The bad news is that they are planning to run the competition the same cocked up way they ran the comp for the Te Wero bridge in the Viaduct Basin. What a waste of everyone’s time and effort that was.

Meanwhile, some architect called Barry Copeland has already released his version – a “giant verandah with a wave motif” in stretched fabric. Hmmm.

And KLK. Some interesting comments there, although my gut reaction is that Honeywood is on the ball on that one. But what do you mean by “PT allocations” ? Are you referring to Public Transport? I hope not cos that would be ludicrous. There were some shocking figures a few years ago, like that the Gov paid $1 for the whole rail tracks in NZ except for Auckland. And then they paid a sep fee of $50 million or something just for tracks in Auckland. Rort. Big time.

“But to dress up the justification as being needed for the World Cup is ridiculous in the extreme.”

No. Its not bing dressed up for RWC2011, and thats not the reason for the purchase. The ACC has been trying to negotiate buying that pice of land for years. It just happens that the central govt was keen to chip in with 2011 in mind. Again, nothing is being “dressed up” for 2011. If anything, development will be restrained until after that event.

The Wharf was owned by the Ports of Auckland – and independant entity. After years of refusals, they have agreed to sell. The ACC has wanted acces to those wharves for years, but they didn’t own them, and it wasn’t until the current financial problems around world exports and idle land that the PoA agreed to seel. Again, they are separete entities. Despite ACC’s best intentions, it never eventuated in a sale. So that ‘s why they “have they not done this already”.

Do I think the ACC will invest millions in a performance theatre? No. But according to Cr Aaron Bhatnagar, its the local arts fraternity that is flushed with cash and wanting to spend their money on a site. And the site of the western shed in particular.

When you consider that this has been a long term dream, and will be a long term project, and RWC2011 just a blip on the radar, your estimates of 800 people, $10,000 and whatever else for 1mth in 2011 are irrelevant.

You lament Aucklands massive shoreline and lack of foresight but t looks like they are starting to get things togther ,from a waterfront perspective – purchasing a massive pice of waterfront land for long term public access, to coincide with even more massive tank farm development to the west . Not getting nervous that the Capital’s waterfromt will be lost in all of this are you?

Oh – and as for “the rest of the country” chipping in for Auckland? Check out PT allocations to Wellington as opposed to Auckland in recent memory. Disgraceful.

P.S. I have no particular allegiance to either Auckland or Wellington :-)

and sure, our mayor will happily propose public screens for the World Cup but you can bet your bottom dollar they won’t cost anything near $80m to erect; you can be equally sure that central government won’t stump up a bean let alone $20m to make it happen. This is vote buying in the extreme.

I’m guessing that Queen’s Wharf could effectively hold 800 people for the revellery of the World Cup – $10,000 each? so they can get pissed instead of watching it at home? or getting equally pissed at the viaduct basin 400m away? There is no – absoutely no – economic argument for doing this. It comes down to Auckland City being too weak willed to develop their prime waterfront into anything useful or publicly minded and a National Goverment belatedly fighting against Trevor Mallard’s (intelligent) decision not to build a stadium on the waterfront.

Auckland is our biggest and most backward city. Auckland has more shoreline than any city in the world and yet it is resticted to some vague idea of commerce. They have no idea how to serve their ratepayers and their public. Why should the rest of the country stump up tens of millions of dollars so they can all get pissed together?

This is late and lazy urban design and corrupt governance at both central and national levels.

pathetic and indefensible

Nothing new is being built on Queens Wharf specifically for RWC2011.

The Wharf (and others near it) have long been sought to be reclaimed from the Ports Of Auckland for public access. As part of that, its recognised that Auckland desperately needs a decent cruise terminal for future visits beyound RWC2011. So one will be built there, on the spot where the eastern shed now sits. The western shed will probably be retained during the tournament to house revellers. But after that its to be demolshed and either replaced with a new structure (there is talk of a new performing arts theatre) or left open for a park.

The whole “Party Central” thing is a just a bi-product for the month the tournament is on – lets be honest, its a pretty good spot. Again – only 60,000 people can go to the game. The rest may want to go somewhere else, a “meeting point” with other fans, this area will likely be it. You can guarantee your Mayor in the Capital will propose exactly the same thing, somewhere.

Just to clarify a few things – Auckland is hosting both semis. Wellington and Christchurch are hosting the quarter finals. Dunedin will only host pool matches – and those will be at Carisbrook unless the new stadium does get built in time, currently though unlikely.

Christchurch’s stadium isn’t ready to go, but should be before the end of this year. Auckland’s stadium started the rebuilding quite a while ago and is on track.

As for it being “the last 2 hours”, I imagine it’s intended for use throughout the entire tournament, such as every All Blacks game and events during the tournament such as concerts and of course parties.

A number of years ago the powers that be in the NZIA decided that the number of awards handed out needed to be increased. This was to do with gaining publicity and promoting architectural awareness in the community. The more people saw of architecture in the magazines and the newspapers the more exposure architects and architecture got.
There was also probably some friendly competition with Master Builders which have there own awards and their own TV show also.

This meant that (as DavidP pointed out above) lots of awards were given out and sometimes to not very deserving buildings.

The awards have now been pared back so that only excellence is honoured.
John Walsh wrote in ArchitectureNZ:
“So it’s understandable that the NZIA has re-jigged its awards system. One detects a very ordered mind, or minds, behind the new awards order. There’s clarity – one top prize, and only one: the New Zealand Architecture Medal – and rigour: 10 categories, with a maximum of three winners in each. The latter will receive New Zealand Architecture Awards….”

So there we go.
Your concerns alleviated.