Everyone from school students to professional architects will be able to submit plans for the proposed Queens Wharf do-up.

The Auckland City Council's development committee yesterday approved a two-stage design competition for the 3ha site, which Prime Minister John Key has labelled "party central" for the 2011 Rugby World Cup. In the first stage of the competition, the public will be invited to submit a one-page design, or a team proposal in which groups can set out their team membership and approach to the redesign.

The three-week submission period will be followed by a two-week judging process in which five designs and three teams will be selected to advance to the second stage and produce a developed design.
The entire process is expected to take up to 12 weeks, and the city council, the Auckland Regional Council and the Government will be able to force designers to work with approved teams to ensure the project stays on schedule.

The design competition has yet to be approved by the Auckland Regional Council and the Government, but it is hoped the submissions period could start by early next month.
City Development general manager John Duthie said the competition proposal had been approved by the Institute of Architects, and the scheme would maximise public input into the waterfront refurbishment.

The council's combined committees have approved $56 million for the development, from a total budget of $80 million. The remaining $24 million will be used for possible earthquake-proofing of the wharf and other "contingencies".

The council was still in talks with other parties to secure that portion of funding, Mr Duthie said. The council envisions a three-stage redevelopment of Queens Wharf - a Rugby World Cup stage, a post-cup "legacy project" that would include a cruise ship facility and public access to the water, and a long-term plan to be finalised by future councils.

Establishing a "legacy project" on the waterfront would not be much more expensive than developing the waterfront for the World Cup, as setting the site up to become party central would require the installation of utilities such as electricity, he said.
Some councillors expressed concerns at the $56 million the city council was committing to the project, but a draft resolution by councillor Leila Boyle criticising the combined committees for approving the sum was not adopted.

Ms Boyle said she was extremely concerned that the council had been hurried into the waterfront project by the prospect of the upcoming Rugby World Cup, at the expense of a properly planned legacy project.

article by David Eames, sourced from www.nzherald.co.nz

A brief commentary on the issue from Unitec Associate Professor of Urban Design,
Dushko Bogunovich;

Recently, a professor of property development at Auckland University, Laurence Murphy, commented in the NZ Herald on the merits of a quick, RWC-focused job on the just purchased Queens Wharf, versus a slower, more considered approach, which presumably had a better chance of an overall, longer-term economic and social success. Here is my expansion on his excellent analysis:

Professor Laurence Murphy raises three fundamental issues about the Queens Wharf conundrum - programme, design and approach. He then follows them with recommendations - all of them are correct, in my view. Indeed:

(i) the wharf must be a place first of all for Aucklanders;
(ii) the wharf must feature more than a building;
(iii) a right decision will require serious reflection and vision.

The question then for all three is - HOW?
On the first one, the programme must be led by the two permanent, daily functions of the place - public transport and outdoor physical and cultural recreation. The cruise ship terminal is needed too; it does belong to this wharf, and, fortunately, is quite compatible with the two main uses, but should not dominate the overall project.

On the second one, the designers main attention must be at an iconic open space rather than an iconic building. This means landscape architects should be in the game from the start just as much as architects (currently we are hearing a lot of architects, or architect-as-urban-designers, voices and almost none from landscape architects).

On the third one, a master plan is needed for the wider area. This plan should tackle all three old finger wharves - Queens, Cpt Cook and Marsden - and the adjoining section of Quay Street. Perhaps even the south end, or the west side, of the Bledisloe wharf. The master plan's horizon should be 2020-2030, not 2011. Nothing in urbanism exists without a context; surely Queens Wharf's context is not just sea water.

Dushko Bogunovich
Associate Professor of Urban Design
Unitec, Auckland