Queens Wharf is one of the jewels of Auckland’s crown, it is a huge space at over 2.5 hectares right in the heart of town at the end of Queen St. Up until now most of the debate has been around using it for party central for the RWC and whether we should keeping or removing the sheds that were on there (the back shed has been removed and the front one will be done up). Outside of the RWC it is expected that the wharf be a public space, Mike Lee has described it as the ‘Peoples Wharf’, and crucially its other main use is expected to be a cruise terminal for the fast growing cruise business.
The cruise terminal is needed because the existing one on Princess Wharf can only handle one ship at a time yet there are now times when more than that is expected to be in port at the same time. One thing we have been told is that the wharf is big enough to handle both its role as a cruise terminal and a public space but is it? Even it is what is the environment going to be like and will ordinary Aucklanders be welcome when a cruise ship is in town? Today we got that answer.
My wife and I have enjoy having lunch on the wharf, while it definitely needs some improvement it is a neat space and nice and quiet, a great place to relax on a nice sunny day, something we decided we wanted to do today. The Pacific Pearl is now based in Auckland and has been tied up at the wharf for a few days and today it looked like it was getting ready to leave. This meant there was a lot of stuff going on, particularly passengers arriving ready for their trip. The first thing was the entrance to the wharf was taken over and turned into a driveway through which a constant stream of cars and shuttles were flowing in both directions dropping people off. Other parts of the wharf had been commandeered for car parking or other activities leaving only a 2m wide path next to the driveway for people to get to the check in facilities in the remaining shed. Past the shed the Wharf was closed off so far from being a peoples wharf it was set up almost exclusively for the cruise ship and even then a driveway was used just to save some people walking 150m.
Of course the cruise industry will say they are only really here for a few months a year but the key thing is that is the months when us locals will most want to use it i.e. in summer. If we are going to see the wharf effectively closed off when a ship is in town is it worth it? I think not so what are the other options?
Personally I think we should be putting the terminal on Captain Cook Wharf, it is still right next to the centre of town and next to Britomart. It would actually give us the ability to have two ships processed on at the terminal at once along with a third on Princess Wharf so is better future proofed for growth. It would need to be lengthened but it should give
But are there other benefits of having it on Captain Cook Wharf? Yes they are, It wouldn’t interfere with any future expansion of the ferry terminal and it gives us a perfect place from where to pedestrianise the street from. Pedestrianising the street is something suggested by urban designer Jan Gehl and something that would be hard if the terminal was on Queens Wharf. This is because any ship will need to resupplied by trucks, have customers and immigration staff and their equipment along with tourist buses, taxis and plenty of other associated vehicles to service it. Potentially it could also be designed to be able to be used things, it could have been a good location to be combined with the national convention centre the government wants to build to get better year round use of the site. It could be a good place for corporate functions or perhaps combined with an indoor market, the key is to get good year round use from it.
Queens Wharf showed today the exact reasons why we shouldn’t have a cruise terminal on it, it is probably the biggest jewel in the waterfront crown and one we can’t afford to stuff up so lets move the cruise terminal and leave the wharf to be the open public space and peoples wharf it should be. Having it as a public park would make it some special that we can all be proud of
Processing...
Totally agree – and so does the Mayor: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10689464
Everyone cries out for a waterfront “plan” but there is in fact one – Waterfront 2040 – and it provides for the cruise terminal on Queens Wharf.
To be fair to the parties that developed that, they did so with the belief that QW was going to be the wharf made available earliest, and even that would be a decade off. From there, the waterfront moving west from QW would be reclaimed for the public, to the east for the port.
Well, QW arrived a lot earlier, and with the Supercity, so does the potential for CCW to become available soon, which for the reasons you outline above, would be best for a terminal, while allowing the port to go ahead with reclamation to the east.
The other advantage with CCW is that two ships could dock at once, which doesn’t seem much of an option given the ferry services on the western edge of QW
Indeed Len said we should use CCW and said we should start work on it immediately – I agree. I also completely agree with your post jarbury, having been in other cities when cruise ships were in town I’ve seen how closed off that area became due to customs and buses/cars dealing with all the people. Queens Wharf is too important of a space to waste on this esp. when CCW isn’t used for much more than second hand cars which is a blatant waste of prime land. PoA are also busying filling in the harbour to the East so shouldn’t be allowed to hang onto CCW as well, to be honest it should have been a resource consent requirement that if they are to take away public space through filling in the harbour that they would need to replace that with freeing up wharf space on the harbour.
While Len has said it and it has been mentioned before, yesterday I actually saw first hand what it was like which is what prompted me to write this post. We are in a position to change thinking on this now before we commit millions to it based on flawed thinking.
Just a slight correction, this is Matt’s post and not mine 🙂
Why isn’t this a problem for the cruise industry to solve? There isn’t anything stopping them buying some land and building a terminal. I don’t think this is a good use for any public area for the reason you point out… it causes a loss of amenity for the public without providing any benefit for the public. Unlike, say, cafes which are a commercial activity but one that average people enjoy.
If local government or the port (which is basically a trading arm of local government) were to get involved in a cruise terminal, then I’d want to make sure it was going to make a commercial rate of return when accounting for risk. Cruise ships strike me as being something at risk of changes in fashion, economics, and environmental perceptions.
If Auckland is going to benefit economically from having those extra cruise ships in town then I don’t have a problem (providing the costs are justified), I also think it needs to be in town but just don’t see the need for it on Queens Wharf which has the potential to be one of our best public spaces. The issue of it being a fad is always there which is why I want a terminal that can be used for something else as well when the ships aren’t in. If we can justify it on those grounds then the cruise benefits are just icing on the cake.
Totally agree – CCW it should be. I recall Gordon Moller (architect) also proposed this some months back and it was featured in NZ Herald – sorry can’t find the link. Regarding the the urban designer Jan Gehl, in his report on Auckland he strongly advocates a pedestrian focused network of streets that filter down to waterfront and make queens wharf a central public space. I think CCW therefore compliments that well with the backdrop of cruise ships there rather than an “in-your-face” queens wharf option. Have interesting copy of inner city pedestrianized streets plan from the report but not sure how to include in comments – may send separately to Josh.
Yes he did, here is the link to it http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10643893
I had been thinking about it before that came out but as mentioned yesterday highlighted the issue, another thing is as you mention, having a ship up against the wharf is like putting up a huge wall that makes the place feel less inviting
Thanks AdG. The images:
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/jan-gehl-1.jpg
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/jan-gehl-2.jpg
Those images are awesome… reminds me so much of one of the 10 ten lifestyle cities, barcelona.
But it is possible to design a cruise wharf that still retains ( or even enhances) public space, and can be used while vessels are birthing,
Good examples are Yokohama’s International Passenger Terminal and Canada Place in Vancouver, Both are fully function terminals that significantly enhance the public’s ability to use the space right on the doorsteps of downtown areas.
Saying that something shouldn’t happen because it could turn out poorly is rather defeatist, to paraphrase a lovely comment I heard BoJo say the other day, shouldn’t the ability to build a stunning building that enhances public access as well as perform a needed commercial activity be within the whim of man??
No one is suggesting that a cruise ship terminal can’t be good for a public space. What we are suggesting is that rather than have a compromised public space (less land) and compromised terminal (ie only one more berth) we do this right. One wharf as a park, one wharf as cruise ship terminal plus public space.
It is not the terminal that is the problem but the services that are needed to support it, you can’t service a cruise ship without trucks and they need roads to drive on. This issue is enhanced on Queens Wharf where road frontage is only about 20m wide and most of that is fencing. On a wharf like Captain Cook you could easily have the roadway on one side only and still have a decent pedestrian entrance but that doesn’t exist on Queens Wharf due to the ferry terminal.
It probably matters little seeing as it has the Mayor’s support, but Mike Lee was pretty scathing of the CCW option on his blog for a lot of reasons, mainly to do with likely access, timing, size and that the PoA’s responsibility for wharf strengthening would be null and void if QW wasn’t used for a cruise terminal, as was agreed in the sale.
The Mayor’s announced a review on the location of the cruise ship terminal: http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/News/NewsArticles/Pages/Mayor_announces_cruise_ship_terminal_review.aspx
It will be interesting to see what the results of the review are.
Great news although I think AT should also be involved due to the transport implications in any decisions i.e. if AT decided to chnage parts of Quay St it could be affected by this.