QUEEN'S WHARF | Under Construction

[cambennett]

Why can't we have the layout proposed by the ACC but have the sheds demolished and in their place a couple of new buildings with the same size footprint. Woudn't that solve all of our problems here?

Sadly i'm getting the impression Mike Lee just does not get it:

"

Queens Wharf is not only the best place for Auckland, it's the only place. We wouldn't have [gone ahead] if we couldn't have a cruise ship terminal there. Where else would you put it - in the middle of a container terminal?

"That's barmy. Some people won't be happy until the port is somewhere off Mission Bay."

Yes Mike, most of us would rather that ports were not slap bang in front of the CBD blocking us off from the water thanks. Yes something on Queens Wharf that has architectural merit is important but the whole point was to reconnect Aucklanders with their water front isn't it?


What the ARC seem to be proposing is another Princes Wharf dominated by a monolithic cruise ship terminal and buses and other vehicles.

I agree with Sydney we can have both plenty of public space and an iconic building. There is no reason why this shouldn't happen it's a big space.

[jarbury]

I also suppport the Auckland City Council option MORE than the ARC option, but I think neither have really got it right.

My thoughts here: http://transportblog.co.nz/2009/06/2...ate-continues/

[Kane007]

Yes!

KEEP the buses at Britomart - fuck it's just a short stroll across the road!
If they have too - build an air bridge/under pass. Actually an underpass through to the train station might be awesome.
Ok, just checked out the Yokohama Cruise Terminal, and ... Wow. Imagine something along those lines for Auckland!

combined with the ACC proposal, might work a treat.

[thebison]

The Yokohama Port Terminal is generally accepted as the benchmark for this kind of project:

http://www.architectureweek.com/2002...esign_1-2.html
http://archidesk.blogspot.com/2007/10/024-excerpt.html

As mentioned in the Herald on the weekend.

There was a good article in there that had quotes from architects outlining best course of action - temporary and cheap world cup fix, play up the 'ruin' and 'working wharf' aspects, before developing winning architecture competition designs that respond to a proper brief and budget integrating private and public money and interests.

[KLK]

As someone said, Mike Lee just does not get it, does he. He went on and on about reclaiming the wharf for Aucklanders, then he effectively advocates taking it away from them with the ARC design.

To give credit to Banks and the ACC, they are 90% of the way there. Their vision involves public access dominating the area, there are a variety of uses/acitivities planned, and cruise ship facilities will be significantly improved. Aside from not enough green space, all they have fallen down on really is the design of the terminal - which is a shame because its fairly important.

I'd be interested to see a more detailed render of the sheds. Clad in glass and modernised, they could look quite interesting. I think people are getting bogged down in the word shed too. Its a negative connotation which gives people the wrong idea about the final design, but also, importantly, of size. These are by no means small structures - they deceivingly large buildings which in terms of space, should easily provide suitable facilities for increasing cruise numbers and provide a notable presence on the waterfront. They perhaps just need to be a little more "outside of the shed" in terms of the design.

[jarbury]

An interesting comment on my blog from ACC councillor Aaron Bhatnager suggests that the City Council might even be getting closer to my prefered option than it seems:

http://transportblog.co.nz/2009/06/2...s/#comment-284

We don’t want to keep both sheds. We definitely want to refurbish the eastern shed for cruise ship terminus/multi purpose venue use, but the western shed could easily be demolished to make way for something else.

While you might not want another theatre, the Auckland Theatre Company definitely want new premises, and have money in the bank to apply towards such a project. They have even lobbied the council on the use of Queens Wharf for this, though I am personally agnostic on this.

I am pleased you have picked up on the fact that the City Council suggestion opens up the waterfront for people to use, rather than being just a building platform.

[KLK]

Demolition of the western shed would allow that space and the area behind the eastern shed to be a grass point. Perfect.

I'd also like to see the western edge close to the water flanked in a line of trees and a grass strip. I think a line, or a few strategically placed clusters (2-3), of Nikau palms would look great.

And great to see your Blog is being read - and getting contributions from - high places

[cambennett]

Mike Lee's attitude worries me a lot. As owner of the wharf the ARC will have a big say and it would be heartbreaking to see this prime space wasted in another Prince's wharf debacle.The fact that he wants to recoat the wharf in asphalt just makes me shake my head. He also wants to build space for buses at the front of the wharf

I agree that the ACC plan is moving in the right direction. There needs to be space for people first and foremost. Also the ACC plan leaves room for things to be changed in a few years time if we have the money to knock down the sheds and build something spectacular. With the ARC's plan that's what we will be stuck with forever.

I'm thinking more and more that it is a good idea to clear and pave the wharf for the world cup, put some lighting in, some seating and safety rails. Then have an international design contest to build a signature building that can be a cruise ship terminal/convention centre/whatever. We shouldn't rush the building for the world cup, we need to make sure that for once we do it right.

[Svartmetall]

I think safety rails would detract from the area. Some of my favourite waterfronts are those that are completely integrate with the harbour - IE no physical barriers. They really shouldn't be needed.

I would also question the design contest - I remember getting very excited about the Te Wero bridge design only to find out that they're still prevaricating about the specifics and have put it in the "10 year plan".

But I do agree with everyone, the ACC plan appears to be the only one with a modicum of vision whatsoever. Syd - I wish you'd go and get a job in the top echelons of the ACC so that something would actually get done! I think your headstrong attitude is just what this city needs.

[jarbury]

There's a very interesting photo that shows how well Queens Wharf could integrate with Queen Street:



Queen Street used to continue right out onto the wharf in Auckland's 19th century history. I think that a main central pedestrian promenade could be created with this in mind, and then have grassy areas on each side. One on the far side of the eastern-most shed (which could be retaiend and done up as a cruise-ship terminal) and one that goes right along the western side of the wharf.

I say get rid of the other shed (the one on the left, as viewed in the image above) and have that side of the wharf set aside for grassy areas. Then, right at the end of the wharf have a fantastic sculpture or fountain.

[KLK]

Yes - integration with lower Queen St would be ideal.

But just going back to the "sheds"; I really think we need to see detailed renders before passing judgement. However, I was just focusing a little more on the ARC vision:



At first glance, this looks like another Princes Wharf debacle. While I'm not exactly sure what the structure on the left is supposed to be, its pretty big and together the two structures span the entire width of the wharf.

But what if its total footprint only extended to the nothern-most point of the eastern shed, and the remaining area was left for public space? It certainly looks like there is public access between the two structures and under the airbridge.......it might not be as bad as first thought.

[cambennett]

There was a bird's eye view of both plans in the weekend herald the structure spanned a good part of the wharf and in front of that was space for tour buses and other vehicles so the space in front of the buildings was essentially a carpark. The space in between the two structures look quite narrow although it's hard to tell. There was public space at the northern end of the wharf.

Couple this with the fact that the whole wharf would be coated in asphalt and it wouldn't be the most hospitable public space (Apparently Mike Lee thinks paving is "gold plating"). However we have only seen one render so probably best to wait until we see more, to be fair the ACC render was a lot more detailed and you could see a lot more of the wharf.

[jarbury]

A couple of schematics of Auckland City Council's proposal:

Short to medium term:



Longer term:

[KLK]

Overall, I think its a pretty good use of the space.

The priority is on public access, as opposed to the ARC plan where the priority is the terminal, and has mixed use - markets, open space, terminal (presumably with restaurants).

My only criticism is the lack of greenery. As I have said, I'd like to see the western shed go and some open green space incorporated into the point.

[jarbury]

Yeah if the Western Sheds were turned into a grassy open space it could be just about perfect.... although I must admit I'm potentially warming to the City Council's plans! A public exhibition space there would be pretty awesome.

[Nick.Yeah]

I think the ACC's is a fine proposal. It's open, it has colour, sculptures and the pavement is very yummy looking (it actually ISN'T black ashphalt, wow). The market section, public exhibtion/theatre building and the multi-use concert/movies/sport area will give the warf a great buzz, it looks like a wonderful place to spend a summer's afternoon. The only real drawback that I can see is the design of the terminal, but it is still 1000 times better than the status-quo. I want it for Wellington (some areas of the waterfront are in dire need of a tart-up, IMO). But anyway, kudos ACC, kudos. Auckland is finally transforming into a true harbour city.

[SYDNEY]

Originally Posted by Svartmetall

Syd - I wish you'd go and get a job in the top echelons of the ACC so that something would actually get done! I think your headstrong attitude is just what this city needs.

I would be assassinated within the 1st day, besides that you need to be a Kiwi in order to relate to the masses, the mentality that exists here is definitely unique and one that I will never understand and/or accept I would be tearing my hair out and sticking pins in my eyes

P.S. although the ACC proposal is a "safe" one, I do prefer it to the ARC proposal but why can't they just get on with it and finish it (proposal 1 - the long term option) ... take the wharf by the nuts and ride it for all that it is worth. The sculptures are also a concern - more wakas ? more seagulls ? more flax ? another "stylised" Pohutakawa flower ?

I am being pessimistic and I have good reason to be but I must say that after seeing the completed NZI office today I felt as if I had magically been transported to Melbourne. The outdoors sculpture is very, very me and the interior is WOW !!!

[Nicco]

Originally Posted by SYDNEY

but I must say that after seeing the completed NZI office today I felt as if I had magically been transported to Melbourne. The outdoors sculpture is very, very me and the interior is WOW !!!

What? Where? Have you got any photos?

[SYDNEY]

Originally Posted by Nicco

What? Where? Have you got any photos?

I have it will be on my blog by tomorrow morning - it is refreshing ! The sculpture is part & parcel of the sidewalk, fractured and it has a bright, intense colour.

[Mr_kiwi_fruit]

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr