Just over a week ago there was an interesting announcement by the government and Len Brown about an Auckland version of our national museum, Te Papa which is planned to be built in Manukau. However something about the proposal just doesn’t feel right and the herald editorial a week ago captured many of my thoughts in suggesting it should instead be on the waterfront.
Te Papa needs a place to store some of the national collection well away from earthquake-prone Wellington, and to make the collection more accessible to the population in the north.
While it will have exhibition space, the building at Hayman Park will be as much a base for educational services and touring displays.
The minister and the mayor say they want to “create an innovative cultural hub at the heart of New Zealand’s most culturally diverse and fastest growing region”.
The minister says it will “improve the accessibility of our national treasures”, and the mayor expects it to “attract visitors from across New Zealand and around the world.”
If that was truly their aim, they would have chosen a central Auckland site. Manukau is 20km away from the city’s prime hotels, cruise ship wharves and maritime attractions. Not many visitors, from across New Zealand or the world, will go all that way to see a museum – not when the Auckland War Memorial Museum, the new Art Gallery and the Maritime Museum are in or near the city centre.
Oddly, the Auckland Museum and the art gallery participated in the decision to put Te Papa Auckland so far out of town. It must be hoped that territorial protection did not enter consideration. Museums, like specialist retailers, gain from proximity. The more of them that can be easily reached, the more visitors each will receive.
A museum in the new Wynyard Quarter, particularly on the tank farm site, would be within pleasant walking distance of downtown Auckland. But perhaps it would pose too big an architectural challenge for Te Papa, and an unwelcome comparison with its Wellington waterfront headquarters. It is telling that the weekend announcement contained no architectural ambitions for the Auckland facility.
Chris Finlayson who is Minister of Arts, Culture and Heritage and one of the people behind the move responded with an op-ed of his own.
The Herald (editorial, Sept 10) said a better location was the waterfront around the Tank Farm on Wynyard Quarter.
That’s simply not true, for a number of reasons. First and obviously, land is not available there for development. But, in a way, that is beside the point.
It is not an alternative to a waterfront museum. It is a unique proposition.
The editorial somewhat drily notes “many Aucklanders will not know where that is”. I found that comment astounding, to say the least.
Manukau is not off the beaten track. It is not a backwater – it is a vibrant and alive town centre. It is the most culturally diverse area in New Zealand. It is a short ride by train from the central city – a ride that will get shorter with electrification and with the central city rail loop. It is close to the eastern suburbs by road. It is closer to the airport than the central city.
As the crow flies, it is but a few hundred metres from the Royal Auckland Golf Club, if this helps anyone still in doubt to get their bearings.
Tourists flock to Auckland’s harbour and CBD, and so they should. But Aucklanders have an interest in encouraging those same visitors to explore the rest of their unique South Pacific city before departing for the skifields and adventure tourism beyond its borders.
But more importantly, the editorial overlooks the fact that South Auckland is a place where a great many Aucklanders actually live, and go to school, and work and raise children.
It is growing fast. The University of Auckland realised this when it expanded to its Manukau Campus.
In the end, that is why it is such an excellent site for this development.
While I fully support Manukau developing into a key regional centre (but not a secondary CBD), the idea placing the northern branch of our national museum there just seems odd. Sure it might have a new train station and it is great that Finlayson is talking about electric trains and the CRL but that doesn’t mean it is a short ride to get there. Auckland Transport said the other day that the electric trains have been modelled to take 35-37 minutes to get between Manukau and Britomart. That might be better than the 42 minutes currently scheduled but a round trip is going to be over an hour. For many, especially those in the North or the West the travelling time would be even greater and it’s that travelling time that is likely to put a lot of people off even visiting the site. This stance is made even odder when you consider this statement from further on in his piece:
Accessibility is not just about public transport and parking. It is also about how much of the value of our historical treasures can be delivered to the greatest audience.
If the goal is truly about delivering our national treasures to the greatest audience then somewhere in the central city wins hands down. The map below shows approximately 10km and 20km radius circles around each the mentioned sites. You can see that within 10km of the Wynyard site (red) effectively the entire isthmus and a large chunk of the North Shore are covered while the Manukau site (green) picks up primarily sites within the old Manukau City boundaries (except for north up by Howick). This become even more pronounced when you look at a 20km radius circle with the Wynyard site covering all of the North Shore, West Auckland, Isthmus and most of South Auckland. It wins simply because it is much more central.
But of course it isn’t just locals that such a museum would serve. In Wellington something like 35-40% of all visitors to Te Papa are visitors from overseas and the tourist opportunities in Auckland are potentially even greater. Many international visitors stay in Auckland for a day or two as part of their holiday and that stay will often happen in the CBD. That is even more so for visitors arriving on cruise ships. Having such a museum in or close to the central city would be far more attractive for tourists than Manukau ever would simply because there is so much more to do in the central city and its surrounds.
Further it opens up even more opportunities for the existing museums to work together and all can perform better as a result. Many overseas cities have multi museum passes that can provide good value and encourage people to visit them. I used them in a number of cities during my holiday in Europe last year and visited far more museums than I would have otherwise.
Interestingly the City Centre Master Plan agreed last year identifies all of the elements needed to tie the various museums and the art gallery together perfectly. A number of the different ideas would complement the visitor experience however one of the eight key moves seems like an almost perfect fit. It is called The Green Link (no not the bus). At a high level the idea is to link the Domain, Albert Park, Victoria Park, Wynyard Quarter and the Waterfront along Quay St together through green open space. This would be done through projects like the Victoria St Linear Park mentioned in this post.
In effect this would link up all of these cultural institutions via a pedestrian and cyclist friendly green space, what a perfect combination and experience for visitors.
This is similar to a point picked up on by the Listener in their editorial.
If the goal is to increase museum attendances overall, this isn’t the way to do it. It’s a fact about such institutions that, if located in the same, easily accessible precinct, they have a multiplier effect on one another. A visitor to Auckland’s Wynyard Quarter, where the new museum would be the crowning attraction, could take in the nearby Maritime Museum and the city’s art gallery, a 25-minute walk away. Shops and eateries, farmers’ markets and recreation such as cycling and skating naturally flourish, as has already occurred in Auckland’s once-controversial Viaduct Basin. It’s now a place people want to revisit. It’s also a valuable magnet for overseas tourists, including the burgeoning ranks of visiting cruise-ship passengers.
In contrast, a trip to South Auckland might take up to an hour, and is not a scenic or otherwise intriguing experience. It cannot, as some South Auckland site supporters have suggested, be likened to a trip from Paris to Versailles.
Now all of this isn’t to say that we shouldn’t be doing something to make the various museum and art collections more accessible to people in South Auckland – or any other part of Auckland for that matter. However putting an Auckland branch of our national museum in Manukau just seems like it’s an idea that is being rushed for a political agenda more than anything else. If we are going to do it – and it does seem like a good idea – then let’s do it right.
One last comment, why do we keep eating up Hayman Park for more development? Especially when we have so much land being wasted by at grade carparks.
Processing...
I agree. It is almost as stupid as having Te Papa in Wellington where they sometimes get exclusive exhibits that are underattended. I’ve lived in Manukau my whole life and think it is a stupid idea. It should be in the CBD. No brainer.
I am going to repost The (vile) Listener comment someone left behind on that editorial piece (which I also used in my own blog post):
“When I was last in Melbourne. I visited the Heide Museum of Modern Art. It took a train ride, a bus ride and a walk through unfamiliar roads with no footpaths. But I got there and it was magnificent and I would absolutely recommend it to anyone visiting Melbourne.
Compared to that, the planned location for Te Papa North is so much more accessible. It’s just down the road from Westfield Manukau and block away from Rainbows End. And there’s the train station and a major bus interchange nearby, not to mention two motorways and major arterial roads. It’s a very easy place to get to from other parts of Auckland. Thousands of people manage it every day with no hassles.
And here’s something else to consider – “a trip to South Auckland might take an hour”. So what, it’s bad for a person in central Auckland to spend an hour travelling to Manukau, but somehow it’s ok for the reverse to happen? Well, it isn’t magically any quicker going the other way. Why should people in South Auckland and southern Auckland have to be the ones who must travel far to visit cultural places? Why can’t people from these areas – just for once – have something cool just down the road?
Sometimes life doesn’t deliver good things to your doorstep. Sometimes you have to go out and get them yourself. And when you do, they’re even better
I say spot on to this person
Look, this is a transport blog right?! So from a *transport* point of view, if the museum is in Manukau, as Matt’s map shows the vast majority of visitors will be driving there, regardless of its location near the train station. At the Waterfront PT / walking is a far more realistic proposition. Ergo, Manukau fits with the National Government’s ridiculous ideology of oil fuelled sprawl; the Waterfront doesn’t.
Ben did you read the post or just jump defensively into cheer-leading for Manukau? This isn’t about being anti Manukau but looking for the best place to serve all of Auckland
If Te Papa North is to have a cultural focus, then Manukau wins hands down as being in many ways the true multi-cultural heart of Auckland.
I’m going to argue in fact that the current Auckland CBD location is purely a consequence of Anglo-Saxon settlement over a 100 years ago. This contains a value, and of course I support the CRL and other initiatives. However, this ticket for Auckland central to be a CBD is not an exclusive ticket.
Furthermore, you may not like the existence of Manukau CBD, but its existence is a reality and must be nurtured, because the alternative is neglect and a future that could be economically and socially costly.
In terms of accessibility, our new EMU fleet will very soon offer a fast and frequent service between Britomart and Manukau. Surely this type of accessibility and the ability to link key parts of the region is what a rapid transit network is all about. As a matter of comment, those riders to Te Papa North at Manukau will enjoy the mult-ethnic patterns on-board their train. And, when they get to Manukau, they will also be able to visit events at the Vodafone Events Centre, and of course there will be what could be a beautiful campus immediately above Manukau station. I can foresee that a short hop to the many multi-cultural attractions of Manukau could be very popular with cruise ship passengers during their daytime exploration of Auckland.
In fact I challenge this site to champion a discussion on ideas on how to make Manukau wonderful and that recognises its recent history as a CBD of a richly multi-cultural region. And, I hope that there will be many great ideas delivered with passion and enthusiasm.
All of Auckland is richly multicultural, that is the value of locating it at the centre of Auckland rather than on the outer fringe. Do the South Africans and Koreans of the North Shore not count? Why not locate it in richly multicultural Albany instead then, and everyone else can ride the busway out to the end to get there. Only a short walk from events at the north harbour stadium, and the beautiful Massey university campus. I’m sure cruise ship passengers will be lining up for the short hop out to Albany too, ahem.
Outer/fartherest fringe? I don’t think Manukau is on the outer fringe. Perhaps Waiuku or Warkworth, but not Manukau.
It appears as though other comments have shown that one of the reasons for Manukau is because the items to be stored in Auckland are directly from Maori and Pacific histories and communities, therefore Manukau would seem a suitable place. If the items were South African or Korean, then yeah, North Shore fosho!
Albany was never intended as being more than a sub regional centre with ‘north harbour stadium, and the beautiful Massey university campus’. It also has the advantage of an affluent hinterland which no doubt keeps its shopping mall and mega-box retail ticking along nicely.
Manukau City was built to serve as a CBD and is a place looking for a purpose.
One might draw a comparison with Henderson. However, the areas of high density in Henderson – residential, retail, recreational, administrative and industrial – are much better integrated together. The railway tracks help and so does re-use of the council building by Auckland Transport. Add to the mix a more interesting physical environment and some great planning by the former Waitakere City council and you have a multi-functional town centre that can be truly mixed use.
Manukau has none of these advantages. I tend to believe that it is a destination, not a dormitory commuter suburb, although it does contain some high-rise apartments. If it is to function effectively as a destination, it needs investment and it needs a purpose or else it will whither over time.
Te Papa North is an honest attempt at helping Manukau gain a focus that also represents its hinterland. When travellers go to international cities, they do expect to sometimes have to take “the metro”. I don’t see how it is a problem for visitors to Auckland to do likewise. It should be noted that it will require a change of emphasis of the exhibits and the museum itself to attract visitors to any second museum given the preeminent status of the existing Auckland Museum. Again, this is not a biggie by overseas standards – London being the grand daddy of them all in the variety of its museums and their varied locations – accessible by “the tube”…
I welcome your ideas on how to give the former Manukau City CBD a sustainable future.
Tasi, Waiuku and Warkworth are separate villages far from the outer fringe of Auckland itself, even if they do fall within the same local government area. About 10% of Auckland live south of Manukau, the other 90% live further north. That puts it on the fringe in my book.
Tuktuk, personally I don’t see Manukau being, or needing to be, more than a regional centre. As far as I’m concerned it’s in the same boat as Albany, Westgate, New Lynn, Henderson, Sylvia Park, Botany, Papakura etc.
The only two places I see well placed to be ‘secondary CBDs’ are Newmarket and Takapuna, and even those would really just be satellites of the City Centre.
On a rough count, there are 6 large office buildings of significant height in Manukau, 1 completed tower block of apartments, and what looks like another under construction, there is the large shopping mall. And in addition there is the Vodafone Events Centre and of course the new Campus building. By any stretch, that is a significant degree of intensification as a destination/administration centre. Manukau CBD is surrounded with a vast amount of factory/big box retail and the acres of car-parking for which Manukau is infamous for. That is the current reality.
Anyway, looking elsewhere on this thread, it seems as though this Te Papa North may be something of a research centre and quite a treasure trove. At this stage, the Manukau Campus looks like it is going to be fairly broad-based in the courses it offers. http://www.manukau.ac.nz/research–and–initiatives/manukau-campus This is great as it serves a community function in being very accessible for a range of vocational training. However, with Te Papa North there may become synergies in also developing some more specialised courses in history and anthropology related subjects perhaps in conjunction with Auckland University or Massey. They may make good use of one or more of the current office buildings and have great access to Te Papa North for research. In this way, Manukau may just evolve into a future that includes a strong role as a University Campus, alongside Te Papa North and all its other facilities.
I believe that the University and AUT saved Auckland’s CBD. Could a strong campus and research museum do the same for Manukau?
Nick R, if Waiuku is a separate village, then the continuous urbanised area doesn’t stop at Manukau, but carries on to Papakura. Papakura would then be the fringe.
Well actually Auckland in General is a multi-cultural city, different cultures spread to different parts of the city, having it in the Center of the city would actually be center to most of Auckland’s different cultures and one of Auckland’s biggest iwi’s!
Well, I’ve been to Melbourne quite regularly, especially over the last year, and have never been to this Museum. Pretty much because of location, in-fact totally because of location. Now that you mention it I would love to see it, unfortunately my work trips over there have ceased. But if it was in the main City, I would have definitely been there, as would many tourists.
I look forward to seeing how this plays out. One thing that preys on my mind is the sea level rise, which will cause problems down at Wynyard at some point.
Yeah, I wondered that too. Get out of Welly coz of earthquakes… only to have it on the waterfront with it’s own natural environment issues.
i guess that the majority of visitors will be Auckland residents and therefore it could be argued that Manukau is as good as anywhere, but we should also be looking to serve the tourist (domestic and international) market. When visiting places like Melbourne (and prior to the earthquakes, Christchurch) it is great to be able to walk or take short tram rides to visit museums and galleries. A CBD location for Te Papa North would enable this in Auckland, but I don’t see many visitors with no car making the trip out to Manukau.
Considering they call it Te Papa North and not Te Papa Auckland and you mention domestic tourists, Manukau City with its ample parking sure is a lot more convenient for visitors from Hamilton, Tauranga, and Rotorua.
If you are making the trip from Hamilton, Tauranga or Rotorua all the way to Auckland just to visit Te Papa then I don’t think it would make much difference where it was. In fact even then I would say that many domestic tourists would probably prefer a central city location due to the other activities nearby.
I really doubt anyone is going to drive up from Rotorua to just visit Te Papa before immediately driving home again.
Speaking as someone who used to live in Hamilton, after visiting Te Papa North they might go shopping at Westfield, buy Wendy’s, and have a picnic at the nearby Auckland Botanic Gardens.
The central city has ample parking.
Sheesh, I thought the super city was meant to be inclusive, not city-centric. From the author’s reasoning, everything should be located in the city and nothing anywhere else in Auckland. Should move Albany stadium, or Eden Park for that matter, to the city then.
To me Manukau is the next best site to a city location. As pointed out above, it has a train line, two motorways, major arterial roads, is close to the airport.
Cities with strong centres perform much better than those that disperse activities around a large area. All major cultural and economic activities should be in or next to the CBD. One small exception is stadia, the problem with them is they take up large amounts of space and are often unused most of the time. I do think it is a bit ridiculous that we have so many of those though with each of them under performing. It’s a legacy of the disjointed governance system we had where each council was competing against each other.
I think major stadia should be next to the CBD too. Eden Park is good because it is very central to the region (although walking distance to the hotels, bars, shopping, trains, buses and carparking of the city centre would have been even better).
Albany is about the worst place I could think of, it’s about as far from most Aucklanders as you can possibly get. I don’t see any value in sticking major regional infrastructure right out on the farthest fringe of the city. Albany stadium could disappear tomorrow and we’d be better for it, IMHO.
As a first division rugby union, North Harbour Rugby Union needed a proper stadium (not Onewa Domain), and other sports also needed a facility to serve as a sports focal point for the whole North Harbour region (which has a population about the same as Christchurch, and look at all the great sports facilities they have/had/will have in Christchurch).
Albany/North Harbour Stadium is probably at the population-centroid of the whole North Harbour region. Therefore, for its purpose and for the region it serves, it couldn’t be in a better location, and is very easily accessible: motorway/busway (future light/heavy rail) on one side, expressway (future busway?) on the other side – unlike Eden Park, which is worse than a nightmare to get to.
[When I was a kid, the local talk was that there would be a 100,000 capacity stadium in Albany for a break-away rugby union, and that was when there was only chickens living in Albany (but that was also in the days when NZ thought big, instead of small).]
To Matt L, While city centres do perform stronger when you put everything there you are forgetting that everything becomes much more expensive when you congregate everything in one place. There are many cities that perform well and are polycentric many of them would being the older cities that you guys like as well as most new age cities.
Can you give some examples please? Otherwise it is just a statement with no evidence.
I dont agree that polycentric cities are very succesful. They tend to just dissipate the energy of the city making it all very bland. All the good cities I have lived in have been very centralised.
A lot of the successful old cities also are city centric, it puts the important things more accessible to most people. The older cities will still have there art galleries, museums and theaters in central locations. Examples include and not limited to, Prague, Paris, Melbourne, New York, London(main attractions) etc. Those just at the top of my head. Stadiums can be an advantage when close to city centers, but don’t have to be in the city center as long as they have good transport links!
City-centric is being inclusive. A city centre site is more accessible to more Aucklanders and tourists than a Manukau site, as Matt L has explained.
If disaster resilience is a priority, it would make sense not to place the Auckland Te Papa branch in a location with the same vulnerabilities as Wellington’s – on the waterfront on reclaimed land would not be the way to go as it increases vulnerability to both earthquakes and tsunami. Also Manukau is on the edge, rather than right in the centre, of the Auckland Volcanic Zone. These factors when balanced with recent (rail) and near-future (frequent rail) accessibility gains seem to favour Manukau to me.
(need to rename Te Papapa Station tho to avoid confused and lost tourists wandering the back streets of industrial Onehunga)
Having said that, I’m not convinced disaster resilience is as much behind its placement as is said to be – possibly has elements of Len Brown having something to point to to say he hasn’t forgotten his old turf (it is election season and this can also build support for the next local election too when construction is likely to be underway), and possibly to build a case for Airport-to-Manukau rail, which IMHO we don’t need (and it is not on the Congestion Free Network map as rail – it’s a bus line).
So yeah, undecided on this one. It would be great for Manukau but not-so-great for Te Papa itself.
… [would not-so-great for Te Papa itself] … unless a new volcano blew or we got hit by a tsunami. Or after sea level rises.
Actually that may lead me on another train of thought, with Christchurch CBD’s decimation in mind – add a few facilities like this to keep it relevant, and keep half that carparking space in reserve as somewhere able to be quickly developed as a “backup CBD” should the need ever arise?
I wouldn’t say Wynyard Quarter has the same vulnerabilities as Wellington, both earthquake and tsunami risk is negligible to irrelevant.
Pretty much What I was going to say.
Perhaps our cultural custodians thought it unwise to preserve our heritage by moving it from very expensive reclaimed land sitting on a waterfront in an earthquake zone to very expensive reclaimed land sitting on a waterfront in an volcano zone .
As far as putting it in the park instead of using up the car parking?
Well, at least it might get some of the parking used up. But my first thought was that by putting the museum in there, it might actually provide a good reason for preserving the rest of the park.
@SDW. Earthquake risk is only negligible if Grafton gully is not an earthquake slip fault. Which I’ve been told (but have no evidence for) is up for dispute.
Apart from all the other arguments for and against. Surely the reason why Wynyard Quarter should be ruled out as a location is that museums are traditionally inward looking spaces.
Why place a building where all visitor focus is inward, on one of the most valued locations for views in the CBD?
Stick it in the tunnels under Albert Park?
Now there’s an idea!
It would be super close to the Art Gallery as well. And still useful in case of air raids..
Well if museums are inward looking let’s put it in an industrial warehouse in Penrose then…
I think it is naive to think this is a facility where people will drive to the museum carpark, visit the museum then immediately drive home again. People do actually engage with their surroundings, the do things like have a drink or a meal, take a walk, visit other attractions nearby. How many people at the Auckland museum drive into the underground carpark just to visit the museum and never leave the building… and how many sit out on the steps and look at the view, take a walk through the domain, visit the wintergardens, the kiosk etc.
Sorry but this ‘inward looking buildings’ thing applies equally to just about everything, offices are inward looking, restaurants, cafes, daycare centres, hotels. Are we to have nothing on our waterfront but observation platforms for looking at the view?
“let’s put it in an industrial warehouse in Penrose then”
Not a bad idea. Why don’t we do that and have the national collection displayed more often at the facilities we already have? We have an excellent Art Galley and a Museum that is getting better. Putting the resources into that surely would be a better use of the money in terms of serving the public.
For me the perfect location would be the Carpark at North Wharf/Silo’s. Perfect location with public space at the door step. Also can start construction ASAP, as out of the way of where the America’s Cup Bases would be. Otherwise the Carpark opposite Victoria park Wynyard Quarter end. Eitherway not taking away from the Waterfront but close enough to be effective.
I trust you would also support moving the main Te Papa to Upper Hutt? Being on the Wellington central waterfront is such a waste of space?
I’ll say this for Te Papa – it looks pretty much like a prettied-up version of an industrial warehouse in Penrose. That waterfront location is wasted on a museum, which is inevitably going to be pretty much a windowless brick. I wonder if Te Papa could have gone two blocks further inland, on the site that’s now Reading Cinema and the surface carpark out the back?
As a former museum professional and having worked in museums large and small in Australia and Europe, I’ve got to say that in essence this proposal appears on the face of it to be a good idea.
As I understand it, what’s being proposed is an enhanced storage facility with an attached exhibition venue and the possibility of a display-storage facility. Most visitors to museums of national and regional significance are unaware that what they see is often less than 10% of a museum’s holdings. That remaining 90% has to be stored, conserved, documented, insured and located, preferably under optimum physical conditions. In many instances the objects subjected to this regime require unique conditions of storage due to issues such as fragility, rarity, value, size, etc.
Building a facility such as that proposed on a site like the waterfront or within the CBD would have significantly negative physical and financial implications, not to monition logistical and security considerations and the costs would be astronomical. Nonetheless, I quite agree with Matt L’s comment re its proposed location on ground taken from Hayman Park; I think we should start doing a little at grade car park reclamation for this project, using its exhibition venue and display-storage facility as a way of making a link between the station and the commercial centre – such as it is – at Manukau. Done properly, this proposal might be the spark that transmogrifies Manukau from a ghostly commercial ghetto stranded in a wasteland of parking into a vibrant cultural centre.
I was about to explain the situation in detail, but it appears Christopher has done an excellent job of it. It’s only because I talked to a current museum collections director a week ago that I’m aware of just what is being proposed – there has been a poor job of explaining what this is. Because this isn’t so much about exhibitions but storage, the requirements and design are completely different. It’s more like the stacks of the National Library of New Zealand than it is a normal museum.
As I understand it the rationale is different too. They want to be able to make items and taonga available to the public, but particularly the public who have most interest in these items, who value them most highly, and who would have most to gain from interacting with their cultural items. This isn’t a Eurocentric endeavour, it is one which weights highly towards New Zealand’s Maori and Pacific communities, and particularly to the younger populations of either. For this reason, the location was always going to have a different set of considerations.
Transport-wise, it’s reasonably served. Things can and should be improved, but it’s sufficient for the moment. That it’s on a train line is a very good thing, as tourists don’t usually bring their cars with them. It should form another incentive to complete Auckland’s rail network.
I meant to add; as a national museum facility, with the above considerations in mind, its proximity to the populations of the Waikato, Bay of Plenty, and Northland are also important. It is further from the latter, but more accessible to the former two.
A good point Christopher T. If that is the goal, then Manakau would suit, particularly from the storage/preservation angle (note they should make this part of the exhibit – many are fascinated with the processes that are needed for preservation, and it distinguishes it a bit from Te Papa Wellington). I think that a multi-museum ticket could overcome some of the issues with it’s location from a visitor point of view. Yes, it’s quite a long way from the Art gallery etc. but for visitors to the city, as long as it’s accessible by rail that won’t be a problem.
For domestic (local Auckland) visits, it’s accessible by rail as much as the CBD is, albeit at longer distance, so for a specific visit it’s fine. For a “we want to go into town and see a bunch of stuff” it’s not as ideal, but other attractions suit that just as much. For those visiting via car from neighbouring cities (Hamilton, Tauranga etc.) then Manakau is just as convenient really. They can always take the train from there into the CBD, and this might be encouraged via multi-museum passes – perhaps bundle in a free or reduced ticket to something on the waterfront, including a train ticket to encourage this?
Basically, the construction price will be seriously cheaper out Manakau way, so I don’t see the issue. Wynyard can be reserved for really showing off the location (something that Te Papa really doesn’t do – few windows).
Just to clarify what I mean by display storage. It’s where a museum makes its collection available to the public but without interpreting it at great detail. An ideal example is found at the V&A in London which, because the museum’s buildings are so vast and parts of its collection comprises small scale objects (eg ceramics), it is able to display store a significant amount of its highly important collection on site. It’s truly impressive:
Here, you just couldn’t do it in a central site, particularly if, as proposed, we’re looking at a storage facility large enough to accommodate the present and future needs of three major collecting institutions. There are all sort of potential options, but the thing that excites me about this project is the potential synergies that might evolve from the proposed Manukau location.
I agree with adding such facilities to Manukau as I believe the CBD has been lost to a great deal of the community a long time ago by trying to be too exclusive. However saying that I do not believe this is the right sort of museum that Manukau (or Auckland) needs at this point of time.
Manukau should be developed as a more family friendly environment to capitalize on the likes of Rainbows End and eventual developments that will happen around the Vodaphone Centre and therefore look towards having a modern interactive museum like a Children’s Museum or Science Centre; this is what is needed in Auckland, not another static display.
you are joking? have you been reading any of the news reports lately regarding the so call “climate science”?
I dont know why I bother as it is like arguing with a religious fanatic and I am sure you have some conspiracy theory to explain these results, but here we go:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/28/global-warming-consensus-climate-denialism-characteristic
As with transport policy, ideology, not facts, decides the position most people take.
“Well if museums are inward looking let’s put it in an industrial warehouse in Penrose then”
The Dali Museum in Tampa was located in what had been a marine warehouse. It was one of the best art collections I’ve ever seen.
No doubt Guggenheim’s European branch would have received more tourists if it had been located in London or Paris. But it has transformed Bilbao and made it a destination. I see this as an attempt to do the same for Manukau. A lot hinges on the quality of the building.
Exactly. Wherever it is.
And for what it’s worth, the Dali Museum (which I agree, is great) is farther from downtown Tampa than Hayman Park is from the Auckland CBD. It’s actually in the satellite city of St. Petersburg, which is a nice enough place – perhaps nicer than Tampa.
I don’t agree with the commenters who seem to think that it’s “racist” or otherwise some great social injustice to suggest a non-Manukau location for the museum, but it does seem like a good location, and the museum a benefit to the area. We do actually want to improve Manukau, right?
Apparently the Dali Museum is in a purpose-built building now. I visited around 1995 or so, and it was in a converted industrial building. I thought the re-use of the building was kind of cool. If you have the biggest and best collection of Dali art in the world, then the building doesn’t really matter. You can also make an architectural statement, but that is a choice rather than a necessity. On the other hand, if your collections are so-so then people will visit just to see the building. The art museum at Fed Square in Melbourne might qualify in that category. The collections of the British Museum are superb, but the new roof over the courtyard is what caused me to visit and it is excellent.
I think its fantastic that its in manukau. Ive always found cities with 2 or 3 or more distinct areas to see to be far better travelling experiences than cities where everything is in the centre. Despite the travel involved you got a far better idea of the real life of a city when you can see , for example, the young ,fun part of a city , then the next day see the older centre, then the next day see the thriving arts centre of a city. This gives a much more in depth view of the city and a more memorable experience rather than having these things mixed together in one place and then leaving auckland on the second day as there is nowhere else to go.
This isnt going to transform manukau but its a start. One or two more interesting things in manukau and auckland could have a nice harbourside city centre and also a cultural centre in manukau. Fantastic.
so… where about in Auckland are these areas? Where’s the young fun part? Is there an Old Centre? an Art centre? Last time I checked (two minutes ago) there were few bars with very limited live music and expensive simil-tapas, a bunch of decrepit sheds labelled as heritage and an art gallery. We should probably start by doing one part well and then the rest instead of throwing bits and pieces around hoping they land the right way up
Gian. Thats what i mean. auckland doesnt have these areas. We have one downtown area and not much else. (I dont think its that bad). I was referring to other cities i had seen.
Putting a few things in manukau is a start.
Perhaps the otara markets could be persuaded to move to manukau central sonewhere. Probably a lot more space but westfield might not like it much. Then you could have markets in the morning, te papa and also the botanic gardens as well. Could almost make a day of it.
Uh, the Otara markets get a lot of foot traffic. Manukau CBD is not the place for that. Plus, why take away one of the things which actually gives Otara a positive news story?
One benefit about putting Te Papa North in Manukau is that there would be plenty of space for a bespoke, modern building there, rather than having to bulldoze down a heritage building for it like you’d have to in and around the CBD. (A pity the Uni has already taken the old brewery in Newmarket because that’d be pretty good for a museum.)
Actually, I think anything that would go to make Manukau a proper urban sub-centre (as opposed to some office blocks and a theme park stuck in the middle of nowhere by car-obsessed planners) is good.
The discussion was over putting it at Wynyard, where the only buildings are decrepit oil tanks.
I think Newmarket is more or less perfect for the Uni, so not sure I would consider it ‘a pity’ that they’ve taken the old brewery site!
The proposal for a new museum is unique to the Manukau site. If the museum is not built in Manukau it seems unlikely Auckland will get a new museum at all. The reason for this is simple: cost. The Council hasn’t offered any land at Wynyard Quarter, despite what the Listener and the Herald have suggested. The question in the title of this blog is a moot point and no amount of editorialising will change this. The Herald and Listener editorials on this subject have been shameful; snobbish, geographist, and wilfully silent on matters of race and economic status.
It seems to have occurred to very few people that this museum could potentially be exciting enough to visit on its own merits and not by it’s location. The value of a museum is inherent, not decided upon by how many tourists can be compelled to visit but by the cultural heritage it contains and by the communities with whom it meaningfully engages. I wish the needs of overseas tourists were far less a part of this conversation, and the needs of say – school groups, or young families, or researchers, and yes, the people who live in South Auckland- could be honestly considered.
Ultimately what this new museum represents is an opportunity, and not just for Auckland but for Te Papa. With this proposal Te Papa and partnering institutions have been given a chance to create something different, to grow and reach fresh audiences. A new museum is a chance for new museological practices to emerge, for renewing ways of collecting/displaying/managing cultural heritage. How boring and conservative to want a repeat of a waterfront model appealing to a tourist’s one day stop over. How weird to think that after flying for over 14 hours to get here, a tourist would be deterred by taking a train for an hour. What a disservice to ourselves to suggest we wouldn’t manage the trip from Ponsonby to see some of the best taonga and cultural heritage that this country is lucky enough to have in it’s care.
This proposed museum has the potential be special, meaningful, and important to those in it’s immediate surroundings. It should be of such quality that anyone who visits is rewarded for doing so, no matter how far they’ve come from.
Lets all take a deep breath. The proposed Te Papa North is to have a budget of “up to $40m” which implies a modest building of 6,000 – 8,000sqm [Te Papa Wellington has public spaces of 36,000sqm].
Te Papa North is not going to be the ‘Iconic building’ which is proposed for Wynyard Wharf. Headland Park is 3.8ha and the ‘Iconic Building’ will have a footprint of 1ha [a building of 40,000 – 50,000sqm – budget $300m – $400m]. Te Papa North that is being proposed is a storage & educational facility first and second, there can be few public galleries in a building so small. Finally this will occupy <1% of Hayman Park.
Actually, no. 1ha (10,000 sqm) is over 10% of Hayman Park (roughly 97,000 sqm of actual park left at this time).
Yup – Hayman Park really not that big – see: http://goo.gl/maps/SWalR
1ha at Wynyard Quarter
8,000sqm at Hayman park
And you’re assuming that is single level.
For storage I’d be thinking multi level and underground mostly
There’s no use putting the museum in Manukau and hoping that people will use it. We’ve seen a similar thing happen in Manukau with parking; it just doesn’t work. People (especially tourists) aren’t going to travel to Manukau just to visit a museum, and there really is nothing else for tourists to do there. But, if it was built in Central Auckland, tourists would easily be able to walk to it from their hotels, and it help reinforce Central Auckland’s reputation as a major cultural centre.
What about Rainbows End?
Possibly, but Rainbows End is very much geared towards children, and certainly doesn’t attract many tourists.
As with the multi-passes for other museums in Auckland – including MOTAT (which is almost a science museum), and a built-in bus/train ticket/pass – there could be a multi-pass that included Rainbows End (and/or movies/Wendy’s), so the kids can be bribed to go to the “boring museum” first, before they get their treat/s as a pay-off.
Considering the ice in the Arctic was supposed to be gone by now, according to Al Gores predictions, and the fact that contrary to all predictions that the ice coverage over the Arctic has actually grown over the last year, sea-level rises has kind of taken a back seat at the moment. Even then 30 – 50mm in my lifetime is not enough to worry about in terms of positioning a museum. Not really a valid excuse against the Waterfront. There are other benefits that having in Manukau have, however the benefits of the city position certainly outweigh the benefits of the Manukau position in my opinion.
Sorry, that was supposed to be a reply to Chris, stupid work computers…
Al Gore isn’t a scientist, and of course the ice has bounced back from last year, last year was the lowest ice level in all of human history.
That said, I agree that sea level rise is not a valid concern for placing this museum.
As long as half of Manukau City consists of car parks, the new parking building is not likely to become very popular. A Google search of “museums near manukau” shows exactly none there right now. Which is not to say that Manukau has nothing at all to offer to visitors. Rainbow’s End, the Vodafone Events Centre, Westfield Manukau, and the Auckland Botanic Gardens come to mind. Manukau City also makes a very convenient first and last stop on the way to and from the airport. Did I mention that there is plenty of parking?
Yes. but all of these are best suited to locals driving their cars. The museum should be located somewhere that best suits locals AND tourists using public transport.
Was under the impression that the main purpose of Te Papa North was as a storage facility rather than to provide significant exhibition space? In which case Manukau seems like a perfectly reasonable location…
Right James, and I think NZ Archives has a storage facility/access somewhere in the Manukau area already, so the Te Papa storage/access facility sort of fits in with that (not sure how close and accessible (via PT) the NZ Archives facility is though).
[From reading the post, I originally agreed with the author, but now, after reading the comments, I tend to agree with the minister and mayor.]
Te Papa and the Auckland Botanic Gardens would make for a lovely day out.
As someone above said “a lot hinges on the quality of the building”. Te Papa just need to look at North Harbour Stadium to see what happens when you don’t provide a quality amenity.
What’s wrong with North Harbour Stadium? Once the west, north and south stands are built and the corners closed-in, and a transparent roof is put over it all, it’ll be a shining jewel – as good, if not better, than the (proposed) redeveloped Sydney Football Stadium – and much better than the (missed opportunity) redeveloped Eden Park.
Yeah North Harbour Stadium isn’t such a bad facility at all…a pity that Harbour rarely play in front of more than a couple of thousand or so. Sigh…
Pain to get to for the average Aucklander, unless your on the shore that is.
No, even if you are on the Shore it is a pain. It is a white elephant.
Got to remember that unfortunately most aucklanders drive everywhere so it is probably cheaper for most to drive to manukau and get cheap parking than to drive to the city. So it might get as much use from locals in manukau as the city. As for tourists I gues they would prefer them to go to Wellington
But surely the point is that the Council should be trying to do everything to help discourage this, not pander to it?
Botanic gardens in manurewa are awesome.
For all the many reasons above, manukau cbd for te papa north is a good idea.
I suspect that Te Papa north is more a solution for the offsite storage of Te Papa’s collection dressed up as a new museum for Auckland. It is being sold to Auckland as a museum which will require progressively increasing local funding to operate. There may some local advantage but I suspect the main benefactor will be head office in Wellington.
could I ask why my post that contained a link (as goosoid’s post did) referring to some information regarding a UN report on climate change was deleted?
not really, you just get the bus from the CBD or drive. I go to mt smart, mt eden and western springs all of the time and I would say that it is harder to get to them. if they had dedicated PT laid on to North Harbour stadium the same way that they did for the city stadiums it would be much easier.
I have always said they should get rid of a few of the stadiums and create one in the CBD that is easy to get to and has more than one home team so that the place gets more use as well as used for concerts, would be much better
why are my replys not being entered as a reply to a comment and just being stuck on at the end?
Well I suppose it would not be too far from the airport nor from the only amusement park in Auckland (Rainbows end’s)
nor that far from a major events centre or the regional botanic gardens or the small art gallery that holds regular exhibitions at Nathan Homestead, or
the (small) historical museum in Papakura – so perhaps not so in the middle of nowhere interesting that you seem to think.
Though of course you might be looking at different customer basis. Perhaps the idea to site it there is based on the potential for the area to
grow into something that could serve the local community and visitors well.
Then of course maybe those who want to move it may have been taking into account siting it on reclaimed land (which of course has had such a great reputation in shaky areas!)
might not be ideal. Also if its primarily art then the question remains how that deals close to seawater – or if expense is incurred from that angle.
But yes Haymen park has been eaten into in recent years ……..but no there might seem to be lots of parking but somehow Manuaku is suffering a parking crunch (according to
those trying to park there) so I doubt you are going to eat into that space – unless the parking goes up and then you could.
On top of that – if you are mainly looking for storage with perhaps a focus on pacifica art and indigenous art perhaps South Auckland is a wonderful place – I could see a lot
of school out South taking kids there – and I can see that being empowering and inspiring for those kids and less of a cost for schools than trying to get the kids into the gallery in
central Auckland.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11131749