Auckland can't afford a second crossing ... or can it?

OVER SUMMER ONE ALWAYS gets a few ideas. Some good, some questionable. Some that just seem obvious once they've occurred to you. 

Here's one of those.

Let's start with three propositions: 

1. Auckland can't afford new infrastructure.

2. But Auckland would like to move its port. (But Auckland can't afford new infrastructure.)

3. Auckland will soon need a second harbour crossing. (But Auckland can't afford new infrastructure.)

Auckland can't afford that new infrastructure. Can't it? Perhaps it can.

Let's see what happens if we put those three problems together. As architects like to say, the solution is often contained within the problem ....

LET'S START WITH A CONTROVERSY from a few years ago when then-mayor Phil Goff complained about the Ports of Auckland steadily encroaching on the harbour with its ongoing reclamation work at the Ferguson container wharf. We joked that if they kept going, the Port would eventually end up in Devonport ...

A good joke.

But what if the wharf—or some part supported by the wharf—somehow did end up there?

Might that be a good thing?

Let's think: at the moment (see below) 

• the gap between Devonport and Port is just 800 metres -- that's compared to the 1000 metre length of the existing Harbour Bridge
• the rail line to Britomart passes right beside the container wharf
• the Grafton gully motorway points in a straight line down to the container wharf
• RNZ Navy land takes up some of the best land in the country to house the world's most ineffective navy
• existing tidal wetlands and greenspace on Belmont/Devonport (Charles Reserve, Hauraki Primary, Philomel Reserve, Bayswater Park, Plymouth Reserve, Hill Park, Ngataringa Park) offers scope to avoid simply dumping traffic on Lake Rd, and instead to link up with existing Northern Motorway at Takapuna.

Could we all win?

I think we could.

So the project could feature

• elegant new 'gateway' bridge for road, rail and foot
• new spur rail line from existing Quay Street rail line to Devonport
• new Devonport railway station, with platform under bridge (with a later link to Takapuna as well?)
• new road connection to existing motorway at Takapuna and at Grafton
• new apartments and marinas on and around existing container wharf (southside) and on former naval base (northside)

The latter (i.e., apartments) would pay for the former (i..e, everything else) --- and for the port and the naval base to move. They would have to.

The port is important, make no mistake. But viable plans for the port to move have already been drawn up. And there's no reason for New Zealand's Navy, who would be second in a fight with Switzerland's, to be there at all—squatting on some of the country's most expensive real estate rather than hanging out somewhere much less expensive. If you must keep them in Auckland (why?) then dredge the Manukau. Removing them will help to some small extent in removing pressure from Devonport's housing market -- as will new apartments built around what will be a new transport hub there.

IN ITS FAVOUR:

• very little distance to build the crossing (just 800m at present, compared to 1000m for the existing bridge, which could still be further reduced)
• done well, the bridge and apartments together become a gateway to the city's inner harbour, framing it and re-defining it
• curved bridge which, like San Diego's renowned curved Coronado Bridge, would be high enough for ships to pass under, 
• and/or, like Santiago Calatrava's magnificent structures, delicate enough to enliven the harbour, which would be both structurally elegant and appropriate as a harbour-side gateway to the city
• even a 'utilitarian' suspension bridge or cable-stayed would suit (we have plenty of great bridge designers here)
• removes some proportion of traffic from existing Harbour Bridge 
• easier Devonport road connection, removing congestion from Lake Rd
• immediate foot, cycle, and rail access to/from Devonport
• high-density apartment living on former container wharves, enjoying spectacular harbour views, a new marina, and easy walkable access to city wand waterfront
• high-density apartment living on former naval base waterfront living enjoying spectacular city views, with a marina, an easy commute to city and beyond (and public transport direct to city via new spur rail line!), and easy walkable access to both the waterfront and to Devonport...

What's not to like? Even Wayne Brown should like it, because he'd get to bully the Navy, the Port authorities, AT and ministers of transport and defence.

San Diego's renowned Coronado Bridge

Sharq Crossing, Doha, by Santiago Calatrava

PROBLEMS?

• Nimbys, of course, in Parnell, in Devonport and in Belmont
• some property in Belmont and in Devonport will need to be bought, voluntarily -- or perhaps the air rights bought
• Parnell owners already regularly whinge about the existing container wharf anyway
• work on coastal wetlands
• that said, this would be an ideal opportunity to fix (properly this time) some of the drainage issues around these areas
• new location needed for the container port, and imported cars...
• not an insignificant cost, but relocation also paid for from apartment sales...
• bridge needs to allow large cruise ships underneath
• so it needs to have some height!
• cost

Cost is always the biggest problem. And too much taxpayer money has been wasted already. But that's the benefit here: these apartments on both sides, sit on over 100 Hectares some of the most valuable real estate in the country -- currently occupied only by cars, containers and a Navy that needs to bugger off. At even just 50-100 dwellings per Hectare that's still between 5-10,000 apartments to be sold. Multiply that number by a few million dollars or so, and you're in the ballpark for your project budget.

The revenue from the new development (apartments, marinas, hospitality etc.) should more than pay for the project -- and have the added benefit further helping intensify the central city (a god thing), and bringing down house prices all over the(a great thing!). 

The only major problems I foresee, apart from the bureaucratic haggling about which branch of government owns what, is that government (central or local) would set themselves up as the developer. Which never ends well. And that, inevitably therefore, given the glacial rate of progress of recent projects around the city, it will be the next half-century before anything is ever completed.