Better alternatives for waterfront development
The proposed Steamer Basin redevelopment could be consigned to history unless backers of the plan make a commitment writes Russell Lund.
THE Van Brandenburg harbour basin vision is a scheme of two distinct halves — the south side of the Steamer Basin (Birch St) and the north (Fryatt St).
A significant development for the north side appears to be gaining momentum particularly with news last week Port Otago is to demolish the Fryatt St wharf sheds.
I understand there is strong interest from a number of overseas research organisations to establish an oceanographic institute on the north side of the harbour basin, with or without the University of Otago.
Dunedin City Council, including some councillors, was briefed by a representative from the United States embassy on interest from American institutions in December. It is understood there is interest from other quarters.
This is a fantastic opportunity and represents possibly the biggest nonpublic sector investment in Dunedin in decades. It has been described as providing up to several hundredwellpaid research and industrial support jobs in an appropriate use for the Fryatt St wharf area.
It is understood the costs of rebuilding the decayed Fryatt St wharves and seawalls are anticipated. It is unlikely the development will utilise the organic forms of the van Brandenburg vision, however.
The only down side is the loss of the heritage waterfront sheds, but the council is not concerned about the sheds as Port Otago advises they are not listed on even the city’s historic register, and it is obvious they are far from the best use of this strategic site.
However, in this case, there is a better outcome for the city if the sheds are demolished.
Regarding the Van Brandenburg vision for the south side, readers should consider this is far from the first grandiose plan for the waterfront.
In October 2017, a historian at Toitu, Peter Read, chronicled the various flights of fancy promulgated for the inner harbour at the presentation held at the Early Settlers museum.
In my opinion, Mr Van Brandenburg’s harbourside vision for the southside is likely to join them in the unbuilt footnotes to Dunedin’s history, unless backers of the scheme, which now include the central government, Port Otago, ORC and Ngai Tahu, make a large and timely commitment to realising the scheme.
For example, the Otago Regional Council, the landowner, refuses to consider the idea of locating its new head office in its own mixeduse development, despite the council chairman claiming the scheme is ‘‘mind blowing and fantastic’’.
This sends a very strong message to developers that the scheme is mostly hot air. One reason there has been a resounding silence from the ORC is that it is aware of the costs of reconstructing the waterfront, before any sort of structure can be built.
The wharf costs, which will be in the tens of millions, make any developerled project uneconomic, unless Dunedin can sustain large numbers of $2 million to $3 million apartments.
However, if the ORC engaged Damien Van Brandenburg to design its new building there and made a major contribution to the wharf reconstruction, this would be a start, at least, for the south wharfside area.
We should remember that the ORC in 2008 almost went ahead with the most expensive office building in the nation in the same area, (and has already spent $7 million on the Birch St site), so Mr Van Brandenburg’s designs and wharf costs will hold no fear.
Regarding the proposed bridge, it is an elementary urban design mistake to construct a bridge in a florid, organic style to complement other buildings in the area that haven’t been built yet, and highly likely not to be built, and further, build it landing directly in front of the landmark 1873 Loan and Mercantile building, obliterating its presence.
There is a better option: a slender cablestayed bridge that angles away from the Loan and Mercantile building and lands on the Harbour Basin park area, a respectful distance from the Customhouse.
The DCC has already provided a solution for this bridge option that is efficient, attractive and economical. On February 10 this year the DCC announced it was building a new cablestayed pedestrian and cycle bridge next to the stadium, spanning a similar distance, for just $1.2 million. Mr Van Brandenburg would be well able to design a bridge in the same form. A finely calibrated cable bridge against the mass of the heritage Loan and Mercantile building and the Customhouse building would provide an exceptional piece of urban design.
This would cost about $7 million, or about $1 million$2 million more than a basic bridge option landing in front of the L&M building.
The Dunedin City Council is guilty of providing misinformation in its latest public relations mailing to Dunedin ratepayers. It claims that a basic bridge option will cost $10 million, and annual costs of $900,000. These ridiculous and inflated estimates that have no basis in fact can be safely ignored.
Councillor Doug Hall, the only councillor to have any construction expertise, joins me, Steve Macknight and others in considering even $5 million to be excessive for the bridge.
It is understood NZTA offered the council the design drawings for a ‘‘basic’’ overbridge costing far less than $10 million, but the council ignored the offer.
Ratepayers have several clear choices regarding the bridge.
For $20 million (in fact $25 million$30 million) they can have:
A Van Brandenburg ‘‘organic’ bridge
A cablestayed bridge and the Mosgiel Pool and the South Dunedin Library.
A cablestayed bridge and the balance to pay most of the $20 million Peninsula cycleway shortfall.
The final choice for all those that want the city to spend $20 million of ratepayer funds on Van Brandenburg structures is:
The cablestayed $7 million bridge and the remaining $13 million to build a relatively small but finely detailed Van Brandenburg visitor centre or water activity centre on the steamer basin wharf, just metres from where the bridge will land.
Now that would be an exciting start to the harbourside scheme.