The Downtown Framework (18MB) was released last week and one of the interesting set of challenges to deal with is the Central Wharves. These are the finger wharves spread out across the core of the CBD from Princes Wharf in the west to Bledisloe Wharf in the east.
There are a number of challenges but the key ones seem to be
- The future demands of providing public transport. Patronage on ferries has increased by ~140% over the last decade and almost 600% since 1992 (less than 900k trips in 1992 and over 5m now), that is likely to grow further.
- The future demand of the cruise ship industry which like ferry patronage has grown strongly and is expected to keep doing so. This means more ships and people to accommodate as well as the providoring needed for them. In addition ships are expected to get larger.
- Managing the demand for water space, cruise ships often like to leave port during the evening peak right when ferries are busy.
- The demand for increased and improved public space including making Queens Wharf a Peoples Wharf
- Managing port operations and the impact the other changes will have on them.
Getting the right balance will be tricky and to help guide the decision a Central Wharves strategy is being developed while the Ports of Auckland are also developing the second stage of their Ports strategy. Some of the options being considered in the strategy are below and some of them would see significant change on the waterfront. A key to them is below
There seems to be a few common themes amongst all options which is aimed at addressed some of the key challenges listed earlier. In particular all four options involve the extension of at least one wharf, the largest of which would be to Bledisloe Wharf. Most of the options would also see Marsden Wharf removed to create more space for the growing size of passenger and cargo ships.
Of all the options #4 presents perhaps the most radical change and would see the ferry terminal moved to a new purpose built floating pontoon facility in the place of Captain Cook Wharf. I personally have always liked the idea of #3 having Captain Cook Wharf as the primary cruise terminal which is able to service multiple ships at once but which is still extremely close to Queen St. That would then allow Queens Wharf to become dedicated public space.
All up the information suggests an interesting and exciting future for Auckland’s and one we’ll be keeping a close eye on.
Processing...
Options 1 and 4 basically hand over the downtown harbour’s edge to cruise ships, and all options are proposing to fill in more of the harbour which is something a lot of people made clear they didn’t want PoAL doing any more of. As to cruise ships wanting to leave during peak ferry operations, simple solution is to ban them from doing so, and if we’re running out of space, the council simply shouldn’t book so many that huge reclamations of the harbour are needed.
“As to cruise ships wanting to leave during peak ferry operations, simple solution is to ban them from doing so…”
That would save the entire cost of building cruise ship facilities. If they can’t arrive at 7-8am and depart at 4-5pm, then they’ll simply bypass Auckland altogether. Any destination where you can’t arrive when the pax wake up and depart before dinner (with sufficient time for on-shore activities in-between), is a non-starter as a cruise destination.
#3 also looks like it minimises ferry/cruise conflicts better and means that the ferries are still located by the Ferry Building, which makes some sense, but presumably more of the western side of Queens Wharf would need to be used for Ferry opps? And by keeping the cruise ships on C’apt Cook they can build a dedicated facility there so we can at last get Queens as a public space. Would rather see Cook extended than removed. Not keen on the huge extensions to Bleidisloe that PoAL want but have failed to make a case for beyond land speculation and maintaining inefficient operations..
Hi Patrick, last week I came across your comment in this thread, and this bit has been bugging me: “Not keen on the huge extensions to Bleidisloe that PoAL want but have failed to make a case for beyond land speculation and maintaining inefficient operations”. So I had to reply. I could write a huge essay, but to avoid being tiresome, here are three quick comments. It’s not a ‘huge extension’. Maasvlakte 2 in Rotterdam at 2000 hectares is huge. Our old plans at 23ha were big, for Auckland. Our current plans max out at 6ha, which is pretty modest. #2 – ‘land speculation’? Eh? We want to use it for freight, not sell it. #3 – ‘inefficient operations’. Four years ago, sure, fair call, but not now. There isn’t a container port in Australasia that can match our ship loading speed and our non-container operation is also very slick. We can improve further, sure, but we are miles past the point where you can label us inefficient in our use of land and resources. I’d love it if you would come visit us so you can see for yourself the changes we’ve made to lift our performance. Drop me a line. All the best, Matt Ball, Ports of Auckland
Yeah option 3 seems like a pretty clear and obvious winner.
A lot of challenges to be faced. I prefer 3. Cruise ships are getting bigger and the council needs to be proactive and not wasteful. I think no one wants to see more of the harbour lost either.
The public seems to want queens wharf to be the showcase spot for the city but I guess we also need to keep in mind the tip of wynnard will also be a showcase spot with views up the harbour. The decisions need to be made what is best suited for these spots to create a lively international city.
IMHO the park on the tip of Wynyard will be the one failure of the Wynyard Quarter. It will always be in the far corner of the city centre, half a kilometre out on a promontory. Queens Wharf will always be far more central and accessible to people, crowds and events.
Yerr that’s true in some regards as queens wharf is the most central.
I wouldn’t say a failure as it will still be a prominent feature of Auckland. It is prominent from the harbour bridge, prominent from the harbour and has views back on to the city. It will be the postcard shot more than queens wharf I suspect.
It’s success undoubtedly come from what it is. It needs to draw people to it.
Well by failure I mean it wont be busy. Some would call that a success! But like all such parks, the only people using it will be there specially to go out the end to look at the view.
I think it will depend a lot more on the facilities and activities in the park as well as the level to which it is accessible via public transport. Long Bay is always busy in summer and is one of the more remote and hard to reach parks in the metropolitan area but it’s a great park and draws a lot of people in from around the region.
What is the build-start date for any of these options?
What level of sea level rise are the they planning for over the next 100 years – 1, 2 or more metres? How much of this wharf area will be underwater at high tide later this century?
Theres some fairly varied figures as the increases are quite different year to year but sounds like it would be in the ballpark of 0.5m…
From Wiki:
“The 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 4) projected century-end sea levels using the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). SRES developed emissions scenarios to project climate-change impacts.[52] The projections based on these scenarios are not predictions,[53] but reflect plausible estimates of future social and economic development (e.g., economic growth, population level).[54] The six SRES “marker” scenarios projected sea level to rise by 18 to 59 centimetres (7.1 to 23.2 in).[14] Their projections were for the time period 2090–99, with the increase in level relative to average sea level over the 1980–99 period. This estimate did not include all of the possible contributions of ice sheets.”
Much smaller, more like 0.5m, even then most predictions have failed to meet expectations so far…a little like PPP roading projects.
I have always wondered if there was anyway to re-create even a small beach at the bottom of Queen street. What a wonderful thing that would be for city workers in summer!
Option 3 seems the obvious choice.
A diving platform like Wellington http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/8201583/Capital-plays-as-summer-returns or a swimming pool boat like Berlin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badeschiff
The Herald said that none of these 4 options cater for the “of the seas” class of cruise ship.
That are supposed to become more prevalent.
An Option 5 is needed.
What happened to all the ideas for Queens Wharf from that competition three or four years ago?