Tears Shed Over Queens Wharf

 

The big shed on Queens Wharf is going to be saved - but who is going to pay the millions needed to save it?

In typical Auckland political fashion, the answer is who knows but it looks like ratepayers as the government says - not us! The parties continue to bicker about it.

And it’s confusing how many party centrals we are getting on the wharf.

Shed 10 on Queens Wharf will now be saved

A special meeting of the ARC this afternoon voted to retain and refurbish the big 98- year -old Shed 10 on Queens Wharf ahead of the 2011 Rugby World Cup to be the cruise ship terminal and party central.

It will remain on the wharf supposedly alongside the government’s temporary structure, which is party central. Eh?!

But RWC Minister Murray McCully has made it clear he agreed with the ARC’s original plan to get rid of both the old sheds so it’s the ARC’s problem.

He says this afternoon that he is comfortable with the ARC exploring options that involve moving and protecting Shed 10 at their cost, so long as they do not risk the Government’s plans for an appropriate entertainment venue during the Rugby World Cup.

“It is frustrating that the sheds that the ARC regarded as ‘old and cheap and nasty’ are now the subject of last-ditch attempts to change course,” Mr McCully said.

But he says that  ”if the ARC wishes to take steps to move the sheds in order to protect any heritage value until such time as the new Waterfront Development Agency takes over.

“I have made it clear that I am open to that- but I absolutely insist that nothing will put at risk the provision of suitable facilities on Queens Wharf, at reasonable cost and on time, to support a world-class Rugby World Cup event in New Zealand next year.”

So there’s no resolution of exactly who will pick up the multi-million dollar tab to restore it, as it was never budgeted for.

Praying for the money? Murray McCully & Mike Lee at Queens Wharf opening

Labour MP Jacinda Ardern, who will be standing in Auckland Central, says the Government needs to “support this local decision made by the people of Auckland and get on with the business of preparing Auckland for the Rugby World Cup.”

Shed 10 needs millions to save it

The solution may come the Auckland City Council.

In April, the Auckland City Council recommitted $26 million towards saving the Queens Wharf sheds -and Mayor John Banks was the cheerleader.

“Not withstanding the blind disregard for the restoration of the historic sheds on Queens Wharf, the Auckland City Council hope the owners will accept this as an 11th hour bid for common sense,” he said at the time.

Mayor Banks urged the owners of Queens Wharf – the Government and the Auckland Regional Council – to consider revamping the sheds as an alternative to “turning them into firewood and replacing them with a temporary quick fix”.

Today John Banks, made a brief statement on the decision but refused to elaborate.

He said: “My position on the restoration of Queens Wharf has not changed since day one however the future of Queens Wharf is in the hands of the owners – the Government and the Auckland Regional Council.”

Only the smaller shed will now be demolished and moved elsewhere.

The ARC and Historic Places Trust have been engaged in talks for weeks about the issue, after architect groups and others campaigned for the sheds to be saved.

Tags:

 
 
 

22 Comments

 
  1. max says:

    I think it’s a good result (well, except that it isn’t finalised yet), because I do think the sheds are worth saving. If you look at a rundown old piece of oak furniture BEFORE you give it to someone skilled to restore, few people will want to keep it either. Afterwards, everyone agrees it looks great.

    I think this could easily be the case with the sheds. Polish the wood, sand and paint the metal, put some skylights in, and hold public events - markets, cultural festivals, public expositions, art shows, food festivals. All in a real historic atmosphere, rather than in one of those gag-inducing metal/glass coffins architects put out like photocopiers these days.

  2. Kurt says:

    Look out Sydney!

    You may have the Opera House but Auckland will have a restored tin shed. Brilliant!

    A monument to Auckland’s pathetic leaders and their “vision” if I have ever seen.

    I would laugh but at $20 million to restore this eyesore, you can only get angry. Please don’t be so stupid.

    Give “Party Central” to a city that knows what its doing.

  3. max says:

    Kurt, forget the opera house.

    That kind of excuse (“We will just knock over this tired old building to build something REALLY great!”) has been used to bowl way too many heritage buildings in the past. What have we got to show for it? Some new glass box skyscrapers on Queen Street.

    I’ll take the sheds over the giant slug any day of the week. You can build an opera house on a space that doesn’t need to be purged of history first.

  4. Matt L says:

    I still think we should be building the cruise terminal on Captain Cook Wharf and leaving Queens Wharf open for people to use all year round. I do fear that much of Queens wharf will be off limits when ships are in town, either physically or from the fact that so many buses, taxi’s supply trucks, customs and police vehicles are crowded around the terminal and coming on and off the wharf.

    Also why not move the smaller shed to Tank Farm and used it for the heritage trains.

  5. DanC says:

    Keep the south shed and expand it with glass so it can be used to house a proper cruise ship terminal. The other one move to the Tank Farm as mentioned above. The north side of the wharf needs to be open as it’s the sunny side.

  6. Richard says:

    This whole “Party Central ” business for the Rugby World Cup is a nonsense. Queens Wharf needs to be done up for a waterfront feature and Cruise ship terminal…..forget party central, plan it properly. The rugby fans can go to Viaduct Basin which was developed at great expense for the Americas Cup with the promise of millions in trade for the businesses and which has been a bit of a lemon since

    Personally I think there is history behind the cargo sheds remembering there were several on each wharf. Queens Wharf I think has already had four removed and there wasn’t a squeak of complaint. They are old sheds with really no architectural merit This is a case of so much being destroyed in Auckland there is only junk to save!

    Richard

  7. Mark Donnelly says:

    Matt - agree re Capt cook - can be extended, and could get some access out via area betwen Capt cook and Queens.

    The issue here was that if they went, we would end up with a cheap / airport type cruise terminal. We would then lose this as public open space. This way it can live as a shared public space/cruise terminal, and down the track, we can make the proper cruise ship terminal decision.

    there are a lot of vested interests around this debate, and it’s taken a lot of people getting involved to stop the knee jerk, knock’em down move on.

    Who in their right mind would let McCully design your city?!

  8. Matt L says:

    The other thing with a terminal on Captain Cook is could take up the entire wharf and made to look really iconic. We are also looking for a site for a national convention centre. Why not combine the terminal and convention centre in one building. If the wharf was extended to be the same size as Queens Wharf it would be about over 26000 sq m, surely more than for both a two sided terminal and a convention centre

  9. John Dalley says:

    Good job if McCully spits the dummy.
    i for one the shed/sheds should stay and be tarted up. I have been to events at Shed 25? in Wellington and it shows what a little imagination can do.

  10. Ian M says:

    Totally agree with Captain Cook Wharf as the cruise ship terminal. It’s a total no brainer.

  11. Matt L says:

    Looks like we now need to look out for flying toys because the government throwing them out of the cot at a high velocity

  12. Jon C says:

    Anyone else get the feeling the mess will get messier and we will end up with nothing being resolved before the RWC?
    Or the new city broom will arrive in November and whistle up some quick solution to keep the Govt happy and it’s short term and really awful.
    I’m also bewildered how Jasmax got the job to design it. Not my favourite architects.

  13. max says:

    Jon, in terms of the RWC: If people can’t organise party central in an old shed, why should they be any better in a glass palace? A good party needs different ingredients than a ritzy location.

    So I am not worried on THAT account - a good organiser would make something great with three months of time, some (but not excessive) amounts of money, and whatever places he’s got to work with. A bad organiser of party central will muck it up even if he had a 50 million dollar building.

  14. Nick R says:

    Call me crazy, but what is wrong with the viaduct and the new bit of Tank Farm for “party central”, there is both the watefront square and Te Wero island for public space.
    It’s all pre built with good urban design, good access and plenty of bars and the like nearby.

  15. ingolfson says:

    Nick, the funny thing is that that area WILL be used for partying during the RWC. In fact, Auckland City is tendering for the bridge from Te Wero to the Tank Farm, and lots of work is quietly going on in the area.

    It seems more like John Key and McCully are the only ones who really HAD to have Queens Wharf, while there’s a perectly good place (Viaduct plus the overflow to Wynyard Quarter) already / being built right now.

  16. Jon C says:

    @Nick R Someone involved with the RWC told me today that the International Rugby Board insists on a separate party central public space for the event as part of the contract.
    If that’s true, it makes sense why the government keeps pushing for one.

  17. ingolfson says:

    But why not say so then?

  18. Jon C says:

    @ingolfson Maybe they did but it got lost.

  19. Jon C says:

    McCully confirmed tonight that a ‘fan zone’ or ‘party central’ is part of the IRB contract

  20. Nick R says:

    How about ‘fan zone: Te Wero Island’ then?!

  21. ingolfson says:

    Te Wero IS a lot smaller, have a look on Google Earth. But together with an extended zone around the whole viaduct (like the floating screen idea - perfect) and with Jellico Street and the Marine Events Centre, it will be perfect.

  22. metal sheds says:

    True, ingolfson! Te Wero can go perfect but does our government agrees to it? then why the government keeps pushing for one?
    ____________________

    S.

 

Leave a Comment

 




XHTML: You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>