So are we going this way or that with Port of Auckland I know I was going to be “silent” on running Port of Auckland Commentary but, this article … Continue reading Port Confusion?
NIMBYism Striking Back
I noticed this cropped up in the Manukau Courier this morning via the Stuff Website:
Watercare has received 468 submissions from Mangere Bridge people and groups ahead of public hearings on its “central interceptor” project.
The feedback makes up the bulk of the 752 submissions on the project’s resource consent applications.
The interceptor, a 13km underground tunnel, will take up to two million cubic metres of sewage and stormwater to the Mangere treatment plant every year.
It will also include 6km of linking sewers and create a long-term replacement for an ageing 7km tunnel section – the Manukau Siphon – near the plant.
But Mangere Bridge residents say those improvements will come at a cost to the environment.
Many of their submissions were completed on forms distributed throughout the community by the Mangere Bridge Residents and Ratepayers Association.
The form says the proposal could have dire effects for the water quality of the harbour and birds roosting in the area.
“It is not good ecological practice to transfer large amounts of water from its natural catchments to a shallow enclosed harbour with finite capacity to receive it,” the form says.
Te Akitai Waiohua Waka Taua Trust, which is associated with Pukaki Marae, has also lodged numerous submissions against the proposal.
The trust says there has been insufficient consultation with tangata whenua regarding stormwater discharge, air discharge, earthworks and coastal structures.
But Watercare chief executive Mark Ford says his organisation has a “strong record” of community consultation on major projects such as this one.
I’ll take the word of Mark Ford over the Trust and Resident’s Ratepayer’s Association on reflection of consultation “issues” with Maori Trusts, and Resident and Ratepayers Associations pigeon holing debates/feedback with Pro-Forma forms as seen in the Unitary Plan debate.
But my question to the objectors is: Where is all the waste going to go for treatment?
- We have an extra million people and subsequent urban development to support it on its way.
- Our waste water infrastructure needs upgrading including expanding the Mangere Waste Water Plant.
- There will be later on a second treatment plant in Drury with an outfall again in the Manukau Harbour to deal with waste water in the Southern Rural Urban Boundary area.
- We have to stop the overflow of the sewerage pipes in the isthmus area spilling untreated sewerage into harbours.
- Some waste water is being diverted to the North Shore plant for treatment.
- And the Mangere Plant is state of the art with its Bio Reactors that are extremely efficient in treating our waste water which will be expanded
The simple answer is the waste-water is best suited to Mangere at this point in time along with other current and proposal plants. There is simply no where else to dump treated waste-water from the advanced plant that will have minimal effects on the actual physical environment.
From the article again
The central interceptor proposal reflects international best practice and will save Auckland more than $500m going forward, Mr Ford says.
Major upgrades are also being planned for the Mangere treatment plant to address Auckland’s wastewater needs.
“These will ensure continued protection of the Manukau Harbour and enable the Mangere wastewater treatment plant to continue to operate within its current discharge loads into the future.”
Watercare also intends to divert the wastewater flows of about 75,000 existing households from Mangere to a plant in Rosedale by constructing another tunnel from west Auckland to the North Shore.
Unless you want the open oxidation ponds and sludge lagoon again as a method of treating our crap I’d suggest you let Watercare carry on unimpeded.
Auckland‘s Transport Mega Projects Part One – The Gist And so the Prime Minister has announced around $10 BILLION worth of transport mega projects in Auckland for the next … Continue reading Auckland’s Transport Mega Projects – Part One
Time to Talk Port
Bit of a change of tact today. Today BR:AKL talks port – no not the drink – the port that sits on Auckland‘s prime waterfront and moves goods in and out of the city via ship.
During the anxiety caused by the Housing Accord being dumped upon Auckland by the clueless Dr Nick Smith, Port of Auckland released their latest development proposals. You can read the “interactive” presentation from Port of Auckland here: Port of Auckland Development Proposals
Note: You need Flash to run the page and not recommended on Smart Phones
I have gone through the entire proposal on first glance and will take a decent look at it tomorrow (unless someone else decides to dump a Unitary Plan stopper upon the city) (makes a good break from the UP anyhow). In going through it my pragmatism came to the play and some realisations had to be “made.”
Port of Auckland knows very well I would like to see the port shifted to the South East Auckland site near Clevedon (and 35mins east from where I live in Papakura). This would allow the redevelopment of the $4.5b worth of waterfront real estate into something more eye pleasing to the public, as well as get that freight traffic off the inner motorway system (to the point of staving off the Eastern Highway even further). However, due to Council through its shortsightedness (Ann Hartley) in denying the second part of the Port Review (looking at relocation options) the city (we) are stuck with the port staying where it is. In the same regard the Port seem happy enough to stay where it is, so efforts flip over to mitigation on their expansion ideas.
And so I realise the Port is staying where it is and now thoughts focus on how do we mitigate the worst of the effects if and when the Port expands in its current location. Hence I shall have good look at the proposal tomorrow and give my feed back on what POAL is proposing.
In the same regard; Port of Auckland is asking for public feed back. So please do so as this is critical piece of infrastructure and real estate holder in Auckland.
New Ferry Service Takes Off
Mayor Gets Left Behind
No I am not kidding – the mayor Len Brown DID get left behind forcing the ferry to turn around to come and get him after he was caught gas bagging and forgot to catch the service.
For the first time in 50 years Auckland City has funded new ferry terminals in a bid to get commuters off the roads and onto the water.
A new ferry service was launched today and will connect the suburbs of Hobsonville and Beach Haven with downtown Auckland. Two morning and three afternoon services will run on weekdays.
The trips will take 30 minutes and cost $12 a ride for those paying cash, and less for those with an Auckland Transport Hop card.
Hundreds of people gathered to see the launch. The first passengers were Auckland Mayor Len Brown and Prime Minister John Key.
From downtown Auckland the ferry travels west on a scenic journey across the Waitemata Harbour.
“It’s gorgeous,” said Key.
“What you take for granted when you live in Auckland is just how beautiful the surroundings are, and you get a completely different perspective from the water. Can’t think of a nicer way to start the day,” the Helensville MP said.
The boat stops at the North Shore suburb of Beach Haven and then it’s just 400 metres across the water to Hobsonville, a trip the mayor nearly missed out on when the boat left without him
A Radio NZ piece has also come up on the new ferry service this morning that is worth a listen. You can listen by click the link HERE.
Two things that did catch my attention were the following:
- I hear that right? The Beach Haven ferry service is cheaper due to a larger subsidy so it can COMPETE with the local buses in the area that also head to the same place as the ferry (Downtown).
Ummm that is rather backwards and an honest flushing of cash down the loo…
- And plodding along in the interview I just heard that those in Hobsonville have a bus service with no shelter, route map or timetable while AT just spent a few mil on the ferry docks?
Am I missing something here?
While I have confidence these ferry services will take off and be a success (got to get more sailings in) the concerns noted above won’t help gaining full confidence when there is so much work to get through in getting this right.
A good and basic system has started with this new ferry service, but the inner mechanics in AT when it comes to things like subsidies, competition and lack of facilities on existing services need to be ironed out before things can advance to a first class system.
I (well someone will) keep an eye on this and see where things ends up 12 months from now…
What The Mayor and Councillors Think – In Regards to The Auckland Waterfront
Today is the last day of the NZ Herald‘s campaign about The Waterfront – to which I have run on commentary here. My basic take on The Auckland Waterfront can be seen in my “PORT OF AUCKLAND – CAN IT BE MOVED?” post from yesterday in which I spell out where I see The Auckland Waterfront by 2040!
In today’s particular article in the Herald, Auckland Councillors plus the Mayor were asked where they see The Auckland Waterfront now and where they think it should be going in the future.
From The NZH:
5:30 AM Friday Sep 28, 2012
What our city’s leaders think
Council members’ views City leaders comment on the best idea for the waterfront and the balance between public spaces vs industry, where
0 = Put all emphasis on public spaces
5 = The balance is just right
10 = Put all emphasis on industry, including the port.
Len Brown Mayor
Ideal balance: 6.5
The Waitemata Harbour was a stunning backdrop when the world came here for the Rugby World Cup. The event’s legacy is that Aucklanders now see the waterfront as our waterfront. People from across the region tell me they are proud of Wynyard Quarter. It’s becoming the place to take visitors, and gives us a glimpse of what is possible.
We have a way to go to realise our waterfront’s potential and truly connect the city with the sea but we are on the way to getting it right.
We want fishing boats and ship chandlers mixed with parks and cafes, hotels and apartments, markets and open spaces to attract as many people as possible.
We want real connection with the harbour, so people can walk right down Queen St to the water’s edge and dip their feet in the sea.
With extensive input from the public, the council has formed a suite of plans giving us a co-ordinated vision for our waterfront, rather than the piecemeal approach and lost opportunities of the past.
Our waterfront has an important and evolving part to play in the life of Auckland, and while the port plays a vital role in our economy – it’s up to us to structure that role. The best is yet to come.
Ideal balance: 2
I’m proud of being part of kicking off our waterfront development with Viaduct Harbour and Britomart. In its next phase let’s consider its role as gateway to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park. Tourism and recreational activities make a significant chunk of the total pie. Marine reserves, island sanctuaries, great walks, multisports, volunteerism, cultural journeys, education programmes, historic places and top recreational fishing spots should draw visitors to and beyond the waterfront.
Link this to high-value, uniquely marketed seafood, boutique wines and foods, a regulatory framework demanding environmental integrity and investment and we have a powerful engine for growth.
Ideal balance: 3.5
The waterfront is an iconic asset, and I’m in strong favour of a cruise ship terminal and attracting as much of the cruise ship market to downtown Auckland as we can.
I also support all the projects in the pipeline – the Wynyard Quarter, opening up the wharves, having pedestrian areas – to attract domestic visitors, who are an untapped market.
Ideal balance: 4
The waterfront is a working waterfront, not just an entertainment zone. It has a port, ferries and fishing vessels. These things make the waterfront gritty and interesting. A huge amount of waterfront has been opened up to the public and more will over time. But it all costs ratepayers’ money, so a “big bang” approach is unpalatable.
Ideal balance: 4
I spluttered over my cornflakes this morning to read the vision of Tony Gibson (Ports’ chief executive): “This year’s industrial dispute is a distant memory. We reached an amicable settlement with the unions …”. That vision is easily achieved if the Ports engages in good faith bargaining. For me, the most pressing need on the waterfront is for the Ports to end the prolonged industrial dispute.
Ideal balance: 4
Having been born in Cape Town, where I spent a lot of time on the V&A Waterfront, my vision is an open, vibrant waterfront and port that can be a tourism attraction and an area loved by locals. Let’s cut holes in the red fence and get people to the waterfront. It doesn’t have to be either/or with the port. We just have to be more imaginative about how we use our assets.
Ideal balance: 5
Opening up the harbourside area between the Ferry Building and Britomart Place must be given the highest priority. Allowing Aucklanders and our visitors to break through the red fence to gain access to this part of the waterfront will be a huge accomplishment. The main attractor is the wonderful location itself. Integration to cafes and bars with outdoor dining should be part of the presentation. We have a plan – let’s do it over time.
Ideal balance: 5
Most people would agree what has been achieved in the Viaduct/Wynyard area is a vast improvement. However, I am against over-developing the waterfront, creating public space to the detriment of the ports. I was pleased that the cruise ship terminal was scaled down. I am not convinced further development in public areas will improve Auckland as a tourist destination. The CBD/waterfront areas will still be used by a small proportion of Aucklanders. Let’s not put the city into huge debt with further grandiose ideas.
Ideal balance: 5
The boulevard along the waterfront gets my most backing. It ties the waterfront together and will make it buzz with life more than anything else. People like to see other people and be seen themselves, walking, sitting, eating – having fun. They will be able to browse through pop-up weekend markets, enjoy the busker musicians and artists playing to the crowds and dine out or catch a coffee at a waterfront cafe. All of this for modest money and cheap running cost. Create a welcoming free public space and people will make it work for themselves.
Ideal balance: 5
I just agree with the direction we have at the moment. I voted for the Waterfront Plan and I support it. There will be interaction between our public and our assets down at the waterfront. Business and the public aspect will both be there – there has to be a good mix.
Ideal balance: 6
It’s great that Aucklanders love the opening up of the waterfront around the old Tank Farm. However, it’s important we now activate the other part of the Wynyard Quarter plan, which was always to have the private sector move in. That’s who the council needs to start paying the bills. Ratepayers have poured in tens of millions of dollars lately to create some fabulous public spaces and amenities but it’s probably time for a cup of tea. The 25-year vision for Wynyard Quarter was never about transforming it for the general public alone. Rather, this area promises to accommodate a mix of residential, retail and commercial development.
Ideal balance: 6
What is most needed is a long-term plan and vision for Queens Wharf. This space, the continuation of our main street, Queen St, into our Waitemata Harbour, should be the jewel in the crown for publicly accessible, exciting vibrant public space on the harbour. Let us have a thorough, creative and participatory look at what will succeed the Cloud. The next thing to do is to develop an equally exciting, albeit cheaper, vision for public spaces on the Manukau Harbour at Onehunga and Mangere Bridge.
Ideal balance: 6.5
People at work and people at play. That’s my vision for the waterfront. People create atmosphere, not buildings. Too much of the waterfront is lifeless. Over 70ha have been opened up and that’s a lot of space. Give the new Waterfront Plan time to work before we open up more. Let’s not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. The commercial port pours millions into the council coffers. Every container, every car, every cruise ship, is a few more dollars off our rates bill.
Ideal balance: 7
The best idea for the waterfront was recognising that one, single governance agency would take responsibility for its redevelopment, avoiding the piecemeal actions of the past. The waterfront is much loved by its owners – the people of Auckland – however, the public purse will never be able to afford the revitalisation of this whole area. It needs commercial support and Auckland needs to start thinking about what kinds of private investment it can court to share the rewards and the risks of the redevelopment.
Waitemata and the Gulf
Did not give a rating
Over the past six years, a significant amount of waterfront space has been opened to the public. More is to come. Remember, the port occupies only 2km of a continuous recreation waterfront of 13km from the harbour bridge to Achilles Point. While I oppose further encroachment of the port into the harbour, it would be foolish to talk about closing it down.
Did not give a rating
If Auckland Council think that we are exempt from what is happening across the globe then they live in dream land; the spinoff is hitting our shores daily. I would like to see the council defer the waterfront projects for the next 3-5 years.
Did not give a rating
The waterfront is one of the truly amazing features of our city. For Kiwis the coast and beaches are part of our lifestyle, family life and informal enjoyment – and for the first time on the waterfront there are some family-friendly places for eating. The mix feels about right.
Did not contribute:
Michael Goudie, Albany
Des Morrison, Franklin
John Walker, Manurewa-Papakura
Penny Webster, Rodney
This week, we examine the key issues in a campaign to break open Auckland’s waterfront. This means:
1 Opening up what’s already there for everyone’s use – particularly Queens Wharf, which is still far from reaching its potential.
2 Looking ahead to more wharves being opened, notably Captain Cook Wharf.
3 Planning the entire waterfront – importantly, including ports land – as urban space, whether or not the working port is retained or developed.
Monday: What readers want on the waterfront
Tuesday: Auckland Architecture Association sketches the all-time good ideas
Wednesday: Tourism on the waterfront
Yesterday: The working port and its vision for Auckland
Today: Where our city leaders stand.
Interesting and a rather mixed array of results which will make December rather interesting when PwC report back on their review of the upper North Island ports including POAL.
I suppose if I gave a rating it would not fit on the Herald’s scale as I am for shifting the port south and redeveloping the ENTIRE Waterfront with both urban residential and commercial development, AND civic/public/green spaces to boot.
But enough of me giving my spiel on The Auckland Waterfront, what is your spiel? Comments can be left below as always!
Auckland Apparently Wants Their Waterfront Back – Again
It must be another slow news day at the NZ Herald with them running a story based on a survey about Auckland’s Waterfront. Either that and credit is due to keep this matter at the front of civic leaders minds.
From the NZ Herald:
Aucklanders’ plea: Give us back our waterfront5:30 AM Monday Sep 24, 2012Wynyard Quarter and the World Cup gave us a taste of harbour fun… now we want more.
More than three-quarters of Aucklanders questioned in a Herald poll want more wharf space opened up to create world-class public areas on the waterfront.
Local authorities have responded by saying bringing Aucklanders to the harbour area around the end of Queen St will be the next chapter in the city’s development.
A thousand Herald readers have given their views on the waterfront, presenting a wide range of ideas that reflect their pride in the Waitemata Harbour.
Ninety-six per cent of respondents said the waterfront was important for the city.
The Herald today starts a five-part series investigating options for a more vibrant, people-friendly waterfront.
Tourism Industry Association chief executive Martin Snedden, who oversaw last year’s Rugby World Cup tournament, said this was the city’s chance to get it right.“Right here, right now, Auckland has a wonderful waterfront opportunity,” he said.
It needed people’s support to give it “character, heart and buzz”.
Reader views focused on bringing more public attractions to Queens Wharf and its vicinity.
More than three-fifths did not like the wharf’s current facilities. It has the Cloud and Shed 10 for generally exclusive events – but otherwise is mostly vacant space.
About the same number wanted the adjacent Captain Cook Wharf to become public space.
Ideas for the waterfront stressed the importance of making it accessible to everyone, including families and pedestrians.
Suggestions for achieving this ranged from markets, parks, festivals, walkways and fishing spots to sports fields, art galleries, convention centres and stadiums.
“It’s entirely understandable that people want more access to the waterfront, and over time we’ll make more wharves available,” said Ports of Auckland spokesman Matt Ball.
“It is our ambition to release Captain Cook Wharf and to open Marsden Wharf for public access.”
But the ports company would have to replace the existing facilities on the wharves first, Mr Ball said, and that could take 10 years.
The Auckland Council’s policy planning manager, Ludo Campbell-Reid, said authorities acknowledged that the waterfront had a problem where the city met the sea.
“The surprising thing is there’s no place on the waterfront that’s necessarily for pedestrians,” he said. “You have to go left or you have to go right. You don’t go down the middle.
“We’re competing with the world every day for jobs and investment, and the waterfront is our biggest opportunity.”
The central wharves would be the next area to be worked on, following the opening of the Wynyard Quarter.
Auckland architect and urban planner Graeme Scott said Waterfront Auckland, the council’s waterfront agency, had listened to submissions and put together a good blueprint.
One problem was having too many passive concrete areas, he said.
“Queens Wharf is a good example of what’s wrong with hard paving and buildings. If there are thousands of people on Queens Wharf, it’s fantastic. But if you walk out there mid-week or Sunday morning, it’s not a very nice place to be.”
The Herald poll was taken during the first week of September, assisted by Nielsen Research.
Last year’s opening of Wynyard Quarter and Rugby World Cup festivities opened the eyes of thousands of Aucklanders to new waterfront possibilities.
Since then, local authorities have been issuing plans sketching out possible developments, in line with Mayor Len Brown’s plan to make Auckland the world’s most liveable city.
And a review of the waterfront’s long-term future is being made after a public outcry against expansion of port facilities.
You will need to see the actual Herald article for the graphic attached at the bottom of their story.
But my question is ‘Why are we raising this again – when this has been asked in The Auckland Plan and subsequent documents despite their apparent short-comings?’
Never-mind as to be honest Thank You NZH for keeping the issue bobbing along and in our minds – because it needs to if we want our Auckland Water-Frontier.
The Herald is asking for ‘your views’ on this as well. Well my views can be seen here at BR:AKL through The Auckland Waterfront Index which lists my commentary on both the Port of Auckland and opening our Waterfront to turn it into our Auckland Water-Frontier. The work and graphics on both my projects is still a work-in-progress but none the less you can see what I am pitching so far.
Yes it is bold, but we need bold here for the sake and vibrancy of a 21st Century Auckland.
Now then, time to pester the Herald with my indexes again 😛