason for opposition to a stadium.
Mr Hubbard has thrown down a challenge to the regional council, saying it must understand that "2km of barbed wire, electric fence and paling-type faces is unacceptable". Few Aucklanders will quibble with that sentiment. The ARC disappointed some of these people by scuttling the stadium plan. It cannot afford to frustrate the rest by refusing to fast-forward public access to, and the redevelopment of, the waterfront.
