We’re excited about Auckland hosting the next America’s Cup. In part this is due to the opportunity it provides to further enhance our city. That’s because there’s nothing quite like the unmovable deadline of a prestigious event to give politicians and officials the impetus needed to push along improvements to the city. I’ve looked before at some of the wider changes we might see.

A key decision is deciding on the location of the Cup bases and associated public Cup village. I imagine that location will go a long way to working out what other public infrastructure improvements will be built.

Yesterday the council announced a short list of five locations. The councillors need to decide on the location on 23 November so there’s enough time to sort issues like consent. The costs range from $140m to $190m so none are cheap – although they don’t say what each specific option costs. Both the government and the private sector may cover some of those costs too. A separate report from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment claims the event will generate $550m-$1b in direct economic benefits.

From what I’ve seen, it seems the preference is to keep all the bases together if possible as that allows for easier sharing of resources, like cranes etc. It seems that there is a preference for the event to be held near the viaduct for the interaction with the public, as opposed to the more open Queens Wharf. Perhaps also hoping to recreate those scenes from 2000 of the public packing all sides of Viaduct.

Halsey Wharf extension

An extension of Halsey Wharf has been on the plans for a while but has also been opposed by some. This is most likely the most expensive option but I believe is preferred by some of parties. You can also notice the white outlines of ships along Halsey Wharf, this is where they expect a heap of super yachts will be parked up during the event and is absent from some of the other options.

Captain Cook West

The Central Wharves strategy aims to eventually lengthen Captain Cook Wharf and for it to become the primary Cruise Ship terminal. This option would make use of that to host the cup bases whilst using Queens Wharf for the public. Surely one major issue with this option would be getting the wharf back from the Ports in time. Remember, they want to build a multi-storey carpark on the waterfront before they’ll hand the wharf over to the council.

Captain Cook East

Similar to above but this option would have the bases facing away from the Queens Wharf. The image indicating that it would therefore allow for a cruise ship to be berthed at Queens Wharf. One downside to that is it would likely mean a lot of Queens Wharf taken up for activities associated with servicing that cruise ship.

Dispersed – Halsey Wharf and Westhaven Marina

This is the first of two options which spread out the bases over a number of areas along the waterfront. Half of the bases would be accommodated on an extension of Westhaven Marina with the other half on a smaller extension of Halsey and Hobson Wharf. You will notice there are fewer super yacht spots on the eastern side of Halsey

Dispersed – Halsey Wharf, Hobson Wharf and Wynyard Point East

The final option is to retain the Halsey and Hobson extensions from above but also have bases on an extended Wynyard too. It seems like the most practical but is probably not liked by some officials due to things like the lack of super yacht parking spots.

It’s hard to pick an outright winner from these options, all have a lot of pro’s and con’s. What option do you think Councillors should go with and what will they go with? My guess is they’ll pick the last option.

Share this


  1. Best Option ( Not said) I say mix of Dispersed – Westhaven Marina and Wynyard Point East.

    Do not reclaim Halsey Wharf at all 😀

    Westhaven is crying out to be developed for superyachts.

    The could bring it (Wharf) off Wynyard West rather than all the way of Westhaven)

    Do not touch Hasley it has take enough harbour and expensive,.

    So yes to Westhaven Marina and Wynyard Point East. (Orange) https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=19KsBQ6KoLS6eFVmcAB5DdZQjlKbSJl8H&ll=-36.852333286424255%2C174.74306127865543&z=14

  2. What proportion of the port does council own? If it’s majority or entirety, can’t they just force the port to give up Capt. Cook and find another way to manage their operations?

    1. The port is the goose that lays the golden eggs. While Council could force them to give up land, that may have a financial impact on their operations and consequently affect revenue. There’s a bunch of vested interests at the port (remember the Council was the authority who approved the wharf expansion – no conflict there…)

        1. +1000

          The only reason they return anything close to $60m in dividends is because they don’t pay any rates on what would probably be the most expensive land in the country.

          Make them pay rates, then check out their return on capital to the Council.

  3. The last option is probably best (for Auckland):
    1. Brings forward development on Brigham Street (and maybe even traffic calm it, god forbid)
    2. Will require upgrading the Wynyard crossing bridge (I would assume…..) – maybe this ‘cycle route’ will get some actual cycle lanes
    3. Minimal car parking, means that AT needs to get its shit together on transit to Wynyard Quarter (expedited LRT on Fanshaw, anyone?)
    4. Good excuse to close the whole area to cars for a few months (and then never re-open them)

    Downsides are:
    1. The existing area around the event centre suck, I can’t see this changing that
    2. a lot more trucks trundling through the area
    3. The public consultation on Eastern Viaduct Carpark might get curtailed away from a public space into a commercial space

      1. Agreed. It might stop us losing to Tonga if our players could get more hours of play in. Might also give us cricketers who can win a series in India for once

        1. That is exactly the problem JDELH. I can’t think of a more regressive transfer of wealth than this shit. But they get away with using populism like some sort of bread and circuses stunt (minus the bread).

        2. It’s well past time to stop celebrating these events that are underwritten by the citizens of NZ, and benefit the few. Especially when those few are already doing alright.

          We need to question the thinking that considers this to be wonderful, and doesn’t have any solutions for the deprivation of many of our countrymen.

        3. It’s merely an investment by the council that is projected to pay out $3 for every $1 invested. That’s money, jobs, taxes. It’s what governments do, among other things.

          To claim the only beneficiaries will be “rich white sailors” its starting to smack a little bit of a left wing conspiracy.

        4. Subsidising the America’s cup is literally taking hundreds of millions of dollars from the very, very rich from abroad and dumping it into the Auckland economy.

        5. Where do you get this nonsense from Nick R? Subsidising is taking a lot of money from Auckland ratepayers so a few people involved in tourism and boats can make some money.

        6. “A few people involved in tourism”, yes very easy to dismiss, but tourism is our second largest export and it brings in $12 billion per year.

          Hosting month long big billionaires superyacht party is like winning lotto for the city, instead of spending their bucks elsewhere they all come to Auckland and blow it here.

        7. A few people in tourism – pretty much most shops, restaurants, bars, hotels, taxis etc….and not just the city, but the region. And the extra money those people spend on the businesses and for private consumption

          And that’s before we start talking about the marine industry.

        8. I just thought I’d look for some figures of what was spent on past America’s Cup, and skimmed through: http://www.majorevents.govt.nz/news-latest/documents-and-images-library/The%20Economic%20Impact%20of%20the%202003%20America2019s%20Cup%20Defence.pdf

          Would one of our dear economic analysts please help: it looks like complete and utter tripe. No discussion or quantifying the costs – presumably there was no pollution caused, no waste produced in the production of the toys or the lifestyle of the regatta, no disruption involved, no projects delayed, no emissions contributing to climate change, because they’re not in the report.

          Figures for how much the council spent seems to be missing and replaced with how many jobs that money provided. But when I read that between 1987 and 1995 “the economy has become more open to international competition and is more efficient and effective as a whole in meeting the needs of New Zealanders in a sustainable manner,” it made me feel positively sick.

          Anyone aware of an actual analysis that isn’t just corporate religion?

        9. Heidi I did sufficient economics to explain how those types of Economic analyses are done and I even wrote one with my post grad supervisor. You start by adding up all the costs of something, then with a slight of hand you present them as benefits ie ‘This programme will result in an increase in economic activity of $’enter Dr Evil number here’. Then you use a multiplier to convert that cost (which you are claiming as a benefit) into an indirect effect which is the direct effect times a bogus multiplier and get an even bigger Dr Evil style number. At which point you assume any reader will be suitably impressed and you submit your bill.

        10. mfwic, I can breathe deeply then, as this is exactly how the report appears. Perhaps just surprising that the text was so ideologically naked.

        11. @Heidi when the report is talking direct value, this is extra profit entering the economy. Any adverse effects in terms of pollution, waste, and emissions would have no change per $ of revenue change. E.g. the waste percentage, pollution percentage and emissions percentage of revenue remains the same.
          Any issues with this is not an issue with the Cup, but an issue with normal businesses practices.

          Projects had not been delayed, rather accelerated for the cup, so this would cost benefit for the economy.

          In terms of disruption, the costs of this are part of normal construction costs of the projects that were accounted for, during the event itself minimal disruption occurred as this was in a new area (viaduct) of town, and transport to the event was using existing transport infrastructure with painfully normal operating times.

          But I guess you can follow the lead of the mighty Donald Trump, if the stats don’t support your point, discard them as not being creditable.

        12. Thanks Josh. Note to self: “Under normal business practice, economic impact reports look at just the positive impacts (revenue); economic drawbacks aren’t considered an economic impact.” I’ll put it in the “economics fun” file, along with “economic health is measured by how much people spend” and “people’s needs are being met more sustainably due to the economic changes brought in by Douglas” and “trickle down works” and “3% annual economic growth is possible on a finite planet”.

          As I’ve written elsewhere, I can see the benefits to industry of the Cup; I’m not blind to the benefits of bringing international money in. But if this unbalanced report is typical economic analysis, we’ve a way to go! It’s a bit like BCR’s – done properly, they’d be a useful tool.

        13. @Heidi – I think you are missing the point. These ‘economic impacts’ that you claim are increased are accounted for in businesses normal expenses. E.g. there is no additional percentage of emissions from cup operations. What you are trying to argue is that hospitality for example have too much emissions during their general operations as a percentage of their revenue, as an argument against investment into the cup.

        14. That’s tripe Josh.

          PWC are arguing that the cup temporarily increased the size of the economy in part because we sold more stuff. The carbon emissions associated with selling that stuff are an economic cost externalized from those who profit. If PWC didn’t include it then there analysis is incomplete and at the very least they should state why they didn’t include it.

          As an example, lets say the government spend 100m to get another 100,000 dairy cows in the Waikato by removing commercial forests. It would be insane to not count the economic cost of the water pollution, methane emissions, and reduced carbon sequestration in that economic analysis. Why isn’t it the same for the cup?

        15. Sailor boy, what I’m saying is that’s a consequence of extra business, it doesn’t matter what increases this business, the environmental costs will be there. What you are suggesting is we stagnate our economy from growth to protect the environment or find more environmentally friendly ways of providing these services.

          I vote for the latter, but this is not a cost of the Americas Cup but the cost of the businesses involved, if this cost is not being accounted for then our regulations, taxes or environmental controls are not up to standard. If this is the case then we need to get these up to standard rather than stopping an event because we as a country or city ‘dont have our sh*t together’

        16. “Sailor boy, what I’m saying is that’s a consequence of extra business, it doesn’t matter what increases this business, the environmental costs will be there.”

          If we expanded commercial forestry on existing dairy land that would result in a net reduction in emissions. What is proposed is a public subsidy to expand the marine industry, is that still worthwhile if we consider the carbon emissions?

          “What you are suggesting is we stagnate our economy from growth to protect the environment or find more environmentally friendly ways of providing these services.”

          This is exactly what I am saying. We should only expand the economy in an economically sensible way. If expanding the economy by some method increases carbon emissions then we should factor that in while deciding whether to do it. That’s the difference between economics and accounting.

        17. Exactly, SB. Economic Impact Reports need to look at all sides simply because all sorts of costs – not just environmental ones, but social and built environment and others – vary wildly from industry to industry and are not just some sort of proportion of the revenue. More interesting would be an analysis of the Seven Capitals or a Genuine Progress Indicator, but even just simple accounting including carbon emissions would be better than the rubbish in that report about the America’s Cup.

          Josh, it’s wildly provocative to talk about stagnating our economy from growth. But if we have just 3% growth p.a. for the next 60 years, we’ll be using 5.9 times the resources, polluting 5.9 times as much as we are, emitting 5.9 times as much – and if you think technology will have solved these problems, you’re asking it to have found efficiencies to the tune of 5.9 times less resource use and pollution. Unrealistic. We can’t even cope with what we’re using and polluting now.

          Time to change the mindset, methinks. Because we’re living in fairyland.

    1. Yes you shouldn’t build stuff just for events. But using events to build things you were going to do eventually anyway isn’t a bad thing. Halsey fits in that bucket

      1. Just begs the question why we’re so incompetent to build what’s good for the city without an event forcing us to. And event bias muddies the decisions resulting in design compromises but little transparency.

        1. It comes down to cost, its not that we are incompetent, but that we dont have the cashflow to build things. The Event gives us the income that will provide the cashflow sooner to allow building things sooner.

    2. Yeah, these aren’t the olympics. And Auckland only really started to be it’s own city after it hosted the americas cup, it was a catalyst for development. As was the rugby world cup after it. They bought in more money than they lost economically. And you look at Auckland in the decades since the first Americas Cup was held in here you’d say they might be potentially the most important event the city hosted in it’s existence, both economically and culturally.

        1. A vibrant waterfront, albeit initial inward looking and (still) difficult to get to. Pluses and minuses 😉

        2. The viaduct is one of my favourite destinations in Auckland, the cup favourite attraction. The super yachts interesting to look at, the close hotels for me its a success.

        3. @Jack – Me too. I particularly love taking out of towners to Wynyard Q. If they’ve not been to that part of Auckland for a while, it really surprises them not only how nice it is, but how much money is being spent on development. Mention the number of folks that’ll be living there in a few years and their eyes glaze over.

        4. Wynyard Quarter is only vibrant to a certain demographic. It is not the egalitarian paradise it is made out to be. For that reason, it is a good example of what some consider to be “enhancement”, which is a euphenism for a sanitised version of what Auckland is. And it is much more than Wynyard Quarter.

        5. Molly, what demographic is that?

          Why I ask is I’ve seen a pretty good range of demographic using this area regularly.

  4. Option 1 Halsey extension for me.
    Will provide the greatest benefit, allows the most super yachts in, is a more permanent option (Am cup and then can be used as public space with super yacht moorings into the future), the harbour intrusion argument is fine for the main PoA area as that is a narrow piece of harbour and blocks views from the city. By contrast Halsey is much shorter with longer wharves either side of it and is in a wider part of the harbour that is currently not used for much).

    1. I like the Halsey option too. It’s well located, compact and efficient, the impact on the harbour is minimal (it sits in a basin between two larger wharves anyway), it doubles down on the recent investments at Wynyard, sorts out Te Wero Island (dare I say “party central”), it’s not reliant on deals with the port or moving other facilities, and it has a long term legacy for superyachts and fishing boats.

      1. The fishing boats are my main concern with this option. Where are they going to unload in the interim and do you really think that they’d be able to afford moving back into the area after “improvements”…

        Having a working warf area adds to the charm, at the cost of reducing the value. It creates an inclusiveness and connection with our working harbour, rather than simply a pretty view.

        The Halsey extension would be high value land. I can’t see it taking very long before more office buildings, apartments and hotels are built.

        This option is however a winner for minimal impact on the harbour…

    2. I like this option too, it adds to the ‘city of sails’ aspect and will enhance the feel of this area if done right. The if done right being the key part.

      However I do have slight concern of losing the fishing boats from this area. But best option of them all.

    1. Each superyacht spends about $250k a week just being here. They are predicting up to fifty will visit for several weeks each, plus several will put in for a refit as a result. This wharf investment will pay for itself on the superyachts alone, let alone everything else.

      1. No it won’t pay for itself. It would pay for itself if the Superyachts were asked to pay $250k per week just to be there. But that isn’t what is proposed. What is proposed is that ratepayers dig into their pockets to fund a big party for some other people to enjoy. A bunch of rich folk will turn up for a short while, a lot of other people who were coming anyway will time their holiday to all be here at the same time, and some people who would have come anyway will not be able to get bookings so they will go elsewhere.

        Somewhere an economist will be paid to add up all the good bits and conclude the total of all the good bits is positive.

        1. This comment is all that was needed to discredit your economic assessment of the event.
          What would PWC know about economics anyway.

        2. What’s PwC’s involvement, Josh? Are you referring to PwC Bermuda’s head also being the chairman of America’s Cup Bermuda?

      2. My family are in the marine engineering business. They are preparing to take on staff to service the boats and are expecting a forward programme of refits and work for two or three seasons after the cup finishes. Don’t underestimate how big a deal this is for the international marine sector.

        1. Then levy the marine industry and stop asking the rest of us to pay. These boom and bust events have as much downside as upside. I vote for Italy and if not Italy then Tauranga.

        2. I see your point Buttwizard. Those kids and pensioners who cant afford books and have to borrow them and the young people from crowded homes who study at the library are just like those millionaires who cant afford to build their own super yacht berths. Literacy in our society has no greater value than tipping money down a drain every four years slowly racing rich people does.

        3. Except libraries are a public service buttwizard, whereas the america’s cup is a capitalist sporting event
          If we nationalised the america’s cup you’d have a point.

          It is NOT the purpose of the public sector to distort the private market by channelling tax dollars to a few “winners”

        4. Lets make sure its a win win, that why we talk online here. Lets make sure it is a money earner for Auckland. We can if we use our planing.

        5. Yeah, lets also do this with schools and universities and stop asking us to pay for people to get educated and good jobs. Darn’ pinko socialists.

        6. Nick R,

          Schools, universities, healthcare are fundamental requirements for positive engagement with your own society.

          Providing subsidies for an elite sport is not.

          Money invested in the first will immediately provide direct benefits and that money will circulate locally, and be distributed widely.

          If you can provide some cost/benefit analysis that shows how the money invested in the America’s Cup has both short and long-term benefits, and where that money is distributed (and later spent or saved), I would have a better understanding of why so many automatically think this is a GOOD thing.

        7. Then it is a subsidy – and your industry should be able to stand alone to be sustainable, else it is a beneficiary industry.

          Especially given that you are providing a service for the benefit of a few – Aucklanders should really demand evidence of long-term benefits to Auckland. And that relates to distribution of benefits, and whether those benefits are to be enjoyed by the already well-served, or those who are currently under stress.

        8. I would agree if it were a single company or group in a single industry that benefits, but the evidence shows the benefits are wide reaching: marine industry, television and media, restaurants and bars, food service, tourism operators, retailing, transport operators, airlines etc.

          This is exactly why investment in these things should be coordinated by government, because the benefits extend across the whole regional economy.

        9. Disagree on this, Auckland by providing team bases, is essentially bidding for the cup. Auckland has a unfair playing field compared to other cities, where ETNZ and the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron (based in Auckland), are giving back to their city by hosting this lucrative event here. Other cities around the world are willing to pay for the hosting rights, on top of any infrastructure costs to gain the benefits.

          ETNZ in return get support from their loyal support base, and local knowledge advantage. However NZ marine industry, technology industry, hospitality industry and tourism industry are the major benefactors of the event. In return NZ government also pickup a return on investment purely from additional GST spend.

          Last Economic Benefits for the country of the cup (money entering the government coffers)


          Economic benefits for the country have been well advertised to Aucklanders and NZers so the evidence is provided to everyone as much as possible without door knocking and giving a physical copy to every resident. Have a walk through the Vaiduct Harbour which was the result of the Americas cup and the catalyst for investment in downtown Auckland for further evidence, or look to our Marine industry which became internationally renown after the first Cup.

          Subsidy suggests propping up a single company/industry that would otherwise not succeed. This is an investment that gets a return across a range of industries across the city, has a wide range of benefits and ensures we don’t lose these benefits to another city/country.

        10. Yes Nick, I agree, and the boost to the marine sector is probably the most beneficial of all, given the low wages and ethics shown in tourism and hospitality.

          However, it still behooves us to look at the wider picture, given the limits to resources the world has. Racing yachts and superyachts are resource-intensive and polluting in their manufacture and operation (especially so in the case of the superyachts and the associated lifestyle – jetsetting, helicopter transfers, all the waste associated with luxury.)

          People in this super-rich category certainly need to transfer some of the wealth to the rest of the world; the question is whether the AC is one such good mechanism. It’s better than some, certainly, for the support of industries such as the marine industry. But on the whole, a new world economic system in which corporations and the rich are properly taxed would be far superior.

    2. +1,000,000

      Using ratepayer funds is a gross misuse of public money when we have much more important things on which to spend $190m

    3. It would be a shame to lose the earnings from the event, not to mention the cultural gain of our great yachting nation.

      But I guess if you personally don’t benefit from these events, then nobody should right.

  5. As a layperson, I’d have thought that Halsey would have the least impact on tidal flows in the harbour but comes with two big questions: 1) Where are the fishing boats going to unload? 2) WTF are we going to do with it after the cup? It’s hard to see it being anything other than a white elephant.

    I’m not a fan of _anything_ that uses Halsey, until the council has provided direction on where the fishing trawlers are going to unload. The current location is sub-optimal, but also adds to the charm of the area. The fact that fishing boats are working the docks makes it authentic and adds to the working heritage of the area. Removing the fishing also sanitises the area. It should be noted that the fishing industry isn’t creating a huge amount of traffic in the area.

    That leaves Cook (West or East) as your only option.

    We can exclude Cook East, due to the cost of removing the existing pier that’s in the way, unless the port pays for it’s removal per their 30 year plan. You can bet your bottom dollar that the port will try to get local and central govt to pay for their carpark and/or warf removal. Perhaps use the cup as leverage to get consent approvals sorted. I don’t have much appetite for the politics this would entail.

    So… Cook West then. We’ll still be able to accommodate cruise ships on the western side of Queens and also on Princes. Super yachts can berth where they do now and at Westhaven. Probably need to upgrade Westhaven though. Only real down side is the fact that it’s a _big_ extension into the harbour, though if it’s designed to be highly permeable (read: expensive) perhaps the impact on harbour flows can be mitigated.

    Cook West does have the best chance of creating repurposable infrastructure that the city will use moving forward, much like the original viaduct harbour and cup bases.

    1. 1) Those fishing trawlers can work with factory ships. And they can literally unload anywhere that a truck can park by a wharf. There are unused wharves up and down the east coast that could be bought up to standard.
      The sense of charm of a working wharf is insane. They smell, have dodgy labor practices and are slowly destroying the fish stocks. As for the working heritage of the area, two of my grandfathers worked the docks would be spinning in their graves in that we have modern foreign trawlers pulled up to the docks after pillaging marine life. Which is another thing. These aren’t quaint little mom and pop fishing operations but factory run ships that only care about profit, over wellbeing of the environment and crew. Hardly something that we need to display to NZ.

      2) What do we do after the cup? Well either what we have done in the past and build the area into a new and exciting part of the CBD. Both the viaduct and Wynyard Quarter have been very successful and have added to the city as a place that we can enjoy our waterfront.
      Or we double down and make it a marine recreation designated area, and preserve it for future cup campaigns and other sailing regattas (which we really should do so this doesn’t become a problem every 20 years we have a cup campaign).

      1. On 1), I agree with almost everything that you said. Factory ships – are they something that is really viable without massive increases in costs past to consumers? When you say up and down the east coast, do you mean Auckland? I can only see them docking in the port. Most of their catch would be destined for Auckland. I’m a layman, no experience in fishing. I’m a photographic artist and an embedded system design engineer – Neither field has any relevance to fishing, so these are honest questions – Not attempts to shoot you down.

        As I said to another, charm was the wrong word to use. I was having trouble expressing myself. The concern is that industry needs to proceed, one way or another. There are only so many areas where floating industries can actually work in Auckland, so we need to be careful that we’re not pushing out food production with our plans. Think the destruction of the Pukekohe food producing fields for low/med density housing.

        For point 2, we definitely don’t want a repeat of the situation we have now in another 20 years! Couldn’t agree more! The issue is that we’ve been myopic in the past, we’ve seen land primed for development and acted accordingly, only to realise that we actually needed that land for the original purpose.

        Whatever we do, whatever option we choose, it needs to be protected from becoming more hotels and apartments in a few years time.

        1. 1) Factory ships are already working off the coast of NZ on some of the other fisheries. Potentially these could work with these trawlers (probably not). I think the better option is to move the fishing trawlers to another pier around the city, they could quite easily use the silo park wharf currently reserved for oil tankers if we opened it up to that. Or they could go to Whangarei which is only a short drive. Or they could go to Thames, or Tutukaka, or Whangaroa. There’s a number of small piers and ports that used to service the fishing industry that have slowly died as the quotas have been consolidated and resold. I’m sure Auckland sports fishing club would be happy to see the back of them.

          I agree on having a connection with what we eat to where it comes from. Especially re the Pukekohe fields and the like. However Auckland has never really been a strong fishing port, comparative to surrounding ports, it’s not highly valued nor does it give strong insight to what the fishing industry actually does. Perhaps if the maritime museum were given a small quota, they could operate some traditional fishing vessels, not just European but Maori and Polynesian as well, which would operate better as a connection to history but also industry. They could even sell the fish they caught to the fish market that exists currently in Wynyard. Right now however it’s not that.

          2) Less hotels, carparks and apartments the better. We agree :). I think the best method of protection would be to put what ever is developed into an council organisation that moves very slowly. IE the Sports and Rec body that manages Eden Park and the like, this would keep it out of developers hands.

          Potentially adding in a few cafes and restaurants to the area would keep it active between regattas.

        2. Sanfords have their main factory on Jellico St, right beside where the boats unload, so I don’t think Thames or Whangarei would be that good an option. Remember fresh fish has a short shelf life. The side of Silo Park Wharf is probably fine but would mess with the oil companies who still have 10 or 15 year leases.

    2. Sorry Jon, but it appears your only area of focus is perceived ‘charm’, a word with no real valuable meaning that is simply just your opinion. It has already been discussed the infrastructure projects that will most likely be fast tracked, bring new or improved transport options along the waterfront. So, for the sake of holding onto a perception that everyone wants to visibly see ‘the good old days’ you appear to offer 2 options that have already been ruled out. It has to be around the viaduct area and I’m quite certain the development of the Tank farm, wharves etc will change what happens to the fishing boats anyway.

      1. I’m having a hard time expressing what I meant. In hindsight, charm was the wrong word. I think that the real concern is more around the area (already not cheap for entertainment) becoming even more expensive and attracting a more affluent market, making it less appealing for an ever increasing proportion of the city.

        My interest is definitely not in the good old days – For me the good old days is unsealed footpaths along a major trucking route, leading to a mass of wool stores and a smelly warf. Not something that I’m keen to revisit. I’m keen to see my adopted city become great and, by extension, back anything that I see driving that.

        Incidentally, I only ruled out one other option. Others have ruled out warf extensions, on the grounds that the port wanted to do it. Nobody has asked how the public feels about extending a permeable design for the public good. I guess it’ll come down to how much pressure Team NZ can apply to the council – If it’s a lot, they’ll choose whatever village gives the most reusable land.

  6. Why should the America’s Cup base land reclamation not be held to the same account as the Ports of Auckland?
    There have been plenty who want no more reclamation – including the current Prime Minister.

  7. One thing that also clouds the decision making process is Winstons rail line north. The cars potentially won’t even be at PoAKL in 5-10 years, so building a carpark would be short sighted.

  8. The location of this facility for one of the silliest activities that obscenely wealthy persons needs to primarily service the citizens of Auckland, including those of us who do not own a boat. If they wish to host their silly games here, can we at least be sensible about the “economic” benefits. These large, taxpayer funded, (semi-) international events never produce the returns touted (like the insanity previously known as the TPPA), if FIFA can’t do it, I can’t imagine that the America’s Cup will be too bothered either. The provision of facilities to these fru frus must be part of a larger redevelopment of our waterfront. The take back of our wharves from POA, and the expansion of the entertainment quarter. We could have three Wynyard Quarter type developments along the sea board, interconnected by paths, cafes and bars. Put the stadium in somewhere. This needs to be bigger picture, the end of cars sitting on our wharves, the beginning of the Port’s move north etc. The last Americas Cups gave us the viaduct, but good planning for Aucklanders gaves us North Wharf and Silo Park, a far more agreeable area. It is time the future of the citizens of Auckland becomes the priority, and if we can fit some fancy wakas into the plan, let’s do it. But JAFAs #1!!!

      1. Inward looking stadium LOL … As long as the infrastructure is part of a long term plan fine.. I think Northshore near bridge actually could be developed actually (Marina etc)

      2. The majority of ball-games players in NZ are poor and brown. Ball-game stadiums give those lower class kids a real pathway.
        The majority of yachtsmen in NZ are rich and white.

        1. JDELH I am offended by your blatant ignorant racism. Sort our your comments. Or I put you down with the nothing to add of use crew.

        2. It is such a lazy comment. JDELH ‘White’ has nothing to do with this. FFS. How out of date is that.. Please go to kiwiblog , thestandard etc for such useless cleches. Americas cup is amazing , brilliant for many kinds of people, happy to talk public money going to rich people. It is huge perhaps stop funding tertiary education huge wealth from poor to rich education providers that is bigger. If you feel to much state funds go to Americas cup then get some data and get it to the press. It is a democracy.

        3. ” If you feel to much state funds go to Americas cup then get some data and get it to the press. It is a democracy.”
          And if you think that is how our media or democracy operates, you are asleep.

        4. Really? OK, here’s a challenge,
          Go down to Lake Pupuke at the next youth yachting event.
          Go down to Birkenhead War Memorial for the next league game

          Tell me which is whiter. And look at the carpark as well. See where there are more BMWs and Mercedes.

        5. The would be the same Rugby League that is currently competing in the government subsidised World Cup literally as we speak? I’ve got no problem with subsidising sporting events, but I do have a problem when people decide certain things are worthy or not based on racial profiling of the supporters.

          And by the way a little more than 50% of Auckland is ‘white’, so if you are proposing to allocate funding based on race then those whiteys should get a decent chunk.

        6. Actually, I think how sports funding is allocated is quite worthy of inspection from a demographic point of view. Also note how under National, sports funding for schools became decoupled from decile funding, because the rich schools wanted more share of the pie. Huge discrepancy between rugby and netball; the gender issue is a biggie too.

        7. Nick, if brown people were rich and white people were poor I’d suggest we focus on yachting and ignore league. It’s not “brown people” it’s “brown people are disproportionately poor” and as such a good progressive social policy focuses on them.

          The only politics that matters is class, not identity.

        8. WoW how racist did you just get JDELH?

          Did you not go down to the Fan Zone during the San Fran Americas Cup. Shed 10 was so multi-nationalled you might have had a heart attack at the sight of so many colours.

        9. JDELH – your clutching at straws has reached a new level! Only a very small number succeed in professional sport, it is not a real pathway.

          I hate to burst your bubble but it was more than just the elite that I saw at the Americas Cup parade a few months ago and down at Shed 10 watching the big screen in 2013. The reality is a lot of NZers, whether they own a boat or not or know anything about sailing enjoy watching the Americas Cup.

          Many people whether they are wealthy or not enjoy seeing NZ succeed in a high tech big money sport.

  9. I find it impossible to be objective about the potential long-term benefits the America’s Cup could bring to Auckland. I find the America’s cup vile. Large corporations have done an extremely good job of selling the America’s Cup to NZer’s as a national sport, something to feel patriotic about. But it’s just a vehicle to advertise their wares.
    The viaduct now is a pretty awful place really. It certainly doesn’t welcome the majority of Aucklanders. I imagine there are plenty of people that feel uncomfortable there. Wynyard Quarter on the hand is great. I don’t imagine that building shared places and playgrounds will be high on the America’s Cup organisers list of priorities.

    I don’t support a waterfront stadium either.

    1. I tend to conflate the two locations to some extent, except that the viaduct now looks run down and in need of revitalisation. Wynyard Q is a place I like, be it for photography or walking the dog, whereas the viaduct is just a place to pass through.

      The viaduct would be so much more appealing if it weren’t for the severance that Quay St causes. That lack of connection makes it inward looking and a place that you go because you need to, not because you want to. Well, for me at least.

      1. Any objective viewer sees that people prefer the viaduct. It’s packed with people all weekend, every weekend. They are both great, in different way, which is great for the city.

        1. I’m going to call out out on this… from a nightclub perspective, the Viaduct was far more packed back around 2005-2007 than it is today.

        2. I wish there was foot traffic data for the big night spots (K Rd, Viaduct, Ponsonby, Parnell) available. Anecdotally (showing my age) – around 2000-2005, K Rd was jammed, Viaduct was growing, 2005-2010 Viaduct was jammed, lately Ponsonby seems more crowded than it was. And Parnell seems to have lost its crowds. White Wednesdays anybody?

        3. Yes, the bars were getting pretty tired.

          But this year has had quite the revitalisation with HQ, Dr Rudi’s etc opening up, others being refurbished and is now heaving again. Wynyard hasn’t quite got that nightlife hype since Puma Social Club departed from the old ETNZ base. But that might change with the first apartments nearing completion.

  10. Dispersed – Halsey Wharf, Hobson Wharf and Wynyard Point East provides opportunities to unlock land for development. That would includes some new restaurants, apartments, public space

    Captain cook east also good opportunities to develop to extend vibrancy toward east quay street. That will work well with Quay Streetscape upgrade. Then Queens wharf can also be upgraded.

  11. I’ll go for Option 1, Halsey Wharf extension. It is going to be a long time before the Wynyard Point gets a tickle up given the remediation required. This extension as noted in other posts, probably has the least impact on the harbour and post event, could provide some great spaces for other uses that might otherwise have to wait a long time for Wynyard Point. Sure, there are lots of counter arguments, but the debate is good!

    1. It’d be nice if it was viable to use Wynyard Point – Imagine how great that’d be – Enough land to do the job and the much needed capital injection to make something of it. No reclamation required.

      I wonder why the council didn’t have that option?

  12. Is it viable to get car imports (by Rail) from Northport up and running before the America’s cup? If so, surely this would be a great driver to make that happen and free up some of the old ports of Auckland wharf for this event? No new wharfs required and nice redevelopment of the old car park wharf thrown into the bargain.

    1. There’s no need to trash Wynyard or blight the wharves with short termism. Suggest that Winston coughs up some regional funding extra to Northport to build a new marine village and the 36th AC base in the Bay of Islands with 75’ mono-hulls beating up the bay! All the high rollers will feel right at home – they own most of the coastline anyway.

  13. Westhaven. Open up the western entrance then build from there to Wynyard wharf. Access from end of Wynyard. Also allows for a more westerly landing of a LR tunnel or bridge, giving a more direct route to the NS. Added advantage is that it disrupts fewer sight lines than the other proposals.

  14. If they want it somewhere that says Auckland let them race in the Auckland Islands and show exactly how good real sailors can be.

  15. This entire thread is amusing because of all the various discussions.

    It mostly relates to poor, incoherent strategy for the city and the country.

    I am of two minds. I hate public taxes being used to subsidise private business. It distorts the market, but most the public money spent would stay in the local economy and circulate a bit.
    On the flip side, AC does bring a lot of foreign money into the local economy, even it is almost all going to a select group of private businesses. Hopefully some of that money circulates in the local economy for a while.

    I dislike the tourism industry because it is almost all very low paying, unskilled jobs that makes money of the very finite environmental resource NZ has. NZ will never improve it’s living standards via tourism and only degrade it’s environment in the process.

    However, maintaining and developing a strong yachting culture brings benefits to NZ’s international brand, contributes to innovation in technological and high-value manufacturing businesses which do pay good wages and require high skill levels. These contribute to improving NZ’s living standards and also are a factor in attracting talented people to come and live/work in NZ.

    If harnessed correctly, America’s Cup is a boon for NZ, but because of poor strategy and little coherent thought by local/national government, I expect most benefits to be wasted.

    1. New Zealand’s international “brand”

      New Zealand isn’t a type of soft drink or an automobile. To say New Zealand has a “brand” is to reduce the country to a commodity.

      1. Would that really be a bad thing?

        I guess it would depend on how much competition there is for that commodity really. It’s easier to market a commodity rather than a whole country.

        What’s Great Britain good for? Just an interesting/great/dire city (London). What about Ireland? Poland?

        Look at Singapore – There’s a brand: High tech city of business and innovation. It doesn’t really deserve that label as much as some other Asian cities, but it’s exactly what people think when you mention the place.

        What about Hong Kong – Westerner entry to China. Shipping and commerce, vibrant city of political freedom (allegedly).

        Both of HK and Singapore have spent time and a lot of money to promote their brands. Successfully I’d suggest. I personally find Singapore to be very boring, but they are making inroads to it being more than a business destination. Hong Kong has several commodities under their brand – Which is exactly what we can do here with our tourism, adventure, innovation, agriculture, etc. NZ already has an extremely strong “brand” in China, due to our food safety and quality and the Chinese tourism market is still growing strong.

        Earlier this month, a Chinese film crew were in Hawkes Bay filming episodes for Chinese food travelogue show Chef Nic that features Hong Kong singer, songwriter, actor and entrepreneur, Nicholas Tse, with different celebrity guests, incl Al Brown.

        At the end of the day, however you can earn a dollar. 🙂

      2. New Zealand is a commodity. Tourism is our second largest export, so our country is literally a commodity. Our first largest is agricultural products, mostly dairy, which again is simply a commodification of our national identity. Clean, green, safe etc.

        1. No I’m serious, we sell a manufactured image of our country as much as we sell the actual manufactured products.

        2. Tourism has a future, there is no way humans are about to stop travelling and ‘exploring’. What doesn’t have a future is fossil fuel for aircraft, however people have proven to be innovative many times before and I have no doubt we will again.

          What could kill tourism in NZ is if we continue to think it is impossible to improve our environment without it costing us economically. I think the tide is slowly turning on that belief though.

        3. Actually Tourism overtook Agricultural as our largest export in 2016. On top of that our Agricultural industry also depend a lot on our New Zealand Brand.

          And sport has had a major role internationally in popularising our brand though our success.

        4. Tourism overtook dairy, it hasn’t overtaken agriculture as a whole and is nowhere near overtaking primary industries. It all depends on how these things are classified.

      3. New Zealand is a huge brand. Tourism has now become our largest export industry, it is totally dependent on our brand.

        Also remember your a brand yourself, and selling ‘you’ your brand is important for selling your services to potential employers or your business. Your livelihood and potential earnings depends on your brand, as New Zealand’s economy depends on its brand.

        1. Winner Auckland is more appropriate given we punch above our weight on most aspects of sport and business compared to international cities. We might even start punching above our weight in terms of transport infrastructure one day, long way to go though.

        2. How do we punch above our weight compared with other cities?

          I’d say Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth have all done better with sport and our GDP relative to the rest of NZ is pathetic when compared with the urban/rural GDP differences for many other cities.

  16. I do not have a strong opinion between the Halsey or two Dispersed options. However from a transport viewpoint, I would have reservations about both Captain Cook options. They involve a large number of people movements (if the vent is as popular as claimed) landing on a narrow section of Quay Street near the Britomart Station and presumably the future LRT stop at the base of Queen Street. This concentrating of demand could put a lot of strain on both PT and walking footpaths for major events. Whereas the other sites spread demand between several possible access points.

  17. Waste of money when we have so many urgent social and infrastructure issues.
    I quite like the America’s Cup, but let’s not throw too much money at it, please

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *