Change of Council

The ACC reluctantly committed $125million to the transport centre but developer Jihong Lu missed contractual deadlines and another Britomart project was cancelled.

A new council was elected in October 1998 who resolved to rethink the 1995 project, the new Major Christine Fletcher promised to “open the books” on Britomart. In 1999 there was a recommendation to proceed after public consultation.

Public Consultation

A basic principal was adopted in 1999 by ACC which was the future of the site be determined with the help of its owners, the Auckland public.

ACC held several consultation exercises seeking people’s views on features that they would like to see in the waterfront area. The wishes expressed in the surveys ranged from safe, clean and comfortable public spaces to easy access to the waterfront for recreation. These wishes were incorporated in earlier projects, most notably the Viaduct Harbour redevelopment.

Feedback forms allowed the public to agree or disagree with what Auckland City wanted to achieve on the Britomart site, and provide comments on a range of issues. Some comments from the public were:

“Shelter is important in rainy Auckland, steel framed glass canopies and attractive architectural canvas sails reminiscent of the Pacific and maritime heritage.”

“make this a different opportunity from the Viaduct.”

“Who wants to toil up the CPO steps in the heat or rain? With luggage?”

“the rail station should include a fully glazed skylight, a keyhole to the sky”

“the inner city is an organism and the waterfront development is only part – networks and connections must be considered to other parts of the inner city”

“hurry up”

The surveys showed a strong support to start a rail service to Queen Street as soon as possible, buses operating on surface and not underground, and the preservation of the heritage buildings.

The consultation was used to create a set of principles that guided the Britomart Development.

Those principles have been:

• A transport interchange for Auckland including bus, ferry and rail services.
• A gateway to the CBD and the waterfront.
• People coming and going 24 hours a day.
• A safe, welcoming place for people.
• Exciting and vibrant public spaces.
• Enhancement of the downtown waterfront to open up the city to the sea.
• Extending the Viaduct Harbour success story.

Design Competition

Stage one entries on display in the Britomart Display Centre

Using these principles the ACC embarked on a two-stage design competition to find the best use of the Britomart site with the former CPO playing a major part in the development.

Stage I commenced on the 5 th April 2000 and submissions closed on the 26 th May 2000. Stage I was an open competition with a wide brief to draw out as many ideas and as much innovation as possible. Ideas produced in this stage were then debated and incorporated into the Stage II brief.

More than 300 guests and entrants were on hand to witness the Stage One Design Competition Awards Ceremony, held at the former CPO building in downtown Auckland. Of the 153 competition entries received, the judging panel gave a total of 30 awards. The judging panel selected seven ‘major’ prizewinners, with each winning entry receiving a $10,000 prize.

Those winners were:

• Creative Spaces/Cox Richardson Architects
• Denton Corker Marshall/Architects with Stephen Brown Landscape Architects
• Crosson Clarke Architects, Andrew Scott Cotton Architects in association with Designgroup Consortium Ltd, Ted Smythe, Landscape Architects, Rod Barnett, Duscho Bogonovich and Dianne Brand
• Aaron Sills and Wayne Lees
• Leuschke Group Architects and LA4
• Architects Patterson with Leo Jew, John Betts and Chris Van Tonder
• Mario Madayag with Jasmax, OMO/AMO Rem Koolhaas, Peter Walker and Partners.

Mario Madayag’s stage one concept, connections between different downtown precincts

November 2000, Mayor Chris Fletcher congratulating winner Mario Madayag

Mario Madayag (left) and Greg Boyden (right)

Stage II of the competition was a developed design phase to produce achievable solutions for the Britomart area. The seven design finalists from Stage One competed in Stage Two, with a detailed brief including how to incorporate light rail into the design. Stage II commenced on 31 July 2000 and the teams submitted their entries on 6 October 2000.

The winner announced in early November 2000 were Mario Madayag with Jasmax Architects. Mayor Chris Fletcher in her address said “This is one of Auckland’s best loved heritage buildings (Chief Post Office) and it will be wonderful to make it a focal point for the city once again."

(picture)

Jasmax Architects worked on the Auckland Town Hall refurbishment and designed Wellington’s Te Papa Museum. Mario Madayag a Californian architect, now living in New Zealand, worked on the $2.5 billion Santa Monica Getty Centre.

(picture)

A very happy Mario Madayag wrote “Thank you Auckland for your vote of confidence in my Britomart design indicated in your letters to the Herald, I am honoured, I look forward to collaborating with you on transforming this space into a wonderful place.” Britomart scheme, NZ Herald, 27/11/2000

“Now I think all would wish the winning team luck and urge them to continue the good work.” SUPERMARIO, Institute of Architects, November 2000

The judging panel consisted of Professor John Hunt (The University of Auckland City), Mayor Chris Fletcher (Auckland City Council), deputy Mayor Dr Bruce Hucker (Auckland City Council), Councillor Doug Astley (Auckland City Council), Ngarimu Blair (Ngati Whatua o Orakei), Ian Athfield and Clinton Bird (New Zealand Institute of Architects), Graeme Horsley (NZ Property Council), and Paul Asquith (Bus and Coach Association).

The attributes of the winning design as described by the judging panel.

• Presents a clear and powerful vision for the future development of the Britomart precinct that achieves a fine balance as a robust and vital part of the city and as a successful transport interchange.
• Demonstrates in some detail how that vision might be translated into explicit design proposals, while offering significant flexibility to cope with future changes to project requirements. (In the words of one assessor, it offers a "library of robust ideas".)
• Advocates a central role for the former CPO as a hub for the transport interchange and as a memorable place of arrival into the city (a "vestibule" for the city).
• Establishes protected pedestrian routes that link the various transport modes at ground level and below ground. Below ground linkages extend out from the CPO to Queen Street, the Ferry terminals and the Downtown Centre, and incorporate natural lighting features.
• Advocates the grouping of bus stops in several locations, thereby avoiding the concentration of buses in a single location on the one hand, and the dispersal of buses on the other.
• Advances proposals that transform QE into a focus of transport-related activity while strengthening links between Queen Street and Queens Wharf, and evoking the historical significance of these linkages.
• Advances proposals for linking the precinct with both the waterfront and the city behind, using distinctive streetscapes to achieve this objective.
• Responds to the distinctive heritage character of the precinct by creating open spaces from which the more significant of the heritage buildings may be fully appreciated. Proposes a combination of open spaces, streetscapes and lanes, which offer the potential for a vital and friendly pedestrian environment.
• Proposes a scale of development that is compatible with the heritage buildings and precincts, and builds upon their qualities.
• Proposes new building development that would invite a diversity of uses and contribute to intensive activity within the precinct.
• Suggests an approach to incorporating Maori cultural concepts into the development in a manner that would enable these ideas to be developed in a variety of ways.
• Offers a framework for development that is based upon strong urban ideas yet which would permit other design professionals and artists to make distinctive contributions.

A reference group was established to provide ongoing consultation throughout the re-concepting process, including the New Zealand Historic Places Trust and Heart of the City. They examined the Above Ground Master Plan taking into consideration the principles from public consultation. The Above Ground Master Plan focused on a range of issues such as, how the retained heritage buildings will coincide with new development, the mixed-use activities in the precinct, carparks and public spaces.

Ngarimu Blair of the Ngati Whatua o Orakei wrote:

“Much emphasis has been placed through the public consultation and design process to protect, restore and celebrate the remaining historic buildings on the Britomart site . . . these sites form part of the identity of tangata whenua. The articulation of this heritage through the Britomart design process will ensure also that this heritage can inform the identity of all Aucklanders. The Auckland City Council has therefore formed a relationship with Ngati Whatua that will see these waahi tapu (sacred sites) further protested, restored and celebrated too.”

Project Priorities

Prior to the design competition, a basic scheme with minimal architectural enhancements was developed, the capital budget was $175m. This capital cost was increased to $189m to include the CPO floor/dome modifications, full access to Quay Park and increasing tracks into the railway station.

The design competition added a number of architectural features to the project and the winners of the competition were appointed as the Britomart architects. The capital estimate was increased to $262m under the revised plans.

The New Zealand Herald published an article entitled $88million Britomart Budget Blowout on the 13 th March 2001, which said:

“The Britomart transport centre project has run $88 million over budget because of a new design described as “visionary” by Auckland Mayor Christine Fletcher . . . this figure means Britomart will cost $118 million more than the original $164 million scheme first devised by then mayor Les Mills in 1992.”

Act MP Penny Webster wrote, “Pouring money into Britomart is like putting the cart before the horse, or in this case the station before the train. Most people will agree that the bus terminal needs to be upgraded –it is a disgrace- but $260 million of upgrade?” Son of Britomart far too expensive, NZ Herald, 16/5/2001

Alex Swney General Manager of Heart of the City wrote, “Fiscally, I like to think of myself as dry and am always advocating cost-cutting from City Hall. But the Son of Britomart is a generational issue that must be viewed with a horizon beyond the next election. It is an answer as much for today as it is for our children and their children. It is vital, therefore, that it is future-proofed for buses, ferries or even light rail if we as a city are going to be moving anywhere.” Britomart decisions most vital since harbour bridge, NZ Herald, 16/5/2001

The Britomart plans were reviewed at a value management workshop. Outcomes of the workshop were assessed and priorities for discretionary expenditure and design development created. The risks were identified, evaluated and prioritised.

Council’s long term financial strategy made provision for $133m for the Waitemata Waterfront (Britomart) development project. Funding applications were submitted to Infrastructure Auckland and Transfund for a total funding package of $116.5m.

There was still a $13m shortfall to be addressed to meet the current total estimate $262m. This shortfall was met by deleting some items to reduce the cost, which included removing travelators, 8 escalators, dynamic lighting from the concourse and reducing the width of the concourse to 5m.

Public Support

On the 28 June 2001 Auckland City issued a News Release stating, “The Auckland City Council commissioned an independent survey of 750 residents throughout the region. The findings confirmed that 71 per cent consider traffic congestion and transportation are the most important issues facing the city. And the respondents were clearly aware of the importance of the Britomart (Waitemata Waterfront Development) project as a means of solving traffic problems. Nearly 80 per cent considered the creation of a downtown hub for passenger transport to be important or extremely important and nearly 70 per cent supported getting on with the job.”

The Mayor Chris Fletcher responded to the survey by saying “This level of support is what we’d have expected, in line with what Aucklanders have been telling us through our consultation process. The survey now confirms that people appreciate the need for the downtown transport interchange and understand its importance for the whole of the region. Now we just want to get on and build it”

Station Resource Consent

On Saturday 22 July 2000 Auckland City publicly notified an application to the ARC for resource consent to allow construction of the underground railway station. The application was submitted early to allow ample time for the consent process, and this ran parallel to the design competition for the Waitemata Waterfront Development (Britomart). The resource consent application was for the de-watering and land use sediment control during construction.

The issues that were identified included Traffic Effects, Noise and Vibration Effects, Groundwater and Structural Effects, Sediment Control, Dust Effect, Site Security and Interruption to Services. There were a total of 19 submissions received to ACC’s application. A total of 12 submissions opposed / did not indicate whether they supported or opposed the application, 4 conditionally supported the application and 3 submissions supported the application.

A hearing was held to consider the resource consent application and the application was approved on 1 December 2000. The resource consent required ACC to have ongoing consultation with neighbours.

Utility Preparation

Utilities were relocated to allow for the construction of Britomart.

Completion of the $4million stormwater project was a major step in preparation for the future development of the waterfront area and transport interchange. New stormwater drains, with some sections up to 4.5m in width, were installed on a route that runs for 385 meters under Quay Street, Britomart Place and Custom Street East, connecting to the outlet beneath Captain Cook Wharf. Assistant project manager Graham Long said, “Working in partnership with our contractors helped tremendously. There was also very good liaison with the bus operators to minimise disruption to passengers,” Downtown stormwater project, City Scene, May 2001.

The Captain Cook Stormwater outfall project was completed on time and under budget.

Other services on the Britomart site such as gas services, the 11kV cable and telecommunications had to be relocated to allow for the Britomart excavation.

A Dangerous Area

Cr. Bruce Hucker blessing the steps where the 23-year-old man lay after being beaten

On 26 th January 2001 a 23 year old man was brutally beaten with a piece of timber near the corner of Gore and Quay Street and later died. Only a few days earlier a woman was gang-raped in Tyler St, behind the Old CPO.

“The Britomart bus terminal and the Carpark were graffiti – strewn grotholes where the dubious lingered long . . . Ward Demolition site manager Sonny Collenette used to roam the site looking for used hypodermic syringes” NZHerald, 10/9/2001

(picture)

Demolition

Annexe CPO demolished

Annexe CPO demolished

Three buildings were demolished on the Britomart site in preparation for the construction of the new railway station.

In February 2001 the reinforced CPO Annexe built in 1937 by the Public works department, attached to the Old CPO, was demolished. The existing resource consent for the demolition of the CPO Annexe was to expire on the 22 March 2001. In order to utilise the consent, Council approved the demolition of the CPO Annexe on the 8 February 2001 and works were completed by May 2001. The contract was awarded to Burrell demolition for $500,000 and most of the materials, including the concrete and steel reinforcing were recycled. Fortunately when the Art Deco CPO Annexe was constructed in 1937, a gap was created between it and the CPO. This gap preserved the eastern façade. During demolition three stray letters were found in the gap between the buildings.

ACC set up a new charter with Occupational Safety and Health after a demolition worker needed hospital treatment for an accident on site.

CPO carpark

The bus relocation flier

Once the CPO Annexe demolition works were complete the site was used as a temporary carpark.

Buses that carried nearly 10,000 peak period passengers from the Britomart bus terminal were moved from the old Britomart bus terminal site to various inner-city streets on the 17 th June 2001.

The relocation of the buses involved establishing new bus stops/termini on streets in the inner city, providing the necessary infrastructure (shelters, seats, rubbish bins, information signs), traffic engineering and a comprehensive communications program.

Auckland City , ARC and Bus operators worked together to find the most ‘user-friendly’ solution during the two year construction period, with the advertising campaign “GET LOST, if you don’t read this you might be!” Over 20,000 pamphlets were distributed during the month leading up to the relocation of the buses to commuters using the Downtown Bus Terminus. A number of new staff including several who sat on the Auckland City Youth Council, were employed to hand out pamphlets telling bus travellers where to go to catch a bus.

Britomart Bus Terminal demolished

The contract to demolish the Britomart Bus Terminal and Britomart Carpark was awarded to Ward Demolition for $404,000 on the 30 March 2001. All the concrete, steel, Kauri and Oregon timber from the site were recycled. The concrete was broken down and reused for driveways, footpaths, carparks and under-floor slabs. The Britomart Carpark demolition work was completed in October 2001 and the site was prepared for the construction of the underground station. The Britomart carpark was in poor structural condition and would have required major works if it had not been demolished. Maintenance in the year leading up to its demolition cost $33,000. It was estimated to need a further $20,000 per month to keep it in a safe condition. The demolition created a large open space and had a noticeable impact on the perceived safety of the site.

A Grey Lynn resident writes “The photographs showing the start of demolition of the old Britomart bus terminal shows a bus shelter presumably about to be crushed. Why not move it to my bus stop? I have been waiting for a bus shelter for 23 years. Surely I must be getting to the top of the list soon.” HEY! We could do with that old bus shelter, NZ Herald, 26/7/2001

“The picture on the back page showing the demolition of the Britomart carpark was inspiring. If only the demolition contractors were allowed to continue the good work and, one by one, knock over all the other inner-city carparking buildings.” Te Atatu South, NZ Herald 26/7/2001

Funding Britomart

ACC approved the detailed design and budget for the Waitemata Waterfront Development (Britomart). At a special council meeting they agreed to a maximum capital expenditure of $249.3 million for the project, which would establish a transport interchange at the foot of Queen Street and act as a catalyst to regenerate the downtown area. Auckland City agreed to the amount it would contribute before the design competition.

“The fate of the Auckland City Council’s revamped baby-Britomart scheme will be known by the middle of next month.” D Day looms for Britomart, National Business Review 22/6/2001

“The Auckland City Council had hoped to secure more than $90 million for the Britomart project, but Infrastructure Auckland, the body handing out the money, is having second thoughts . . . The Council says it will pay $133 million and it wants $25milion from Transfund and $91.5 million from Infrastructure Auckland. At 2pm Wednesday Infrastructure Auckland was preparing to slash that amount, until a last minute letter arrived from Mayor Christine Fletcher asking to put off the decision. . . the body told the council on Wednesday morning it would consider paying just $29 to $35 million.” Setback for Britomart project, nzoom.co.nz, 18/7/2001

“Development of the Waitemata Waterfront Interchange is about vision and the courage to act. It is about taking a step towards a vibrant, competitive Auckland. The mayors of the region are united and passionate in their commitment to this vital project . . . The interchange is an integral part of the regional land transport strategy. It is the only project specifically identified as urgent.” Britomart Funding, NZ Herald, 30/7/2001, Mayor of Manukau City, Sir Barry Curtis.

The Transfund Board decided to contribute a $10million capital grant and $10million for patronage. Government policy constrained Transfund to contribute both capital and operational costs, so it was agreed that $10million would be deducted from what it would pay for improved patronage for the regional passenger transport network.

Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), a government department responsible for the statutory decisions for the acquisition and disposal of Crown property contributed $1.8million towards the rail infrastructure.

The ARC contributed $1.9million towards high quality amenities on street level.

“For too long the region has been subject to divide and rule. But on this project we are united as it is the number one priority in our regional transport strategy.” Booster of $20m comes with tag, 30/7/2001, Chairperson of the ARC, Phil Warren.

However one St Heliers ratepayer saw the application to IA differently “It’s high time to vote the car-haters in this Auckland City Council out of office. If Britomart is going to be such a great asset to Auckland, then let the bus and train companies pay for it and reflect the costs in the ticket prices . . . We all know it will be another white elephant with huge cost overruns. Hence the smart strategy of Infrastructure Auckland to pay only on completion of the project.” St Heliers Ratepayer, NZ Herald, 26/7/2001

“Infrastructure Auckland has set a funding limit of $410 million on passenger transport over the next decade. Its evaluation of Britomart, and the $55.5 million it appears prepared to contribute, presumably pays heed to likely funding calls for other aspects of the region’s public transport development. But it must recognise in the first instance that the transport system will be seriously flawed without an effective hub. If commuters do not enjoy the height of convenience when they arrive at and leave downtown, it reflects on every aspect of the system. Seen in that light, it would be false economy for Infrastructure Auckland not to meet the city council’s funding request” Don’t sell us short on Britomart plan, NZ Herald, 18/7/2001

“Our focus is now on the funding gap of $46million to make the revised project a reality. Auckland City and the region are united in their expectation that Infrastructure Auckland will bridge the gap.” ACC News Release, Mayor Chris Fletcher, 30/7/2001

Infrastructure Auckland (IA) resolved to grant $45million towards the Britomart Project with a number of terms and conditions. IA based its figures for the station on the projected passengers per hour during peak times. IA chairman John Robertson explained the Britomart money came from three components, rail tracks $11.48m, rail signage $4.44m, station $29.05m.

After years of debate the ACC voted unanimously to go ahead with the project. The funding short fall meant that the design adopted by council was scaled back with the elimination of the full underground walkway and less streetscape improvements.

The funders of the $204million Britomart Project:

Auckland City Council $135.7m

Infrastructure Auckland $45m

Transfund New Zealand $20m

Auckland Regional Council $1.9m

Land Information New Zealand $1.8m

Total $204.4m

‘Britomart Project, Update: October 2001, Te Rerenga Ora Iti’, Auckland City Council project update, information provided by Ngarimu Blair, Ngati Whatua o Orakei