IN PICTURES: How 5 finalists want Queens Wharf to look

Above: Andrius Gedgaudas, Architect, Shanghai China.
Den Aitken, Pete Griffiths and Hamish Foote, Field Landscape Architecture, Auckland.

David Gibbs and Aaron Sills, Construkt / SVB, Auckland.
Design number 195 - John Coop, Tasman Studio, Auckland.

Design number 216 - Simon Williams, Williams Architects Ltd, Auckland.
The five individual finalists for the Queens Wharf redesign have been named from the 237 designs received with four of the final designs coming from Auckland architects and only one set to blow the allocated budget.
Jasmax/Architectus, Water-shed and Tasman Studios were finalists in the team entries category but images have not yet been released.
They were selected by a panel including Auckland City Mayor John Banks, Auckland Regional Council chairman Mike Lee, ministers Gerry Brownlee and Murray McCully.
The bold design submitted by Auckland’s Tasman Studio is striking. Playing on the 100% Pure New Zealand advertising campaign, its proposal is headed “100% Public”.
Retaining Shed 11 as the base for an events centre, it also keeps the existing cool store and hopes to include public artworks at the site in the form of permanent sculptures and art events at the site.
The entry to Queen’s Wharf from Quay St would be a paved public space Tasman Studio refers to in the proposal as an ‘urban lawn’.
“The proposal demonstrates how redevelopment of the wharf might positively inter-relate existing and new buildings,” the panel said. “Building forms are bold and simple, and respond well to the scale and drama of the wharf and its setting.”
Shanghai-based architect Andrius Gedgaudas’s plan is the only one originating from outside Auckland. It details a large promenade deck with a lookout at the end offering public space to enjoy a view of the harbour.
The design includes 1,400sq m dedicated to a restaurant/café area, an 8,000sq m terminal area with multipurpose floor area, a driveway with parking for taxis and buses and a pedestrian walkway.
“The design offers a simple and strong public realm experience, with the potential for activities and uses beneath the inclined platform to be well related to adjacent public open spaces,” Government feedback on the design said.
“Despite the stark simplicity of the proposal, the design would offers significant scope for the addition of other elements as patterns of use on Queens Wharf evolve over time.”
The “highly schematic” design from Field Landscape Architecture with “considerable potential” shows a plan based on the historic pattern of the wharf.
It retains Shed 10 and Shed 11, with a central promenade with moveable sliding doors and canopies that can be adjusted for events and will establish a link between the two sheds.
“However, the proposal would need to be carefully developed and tested in response to the Stage 2 design brief and the issues identified in section 3 above,” the panel assessing the designs said.
“The basis for the proposed undulations within the promenade would need to be reviewed and clarified in the Stage 2 submission.”
Construkt / SVB architects David Gibbs and Aaron Sills of Auckland presented a proposal which is the only one of the five finalists that seeks to remove Shed 11 and constructing a new building on the eastern edge of Queen’s Wharf.
It proposes to redevelop Shed 10 as a cruise ship terminal and build a pedestrian plaza between that and Quay St. The design includes a large public area with an urban beach, which the panel advised would be so expensive it would exceed the existing budget targets.
The proposal by Williams Architects details a new cruise ship terminal at the Shed 10 site with a public access terrace down to the water. Shed 11 opens up to a plaza with wide steps down to the water.
It has a covered walkway extending along the wharf’s length and an upper level walkway to Customs St, which the panel questions the merits of.
“The panel commended the use of simple sculptural forms for the terminal and the way in which the space at the northern end of the wharf connected to the water and engaged with the harbor setting.”
The panel were advised by Auckland City Council creative sector marketing and communications Jillian de Beer, Victoria University senior architecture lecturer Graeme McIndoe, urban designer Rebecca Skidmore, architect Ian Athfield and University of Auckland School of Architecture and Planning Professor John Hunt.
The five final designs will now need to be developed further by 23 October, with the winning design will be selected and announced in November. The wharf is due to be redeveloped in time for the 2011 Rugby World Cup.























Comments and questions11
THATS IT! – That’s the best that they can come up with – god we are dead from the neck up – what absolute shiite!
Well I guess it’s in keeping with the rest of the new slum designs downtown that the council has allowed to go up.
Auckland had a wonderful opportunity to surpass Sydney’s opera house and what we get – a 3rd world effort.. Well done NZ architects, there isn’t a proper one amongst you.
From the team that gave you $11-bil of leaky houses, not to mention buildings, schools etc -- "without ever going on site", so you couldn't sue them -- what did you expect? They do boxes with green glass.
Charletons and bag-men
moggy and drippy - where were your entrys?
very easy to stand out side and pass negitive comments - and that is what the real problem is here. If youre so firm in your opinions at least have the balls to use your name so we know who you are.
All 237 entrys are to be congratulated for putting in the effort at a time when there are limited funds to provide resource to enter these competitions. if we spent the fund on something like the sydney opera house you would no doubt complain about the cost. so unless you want to front up with your own money and time dont knock the people who have.
I live downtown a block from the harbour and like it here. Building structures of an inappropriate size, such as the failed proposal for the rugby stadium, or a Sydney opera house in the space and environment available will create a bizaar impresion. Design 170 actually shows a bit of talent and creativity.
Simply all uncreative or eye sores!! Why cant you see that??
what about a project of international qaulity, e.g. Guggenheim, Louve.............. Why build something for the sake of building? Can we not think this through people and not make hasty decisions, or are the politicians wanting kudos for this? Moving it forward whilst they are in power prehaps? Ashamed native!
No creativity in this joint, The one with that big white thing and the ramp is in the wrong place, it belongs with the other overly large car yard buildings over in newmarket! Its also a replica (as the herald blog says) of the new Oslo Opera House. 170# is also a replica of another famous landscape so the Herald blog says as well. All the rest are also hideous. I dont care if I sound mean but its my tax and rates money and Im sick to death with paying ugly and unuseful buildings, so I can say what I want!!!...Would these show runners and power hungry's get out of bed from each other and do us all a favour
In my previous comment Im talking about the finalist concepts as there are good concepts in the whole comp. Im proud of the ones who put pen to paper as well and with all that colouring, it shows that some people actually care how we spend our money, unlike some others who think they know how to run the show...very disapointing indeed!
Its kinda interesting that from 230 designs from architects and interested groups, all five of the finalists came from the professional architects sector.. Does this make a sham of the consultation process? Did no one else in the other 225 entries have any good ideas worthy of inclusion?
How long did they have to come up with this? I dont think this sort of thing can be rushed. I am a 17 year old student wishing to study Architecture next year. Honestly I think these designs appear very plain and the most complex one has little asthetical value. The designs have no relation between Auckland and the harbour and most appear to be based loosly upon 50s style modernist glass boxes. These are not places made worth visiting for the people of Auckland but serve only as a blique transport terminal for cruise ship passengers. At least add some decent restaurants or up-market retail outlets to make the place worth visiting. Open spaces are generally suposed to be an inward centrepoint for the surronding area. Not out on a peninsula far from the CBD with no apparent destination other than the harbour at its northern end and if people want to see the harbour they are hardly going to walk out to the end of the wharf, when it can be so easily acessed at the sothern end inlet west of the Ferry Building.
I agree with most comments. Cheap is not best. Auckland is the main gateway to NZ, and something iconic should be developed to accommodate this.
Te Papa; while very functional, failed...Its plan ugly...There should have gone with a paua shell or something like that.....
What about a 'Peter Blake Memorial & International Boat Terminal' in one. NZ is renounded for sailing throughout the world. Maybe a series of sailing boats; from Endeavour to the latest Americas cup boat, leaving room for expansion in the future...
And dont let be judged by architects....most of the awards have gone to buildings that leak like sifts