KEY POINTS:
The blueprint for prising open Auckland's waterfront for its people is frustratingly vague, the timetable elusive.
Waterfront Vision 2040 gives priority to redeveloping the western reclamation - the vast industrial swathe between the Viaduct Harbour and Westhaven which includes the tank farm and Wynyard Pt.
Plans start with
facilities to showcase the marine industry and a bridge connecting Halsey St with the Viaduct.
As for the wharves within a lunchtime's reach of 60,000 CBD workers and shoppers, the planning document had this to say: "As the port consolidates its operations eastwards, the land made available will be explored for alternative uses. Public access will be an important part of any development.
"Alternative uses [for Queen's Wharf] will be explored over the medium to long term when the wharf is no longer required for core port functions.
"Captain Cook Wharf will continue to be part of the working waterfront and used for port operations for the foreseeable future."
That's about it.
Vision 2040 was the brainchild of a hydra: developed in 2004 and 2005 by the Auckland Regional Council, Ports of Auckland and the Auckland City Council, with widespread consultation.
But city business group Heart of the City was one "stakeholder" bemused by the exercise. "No one had any interest in talking about the finger wharves," says Heart of the City's Greg McKeown. "The councils were just interested in Wynyard Pt, where POAL were already making things difficult with their plans for shops, offices and apartments.
"What [the port company] said wasthere was so much land to develop on the western reclamation that the Auckland economy didn't need to think about the central wharves at the moment."
Clearly the consultation wasn't asking Aucklanders the right question: Which did they crave most, the tank farm or the central city wharves?
The waterfront stadium debate has, resoundingly, provided the answer.
But getting the port company and the politicians to change tack and free up the central city wharves sooner than the "medium to long term" requires that public outcry does not wane as quickly as the stadium spectre rose and fell.
There is the physical dimension. What scope has the port, so vital to the economy, to contract its operations to vacate the wharves?
There is the political side. The port operates at a distance from elected officials and incentives to use its land more efficiently are limited. Between the ARC politicians and control of the port stand two boards of directors - of the port company and Auckland Regional Holdings.
The port company's mandate is to get optimum returns for Auckland Regional Holdings, the council's arm's-length investment company which uses wharf earnings to fund the ARC's public transport and stormwater improvement programmes.
Over the next 10 years, the port aims to return $1 billion to the ARC, says managing director Geoff Vazey.
But while the company must operate as a successful business, Vazey says it prides itself on being a good corporate citizen. "We listen to the comments about what people would like and take that into consideration."
It's a public face that riles those who blame port intransigence for sinking the waterfront stadium.
These are heady times for the publicity-shy company.
Vazey, an engineer by profession, is a chief executive of the open-necked shirt and denim trousers variety. But his political streetfighter instincts proved the equal of Trevor Mallard in turning back the Government's two-week smash-and-grab raid.
Vazey says the stadium proposal helped to advance ideas on how port operations can be contracted to free up space. "I can foresee a time when [the central finger wharves] will no longer be needed. It could be 10 years out."
The plan to contract operations from west to east dates from 1989 and Vazey emphasises that big chunks of the port from the harbour bridge to Mechanic's Bay have since been redeveloped, most notably the Viaduct Basin area and Princes Wharf.
Vazey is prone to gloomy warnings if there were to be a deviation from the "sequential" programme to gradually develop the tank farm and then look at the central wharves.
He says the city can sustain an "uptake" of only 1.5ha a year for office and apartment development. Work any faster and you risk oversupply.
That is partly why the timeframe for the tank farm redevelopment is 25 years. The city council is worried about the impact on the CBD, Vazey says.
"We've been working to what was developed from a huge amount of input from the city and regional council. We've been following the way they designed it to be. It's not our programme. They are the planning authorities and they work through those things. If they want to relook at it we will relook at it."
All this implies that the port company sees the central wharves being redeveloped in a similar way to the tank farm, with apartments and office buildings or similar "intensive" uses. As Vazey says: "If we free up space we would be looking to get its rezoned market value for that space."
This is where politicians could earn their meeting fees. From opposite ends of the political spectrum, regional councillors Joel Cayford and David Hay are calling for separation of the port company's land ownership and operational functions.
"We should take all the land out of the port company and leave it as an operating company," says Hay.
Cayford says the ARC should require the port company to pay rent on the land it occupies, creating an incentive to use it more efficiently. "The port doesn't have to pay to store a container or a car on the land. I think they should.
"My motivation is to incentivise the port to free up land for public purposes."
Hay and Cayford want the ARC to exert greater influence on the port company. "It's pretty messy really," says Hay. "Day-to-day governance is with Auckland Regional Holdings - we stay out of it."
"We shouldn't be meddling in the business affairs of the port. But as the ultimate owners on behalf of the people of Auckland, we should be able to sit down and say: What is your programme for moving east? What is plan B? Can we speed it up and what are the consequences?
"The ARC are the elected people - we should be setting the agenda," Hay says.
Cayford says the ARC must be "freed of its obligation to continue to drag in revenue from these landholdings. The public hasn't been asked: Do we want these pieces of land to generate revenue for public transport or freed up for public purposes which don't generate revenue, such as walkways and theatres and seating?"
He says alternatives such as a regional petrol tax could replace revenue lost for public transport and stormwater works.
"The last couple of weeks have shown the public clearly has a very, very strong interest in this and they want access to the waterfront and not necessarily compromised by large buildings."
But for the moment, Hay and Cayford are minority voices on the council. Four-term councillor Paul Walbran says the Port Companies Act was introduced in 1988 "to stop marauding politicians fiddling around".
"There is certainly a happy medium - allowing the port to focus on its customers and economic benefit and at the same time having some thought about what's in the wider public interest," he concedes.
Walbran's ARC role includes waterfront development and he is an appointed director of Auckland Regional Holdings.
He echoes Vazey's concerns about departing from the painstakingly laid plan to "sequence" the tank farm area first. "If there's too much redevelopment too soon you could end up with a glut.
"We studied very carefully the results of overseas waterfront redevelopments and it's clear that those that try to go too fast fall over.
"We could accelerate it but we would have to revisit the sequencing of the whole waterfront. It could stretch construction industry capacity and increase redevelopment costs.
"We could pour extra capital into ports ahead of time, but that would come at the expense of other things like transport. None of these things stand in isolation."
Problems with tenancies on the end of Princes Wharf highlight the risk of oversupply, he says. "We don't want to see those empty frontages repeated everywhere on the waterfront."
But what politicians in Walbran's camp may be missing is that the public is not demanding Viaduct Basin-style apartments, offices and cafes on the finger wharves.
What is wanted has yet to be defined, but if the stadium backlash is any guide, low-intensity development is favoured.
Auckland City planning manager John Duthie has seen proposals come and go for the city basin, ranging from convention centres to parks.
He advocates an international design competition and public consultation to establish the best use of the area.
The council looms as a major player in redeveloping the basin, even if its desire to buy public spaces - as at the tank farm - runs afoul of the ARC.
Duthie sees no reason why the basin can't be redeveloped in tandem with the western reclamation.
He says the council wants to see the marine industry precinct developed and Te Wero island connected with Halsey St in time for the 2011 Rugby World Cup.
He reels off the council's achievements towards a people-focused waterfront: property bought around the Viaduct Basin, Westhaven, the eastern viaduct and Hobson marina; roading and streetscape improvements along Quay St; the Vector Arena and the Britomart precinct.
But he acknowledges that Queen's Wharf remains the elusive prize. "We would absolutely love to see that opened up to the public."
If it seems within reach, remember that this is Auckland local government, with its talent for over-complication, finding red herrings and prevarication.
Keeping the politicians and bureaucrats on course will require constant vigilance. The always-tetchy relationship between city and regional council has widened to a chasm over the stadium proposal and funding for Eden Park.
Auckland City Mayor Dick Hubbard and regional council leader Mike Lee must bury the hatchet for progress to be made.
Deadlines need to be set - and longer than two weeks.
Heart of the City's McKeown is scathing about port company tactics in the stadium stoush and doubts its commitment to vacating the finger wharves.
He says that the drawn-out tank farm negotiations illustrate the conflicting agendas of regional council, city council and port.
"Any change in [the port company's] behaviour would be great for Auckland. The finger wharves need to be developed cohesively, not sequentially."
McKeown believes that for that to happen, the fragmented structure of Auckland local bodies may need to be addressed. "The structure doesn't help us build a great waterfront.
"What the ARC has failed to do politically is that they haven't looked broadly enough and far enough ahead at the importance of the waterfront to the people of Auckland.
"It's patently obvious with the three finger wharves that we have to move now and not wait 25 years.
"We have to move within the decade."
Waterfront powerbrokers
Auckland Regional Council
* Public transport and environmental management agency.
* Coastal management and regional growth planning roles.
Auckland Regional Holdings
* ARC's investment arm; 100 per cent owner of Ports of Auckland Ltd.
* Provides funds mainly for ARC transport and stormwater programmes.
* Legally required to "manage its assets prudently and to act in the long-term interests for the benefit of the Auckland region." Prime investment objective is to generate optimal returns.
* Six directors, a mix of business people and politicians, appointed by ARC.
* Executive management team of five headed by CEO.
Ports of Auckland Ltd
* Mission is to "ensure the most efficient and cost effective supply chain is created for cargo between export and import customers and shipping services, and to optimise the value of investment property."
* Principal objective to operate as a successful business. Social objectives include being a responsible corporate citizen.
* Seven directors, chaired by Gary Judd.
* Management team of 10 led by managing director Geoff Vazey.
Auckland City Council
* City planning and resource consent authority.
* Urban design expertise.
* Owns many public spaces around waterfront.
