Hard News: On the Waterfront
239 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 10 Newer→ Last
-
Yeah, and giving a damn about how our elected representatives are using public money is so gay
Aparently.
-
For those who haven't read the stories, the deal seems reasonable to me.
Brian Rudman was fretting that the ARC was going to have to find $80m to buy its own asset, so the agreement on $20m from government and $20m from the ARC for a significant asset seems pretty good.
Yes, it will cost money to develop, but it will also earn revenue. On face value, it seems more transparent than the Auckland City Council boondoggle around the Viaduct for the America's Cup -- although it's now hard to imagine downtown Auckland without that.
The odd thing is that it seems that some people who opposed the stadium because it would close off the waterfront (like the big red fence wasn't already doing that) are now opposing opening up the waterfront.
-
A cruise ship terminal is sorely needed, even though it would be used only 6 months of the year. I'd say keep the red fences anyway, they look good and distinctive and can be used to keep the drunken rugby hordes inside when they can rue another loss against France in 2011.
Waiting every day on Pier 2 waiting for my Waiheke ferry home, it's a cold, draughty and dimly lit terminal - hardly party central at the moment. It is taking ARTNL over a year now just to strengthen a couple of piles under the wharf so redesigning the whole of Princess Wharf to something useful longet term will at least take 5 years. They could always use the old banana shed for a rugby party in the meantime.
-
Apparently that's Wellington's job.
Damn straight. I'm loving this thread. That Mallard man, not could even smile right. No wonder the stadium failed.
And don't get me started on Goff.
-
And don't get me started on Goff.
OMG. Is this his fault too?
-
OMG. Is this his fault too?
No I think Sam F. has found the problem.
The old man on the bike said no, can't open up a waterfront without him.
-
oh no Craig, so not gay. In fact quite the opposite.
-
Point taken on Frank Kitts but one park does not make a water front.
-
Wellington citizens have had to fight pretty hard over the years to stop buildings taking over the waterfront. Waitangi Park was originally intended for hundreds of apartments (like at Greta Point) and the disastrous events centre and buildings nearby were built before we could stop them. There are still an awful lot of new buildings on the waterfront but there also some nicely developed and well-used public spaces.
So don't assume that just because it is in public ownership it won't be largely privatised. Needs citizenship vigilance.
-
Dear Auckland,
I don’t get it.
You get offered some central money to develop and improve your city, just like what happened with the Waterfront Stadium.
You’re getting this offer on the back of a national event around the corner, even though you’re getting over half the good bits of that national event.
Yet, like you did with the Waterfront Stadium, you seem to be trying to find reasons why it shouldn’t be like this.
-
Russell, it's the whole last minute T.I.N.A. aspect to the Auckland water front that's could leave us (NZ) with another Princess Wharf disaster.
-
Damn straight. I'm loving this thread. That Mallard man, not could even smile right. No wonder the stadium failed.
WTF, Don? If you really think "that Mallard man" came to town with a serious, well-considered proposal, go to. I doubt you're going to find a lot of people to agree with you though.
oh no Craig, so not gay. In fact quite the opposite.
Well, Alan, strange as this may sound I'm surprisingly indifferent to the Rugby World Cup. But I think I'd be having pretty much the same kind of problems if Queens Wharf was being brought under similar clircumstances to provide a purpose built mid-size venue for the Auckland Theatre Company & Silo. Wouldn't it be nice? Sure. The best use of public money during a recession -- got my doubts.
-
There are still an awful lot of new buildings on the [Wellington] waterfront but there also some nicely developed and well-used public spaces.
Not wanting to talk too much about Wellington, but thank god there are an awful lot of new buildings there. It means it gets used, even today. Shouldn't be one or the other, but both.
-
oh yeah, the recession. totally forgot. in that case we should be able to get a rickety wharf for a song. maybe we should buy two?
do they throw in the fence for free?
-
I despair of 90% of so called "Town Planning"
When Princess wharf was redeveloped there should have been provision for a cruise ship terminal built into the design for the Hilton, why this wasn't done was a direct result of the way the project was conceived and realised, as a private public partnership.What is being discussed now is going to go the same way. As Mike Lee just said on BFM, the waterfront in the city isn't like the beach or natural New Zealand, Its where you go to meet people coming off ships or just to see ships. He also said that the next phase of consultation will be talking to the Government and Auckland airport. The reason for talking to the AIA people would be around their expertise and involvement in passenger terminals I guess.
A cruise ship terminal does not need to take up much space, Immigration and Customs formalities can be done on the ship, the first things people getting off ships would need are surely, a transport hub and a welcoming environment. Party central as the first sight for old codgers on a cruise arriving in NZ is not, I expect, all that welcoming.
With the involvement of AIA I can see the next step would be Westfield tuning the whole shebang into a shopping mall with a few bars. Pah!
-
Without wanting to rehash an argument that I've been involved in for nearly a decade, I'll just give a hearty "hear hear!" to Tim's comment:
Not wanting to talk too much about Wellington, but thank god there are an awful lot of new buildings there. It means it gets used, even today. Shouldn't be one or the other, but both.
-
Wasn't the Viaduct basin built as "party central" for a previous publically subsidised sporting defeat? Is it not suitable for the RWC for some reason?
And I don't think converting Queens Wharf into a public open space is neccesarily a bad idea. I'm not sure on converting it into a duplicated area of bars for North Shore kids to vomit in is that good a use of public cash, though. Building a billion dollar stadium would have been a terrible idea, though.
(Especially when public spending is being *cut*. If it were being increased, then putting some of that towards improving the cityspace would be a good plan. But we're told we can't afford the basics, so why can we afford fripperies?)
Also, my idea of party central would be K Rd. But that's now being renamed as Upper Commerce St, allegedly.
-
Dear Auckland,
I don’t get it.
You get offered some central money to develop and improve your city, just like what happened with the Waterfront Stadium.
You’re getting this offer on the back of a national event around the corner, even though you’re getting over half the good bits of that national event.
Yet, like you did with the Waterfront Stadium, you seem to be trying to find reasons why it shouldn’t be like this.
It looks that way to me too. There does seem to be a bit of a consensus from the non-Aucklanders here. Namely, what wrong with you?
-
It looks that way to me too. There does seem to be a bit of a consensus from the non-Aucklanders here. Namely, what wrong with you?
We're not all against it, and I'm pleased at the move to secure Queens Wharf. But given that we'll be stuck with the thing well past the RWC, it is reasonable to have a robust debate about what to do with the space.
And it's reasonable to ask how much in total it will cost and who exactly is paying.
-
I am totally in favour of doing something downtown but if its going to be "party central", which is abit like John Key saying "go over there and play while the grown ups talk about making money" then why not just open the gates and put the White Lady down there. In no time at all you will have all the boy racers and other associated dickheads screaming "party on dude" or whatever the kids say these days and swilling their Liron Red and chucking up their alcopops. Then we shut the gates.
Just a thought. ;-) -
It looks that way to me too. There does seem to be a bit of a consensus from the non-Aucklanders here. Namely, what wrong with you?
And that's without even mentioning the people they elect for mayor.
-
But you know what would have been really cool? A stadium within a stone's throw of the party zone.
Definitely. I run through Kingsland and by Eden Park almost every night and think "how can this possibly be expected to do the job?" That stadium is a dog and we're going to lose a lot of money if people leave the game only to go to Kingsland and its two pubs.
Auckland needs some place where people can gather in town. This sounds like a Good Thing.
There does seem to be a bit of a consensus from the non-Aucklanders here. Namely, what wrong with you?
The problem is that Aucklanders actually like Auckland so they need to fight over it. But deep in their hearts they know their city is unpardonably ugly and dysfunctional. More a series of metastatising shit holes. It's learned helplessness. I call it battered-citizens syndrome.
-
I'm and Aucklander and I want the damn carpark gone and that area made into a space that will encourage people to spend time and admire their beautiful harbour. Really it is damn beautiful.
Sure it will take effort and time to make sure it doesn't get stuffed up.
And no I don't think the city or the government should spend all it's time and money on the boring bits. Some things in a city play a huge part in developing the feel and culture of a city and some of those things require city or government investment to happen. Yes we need drains that work but we also need places to play.
I don't like the cultural effect of a carpark on the waterfront, it says a lot about the city that we have chosen for so long to park second hand cars there.
-
And don't get me started on Goff.
OMG. Is this his fault too?
According to the anon editorial in today's DomPost, why yes "it"* is.
* for many values of "it"
-
As a surprisingly regular user of Auckland's ferries (for someone who lives in Dunedin), I can only support doing something better with this space. I end up on the waterfront every time I'm in Wellington I think and love it. But currently what passes for a positive waterfront experience in Auckland is buying gelato and hoping that there is a shitty plastic chair free on that small strip along the front of the ferry building.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.