Queens Wharf Tent “Half Baked Scheme”


Labour says the idea to “pitch a tent” on Queens Wharf shows the government is “all over the place” on the plans for RWC 2011 Party central on the wharf.

The party’s Auckland issues spokesperson, Phil Twyford says the tent idea means the Government has missed a unique opportunity to develop Auckland’s Queens Wharf into a showcasing venue.

His comments come with the news of a 100-metre long tent being erected on the eastern side of the wharf and the two 98-year old cargo sheds being demolished.

The Labour MP says the Government is” fooling around wasting time, going from one half baked scheme to another. ”

“Aucklanders didn’t want to be bounced into spending $100 million of our own money on the Queens Wharf without being sure it was part of a considered plan for the waterfront’s long term development. But surely the Government can do better than a tent?

“The Government’s handling of Auckland is a shambles. They have messed up the Super City process. Now they are messing up the Queens Wharf.”

They're 98 years old but do these cargo sheds need to be saved?

Auckland Mayor John Banks wants “a sensible outcome” for the planned Queens Wharf RWC 2011 “Party Central.”

He remains willing to work with the Government to develop this. The Mayor says he has  consistently said that something great should be built on Queens Wharf.” In the interim, a proposal that is sound and sensible needs to be developed for the Rugby World Cup.”

In what seems to be a cautious statement, he says the owners of Queens Wharf, the Government and the ARC, will make the final decision. I am happy to contribute to an option that the citizens of Greater Auckland support.

“I would encourage the owners to consult with the Auckland public.”




  1. Jeremy Harris says:

    Ha ha, Banks is very very cautious on that one…
    Twyford is just politicking methinks, I don’t mind this outcome, we might as well take our time and wait for the new long term waterfront plan before developing (nothing wrong with the current 2040 waterfront plan as far as I’m concerned)…

  2. joust says:

    I agree Jeremy. This option isn’t amazing but should fulfil any needs during the tournament. It should keep the costs manageable and leave a fairly blank canvas for inclusion in the wider plan later on.

  3. Nick R says:

    I think the key part of this concept is that the site gets levelled and temporary structure is used for the Cup. Methinks they are more concerned with the development site that remains rather than what actually happens during the event.

  4. ingolfson says:

    Well, the sheds get demolished. That is facts on the ground. Not necessarily something I like (I think we should have kept and upgraded at least one shed - heritage sympathetic plans could have integrated it in interesting ways) but at some point somebody should make a call.

  5. Luke says:

    Do they need resource consent to demolish the sheds?

  6. jarbury says:

    Luke, no they don’t. The sheds are actually within the coastal marine area, therefore officially outside of the area administered by Auckland City Council. They could have been protected by the ARC Regional Plan Coastal, but they’re not.


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>