Poll of 1000 Say No To Queens Wharf Plans


A poll of a thousand Aucklanders suggests overwhelmingly, people believe permanent Queens Wharf development should not proceed until long term plans are in place for the city’s waterfront.

The  poll of nearly 1,000 Aucklanders is  by independent online research company Buzz Channel.  The poll shows 88.2 per cent of decided respondents either agree or strongly agree that Aucklanders should see what the long term plans are for the central CBD waterfront before being asked to sign off on long-term plans for Queen’s Wharf.

“Aucklanders know there is more at stake here than Queen’s Wharf,” says Heart of Auckland City CEO Alex Swney.

“Sure, out of some frustration some may cry ‘let’s go for the biggest option’, but clearly there’s no belief that the hurried investment in Option 4 is the best in the context of the broader waterfront.”

Nearly eight out of 10 of the same group agreed or strongly agreed the Rugby World Cup should not influence the hasty major redevelopment of the wharf.

Further, 84.4 per cent of decided respondents believe the major redevelopment of Queen’s Wharf should be led by the new Super City Mayor and new Auckland Council in the context of a broad waterfront plan.

Mr Swney says Aucklanders’ position is “pretty damn clear with respect to the three questions asked and points to not proceeding with the $100 million cruise terminal option”.

“The poll result does not mean we should do nothing,” Mr Swney says. “There are some very good options to go forward with for the Rugby World Cup.  “The people have spoken and they say we need a clear plan for the central wharves and Quay St, not a piecemeal approach. They want a result that doesn’t set Auckland’s Queens Wharf in stone for Rugby World Cup, forever to be a bone of contention when the waterfront is discussed.”

Mr Swney says Aucklanders have not been properly consulted on Queen’s Wharf, but even more importantly on the city’s waterfront plans. Option 4 assumed Queen’s Wharf should be heavily developed now in time for the Rugby World Cup and as a stand-alone project.  “That would run against public opinion,” says Mr Swney.  His business group is still running a separate poll on its site.

Some of the comments made by respondents to the Buzz Channel poll are:

  • “Stop this insanity and take a good hard look at what Auckland should be like in 20-50 years. Create a proper brief and open up any design competition to international entries.”
  • “The waterfront should be developed into a centre which will last well beyond the 2011 World Cup, and should be a recognisable piece of architecture that embodies the nation.”
  • “A temporary structure should be erected for the world cup. Thus giving us the best of both worlds - waterfront access and a nice ‘fan zone’ for the world cup. And on the other hand, enough time to properly plan, design, and build something nice.”
  • “We need to take the whole waterfront into consideration before making any quick fix mistakes.”
  • “I like the idea of the big marquees that don’t cost much. I hate the idea of spending millions and millions. People will still come to Auckland regardless of what’s on the waterfront.”
  • “Once it’s built it’s going to be there for decades and used by millions of people in generations to come. It will be the first impression of the city for millions of tourists arriving by ship in the future. We can’t afford to rush it and risk it being less than the world class development it should be.”




  1. Cambennett says:

    Sure, out of some frustration some may cry ‘let’s go for the biggest option’, but “clearly there’s no belief that the hurried investment in Option 4 is the best in the context of the broader waterfront”

    Yes it is there is a masterplan for the waterfront which looked at the context of Queen’s wharf in the broader waterfront and this was decided on as the best place for a cruise ship terminal which is what design # 4 is. There is the whole of the tank farm development to the west to decide on where a “iconic” (for lack of a better word) structure should go and somewhere like Wynyard point is a much better place for it. We have the design we have a budget, lets get on a build the bloody thing and stop pulling oursleves about iconic buildings because we think that’s what we should do. The ARC has been working on getting cruise ship terminal in there since at least 2005, that was always the plan, that and some public open space is the best use of this wharf.

  2. George Darroch says:

    When was New Zealand granted the world cup…? Sigh.

  3. Matt L says:

    Is Queens wharf even big enough for all the ships that visit here? It appears to be about the same size as Princess Wharf and I remember the last time the Queen Mary 2 was here it was to big to fit in. It had to use one of the container wharfs I think, great welcome to international visitors.

    If this is the case then how stupid would it be to build an expensive terminal on Queens wharf if it can’t even berth some of the ships that will visit.

  4. Joshua says:

    Matt L, it is big enough as long as it is dregged appropraitely, and also it is the perfect location, what we want is the people walking off the cruise ship to be able to jump on a bus, where better than our major bus interchange, or on a ferry, right next door as well, or a train, oh would you look at that.

    My main fear is that if continue making all these plans nothing is going to happen, and we will be stuck in the typical auckland cycle where we end up chosing the cheap option, waterfront stadium, cbd loop come to mind.

    The proposed option look quite good and definately better the Wellingtons so I say go for it, but as usual Aucklanders will bitch and moan and we will never get anything done.

  5. Johans says:

    It’s sad how we get things done only when we are hosting such international events.

    The authorities bend over backwards when we get such events and when the average rate playing citizen requests better services, the doors are shammed in their face.


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>