The Wynyard Quarter Benchmark Research for Waterfront Auckland – Draft Report

May - July 2012

Contents

Introduction...... 3

Key findings ...... 5

The Auckland Waterfront -Overall ...... 6

The Wynyard Quarter - Visitation patterns ...... 12

The Wynyard Quarter - Perceptions ...... 19

5.1 Attributes of the area ...... 27

Future Plans for the Wynyard Quarter ...... 34

6.1 General support for revitalisation ...... 34

6.2 Support for the specific plans ...... 35

6.3 Information ...... 40

Future plans for the Auckland Waterfront ...... 41

Waterfront Auckland ...... 45

Local businesses and other stakeholders ...... 46

9.1 Relationships ...... 46

9.2 Quality of communication and consultation ...... 49

9.3 Shift to Waterfront Auckland ...... 51

9.4 Support for developments to date ...... 53

9.5 Lifting equipment ...... 57

9.6 Future plans ...... 58

Appendix ...... 63

Introduction This research updates a project conducted in 2009, in order to monitor the impact of changes since that time. Changes since 2009 have of course been immense, both in terms of the revitalisation of the Wynyard Quarter and the shift from Sea + City Ltd to Waterfront Auckland. A core purpose of this research was therefore to assess the impact of these changes on:

• Public, stakeholder and local business perceptions of the Wynyard Quarter.

• Public, stakeholder and local business support for and concerns about future plans for the Wynyard Quarter`.

• Stakeholder and local business perceptions of Waterfront Auckland (along with public perceptions where the public knew enough about Waterfront Auckland to comment).

• Public, stakeholder and local business perceptions of other key waterfront developments including the planned cruise terminal and events space at Queens Wharf.

Consequently, the other key purpose of the research was to identify how any positive performances on the measures above could be maintained and how any negative performances could be improved.

The research involved quantitative and qualitative stages, with the quantitative research conducted before most of the qualitative stage. The full research programme is outlined in the table below:

AUDIENCE QUANTITATIVE QUALITATIVE General public - local residents N=250 telephone survey 2 x focus groups (8 participants in each) May 24th to June 9th July 2nd & 3rd General public - other Aucklanders N=1000 online survey 1 x focus group (8 participants) June 1st to 17th July 3rd General public - visitors to the N=250 face-to-face survey Qualitative hall test (Series of interviews Wynyard Quarter May 31st, June 1st-2nd with 1-3 participants covering 40 respondents in total) July 12th Very important individuals - key - 12 individual depth interviews stakeholders May 31st to July 17th Very important individuals - local - 10 individual depth interviews businesses May 31st to July 17th

The following should be noted:

• Local residents are defined as people living in the area bound by Curran St, Jervois Rd, Ponsonby Rd, Hopetoun St, Pitt St, Greys Ave, Mayoral Dr, Queen St, Fort St, Britomart Place and the Waterfront. This area is virtually the same as that used in the 2009 study, with the addition of the area bounded by Queen St, Fort St, Britomart Place and the Waterfront (previously the boundary continued straight down Queen St to the Waterfront). This marginal change is unlikely to have had a significant impact on the results because of the small population of the new area relative to the local resident area as a whole.

• The sample size for the local resident and visitors to the area survey is the same. The margins of error for the two surveys of n=250 for 50% figures at the 95% confidence level are therefore both ±6.2%.

• ‘Other Aucklanders’ describes Aucklanders who live outside the defined ‘Local Resident’ area. The margin of error for the other Aucklanders survey (n=1000) for a 50% figure at the 95% confidence level is ±3.1%.

• The preference would have been to have online or face-to-face surveys for all three general public segments because of the value of showing visual representations of plans for the Wynyard Quarter. It was decided, however, that the only efficient way of covering the local resident sample was through a telephone survey, because of the small proportion this group makes up of the overall Auckland population.

• Combining results from the three quantitative surveys is not recommended because of the relative size of the different populations (i.e. local residents would only account for a tiny proportion of the results if included relative to population of the ‘other Auckland’ region).

• The ‘hall test’ with visitors to the area involved a qualitative researcher intercepting people while they are in the area and conducting a 5-10 minute qualitative interview. Quotas helped to ensure that researchers covered a wide range of visitors to the area (e.g. parents of children using the playground, tourists and restaurant/café customers).

• Key stakeholders include a range of organisations Waterfront Auckland identified as being particularly important. These included large organisations and selected local businesses.

• The interviews with local businesses targeted senior representatives of a range of businesses operating within the Wynyard Quarter who had not otherwise been selected as key stakeholders.

• Partly because of the low response rate in the 2009 quantitative survey amongst stakeholders and local businesses, this part of the research changed to a larger qualitative study.

Key findings

There has been a marked improvement in almost all measures covered in this research since the last time it was conducted in 2009. The revitalisation of the Wynyard Quarter has lifted the image of the area and helped to improve perceptions of the organisation behind it (i.e. Sea + City in 2009, Waterfront Auckland in 2012). Perhaps more importantly, satisfaction with what has been done to date has helped to shore up support for future developments. Respondents raised far fewer concerns about the future plans than they did in the previous study, even though the plans themselves were very similar. This seems to reflect satisfaction with the current plans helping to make many people more confident that the future plans will live up to their expectations.

The research showed marked differences between local residents and visitors to the area on the one hand, and other Aucklanders on the other hand. This shows that experiences of the area as it is now are key influences over attitudes towards the future plans. Local residents were far more likely to have been to the Wynyard Quarter than other Aucklanders (as, of course, were respondents in the visitors to the area survey) and went there much more often, and seemingly as a result they were more confident about the future plans. Complaints about the area from those who had been were few and far between, whereas those who had not been often raised concerns which are actually addressed within the current development and the future plans (such as concerns about building height and inclusion of residential areas). This supports the view that a key way to get people to support future plans of the area is to get them to experience what the area is like now.

Relations with key stakeholders and local businesses are generally good, and in some cases excellent. While the bulk of the respondents in this category were positive about their relationships with the organisation and about the plans for the Wynyard Quarter, a significant minority have little trust or regard for Waterfront Auckland and are very negative indeed about specific aspects of the plans. As was the case in 2009, those with the biggest concerns tend to be marine businesses and/or smaller businesses.

These respondents often claim that Waterfront Auckland does not seem to have made a lot of effort to consult with them, or at least what consultation there has been has effectively been lip service, with Waterfront Auckland seen as having consulted almost for the sake of it, with no real intention to change its policy as a result. This is, as noted, a vocal minority rather than a majority view, but it does indicate that efforts to engage with stakeholders and local businesses have not always been completely successful.

The Auckland Waterfront - Overall The results show little change in overall visitation to the Auckland City Centre Waterfront since 2009, although these results need to be taken as indicative only because the question has changed slightly to focus more specifically on the city centre waterfront.

The fact that visitation to the Wynyard Quarter has gone up markedly (as will be discussed) while visitation to the waterfront as a whole has hardly changed could suggest that the revitalisation of the Wynyard Quarter is not so much drawing new people to the waterfront as giving them something better to do when they go there. This will be explored further in the section on visitation to the Wynyard Quarter.

• 83% of local residents visit the city centre waterfront at least once a month, an increase of 2% since 2009.

• 41% of other Aucklanders visit at least monthly, down 3%.

FREQUENCY OF VISITING AUCKLAND WATERFRONT

On average how often do you go to the Auckland City Centre Waterfront? Local residents (n=250) Other Aucklanders (n=1000) June 2012 Change since June 2012 Change since

% 2009* % 2009* Daily 13 -2 6 - Weekly 35 -2 9 -3 Fortnightly (every 2 weeks) 16 +4 10 - Monthly 19 +2 16 - At least once a month 83 +2 41 -3 Once every 2 months 6 - 18 - Once every 6 months 6 +1 20 -1 Once a year 4 +2 9 -1 Less than once a year 1 - 11 +4 Never - -5 2 +1

*Note - the 2009 question was ‘how often do you go to the Auckland Waterfront’; question not included in the ‘Visitors to the Area’ survey Question not included in the Visitors to the Area survey Base: All respondents

Not surprisingly, respondents living in the central Auckland area (i.e. the Albert-Eden-Roskill, Maungakiekie-Tamaki, Orakei and Waitemata/Gulf wards) visit the city centre waterfront much more often than those from other parts of Auckland, even when local residents are excluded. 60% of central Auckland zone residents visit at least once a month, compared with 34% of those from South Auckland, 33% of those from the West and 33% of those from the northern zone.

FREQUENCY OF VISITING AUCKLAND WATERFRONT

On average how often do you go to the Auckland City Centre Waterfront? Other Aucklanders Local residents Other Central West North South Howick (n=250) (n=288) (n=162) (n=240) (n=224) ward* % % % % % (n=86) Daily 13 7 2 7 5 1 Weekly 35 16 7 6 9 2 Fortnightly (every 2 weeks) 16 17 8 3 9 11 Monthly 19 20 16 17 11 12 At least once a month 83 60 33 33 34 26 Once every 2 months 6 19 16 16 23 14 Once every 6 months 6 14 26 24 16 28 Once a year 4 4 9 9 11 14 Less than once a year 1 2 13 15 13 17 Never - 1 3 2 2 2

*Note - the sample size for the Howick Ward is small and should therefore be treated as indicative only. Base: All respondents

Satisfaction with the public spaces in the city centre waterfront is only moderate, although it is markedly higher amongst those who were interviewed while visiting the Wynyard Quarter. This should be seen as a vote of confidence in the current state of the Wynyard Quarter, as visitors to the area would undoubtedly have been more likely to be thinking about the Wynyard Quarter in the context of this question than either local residents or other Aucklanders.

• 81% of visitors to the area say that they are satisfied with the public spaces, well ahead of local residents (54%) and other Aucklanders (37%).

The qualitative research clearly showed that respondents who were interviewed in the Wynyard Quarter tended to be highly positive about the overall public spaces on the city centre waterfront, generally citing the Wynyard Quarter as an example of a good public space. The focus groups also supported this view, with respondents who had been to the area much more positive about the waterfront as a whole than those who had not been.

I feel there are spaces that are open to the public like the Wynyard Quarter and patches that are completely closed off. But the second positive thing is that it is transitioning the whole waterfront from when the Wynyard Quarter was first signed but hopefully it will go further and further. (Auckland, local residents, male)

The west side which is the Wynyard Quarter is open to the public and it is very successful, the east side is closed to the public not accessible but it has potential. (Auckland, local residents, male)

A lot of the waterfront is closed off, there is no access for people, all those jolly containers wharfs I would like to get rid of all of them. It could be vital and active if it was planned properly. (Auckland, other Aucklanders, female)

It is also worth noting that those who claimed to know a lot about the redevelopment of the Wynyard Quarter are more positive about the public spaces (49% satisfied) than those who say that they do not know very much about it (30% satisfied). Similarly, 46% of those who have been to the Wynyard Quarter five or more times in the last year say they are satisfied, compared with 25% of those who have never been.

SATISFACTION WITH PUBLIC SPACES

On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means you are highly satisfied and 5 means you are highly dissatisfied, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you overall with the public spaces on the city centre waterfront? Local Visitors to the Other residents area Aucklanders (n=250) (n=250) (n=1000) June 2012 June 2012 June 2012

% % % 1 - Highly satisfied 18 45 7 2 36 36 31 TOTAL SATISFIED 54 81 37 3 27 15 41 4 13 4 13 5 - Highly dissatisfied 4 - 3 TOTAL DISSATISFIED 17 4 16 Unsure 2 - 5

New question Base: All respondents

As in 2009, the vast majority of Aucklanders support the general concept of redeveloping the city centre waterfront to make it more accessible to the public.

• 92% of local residents support making the area more accessible as do 91% of other Aucklanders.

• The changes since 2009 are not statistically significant, apart from the 6% increase in the proportion of local residents who strongly support making the waterfront more accessible (now 77%) and the 3% increase in the number of other Aucklanders who are opposed (now 8%).

• Support for opening up the waterfront is consistent across all demographics, with the main variations being in the intensity of the views. For example 60% of men in the other Aucklanders survey strongly support opening up the area compared with 52% of women, but the combined total who support the opening up the area (i.e. strongly support + mildly support) is the same for both men and women.

• Of the ones we measured for this survey, there is no demographic group where support for opening up the area falls below 84% (under 30s and Asian respondents were the lowest at 84%).

OVERALL ATTITUDES TOWARDS REVITALISATION OF CITY CENTRE WATERFRONT

Do you generally strongly support, mildly support, mildly oppose or strongly oppose the idea of redeveloping the city centre waterfront to make it more accessible for the public? Local residents (n=250) Other Aucklanders (n=1000) June 2012 Change since June 2012 Change since

% 2009 % 2009 Strongly support 77 +6 56 -3 Mildly support 15 -4 35 +2 TOTAL SUPPORT 92 +2 91 -1 Mildly oppose 2 -1 6 +2 Strongly oppose 2 +1 2 +2 TOTAL OPPOSE 4 - 8 +3 Unsure 4 -2 2 -

Base: All respondents Question not included in the Visitors to the Area survey NB: In 2009, question read ‘Do you generally strongly support, mildly support, mildly oppose or strongly oppose the idea of redeveloping the Auckland waterfront to make it more accessible for the public?’

The Wynyard Quarter was clearly the most frequently mentioned new development when respondents were asked to name specific plans to redevelop parts of the Auckland waterfront. This held true in both the qualitative research and in the quantitative surveys. At the same time, it was not always at the top of respondents’ minds, with only 36% of local residents and 17% of other Aucklanders mentioning it without prompting as being one of the new developments.

• Many of the other suggestions of new developments were vague, such as ‘more apartments’ and ‘adding walkways and cycleways’. Some of these suggestions may have included the Wynyard Quarter, although they are too general to be certain.

• The next most commonly mentioned new development is the redevelopment of Queens Wharf including the proposed cruise ship terminal. This was only mentioned without prompting by 7% of local residents and 7% of other Aucklanders.

 A few also mentioned the proposals from earlier in the year to extend the wharves and container facilities (5% of local residents, 6% of other Aucklanders).

AWARENESS OF WATERFRONT REVITALISATION PLANS

What specific plans are you aware of to redevelop parts of the Auckland waterfront to make it more accessible for the public, if any? Local Other Residents Aucklanders (n=250) (n=1000) June 2012 June 2012

% % Wynyard Quarter 36 17 Public access developments 11 13 General commercial developments (not specifically named) 9 2 Queens Wharf / cruise ship terminal 7 7 Wharf development 5 6 Vehicles / public transport 2 6 Other 8 4 Not able to name specific plans 37 59 TOTAL 100 100

Base: Those aware of plans to redevelop parts of the Auckland waterfront NB: Due to multiple response, percentages may not add to 100

AWARENESS OF WATERFRONT REVITALISATION PLANS

Are you aware of any plans to redevelop parts of the Auckland waterfront?

[IF YES] What specific plans are you aware of: June 2012

% n=250 WYNYARD QUARTER Redevelopment of the Tank Farm (19.2%), General development of Wynyard Quarter 38 (15.2%), Building new ASB HQ (1.6%), Developing Silo park (1.2%), Fish market (0.4%) GENERAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS (not specifically named) Apartments (4%), Putting more commercial buildings/ shops/restaurants there (2.8%), 9 High rises (1.2%), Tourist attractions/greenways/entertainment areas (0.8%) PUBLIC ACCESS DEVELOPMENTS 9 Adding walkways/cycleways (4.4%), Parks (2.4%), Increased public access (2.4%) QUEENS WHARF / CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL 7 New terminal/cruise ship terminal (5.2%), Develop Queens Wharf (2%) WHARF DEVELOPMENT Extend the port (3.2%), Moving the containers/port elsewhere (1.6%), Redevelop 5 docking/shipping area (0.4%) VEHICLES / PUBLIC TRANSPORT 2 Extending the tram lines (1.2%), Better parking (0.4%), Big bridge to be built (0.4%) OTHER Developing a theatre (1.6%), Britomart Area (1.6%), The Viaduct (0.8%), Develop 6 Princes Wharf (0.4%), Other (2.0%) Not able to name specific plans 37

Base: Those aware of plans to redevelop parts of the Auckland waterfront NB: Multiple response, totals add to more than 100%

AWARENESS OF WATERFRONT REVITALISATION PLANS

What specific plans are you aware of to redevelop parts of the Auckland waterfront to make it more accessible for the public, if any? June 2012

% n=1000 WYNYARD QUARTER Redevelopment of the Tank Farm (10.7%), General development of Wynyard Quarter 17 (5.8%), Developing Silo park (0.5%), Building new ASB HQ (0.1%), Fish Market (0.1%) PUBLIC ACCESS DEVELOPMENTS Adding walkways/cycleways (4.8%), Parks (3.9%), More public/recreational spaces 13 (2.3%), Increased public access (1.8%), Removing the red iron fencing along Quay St (0.3%) QUEENS WHARF / CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL New terminal/cruise ship terminal (3.3%), Develop Queens Wharf (2%), Redeveloping 7 the sheds (1.3%), Redeveloping the Cloud (0.3%) WHARF DEVELOPMENT Moving the containers/port elsewhere (2.9%), Extend the port (2.3%), Develop Princes 6 Wharf (0.4%), Redevelop docking/shipping area (0.1%) VEHICLES / PUBLIC TRANSPORT Better public transport (2.4%), Extending the tram lines (1.8%), Better parking (0.9%), 6 Closing off Quay St to traffic (0.6%), Lower speed limits for vehicles/no traffic zones (0.4%) GENERAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS (not specifically named) Putting more commercial buildings/ shops/restaurants there (0.9%), Apartments 2 (0.6%), Tourist attractions/greenways/entertainment areas (0.5%), OTHER Developing a theatre (1.5%), the Viaduct (0.7%), Britomart Area (0.3%), Arts centre 4 (0.3%), Business/innovation hub (0.2%), Other (1.1%), Not able to name specific plans 59

Base: Those aware of plans to redevelop parts of the Auckland waterfront NB: Multiple response, totals add to more than 100%

The Wynyard Quarter - Visitation patterns Visitors to the Wynyard Quarter by and large came to the area quite often. 53% of visitors to the area who were not in the area for work reported that they came to the area at least once a month, including 23% who went there at least once a week.

FREQUENCY OF VISITING THE WYNYARD QUARTER

On average how often do you come to this area? Visitors to the Visitors excluding area local employees (n=250) (n=227) June 2012 June 2012

% % Daily 11 5 Weekly 16 18 Fortnightly (every 2 weeks) 12 12 Monthly 16 18 At least once a month 55 53 Once every 2 months 12 13 Once every 6 months 11 12 Once a year 6 6 Less than once a year 6 6 Never 10 10

Base: All respondents

Similarly, a high proportion of respondents in all three surveys had been to the Wynyard Quarter more than once in the last year.

• 93% of local residents reported that they had been to the Wynyard Quarter more than once in the last year, as did 80% of visitors to the area (excluding their current visit) and 62% of other Aucklanders.

• 73% of local residents said that they had been to the area five or more times in the last year, compared with 56% of those in the visitors to the area survey and 22% of other Aucklanders.

• 34% of central zone respondents said that they had been to the area five or more times in the last year, compared with 13% of west Aucklanders.

The qualitative research also included a number of very frequent visitors amongst the local residents.

I go down there because I walk the dog down there so as long as there are still interesting things while we are walking and it is easy to walk to I will still go down there, I don’t necessarily go down there to dine but I might go down there to pick up some fish or something else or if I have got visitors it is the only playground I would take kids to really. (Auckland, local residents, female)

I have gone down with my four kids lots and I have never struggled to get a car park and you get the first hour free in that car park which isn’t well advertised. I go after school and in the weekends. (Auckland, local residents, female)

Visitors to the area in the hall test generally have been to the area at least once before.

Other Aucklanders who had been to the Wynyard Quarter had generally come for big events, including the Rugby World Cup.

The only times I have been to Wynyard Quarter are for events. They had Fashion Week down there, the Seafood Festival, the Buskers Festival. (Auckland, other Aucklanders, female)

VISITS TO WYNYARD QUARTER

How many times have you been to the Wynyard Quarter in the last year? Local residents Visitors to the area Other Aucklanders

(n=250) (n=250)* (n=1000) June 2012 June 2012 June 2012

% % % Once 3 13 15 Twice 6 9 16 Three times 5 9 12 Four times 9 6 12 Five or more times 73 56 22 Not visited in the last 7 23 year 4

*Excludes the current visit Base: All respondents

Other Aucklanders who have not been to the Wynyard Quarter in the last year often cite reasons which seem to relate to a belief that the area does not offer anything compellingly better than what is on offer in other parts of Auckland. This again could well reflect them not knowing what is on offer - certainly in the qualitative research those who had been to the area knew much more about the range of events that were on offer than those who had not, with the impression being that coming to the area for one specific event encouraged visitors to pay more attention to future events.

• In the other Aucklanders survey, 39% of those who had not been to the area in the last year simply said that there was ‘no reason for them to go’, while 18% said that they had not been to the Wynyard Quarter because they did not go to the central city very often and 13% thought that it was too much of an effort to get there.

• 15% cited parking difficulties. As these respondents could not have experienced the parking problems themselves (at least in the last year), this could either reflect word-of-mouth from acquaintances who have been to the area during events, or a general assumption that parking in the central city is scarce and expensive.

REASONS FOR NOT VISITING WYNYARD QUARTER IN PAST YEAR

Why haven’t you been to the Wynyard Quarter in the last year? What are your reasons? June 2012

% n=218 No reason to go 39 Don't go into the city much 18 Parking too expensive/hard to find 15 Too much of an effort to get there 13 Didn't know about it 12 Too busy 10 Just haven't gotten around to it 6 Transport costs too much 3 Health issues 1 Too crowded/hard to get around 1 Other 1

Base: Those who have not visited the Wynyard Quarter in the last year NB: Due to multiple response, percentages may not add to 100

Reasons for visiting the Wynyard Quarter show an important difference between local residents and other Aucklanders, and indeed visitors to the area. Whereas visitors to the area and other Aucklanders view the area as an occasional destination, local residents have often made it part of their lifestyle. This distinction was clear in both the qualitative and quantitative research, with local residents in the qualitative research often describing it as a place that they ‘just popped into’ - i.e. whereas visitors to the area and other Aucklanders would often plan in advance to come to the Wynyard Quarter, local residents often visited with little advance planning.

• This is illustrated by the fact that 32% of local residents said that the main purpose of their most recent visit to the Wynyard Quarter was to ‘exercise, stroll or sightsee’, compared with 9% of visitors to the area and 12% of other Aucklanders.

• 40% of visitors to the area and 38% of other Aucklanders, on the other hand, said that their most recent visit was ‘just to have a look around’. This suggests that they had heard about the area and wanted to see what it was really like (which logically is more likely to happen if they have not been to the area very often before). Just 11% of local residents chose that option.

• Central zone respondents (35%) were more likely to say they had come to the area for a café or restaurant than those from other parts of Auckland (e.g. only 10% of west Aucklanders had come for that reason).

• South Aucklanders were particularly likely to say that they came to the area for an event (24%, compared with 9% of those living in the central zone).

On the weekends in summer it is a pretty nice place to wander around, I go to the market and we go for a walk around the place and see what is happening. There is people coming and going and the fishing boats. (Auckland, local residents, male)

I go there for events when they have had music in the summer time I would go there for that but again that is because it is easy to walk there and I don’t have to worry about the parking. (Auckland, local residents, female)

Most of the visitors to the area in the hall test who had come from other parts of Auckland and elsewhere regarded a visit to the Wynyard Quarter as an enjoyable part of a visit to the Auckland city centre, but visiting the Wynyard Quarter was not the sole purpose of the visit.

• The hall test was held during the school holidays, for example, so several respondents were parents who were taking their children on a day outing to the central city. The outing involved a range of other activities not directly related to the Wynyard Quarter, such as a train or ferry ride and a visit to a fast-food restaurant.

• Similarly, one group were on a day trip to show their parents (who were from the Coromandel) around a range of areas near the central city, such as Newmarket and the Auckland Museum.

MAIN PURPOSE OF RECENT VISIT TO WYNYARD QUARTER

Thinking about your most recent visit to the Wynyard Quarter, what was the MAIN purpose of that visit? Local Visitors to the Other residents area Aucklanders (n=240) (n=250) (n=773) June 2012 June 2012 June 2012

% % % Exercise, stroll or sightsee 32 9 12 Go to a cafe or restaurant 26 8 22 Go to an event 12 12 15 Just to have a look around 11 40 38 Go to the fishmarket 10 - 6 Take children to the playground 3 13 4 Go to a shop 2 1 1 Work in the area - 9 - Other - 4 - None/Unsure 4 4 -

Base: Those who have been to the Wynyard Quarter in the last year

In terms of all the activities done while visiting the area, the most popular activities were:

• Exercising/strolling/sightseeing.

• Going to cafes and restaurants.

• Going to the fishmarket.

• Taking children to the playground.

ACTIVITIES ON RECENT VISIT TO WYNYARD QUARTER

Which of the following did you do on your most recent visit to the Wynyard Quarter? Local Visitors to the Other residents area Aucklanders (n=230) (n=250) (n=773) June 2012 June 2012 June 2012

% % % Exercise, stroll or sightsee 59 30 66 Go to cafe or restaurant 51 33 50 Go to a shop 20 4 17 Go to the fishmarket 31 11 19 Take children to the playground 13 30 16 Go to an event 17 18 23 Use the tram - - 5 Other - 6 - None/Unsure 23 31 - Base: Those who have been to the Wynyard Quarter in the last year NB: Percentages include those whose main purpose was each activity NB: Due to multiple response, percentages may add to more than 100

Although the car dominates as a means of transportation to the area for both visitors to the area and other Aucklanders, this is not the case for local residents.

• 40% of local residents said that they came to the area on their most recent visit by car, compared with 56% of the visitors to the area sample and 61% of other Aucklanders.

• 50% of local residents said that they walked to the area, compared with 28% of visitors to the area and 18% of other Aucklanders (presumably many of this group who walked had taken public transport first).

TRANSPORTATION TO WYNYARD QUARTER

Still thinking about your most recent visit to the Wynyard Quarter, how did you get there? Local Visitors to the Other residents area Aucklanders* (n=240) (n=250) (n=773) June 2012 June 2012 June 2012

% % % Walking 50 28 18 Car 40 56 61 Bus 5 14 9 Cycling 3 - 1 Taxi 2 - - Train - 2 7 Ferry - - 3 Other - - 3

Base: Those who have been to the Wynyard Quarter in the last year *Due to multiple response, percentages may add to more than 100

Most of those who drove to the Wynyard Quarter on their most recent visit reported that they parked in the area, with those who parked in the area reasonably evenly divided between parking on the street and off the street.

PARKING LOCATION

Where did you park? Local Visitors to the Other residents area Aucklanders (n=97) (n=140) (n=470) June 2012 June 2012 June 2012

% % % On the street but inside the Wynyard Quarter 42 53 27 Off the street in a parking lot or parking 38 29 31 building inside the Wynyard Quarter Outside the Wynyard Quarter 20 18 41

Base: Those who drove a car to Wynyard Quarter

Declared knowledge of plans for the Wynyard Quarter was up considerably, but still not especially high.

• 44% of local residents claimed to know a reasonable amount (1 or 2 on a 5 point scale where 1 equalled ‘a lot’ and 5 meant ‘hardly anything’), a 9% increase since 2009.

• 29% of other Aucklanders said that they knew a reasonable amount about the planned redevelopment, up 14% since 2009.

• 27% of visitors to the area claimed to know a reasonable amount - this question was not included in the equivalent survey in 2009.

• Declared knowledge was higher amongst those living in the central zone (43%) than in other parts of Auckland (with the lowest being West Auckland, where 22% said that they knew a reasonable amount).

• Declared knowledge also seemed to be related to income, with 14% of those in the other Auckland survey who had household incomes below $40,000 claiming to know a reasonable amount, compared with 42% of those with household incomes over $150,000.

• 54% of those who have been to the area five or more times claim to know a reasonable amount about the plans, compared with just 11% of those who have never been.

DECLARED KNOWLEDGE OF PLANNED REVITALISATION OF WYNYARD QUARTER

One of the areas of the Auckland Waterfront being redeveloped is Wynyard Quarter. This is the area to the west of the Viaduct and east of Westhaven Marina, including the so-called "Tank Farm". It is surrounded by water on its northern, eastern and western sides, and its southern boundary is Fanshawe St.

On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means you have heard a lot, and 5 means you have heard hardly anything. How much have you heard about the proposed redevelopment of the Wynyard Quarter? Local residents Visitors to the area Other Aucklanders

(n=250) (n=250) (n=1000) June Change June 2012 Change June 2012 Change 2012 since 2009 % since 2009 % since 2009 % 1 - A lot 22 +6 12 N/A 10 +7 2 22 +3 15 N/A 19 +7 HEARD A REASONABLE 44 +9 27 N/A 29 +14 AMOUNT 3 24 +3 24 N/A 24 -4 4 14 -6 16 N/A 20 -2 5 - Hardly anything 17 -6 30 N/A 26 -8 NOT HEARD MUCH 31 -12 46 N/A 46 -10 Unsure 1 +1 3 N/A - -

Base: All respondents

The Wynyard Quarter - Perceptions

The general public are mostly positive about what has been done so far to improve the Wynyard Quarter, although the relatively low satisfaction numbers with the state of the area at the moment are fitting for a project which still has a long way to go.

• 83% of local residents say that they like what has been done so far to redevelop the Wynyard Quarter, but only 48% say they are satisfied with the Wynyard Quarter as it is now.

• Similarly, 73% of other Aucklanders say that they like what has been done to date, but just 29% say they are satisfied with the state of the area today.

• The gap between other Aucklanders and local residents is mainly about the relative probability of these two groups having visited the Wynyard Quarter. 82% of other Aucklanders who have visited the Wynyard Quarter in the last year say that they like what has been done, while 35% of this group say they are satisfied with the area today.

• The pattern for visitors to the area is different (83% like developments to date, 75% satisfied with the area), reflecting the fact that they were surveyed while in the area.

SATISFACTION WITH PROGRESS ON THE WYNYARD QUARTER

I'm going to read you a list of statements relating to these new developments. Using a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 means strongly agree and 5 means strongly disagree, please tell us how strongly you agree or disagree with each of them: I like what has been done so far to redevelop the Wynyard Quarter Local residents Visitors to the area Other Aucklanders

(n=250) (n=250) (n=1000) June 2012 June 2012 June 2012

% % % 1 - Strongly agree 54 53 37 2 29 30 36 TOTAL AGREE 83 83 73 3 10 10 18 4 4 2 4 5 - Strongly disagree 1 2 1 TOTAL DISAGREE 5 4 5 Unsure 2 3 4

Base: All respondents

SATISFACTION WITH PROGRESS ON THE WYNYARD QUARTER

I'm going to read you a list of statements relating to these new developments. Using a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 means strongly agree and 5 means strongly disagree, please tell us how strongly you agree or disagree with each of them: I like what has been done so far to redevelop the Wynyard Quarter Other Aucklanders (n=1000) Visited Never visited (n=772) (n=228) % % 1 - Strongly agree 42 22 2 38 31 TOTAL AGREE 82 53 3 15 27 4 4 4 5 - Strongly disagree 1 1 TOTAL DISAGREE 5 5 Unsure 1 14

Base: All respondents

CURRENT SATISFACTION WITH WYNYARD QUARTER

On a 1 to 5 scale where 1 now means you are highly satisfied and 5 means you are highly dissatisfied, how satisfied are you with the Wynyard Quarter as it is right now? Local residents Visitors to the area Other Aucklanders

(n=250) (n=250) (n=1000) June 2012 June 2012 June 2012

% % % 1 - Highly satisfied 16 29 6 2 32 46 23 TOTAL SATISFIED 48 75 29 3 32 19 38 4 11 6 13 5 - Highly dissatisfied 5 - 5 TOTAL DISSATISFIED 16 6 18 Unsure 4 - 15

Base: All respondents

CURRENT SATISFACTION WITH WYNYARD QUARTER

On a 1 to 5 scale where 1 now means you are highly satisfied and 5 means you are highly dissatisfied, how satisfied are you with the Wynyard Quarter as it is right now? Other Aucklanders (n=1000) Visited Never visited (n=772) (n=228) % % 1 - Highly satisfied 8 1 2 29 3 TOTAL SATISFIED 35 4 3 41 30 4 13 13 5 - Highly dissatisfied 4 5 TOTAL DISSATISFIED 17 18 Unsure 5 49

Base: All respondents

This tendency to be satisfied with the plans for the future but believe that the job is not yet finished is supported by reactions to the suggestion that the area is still an eyesore. Although the proportions agreeing with this statement are well down on where they were in 2009, they are still fairly high.

• 44% of local residents agree that the area is still an eyesore and more needs to be done to improve it, a 31% decline since 2009.

• Similarly, 20% of other Aucklanders agree with this sentiment, a 55% decline on 2009.

• This question was not asked in the previous survey with visitors to the area. In 2012, 34% of visitors to the area agreed that the area was still an eyesore and more needed to be done to improve it.

IS THE WYNYARD QUARTER STILL AN EYESORE?

I'm going to read you a list of statements relating to these new developments. Using a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 means strongly agree and 5 means strongly disagree, please tell us how strongly you agree or disagree with each of them: At present the area known as the Wynyard Quarter remains an eyesore and more needs to be done to improve it Local residents Visitors to the area Other Aucklanders

(n=250) (n=250) (n=1000) June Change June 2012 Change June 2012 Change 2012 since 2009 % since 2009 % since 2009 % 1 - Strongly agree 21 -33 14 N/A 6 -45 2 23 +2 20 N/A 14 -10 TOTAL AGREE 44 -31 34 N/A 20 -55 3 23 +7 26 N/A 22 +11 4 15 +11 22 N/A 28 +23 5 - Strongly disagree 15 +11 18 N/A 24 +22 TOTAL DISAGREE 30 +22 40 N/A 52 +45 Unsure 3 +2 - N/A 6 -2

Base: All respondents

Those who have been to the Wynyard Quarter were asked if they would like to come back in the future. Clear majorities in all three surveys said that they would, with substantial proportions strongly agreeing with this suggestion.

• 84% of local residents who had been to the Wynyard Quarter said they would like to return, along with 96% of visitors to the area and 77% of other Aucklanders who had been to the area.

WILLINGNESS TO RETURN TO THE WYNYARD QUARTER

I'm going to read you a list of statements relating to these new developments. Using a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 means strongly agree and 5 means strongly disagree, please tell us how strongly you agree or disagree with each of them: The Wynyard Quarter is a place I’d like to go back to Local residents Visitors to the area Other Aucklanders

(n=240) (n=250) (n=773) June 2012 June 2012 June 2012

% % % 1 - Strongly agree 64 81 43 2 20 15 34 TOTAL AGREE 84 96 77 3 7 2 16 4 3 1 5 5 - Strongly disagree 2 1 2 TOTAL DISAGREE 5 2 7 Unsure - - 1

Base: Those who have been to the Wynyard Quarter in the last year

The pattern in the qualitative research with the general public was the same - respondents were generally happy with what they had seen to date, while still believing that the area had some serious problems which had not yet been overcome. These ‘problems’ related to the perceived industrial nature of the area at the moment, which mostly referred to the tanks and the number of heavy trucks going in and out. These issues are, of course, mostly addressed by the long term plan.

I was actually in Wynyard Quarter on the opening day and found it a really nice place. I didn’t realise it was the opening day when I got there but walking along or driving around it is a nice place to be in and around and it is easily accessible especially now after the renovations by the public. Couldn’t think of too much negative stuff about it. (Auckland, local residents, male)

It is great. It has finally made the waterfront accessible so you can be close to Auckland water and enjoy it just like the Wellingtonians do and that is a great feeling to be able to be there and see the yachts and get the beauty of Auckland. (Auckland, local residents, female)

Satisfaction with developments to date is driven partly by the contrast with what was there before and partly by reactions to what is actually there now. Respondents often talked about how uninviting the area was before when describing why they were satisfied with what had been done to date. At the same time, the developments have often exceeded respondents’ expectations.

• The 2009 research made clear that public awareness of what was planned was often low and that respondents frequently expected anything that was built in the Wynyard Quarter to be essentially a replication of what had happened in other parts of the city such as the Viaduct.

• Those who had been to the area could see now that the Wynyard Quarter offered something which was both appealing and genuinely different.

Around the fish market and the play ground is where I go with the tram. I have a 6 year old son and he loves it. And I like the way the Link buses are extending up there so it is easy to get there, come in on the train, catch the bus out there, play, go on the tram. So as a parent of a young child that has been done with a target market obviously for those sorts of people and it is working. (Auckland, other Aucklanders, female)

It is nice for tourists as well, not just kids, it is very modern and a bit European with the designs, a really nice place to just visit and walk around. (Auckland, other Aucklanders, female)

I think the concentration on that roof across the bridge down past those three buildings built with second hand materials and the steps down into the sea in that area there and the children’s playground, which is only temporary and the gantry and the preservation of the concrete cylinders that is all very good indeed. (Auckland, other Aucklanders, male)

I just wrote down a variety of attractions there and for those people there is a reason to go there. There is parking albeit expensive, some of it is free for a period. There is entertainment. It was colourful. It is reasonably visually pleasing too. I would say the majority of people, they are trying to make it green and then they have a combination like some of the old - like the fishing boats and then they have offset that with the sporting yachts. So what they have is they are trying to cater not to all the people but to a lot of people and especially with the entertainment and bars. (Auckland, local residents, female)

The aspects of the area respondents in the qualitative research praised the most were:

• The general attractiveness of the public spaces, including the fact that these areas were both open and clean.

It’s a nice area to walk. You’re not all hemmed in by the city - close enough to the city to make it easy. I like the open space. (Visitors to the area, male)

• Events held in the area, both in terms of big occasional events such as the Seafood Festival and (mainly for local residents) smaller more regular events such as film screenings.

You want it to be small and cosy like that - hey don’t have to be big and huge. The Seafood Festivals are good. Sometimes it is the small things that you go too, that you wake up that morning and go it is nice weather, look in the paper and oh that is on down there I will wander down there. I find if there is something on there and the weather is good I will wander down. (Auckland, local residents, female)

The Silo Theatre down at Wynyard Quarter is a great way to enjoy the waterfront free at night in a unique way and just all the free events that are happening down

there as well particularly in the weekend for families. (Auckland, local residents, female)

• Several also praised the Events Centre in this context.

I went when the art exhibition was there, it was a nice place, lots of glass built sustainably, it will keep sun out during summer and keep it warm during winter. (Auckland, local residents, male)

• The playground was very well received by those looking after children or grandchildren. They liked it because it offered a variety of play equipment plus several other places for children to play (such as the grassy bank and the water feature). One of the respondents in the hall test said that she liked it because it was not as ‘politically correct’ as a lot of play areas elsewhere - by which she meant that there was not the same level of overt safety protection as is often found elsewhere. This may touch on an important part of the playground’s appeal - the fact that the base is sand rather than the rubber found elsewhere makes the environment seem more natural.

We go to lots of playgrounds but the fact he likes transport so you can go by the train and the bus to get there, there is the tram which he is fascinated with. It is a great playground, he loves that hill, the one with the grass. I have noticed the age range of kids there, there are people there with tiny tots up to 12 year olds are still having fun there. A lot of playgrounds you move as your kids get older and you find the one that fits their age group. (Auckland, other Aucklanders, female)

It looks like Telly Tubby land. (Visitors to the area, female)

There were, however, a few comments about the safety of the playground’s location, because of the tendency for children to wander and boundaries between the pavement and the road that are not as clear as found in other places (especially because of the vehicles going into and out of Hamer Street).

Rumours that the playground is to be removed and not replaced came through at a low level, and were easily alleviated in these groups by an explanation that the playground is moving once some of the land is ready for redevelopment rather than being taken away.

What I have seen it seems very successful but I understand it is temporary. [What is your understanding of what the next step is because it is temporary?] I understand that is one of the early commercial sites that will be available, it has no tanks on it and the others still do. (Auckland, local residents, male)

Respondents often criticised the tram. This was mainly on the grounds that it was under-utilised, which participants believed was due to the fact that it only went around the Wynyard Quarter. We know from the 2009 study that the general concept of a tram is very popular with Aucklanders, and reactions in the 2012 study indicate that the opposition would disappear if and when the tram is extended to Britomart and/or towards Victoria Park - that would transform it from what is seen as a gimmick to an interesting mode of transport.

Tram idea was good, I have been on trams everywhere and it is good but the cost is ridiculous so it is just maybe a one-off for tourists or visitors to Auckland. (Auckland, local residents, male)

I think this whole tram thing is ridiculous - having a little tram going around and around, going nowhere. It should be linking up with more transport, that should go out through our area which is historically interesting. (Auckland, local residents, female)

There were also occasional criticisms of the quality of the restaurants in the Wynyard Quarter. Some thought they were too upmarket and therefore inaccessible, while others believed that they were essentially no better than what could be found elsewhere.

But I just wish the restaurants there, some of them could be a bit better, some of them are not so exciting and the food not so good. (Auckland, local residents, female)

Those who knew about it liked the access to the water’s edge through the steps by Te Wero bridge, although others who had been to the area did not recall that this was available. Given the constraints of the area, the steps were seen as a good way of giving the public access in a safe manner.

I think that part is very good, it brings it down to water level so the boats go past at your level which I think is magnificent, there are floating pontoons you can get on. (Auckland, local residents, female)

It seems a safe enough way for kids to get instant access to the water. (Auckland, local residents, male)

I think it is good I have watched people sit there and wait for the boats to come and the bridge to go up and they all wait and watch and I think that is a pretty nice thing to have on the waterfront. (Auckland, local residents, male)

Some local residents thought that the Wynyard Quarter was primarily a ‘good weather’ destination, and that they would be unlikely to go there in winter.

The dining is good but it sort of switches off about now until November, why would you go down there? (Auckland, local residents, male)

The novelty did wear off quite quick so I stopped going before the weather turned shitty. [Does that mean that you would go back next year at the same frequency?] Initially to see what was there but probably not before the end of December because the weather isn’t going to be fine. (Auckland, local residents, male)

While many thought that the parking in the area was adequate and others had come into the area by public transport, some had been deterred from visiting because they thought it was hard to get a park. This applied particularly to event days and weekend days in summer.

At times there are no spaces available but still most of the time say 8 out of 10 times we can easily have access to parking. So parking is not a major issue but if more space was available that would be good. (Auckland, local residents, male)

I think parking is going to become a problem because it is not that easy to get to. It is great to walk around that area and it is fine for us who can walk there from our houses but I have driven down there and taken visitors to the playground and if it is a sunny day you have problems with parking. (Auckland, local residents, female)

I personally hardly ever go there because I can’t park anywhere and I find that it is quite inaccessible in that way. I have taken my grandchild down there, haven’t found anywhere to park and just come home again. (Auckland, local residents, female)

The ‘working wharf’ concept does not appear to be working as originally described in the 2009 study, but there are enough other positives about the area for that to be of little consequence. Whereas in 2009 respondents regarded one of the key positives of the plans as being the possibility of watching fishing boats coming in and out, this did not come through as a key feature in the 2012 study, simply because they did not tend to be in the area at the times when the boats were loading and unloading. The general quality of the environment and variety of other activities meant that this absence had no real impact on perceptions of the area. 5.1 Attributes of the area

The tracked attributes all showed massive improvement since 2009, reflecting the changes in the area.

• 72% of local residents (up 51%), 87% of visitors to the area (up 48%) and 57% of other Aucklanders (up 42%) said that the Wynyard Quarter had good open space for the public. The difference between other Aucklanders and local residents is largely explained by the fact that other Aucklanders are less likely to have visited - 67% of other Aucklanders who have visited the area said that this attribute applied.

• 59% of local residents (up 28%), 77% of visitors to the area (up 34%) and 51% of other Aucklanders (up 30%) agree that it provides the public access to the water’s edge.

• 51% of local residents (up 35%), 69% of visitors to the area (up 48%) and 39% of other Aucklanders (up 29%) feel that it has high quality urban design. 46% of other Aucklanders who have been to the area feel that this attribute applies.

The increase in the numbers believing that there are good transport links is interesting, because it is perhaps as much a comment on areas around the Wynyard Quarter and the Auckland transport system as a whole as on the Wynyard Quarter itself. Certainly the qualitative research suggests Te Wero bridge could explain much of this increase, because it has made travelling into the city by public transport and then walking into the area easier. It also seems possible that positive experiences in the Wynyard Quarter have made people feel more tolerant towards the transport links.

• 37% of local residents (up 15%), 41% of visitors to the area (up 20%) and 29% of other Aucklanders (up 14%) thought that the area has good transport links.

Three new attributes were included in the 2012 study based on the Auckland Council’s current performance measures, including ‘a vibrant waterfront destination’.

• 56% of local residents, 74% of visitors to the area and 43% of other Aucklanders said that this attribute applied to the Wynyard Quarter.

• Respondents in the qualitative research were similarly divided as to whether this applied, although those who did not believe that it applied generally did not see this as a problem.

They interpreted ‘vibrant’ to mean a busy area with a lot of activity - respondents often liked the Wynyard Quarter precisely because it was NOT as busy as other parts of the central city. In other words, it could actually be a good thing that the Wynyard Quarter was not ‘vibrant’, at least according to these respondents’ interpretation of the word.

It is only vibrant if there are people there. (Auckland, local residents, male)

It is vibrant, even on a cloudy day like today, there are people outside doing things. (Visitors to the area, male)

It is also about accessibility. It has to be safe and accessible so you are not walking through some deserted streets to get there and it is well lit. There are places to go depending on the weather so it is great having bit open spaces but there has to be places that draws people in even if the weather is not fantastic because we live in Auckland. (Auckland, other Aucklanders, female)

It is way too dead there, because even those restaurants at the front there, there is hardly anybody who goes there unless it is Saturday night go take the family there and then it is just your family and maybe five others. It is just so lonely there. It would be sort of packed but that would just be that area and then there is the whole park. It feels separated because you have a bustling Queen Street and then you go to the Viaduct and then it is like tumbleweed. (Auckland, other Aucklanders, female)

The area is fresh, relaxing and it is also kind of quiet and not that much happening. That being said it is actually my favourite place in Auckland and I think it is the nicest new development that has happened in the last 10 years or so. (Auckland, local residents, female)

Vibrant. I just think there will be more people and more excitement about something and night time I picture colourful lights. (Auckland, local residents, female)

This area is relaxed and has the potential to be vibrant, if it had an event on it would be, just not today. But that is OK. That is what we want from the area today. (Visitor to the area, female)

It’s alive. Everyone walks so fast in the city, they are all busy, they have somewhere to be. Here people look and take things in. (Visitors to the area, male)

Another new attribute was ‘has hosted a good variety of appealing events’. A reasonable proportion of respondents agreed with this statement, and crucially relatively few disagreed. In other words, levels of agreement were being held back by the fact that many people had not yet experienced the events, not because they did not believe that such events were being held.

• 50% of local residents agreed with this statement, while only 14% disagreed.

• 60% of visitors to the area agreed, while 6% disagreed.

• 40% of other Aucklanders agreed and 15% disagreed.

I think it is really good when that person plays the piano, it reverberates around the whole place. (Auckland, local residents, male)

I think it might be down to people not knowing all the stuff that is down there. I, for one, would have gone down there a lot more if I had known all of the stuff that is being discussed now and I plan on going down there a lot now. (Auckland, local residents, female)

The qualitative research indicated that ‘events’ could be interpreted in different ways. Other Aucklanders tended to only be aware of big events like the Seafood Festival, Rally and Fashion Week. Local residents, on the other hand, tended to be aware both of these big events and also of the smaller events.

Hewlett Packard had put up a tent and you could go there and there was a café and you could get free wireless and photos taken and develop some of your photos for free. And then there has also been the Silo Cinema and they did an early evening one for families which was the Mad Hatters Alice in Wonderland so the Mad Hatters Tea Party and some actors were down there all set up and giving lollies out to the children. (Auckland, local residents, female)

They do some family things like there was a scootering activity, each Sunday four weeks running in Wynyard Quarter. (Auckland, local residents, female)

In this context, there were calls for the Wynyard Quarter to hold more small events. This included small concerts in the evenings and street markets.

It needs to be something that is attractive because it is the waterfront and it is open and free as I see it. The Seafood Festival and those sorts of things but as I argued earlier it should be on every Friday and Saturday night with an open space for people with or without some cover for young people, teenagers, 16 to 21. (Auckland, other Aucklanders, male)

During the World Cup I was down in Quay Street and there was a young lady from Canada and they had blocked off Quay Street and she was commanding their attention doing gymnastics and getting men to partake, it wasn’t a gig but it was a semi gymnastic performance and so you could have poetry readers, speakers, all sorts of things happening. (Auckland, other Aucklanders, male)

It was clear from a number of the comments about street markets that, as in several other contexts, respondents were using what happened on the Wellington Waterfront as a template for the Wynyard Quarter.

It has got the potential. You just have to compare Wellington, Wellington there is so much happening and there is great art and sculptures and events that happen and you feel great down there at night but during the day there is heaps going on as well. (Auckland, local residents, female)

The other new attribute was ‘a safe place to go at night’, which respondents in the qualitative research often felt they had to guess at because they had not actually been there at that sort of time. The Wynyard Quarter was often assumed to be safer at night than other parts of the central city because there were fewer people around and a less raucous night-life, but this was often based on speculation rather than actual experience.

If there was something happening there all the time it brings people in and I put it is not a safe place to go at night because if there is nothing happening it is quite bleak and deserted. You need to create it into an environment where there is always something happening and therefore there are all those people there and it is safe for people to be there and walk around. It is getting that balance right. (Auckland, other Aucklanders, female)

See from my point of view it is a safe place to go at night because there is nobody there. You have got the crime triangle which is offenders, location and victims, if there are no victims then there is no offenders so there is no crime. (Auckland, other Aucklanders, male)

I imagine that it would be a safe place at night. There are plenty of lights to make it well lit. (Visitor to the area, male)

I think it would be nice at night - there are no rough people. There are no dark alleys where they could commit crime so they don’t come. It’s very open. (Visitor to the area, male)

It’s the public who make it unsafe. Queen Street is full of young people drinking. If you have a lot of bars, that is what will happen. It will become an undesirable place. (Visitors to the area, female)

WYNYARD QUARTER ATTRIBUTES - TOTAL APPLIES

Using a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means it applies a lot and 5 means it does not apply at all, please tell me how much each of the following attributes apply to the Wynyard Quarter as it is now? Local residents (n=250) Visitors to the area (n=250) Other Aucklanders (n=1000) June 2012 Change since June 2012 Change since June 2012 Change since

% 2009 % 2009 % 2009 Has good open space for the public 72 +51 87 +48 57 +42 Gives public access to the water's edge 59 +28 77 +34 51 +30 A tourist destination 57 +36 68 +28 49 +35 A vibrant waterfront destination 56 N/A 74 N/A 43 N/A Features high quality urban design 51 +35 69 +48 39 +29 Has hosted a good variety of appealing events 50 N/A 60 N/A 40 N/A Good mix of activities in the area 44 +25 48 +31 34 +22 A safe place to go at night 38 N/A 41 N/A 30 N/A Good transport links 37 +15 41 +20 29 +14

Base: All respondents

WYNYARD QUARTER ATTRIBUTES

% TOTAL 1 TOTAL 5 NOT Applies a 2 APPLIES 3 4 Does not Unsure APPLY lot 1+2 apply at all 4+5 Local residents (n=250) 41 31 72 14 8 3 11 3 Has good open space for the public Visitors to the area (n=250) 56 31 87 9 3 1 4 - Other Aucklanders (n=1000) 25 32 57 19 8 3 11 12 Local residents (n=250) 31 28 59 18 9 8 17 6 Gives public access to the water's Visitors to the area (n=250) 45 32 77 12 7 1 8 3 edge Other Aucklanders (n=1000) 21 30 51 22 10 4 14 14 Local residents (n=250) 30 27 57 23 9 5 14 6 A tourist destination Visitors to the area (n=250) 32 36 68 25 5 2 7 - Other Aucklanders (n=1000) 17 32 49 21 11 7 18 12 Local residents (n=250) 24 32 56 25 12 3 15 4 A vibrant waterfront destination Visitors to the area (n=250) 36 38 74 16 7 2 9 1 Other Aucklanders (n=1000) 16 27 43 28 12 5 17 11 Local residents (n=250) 24 27 51 22 12 8 20 7 Features high quality urban design Visitors to the area (n=250) 32 37 69 17 7 5 12 2 Other Aucklanders (n=1000) 14 25 39 25 12 8 20 16

Base: All respondents

WYNYARD QUARTER ATTRIBUTES (Cont.)

% TOTAL 1 TOTAL 5 NOT Applies a 2 APPLIES 3 4 Does not Unsure APPLY lot 1+2 apply at all 4+5 Local residents (n=250) 18 32 50 24 12 2 14 12 Has hosted a good variety of Visitors to the area (n=250) 24 36 60 14 4 2 6 20 appealing events Other Aucklanders (n=1000) 11 29 40 28 10 5 15 18 Local residents (n=250) 16 28 44 28 12 6 18 10 Good mix of activities in the area Visitors to the area (n=250) 22 26 48 34 9 2 11 7 Other Aucklanders (n=1000) 9 25 34 32 14 6 20 15 Local residents (n=250) 13 25 38 16 10 7 17 29 A safe place to go at night Visitors to the area (n=250) 23 18 41 17 4 1 5 37 Other Aucklanders (n=1000) 11 19 30 20 12 7 19 31 Local residents (n=250) 17 20 37 21 18 9 27 15 Good transport links Visitors to the area (n=250) 21 20 41 24 11 5 16 19 Other Aucklanders (n=1000) 10 19 29 28 18 7 25 17

Base: All respondents (n=250)

Future plans for the Wynyard Quarter

6.1 General support for revitalisation

Progress on the revitalisation of the Wynyard Quarter has done little to reduce public pressure to improve the area further, and if anything has shored it up as Aucklanders have become more conscious of the benefits of the revitalisation. Whereas in 2009 many respondents instinctively assumed that the revitalised Wynyard Quarter would be quite similar to what is already on offer on the waterfront (e.g. the Viaduct), by 2012 those who have been to the area can appreciate that what is being done there is genuinely different.

Progress in the Wynyard Quarter has, as will be discussed, helped respondents feel more comfortable with the future plans and made them more prepared to wait to see the job done right. Given the progress since the previous study, it is not surprising to see that the numbers who believe the plans are caught up in indecision have dropped. At the same time, the fact that over a third of respondents agrees with this statement indicates that there is still a level of impatience about keeping the revitalisation going.

• 38% of local residents feel that the plans are caught up in red tape, down 12% since 2009.

• 33% of other Aucklanders agree with this statement, a drop of 17%.

• 28% of visitors to the area agree, the first time they have been asked this question.

There is still solid support for removing the bulk liquid tanks from the area as soon as possible.

• 63% of local residents want the tanks removed as soon as possible (down 1%), as do 54% of visitors to the area and 49% of other Aucklanders (down 12%).

• 53% of other Aucklanders who have been to the area at least once agree with this sentiment.

Similarly, the vast majority of respondents believe that it is important to open up more of the waterfront to public access.

• 88% of local residents agree with this (unchanged since 2009), as do 83% of visitors to the area and 72% of other Aucklanders (down 8%).

6.2 Support for the specific plans

Respondents in the focus groups were shown simple plans for the area and artists’ impressions, with participants in the quantitative surveys of other Aucklanders and visitors to the area were shown a shorter version of this. Respondents in the local resident telephone survey were given a short verbal description of the plans.

General public respondents expressed far fewer concerns about the revitalisation plans than they did in the 2009 study, and responses from stakeholders and local businesses also tended to be more positive than they had been. The combination of satisfaction with what has been done so far and dissatisfaction with a lot of what still remains has supported the underlying enthusiasm for action with greater faith that future developments will be done properly. In other words, because respondents like what they have seen so far, the concerns that the future plans will not live up to expectations expressed in the 2009 research are much less prominent in 2012.

The focus groups also clearly showed that those who already had several experiences of the Wynyard Quarter were much more confident about future developments than those who had been only once or not at all. Concerns about building heights, for example, came up in the other Aucklanders group but not in the two groups with local residents, and when local residents were asked about building heights they found the issue easier to reconcile with what was currently in the area which made them feel more comfortable with the plans.

Respondents in the quantitative survey clearly liked what they saw in the plans.

• 89% of local residents (up 4%), 93% of visitors to the area and 77% of other Aucklanders (down 4%) said that they would be interested in visiting the area once it was redeveloped.

• 72% of local residents (up 14%), 72% of visitors to the area and 61% of other Aucklanders (down 2%) thought that the area offered something fresh which was not available in other parts of Auckland.

It is clear that experiencing of the revitalisation to date has more impact on support for the future plans than simply showing respondents the plans - in other words going to the area puts the plans much more in context and helps respondents to see that they genuinely do offer something different. The difference between local residents and other Aucklanders is therefore largely driven by the fact that local residents are more likely to have been to the area.

• 84% of other Aucklanders who have been to the area say that they would be interested in coming once it has been redeveloped, compared with 56% of other Aucklanders who have not visited.

• Similarly, 66% of other Aucklanders who have been to the area say that the plans offer something fresh, compared with 46% of other Aucklanders who have not been.

In line with this, those who have been to the area are more likely to believe that the revitalisation as a whole (both up until now and in the future) is a good use of ratepayers’ money. Although the numbers agreeing with this are not especially high, many others tend to be neutral on the issue and there are only fairly small numbers who believe that it is not a good use of ratepayers’ money.

• 69% of local residents think that the revitalisation is a good use of ratepayers’ money (up 11% since 2009), while only 11% believe that it is not.

• Amongst visitors to the area, 61% think that it is a good use of ratepayers’ money and 10% believe it is not.

• 42% of all other Aucklanders believe it is a good use of ratepayers’ money (unchanged since 2009) while 19% think that it is not.

• 45% of other Aucklanders who have been to the area think that the future plans would be a good use of ratepayers’ money, compared with 30% of those who have not been to the area.

Similarly, although the proportion of respondents who say they are comfortable with the planned mix of residential and business areas is only moderate, relatively few say they are uncomfortable with those plans.

• 56% of local residents say that they are comfortable with the planned mix (up 9% since 2009), while 15% are uncomfortable.

• 61% of visitors to the area are comfortable with the planned mix, with 9% being uncomfortable.

• 44% of other Aucklanders are comfortable with the planned mix, while 9% are uncomfortable.

• 48% of other Aucklanders who have been to the area are comfortable with the planned mix, compared with 33% of those who have not been.

There continues to be solid support for the marine and fishing industries staying in the area.

• 79% of local residents think this is important (up 3%), as do 75% of visitors to the area and 56% of other Aucklanders (down 6%).

In line with the higher numbers saying that the area has good transport links, there has been a marked increase in the proportion of Aucklanders who believe that it is reasonable to expect a high proportion of people to arrive in the area by public transport. As noted earlier, this is as much an indication of improving perceptions of the wider Auckland public transport system as it is an endorsement of the Wynyard Quarter plans themselves (with Te Wero bridge clearly an important factor).

• The proportion of local residents who think this is reasonable has risen 9% to 74%, while there has been a 22% increase in the proportion of other Aucklanders who agree with this suggestion (now 69%).

• 73% of visitors to the area think it is reasonable to expect a high proportion of people to arrive in the area by public transport.

WYNYARD QUARTER STATEMENT TESTING - TOTAL AGREE

As you may be aware, the plans for the Wynyard Quarter include lots of new public spaces and parks, new restaurants and cafes, apartments and offices and new facilities for the marine industry. The area is already linked to the Viaduct and Quay Street by an opening bridge, and will be linked to Victoria Park by a wide green boulevard. The fishmarket will stay and there will be a large park on the end of the Point.

(n=250) (n=250) (n=1000) June Change June Change June Change 2012 since 2012 since 2012 since % 2009 % 2009 % 2009 I would be interested in the visiting the 89 4 93 N/A 77 -4 area It's really important to open up more 88 - 83 N/A 72 -8 of the waterfront to public access It's important that the marine and fishing industries are able to stay in the 79 3 75 N/A 56 -6 area I need to know more about what the redevelopment will mean for local 75 - N/A N/A N/A residents It's reasonable to expect a high proportion of people to arrive in the 74 9 73 N/A 69 +22 area by public transport The people behind the redevelopment need to make more effort to ensure 74 2 62 N/A N/A N/A the concerns of local residents are taken into account The current plans offer something fresh which isn't available in other 72 14 72 N/A 61 -2 parts of Auckland The redevelopment is a good use of 69 11 61 N/A 42 - ratepayers money The bulk liquid storage tanks should be removed from the area as soon as 63 -1 54 N/A 49 -12 possible I am comfortable with the mix of 56 9 61 N/A 44 -4 residential and business areas planned The plans seem to be caught up in red 38 -12 28 N/A 33 -17 tape and indecision

Base: All respondents *Base: Those who have been to the Wynyard Quarter in the past year

WYNYARD QUARTER STATEMENT TESTING

% 1 TOTAL 5 TOTAL Strongly 2 AGREE 3 4 Strongly DISAGREE Unsure agree 1+2 disagree 4+5 Local residents (n=250) 71 18 89 7 2 1 3 1 I would be interested in the visiting the Visitors to the area (n=250) 73 20 93 5 1 1 2 - area Other Aucklanders (n=1000) 36 41 77 15 4 2 6 2 Local residents (n=250) 68 20 88 7 2 2 4 1 It's really important to open up more of Visitors to the area (n=250) 59 24 83 11 3 2 5 1 the waterfront to public access Other Aucklanders (n=1000) 40 32 72 16 8 2 10 2 It's important that the marine and Local residents (n=250) 55 24 79 12 4 4 8 1 fishing industries are able to stay in the Visitors to the area (n=250) 51 24 75 15 7 1 8 2 area Other Aucklanders (n=1000) 24 32 56 23 13 4 17 4 I need to know more about what the Local residents (n=250) 53 22 75 14 6 3 9 2 redevelopment will mean for local Visitors to the area (n=250) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A residents Other Aucklanders (n=1000) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A It's reasonable to expect a high Local residents (n=250) 41 33 74 16 5 3 8 2 proportion of people to arrive in the Visitors to the area (n=250) 46 27 73 18 7 - 7 2 area by public transport Other Aucklanders (n=1000) 31 38 69 19 7 3 10 2 Base: All respondents *Base: Those who have been to the Wynyard Quarter in the last year

WYNYARD QUARTER STATEMENT TESTING

% 1 TOTAL 5 TOTAL Strongly 2 AGREE 3 4 Strongly DISAGREE Unsure agree 1+2 disagree 4+5 The people behind the Local residents (n=250) 52 22 74 14 6 3 9 3 redevelopment need to make more Visitors to the area (n=250) 40 22 62 22 4 1 5 11 effort to ensure the concerns of local residents are taken into Other Aucklanders (n=1000) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A account The current plans offer something Local residents (n=250) 40 32 72 15 3 4 7 6 fresh which isn't available in other Visitors to the area (n=250) 45 27 72 11 1 2 3 14 parts of Auckland Other Aucklanders (n=1000) 24 37 61 23 5 2 7 8 Local residents (n=250) 42 27 69 18 6 5 11 2 The redevelopment is a good use of Visitors to the area (n=250) 32 29 61 21 5 5 10 8 ratepayers money Other Aucklanders (n=1000) 14 28 42 34 11 8 19 5 The bulk liquid storage tanks should Local residents (n=250) 47 16 63 16 8 9 17 4 be removed from the area as soon Visitors to the area (n=250) 40 14 54 18 12 13 25 3 as possible Other Aucklanders (n=1000) 30 19 49 22 12 8 20 8 I am comfortable with the mix of Local residents (n=250) 30 26 56 15 8 7 15 14 residential and business areas Visitors to the area (n=250) 35 26 61 16 4 5 9 14 planned Other Aucklanders (n=1000) 13 31 44 32 6 3 9 15 Local residents (n=250) 22 16 38 24 11 2 13 25 The plans seem to be caught up in Visitors to the area (n=250) 16 12 28 16 9 4 13 43 red tape and indecision Other Aucklanders (n=1000) 15 18 33 24 9 3 12 31

Base: All respondents

6.3 Information

Local residents remain particularly keen to find out more about the revitalisation.

• 75% of local residents feel that they need to know more about what the redevelopment will mean for local residents, unchanged since 209.

• 74% of local residents believe that the people behind the redevelopment need to make more effort to ensure that the concerns of local residents are taken into account, up 2% since 2009.

Although the proportions agreeing with these suggestions remain fairly high, the qualitative research made it clear that much of the heat has gone out of these calls. Whereas in 2009 there were often indications of frustration with the lack of information, respondents in the 2012 local resident focus groups actually wanted information more out of curiosity than anything else. In other words, they still wanted to know but it was more in the spirit of being kept informed than being worried about what the revitalisation might mean for them.

In line with this, a solid majority of respondents in both the local resident and other Aucklander quantitative surveys said that they would be interested in finding out more information, with local residents being particularly enthusiastic.

• 84% of local residents said that they would be interested in receiving information, including 52% who were very interested.

• The proportion of other Aucklanders interested in receiving information was only a little bit smaller (71%) than for local residents, but the proportion who were very interested was much lower (18%).

INTEREST IN RECEIVING INFORMATION ON WYNYARD QUARTER PROGRESS

Would you be very interested, fairly interested, not that interested or not at all interested in receiving information on the progress of redeveloping the Wynyard Quarter? Local residents (n=250) Other Aucklanders (n=1000) June 2012 Change since June 2012 Change since

% 2009 % 2009 Very interested 52 +6 18 -5 Fairly interested 32 +3 54 +2 TOTAL INTERESTED 84 +9 71 -4 Not that interested 10 -6 23 +2 Not at all interested 5 -4 5 +3 TOTAL NOT INTERESTED 15 -10 29 +6 I don’t really know 1 +1 - -2

Base: All respondents

Future plans for the Auckland Waterfront

Testing of future plans for the Wynyard Quarter and other parts of the Auckland Waterfront amongst the general public showed that they often regard improving public facilities as a higher priority to specific improvements designed to help business. As all the developments tested are part of the Waterfront Plan anyway, the value of gauging public opinion on them is not in deciding which should or should not go ahead, but in directing communications about new initiatives

• The numbers suggest, for example, that Aucklanders as a whole will get much more excited about plans for a walkway and cycleway along the waterfront than they would get about new heavy-lifting equipment for super yachts.

• At the same time, few respondents believed that funding should not be put into heavy-lifting equipment (based of course on this description alone).

• Communications to the general public about the benefits of developing the waterfront should logically focus more on plans for a walkway and cycleway than on the heavy-lifting equipment.

The quantitative surveys evaluated six options, according to whether respondents believed they should be ‘done now’, ‘done soon’, ‘can wait’ or ‘shouldn’t be done’.

• 59% of local residents thought that the walkway and cycleway along the city centre waterfront should be done now, as did 52% of other Aucklanders.

• 38% of local residents and 38% of other Aucklanders thought that the refurbishment and modernisation of Queens Wharf qualified as a ‘do now’.

• 35% of local residents and 36% of other Aucklanders said that the tram/light rail link from the CBD to the Wynyard Quarter was a ‘do now’.

• 34% of local residents and 31% of other Aucklanders believe that the ferry links were a major priority and should be done now.

• 20% of local residents and 14% of other Aucklanders regard the Wynyard Quarter innovation precinct as a ‘do now’.

• 15% of local residents and 13% of other Aucklanders think that funding the lifting equipment is a ‘do now’.

The qualitative research indicated that the generally lukewarm support for the innovation precinct reflected the fact that respondents generally did not know how this would work in practice and did not instinctively see huge benefits in the proposal. They found it hard to see significant reasons why innovative businesses would choose the Wynyard Quarter over other parts of Auckland, particularly because such businesses have no obvious connection with the sea (respondents felt that this was a key distinguishing feature of the Wynyard Quarter). Similarly, they did not really believe that innovative businesses offered significantly greater economic benefits than other businesses to people like them.

PLANS TO IMPROVE THE CITY CENTRE WATERFRONT

I'm going to read you a list of plans to improve the city centre waterfront. For each of them, please tell me whether you think it is something that is a major priority and should be done right now, something that is a lower priority but should be done soon, something that is a lower priority and can wait, or something that shouldn't be done: June 2012

% Done now Done soon Can wait Shouldn’t do Unsure Local residents 59 28 11 2 - Walkway and cycleway along the (n=250) Auckland city centre waterfront Other Aucklanders 52 26 19 3 - (n=1000) Local residents Refurbishing and modernising 38 30 22 8 2 (n=250) Queens Wharf into a permanent Other Aucklanders facility for cruise ships and events 38 37 22 3 - (n=1000) Local residents 35 24 28 12 1 Linking the CBD to the Wynyard (n=250) Quarter by tram or light-rail Other Aucklanders 36 33 25 6 - (n=1000) Local residents 34 33 24 4 5 Improving ferry links to places like (n=250) Hobsonville and Half Moon Bay Other Aucklanders 31 42 25 2 - (n=1000) Building an innovation precinct to Local residents 20 24 36 14 6 attract innovative ICT and digital (n=250) media businesses to the Wynyard Other Aucklanders 14 33 43 10 - Quarter (n=1000) Supporting the growth of the marine Local residents 15 27 38 13 7 industry by helping to fund new (n=250) heavy-lifting equipment for refitting Other Aucklanders 13 33 39 15 - and maintaining super yachts (n=1000) Base: All respondents

Although the quantitative survey shows that only a minority of Aucklanders see modernising Queens Wharf as a major priority which should be done as soon as possible, a clear majority of Aucklanders believe that a permanent cruise ship facility is vital to the long-term prospects of Auckland’s tourism industry.

• 71% of local residents see the cruise ship facility as vital, as do 76% of other Aucklanders.

The contrast between these two numbers and findings from the qualitative research shows that support for a cruise ship facility at Queens Wharf is not particularly deep. Respondents in the qualitative research could see that such a facility would be good, but had questions about exactly what benefits it would actually bring. They questioned, for example, whether it was necessary to have a state-of-the-art facility, or whether a terminal which looked good and was functional was sufficient.

Support for modernising Queens Wharf solidified when respondents were reminded that it would also be an events centre. At the same time, many questioned whether another events centre should be seen as a major priority given the other events facilities already available in the central city (including the Viaduct Events Centre).

IMPORTANCE OF CRUISE SHIP FACILITY

Do you think that having a permanent cruise ship facility at Queens Wharf is vital to the long-term prospects of Auckland's tourism industry, or will it have little impact? Local residents Other Aucklanders

(n=250) (n=1000) June 2012 June 2012

% % Yes, it’s vital 71 76 No, it’s not 23 19 Unsure 6 5

Base: All respondents

Waterfront Auckland

Declared knowledge of Waterfront Auckland was low, with only 48% of local residents and 35% of other Aucklanders saying that they had heard of the organisation.

• 50% of other Aucklanders who had been to the Wynyard Quarter at least five times claimed to have heard of Waterfront Auckland, compared with just 21% of other Aucklanders who had not been to the area.

Even many of those who claimed to have heard of Waterfront Auckland often found it difficult to express a strong opinion about the organisation. Respondents were more likely to be positive than negative about Waterfront Auckland, but relatively few were at the extremes and they were reasonably likely to say they did not know enough to comment.

• 45% of local residents who had heard of Waterfront Auckland viewed the organisation favourably, while 21% had unfavourable opinions of the organisation.

• The equivalent numbers amongst other Aucklanders who had heard of Waterfront Auckland were 64% favourable, 21% unfavourable.

AWARENESS OF WATERFRONT AUCKLAND

Have you heard of Waterfront Auckland, the council controlled organisation responsible for the redevelopment of the city centre waterfront? Local residents Other Aucklanders

(n=250) (n=1000) June 2012 June 2012

% % Yes 48 35 No / unsure 52 65 Base: All respondents

OPINION OF WATERFRONT AUCKLAND

Do you have a very favourable, somewhat favourable, somewhat unfavourable or very unfavourable view of Waterfront Auckland? If you do not know enough about it, just say so. Local residents Other Aucklanders

(n=120) (n=354) June 2012 June 2012

% % Very favourable 8 11 Somewhat favourable 39 53 TOTAL FAVOURABLE 45 64 Somewhat unfavourable 17 20 Very unfavourable 4 3 TOTAL FAVOURABLE 21 21 Do not know enough / Unsure 32 14 Base: Those who have heard of Waterfront Auckland 45

Local businesses and other stakeholders

9.1 Relationships

Respondents in this section of the research generally reported that they had good relationships with Waterfront Auckland. Although respondents did not believe that this was a noticeable improvement on what the relationships had been like around two years ago, reactions did feel more positive than they were in the 2009 study and most respondents certainly believed that Waterfront Auckland was at least making an effort to improve all the time.

I think it is very good. Historically 3 or 4 years ago, and that was probably prior to Waterfront Auckland, it was more our relationship with our landlord, city council and I know they are two different entities but they are kind of the same, it is a little blurred. Our previous relationship with the city council was not good and that was more to do with the individual. [But since Waterfront Auckland has come about in the last few years or so you have seen an improvement?] Vast improvement. [Has your relationship changed at all over the last couple of years?] No in the last couple I would say not, as I said it was pre 2009 were the difficult times. (Local business)

The key determining factors of a good relationship in this case were:

• Willingness to consult.

• Willingness to listen.

• Being honest and up-front, which includes keeping promises.

• Showing a good understanding of where stakeholders and local businesses are coming from.

• Being prepared to change or give good reasons why changes cannot be made.

I thought they were quite responsive, very responsive in fact. Quite refreshing to deal with. Sometimes you deal with certain council departments and they can be quite staid in their ways and I thought they were very quick and responsive to deal with our requests and they understood the requirements from us. (Local business)

They listened to what we needed, understood what we needed and then actually did something about it. I think relationship wise it is all the usual bullshit words you hear, trust, honesty, integrity etc. But in this instance they are not really bullshit they are true. They said they would build a bridge across Te Wero Island and there were certain people who were sceptical about whether they would build that bridge or not so they said “hey look if we don’t build that bridge we will knock $X off your land purchase price”. They were committed to the stuff and they made it work. (Key stakeholder) 46

Approachable. I think they are extremely approachable, those two individuals and you generally judge organisations by the people you deal with, so they are approachable. And I would have to say I think they are pretty innovative. I think they have done a lot about making the most of the destination down here. (Key stakeholder)

Attributes of Waterfront Auckland representatives also contributed to these positive perceptions. Key attributes included:

• Staff who were knowledgeable.

• Staff who understood the realities of business.

They are an unusual organisation and whilst they are a CCO of Council they have a commercial acumen about them, so it is not dissimilar to dealing with another private entity. They are as commercial as they possibly can be without giving away the family silver or the ratepayers invested value. (Key stakeholder)

As will be discussed, respondents were generally pleased with the way the developments had been conducted to date, and, as was the case with the general public, positive perceptions of developments to date helped to build support for future developments and, in this case, to build faith in Waterfront Auckland’s expertise. Similarly, the fact that promises have been kept in the development process to date helps respondents to feel that they have a good relationship with Waterfront Auckland.

On the other hand, respondents who believed that they did not have a good relationship with Waterfront Auckland often felt that they had fallen short on one or more of the factors above. Those who believed that they had poor relationships with Waterfront Auckland often felt that they had not been contacted frequently enough or that the consultation had not resulted in any noticeable changes (which they took as evidence that their concerns had not been listened to).

They bled us for a lot of information, and then used our intellectual property for their new developments. The council play one off against the other. (Key stakeholder)

A few others felt that the feedback they had received from Waterfront Auckland was inconsistent and therefore that it was hard to know exactly what the official position was.

Generally I think in their relationships with us they have been positive and well intentioned. However, I think that their processes are somewhat confused and sometimes that hasn’t particularly mattered, it has been a bit messy but we have got there, but you can see there is a big risk there that because they are such a big organisation with so many people doing so many different things and their processes have been confused. (Key stakeholder)

Respondents often argued that their relationships with Waterfront Auckland were much more positive than they would expect from relationships with local authorities. As will be discussed, this indicated that while Waterfront Auckland was a Council Controlled Organisation, it was not seen as being a ‘Council-type organisation’. Instead, most perceived Waterfront Auckland staff to be business savvy and reasonably efficient, attributes which they both commended and found better to work with. 47

They are a very good organisation. One of the few council bodies that actually delivers anything. Whether you agree with what they deliver is another matter. We have been pretty close to them. They have been very, very successful I think in handling a balance of the council meddling which is very disruptive and mostly nonsensical, just crazy stuff. Just total interference. They have got a plan and every now and then they get derailed on their plan because of some stupidity with one of the councillors but they balance that and handle that really, really well. And they usually come out with a reasonably balanced outcome and they get an outcome actually. (Key stakeholder)

Feedback on negotiations was mostly positive, with most respondents saying that, when they had raised issues on Waterfront Auckland’s plans, these had been consistently listened to. In almost all of these cases they felt that their concerns had either been taken into account in revisions to the plans, or that they had been given a clear and reasonable expectation why the requested changes could not be made and offered some sort of support in terms of dealing with parts of the plans which adversely affected them.

There was a risk assessment done, their process through all of that was very professional and they coordinated it well, they listened to what we had to say and ultimately I feel we are in a phase now of just getting on with business. (Key stakeholder)

During the Rugby World Cup someone comes up with this brilliant idea that we will put a cruise shop on to Wynyard Wharf and the risk management plan specifically says do not ever do that. And, of course, councillors and things just ignore that, without telling the port, yes bring it in and you see the thing steaming up the harbour and you say where is that going. But that is the problem that they have. Then I ring them and they say shit we don’t know anything about it either and it is our wharf. And then they deal with the issue so those sorts of things have been really good. (Local business)

I suppose it often comes down to the individual, he is open, receptive to comments, acts on any complaints or issues we might have, so I suppose just down to that individual and their communication style and their willingness to come and listen when we do have complaints or issues. For example, when [construction work being done which was noisy and severely disrupted their business - further info would identify respondent], we called up Rick and said this is ridiculous, happy to have an hour in the morning or at night but not through the whole day, either that or you have to reduce significantly our rent. So they came out and got the guys to do it in the weekends or after hours. It wasn’t just noise. And he is caught in the middle, he has got the developer and the resource consents to be able to do it and we are on the other side. (Local business)

9.2 Quality of communication and consultation

In line with the mostly positive feedback about their relationships with Waterfront Auckland, most thought that Waterfront Auckland communicated and consulted fairly well. Satisfaction with communication and consultation was closely (although not exclusively) related to organisation size.

• Larger organisations often reported that they heard quite a lot from Waterfront Auckland and were consulted on all the occasions they might reasonably expect to be.

I don’t have a criticism with the Waterfront Agency, they have been pretty good, they have kept us informed right throughout the process and when we were in our prior lease negotiations there was no surprise. They have been up front so I have no criticism. (Local business)

There has been a reasonable amount of consultation and we did submit on those plans so I think we have made views known. [Were those views listened to do you think?] I guess the proof would be in the pudding, there hasn’t been a hell of a lot happen really. (Key stakeholder)

It is a good relationship. [What has been handled well?] Just the continuous communication. Often what happens if you do these things is that we have got a set of agreements, for instance, there is an overarching risk management which has been developed by outside consultants which were all part of our renew of our lease and the planning process and so on and so forth and within that there is a lot of requirements on both parties to communicate with each other. Normally what happens is people change in organisations and councils and they just forget about it and next thing you know they are putting a bulldozer through your fence because no one ever looks at it. But these guys are not like that. They understand in actual fact that not only is there risk that needs to be managed down there but they are actually liable as well as we are if they screw up. (Local business)

As part of resource consent we had to agree so we had a presentation of all of the drawings of the project because we were obviously a notifiable neighbour so we had to write a letter that we approved and consented to the development. So through that process there we were kept informed of what is happening and the project time line, when it was going to be built, impact on the area and so on … [So basically the way this has come up is what has been done there is no surprise?] No. I have got no criticism at all. I think they have handled the communication aspect reasonably well. Particularly again if there are again events coming on in the area or activities we always get notified of those. (Local business)

• Smaller organisations, on the other hand, often reported that direct contact with Waterfront Auckland was rare and that they did not feel that they had really been consulted on any of the decisions that might affect them. These organisations often felt like they were ‘told’ things rather than being genuinely consulted.

It would be nice to know what the plans are. We only seem to get emails notifying us of events and roads being closed and immediate inconvenience for us. But we are not kept up-to-date with progress on plans for construction or the time frames they are working to or anything like that. (Local business)

Somebody had been to a meeting this week about this area that we are in to discuss it turning into some sort of technical hub. See that is news to me and given that we are right in the heart of it, it is of interest. So things like that we are not informed about. That would be nice to know even if it is just draft ideas when they get to a certain stage it would be nice to have some information. (Local business)

While these smaller organisations were somewhat disgruntled with this situation, this was not to suggest that they had unrealistic expectations of how much and how often they would be consulted or that they over-estimated their own importance. They generally accepted that they were small players in the scheme of things, but nonetheless pointed out that the changes were often very important to their livelihood, so hoped that Waterfront Auckland would recognise this. The distinction here may well be between expecting local business representatives to attend big meetings, which respondents often felt tended to be dominated by a minority of attendees, and being visited for a quick chat on an infrequent basis by a Waterfront Auckland representative - the evidence suggests that any meeting would be remembered for a long time and valued, so it may be that a short meeting even once every couple of years would be sufficient as long as there was some sort of direct feedback on any concerns raised.

Thinking about this more broadly, one-on-one meetings were clearly very important in as far as they are practical. Part of this is ‘putting a face to a name’ - those who felt that they had been consulted well were often able to cite a specific person (or persons) who they believed they had a particularly good relationship with.

We specifically deal with Richard Aitken he is their manager of property assets. He has been fantastic to be honest, really, really helpful, a major facilitator of our deal and I think without him we possibly wouldn’t have got to where we got to in terms of the deal. That is not to say that behind him there isn’t a myriad of other people and they have been bloody good as well actually. (Key stakeholder)

Six weeks ago I had a catch-up meeting with them to see what was happening in the area and further around our ongoing six month notice and it works either way. [That was a one on one type meeting?] Yes it was one on one. Rick Thompson is my contact there and he has been very good at keeping us informed. (Local business)

One-on-one meetings were also seen as more effective than group meetings because there was more of an opportunity for a two-way discussion, which meant that respondents could raise their concerns and ask any questions they might have. Several argued that group meetings tended to come across as an ‘opportunity to listen to Waterfront Auckland’ rather than as an opportunity to share views (which could be as much a function of the format as of the way the meetings themselves were conducted).

Some argued that consultation had not always been as consistent as it should have been, in terms of it sometimes being regular and sometimes being sporadic. These respondents wanted the consultation process to be more systematic and even.

So it has been a little bit piecemeal, it has been a little bit relationship forming and relationship progressing on the fly rather than there being any agreed to plan about how this is going to go and at times the communication has been quite close and effective and then at times things have drifted for awhile and I am sure there is stuff happening all the time. So it is that feeling that things are a bit hit and miss. When it works well it works well but it is often on the strength more of the personal relationship that has been formed with a particular person managing the project and leading the project rather than there being a great process that everyone knows is being followed. (Key stakeholder)

9.3 Shift to Waterfront Auckland

None of the respondents in these interviews believed that the shift from Sea + City to Waterfront Auckland had had any discernable impact on the relationship. It was seen as essentially a change in name only, as their contacts had mostly remained the same and [to most] the organisation’s modus operandi seemed to be identical.

It’s the same people. [But were you aware their scope has changed?] Yes that is true but we have a contact with them if you like, our lease is a contract and so they can change their scope of operation but at the end of the day we have a contract that we have to do certain things and certainly they have to do certain things for us. [So it doesn’t really affect you?] No we have just got to keep monitoring and working and trying to make sure that any changes we can fit in with or manage around. (Key stakeholder)

The transition was just a name change as far as we were concerned. Essentially the same people are there that I have been talking to and no doubt or possibly in other areas that may not be the case but for me and us no it is the same people. (Key stakeholder)

Only one respondent, who had worked closely with both organisations, thought that the shift had helped Waterfront Auckland operate more efficiently.

They were Auckland Waterfront Development Agency, then Sea + City then Waterfront Auckland. So you can see the difference in that ownership as well, when they were owned by Auckland Regional Holdings Limited they were somewhat constrained and you could tell. I don’t know what went on behind the scenes but you knew that probably what they were promising was going to be challenging to deliver. They obviously pulled the right political levers and got done what they needed to get done. So there was a fair deal of bureaucracy sitting behind it. Come 1 November 2010 there was a bit of a sea change. And, of course, Waterfront Auckland’s influence widened as well. [So they are better able to make decisions?] Yes. I think truth be told they were probably making the decisions anyway and then worrying about how they would deal with that behind closed doors which they is the smart way to do. If that is what it takes to get stuff done so be it. (Key stakeholder)

From us on a day to day relationship perspective absolutely none. So it might have impacted them in getting their decisions approved and reporting to their superiors and that but as regards to us and our relationship with Rick Thompson and Sea + City and now Waterfront Agency no difference. [Their ownership has changed but it hasn’t changed their outlook and their approach?] I don’t think so no. It is not visible. The parts that we don’t see obviously have changed in getting their approvals and processes that they are having to deal with, they obviously will have changed but from our perspective minimal. (Local business)

Even though most could not see any change, it is worth noting that respondents were more likely to talk about Waterfront Auckland’s business acumen than they were in the last study, when Sea + City was sometimes seen as being beholden to the councils which (effectively) owned it and therefore subject to the same bureaucratic pressures which they associated with local authorities. That respondents only occasionally accused Waterfront Auckland of this in the 2012 study perhaps suggests that the shift in ownership has created more of a separation from the council in respondents’ minds.

The general public, as noted, often had little idea of what a council controlled organisation actually was, and there was also a sense of vagueness about how council controlled organisations operated even amongst stakeholders and local businesses. These respondents were more likely to know that Waterfront Auckland was a CCO, but were often sketchy on the boundaries of what CCOs could and could not do.

Waterfront Auckland’s broadened areas of control and influence were also seen as having negligible impact on relationships with stakeholders and local businesses. Indeed, if these respondents were aware of the broadened areas of control and influence they were seldom at the top of their minds. Certainly many did not even know that the scope had changed. Most respondents in this study focused primarily on their dealings with Waterfront Auckland vis a vis the Wynyard Quarter, and they felt that the fact that Waterfront Auckland was now also looking at other areas had not affected their ability to work well on Wynyard Quarter issues.

It has been broadened has it? They go right down going east with the development? [It includes Queens Wharf now.] I did see something. [You have seen it but gone that is not really relevant to me?] I think for some time there has been mailers coming through, emails and I am getting those, and they have a bit of an update. It is very much PR for the public, we are developing it and going to make nice spaces. (Key stakeholder)

I would have thought Sea + City was more focused just on Westhaven whereas Waterfront Auckland appears to be more like I said from here to Okahu Bay. So from my point of view really nothing has changed because I am really focused on this area here. (Auckland, business, male)

9.4 Support for developments to date

Most stakeholders and representatives of local businesses were very positive with what had been done in the Wynyard Quarter to date. Respondents generally either believed that the developments had lived up to their expectations or that their expectations had been exceeded.

I think it is really good. From my point of view it is an interesting place because they have finally maintained the mix of industrial activity like the water front, the fishing boats, us, ships moving in and out off the berth with us, plus the recreation of the restaurants of the people and so when you are sitting there it is not a sterile environment it is a really interesting active environment. And I think that is a nice mix. The Auckland Regional Council or whoever the hell it was, their desire was to get all the marine waterfront activities out of there, all the super yacht activities and us and put apartments - that was originally going back 10 or 12 years where they started. It was just nuts, completely ignorant and I think what they have got at the moment down there is a really good blend. (Key stakeholder)

From a personal perspective I think it is amazing what they have done. The flow, the open space, it is a great space for kids, I have got a young daughter - to play. Initially it seemed quite stark but as the landscape is established and I went down there last week, it is really starting to flourish the landscaping there and it is looking great to be honest. [What are you seeing that is making it flourish?] Shops are coming in there, the restaurants are starting to get a little bit of a buzz, the fish market is probably in one of the best shapes I have seen it to be honest, the outdoor area they have put in there, it is a real magnet now. I don’t know what their plans are for retail there but something more like a retail arm might be beneficial. The Te Wero bridge, the link to the waterfront to the city is great. So quick now to get to anywhere. (Local business)

Having seen what has happened to the North Wharf area and how that has been developed I have got high confidence the whole area is going to be spectacular in 10 years time. Whether that be the commercial parts or the recreational or the industrial portions or the residential I believe too. I think the whole area is going to be spectacular. (Local business)

I think they have made great advances. I think they have attracted a lot of activity down here. I don’t know if this goes back to the last question or this one but I think they need to be a little bit more accommodating on things like advertising and promotion because it is only so good for us to be in a location like this if we can make the most of the exposure so I am talking about signage and advertising hoardings. There needs to be a bit more of that around the place in my opinion. So that is probably some of the things they haven’t done as well as what they could have. But overall if I was giving them a score out of 10 I would probably say a 7 or 8 out of 10 for their efforts. (Local business)

It’s exceeded expectations in terms of the urban design and the look and feel. There are a lot more families coming in because of the park and the water feature. (Key stakeholder)

A critical part of this satisfaction was the fulfilment of trust.

They have sold us a vision 3 or 4 years ago of what they were going to do down there and without exception they have delivered on that. Everything they have said they were going to do they have done and I think they have done a good job of it as well. So whether that be the Gateway Plaza, the marine events centre, the landscaping in Jellicoe Street, Silo Park, all those elements that make up the Wynyard Quarter to date and the North Wharf have been well done. (Key stakeholder)

These positive comments were largely driven by a feeling that the revitalisation was a good and necessary step forward for Auckland, and were frequently based on the same general enthusiasm for improving public access to the waterfront and improving the appearance of the area which had underpinned support amongst the general public. Several local business representatives argued, for example, that they liked the improvements as Aucklanders, even though there were aspects of them that were not particularly positive for their businesses.

It is achieving many of the things that Waterfront Auckland was looking to do and I feel were good things identified in the Waterfront plan and certainly things that we would support and I think that Aucklanders support them. [What are the sorts of things?] Accessible waterfront in a way that the waterfront historically hadn’t been. It is attractive to visit and use, vibrant, fun, it is all of those things that it was set out to be. (Key stakeholder)

As with the general public, the main aspect of the revitalisation which was seen as having gone awry was the tram, which stakeholder and local business respondents similarly criticised for being under- utilised and going nowhere. Amongst the small number who was inclined to take a negative view of Waterfront Auckland, the tram sometimes served as a symbol of how idealism had sometimes triumphed over common sense. It was again apparent that these criticisms would ease once the tram is connected to destinations outside the Wynyard Quarter.

The tram is just simply crazy. Firstly it is never going to be used, it just doesn’t go anywhere and now the council is defending it saying we don’t need people there it just looks nice the tram going around and around in circles. It was a political expediency to keep people happy. I just don’t think it adds enough value, it is disruptive to traffic and because it is disruptive to traffic it comes a hazard and it is a complete waste of taxpayers’ money. (Key stakeholder)

I mean look at that thing. It just sits there all day going nowhere. (Key stakeholder)

As a taxpayer I would question the tram, again that is personal comment. [A few people have mentioned that, is that a sign they have been a bit unrealistic?] Two views if you like, one is that it is quite good, no issue about the tram concept but it doesn’t go anywhere, it is an awful lot of money going around an industrial wasteland which is going to be a construction site for the next 5 - 10 years. They would be far better putting the money in and trying to do a link-up between here and Britomart and downtown rather than just looping around an industrial wasteland. [My understanding is they are going to link up.] The argument was we had to do that as a trial but in my opinion that money could have been spent better.

Particularly when they put that tram in and now they are having to redo the alignment of Daldy Street. That is just money being thrown away. (Local business)

Several cited the ASB Building as an excellent indicator of the area’s success. This partly related to the fact that ASB had agreed to come, which was a definite vote of confidence in the Wynyard Quarter. Having such a business in the area was also recognised as an important part of its long- term success, because of the people it would bring in and the consequent benefits for local businesses.

Put ASB up there and it is a powerful brand. There is probably not a better covenant in Auckland, even in New Zealand to have. They are local, yes they are sort of Aussie owned but they still have a local enough connection. Blue Chip, great balance sheet, part of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, one of the best banks in the world right now. And, of course, that is going to be transformational for them, put aside the GFC, if we had not had a GFC there would be others down there right now. This is a mini Docklands in Melbourne. It is a fairly sizeable investment in a relatively unproven location. But you have to do your anchor deal. (Key stakeholder)

The quote below talks about the reasons why ASB came to the area, along with the importance of Te Wero Bridge to the overall concept of the area.

Britomart to the new ASB building is exactly the same distance from Britomart to the existing ASB building in walking distance, almost to the metre. So that was an easy sell for the staff, it is an easier walk, a flat walk. It is not the best walk in July August when it is raining so you are going to need a brolly, there isn’t so much cover but it was very, very important … It would be hard to imagine not having the bridge there. (Key stakeholder)

There were a number of other comments about the importance of Te Wero Bridge to the area’s success.

The bridge has transformed the area. The speed it can operate is good too - it’s no impediment to yachts coming in and out. (Key stakeholder)

The fact that ASB had agreed to come to the area was also a testament to the effectiveness of Waterfront Auckland’s team, in that it showed that they were capable of negotiating such big and important deals.

Despite negative comments in the media, these respondents were generally happy enough with the design and location of the ASB Building. There were a few comments that perhaps it was too tall for a building that close to the water’s edge, but these comments were not made with significant intensity.

I am supportive of the emphasis being on the leisure and the green zone and I think they have a plan for the vegetation rather than construction on the water front. However, having seen how ASB has popped up like that and the building next to it you wonder whether or not they are just going to continue that along and block the waterfront view again as they have downtown. (Local business)

Personally I am surprised they allowed a building the size of that ASB on that block there, if it was me as a planner I would have had that as a three storey only and set that higher one back a block, so I am very surprised they caved in or were allowed to build that height building on the waterfront there. (Local business)

Impacts on local business to date were mixed, with those who believed that the changes had been negative for their business slightly outnumbering those who thought they were positive. Those who believed the revitalisation had had a negative impact on their businesses often accepted that this was an inevitable part of progress, and felt that Waterfront Auckland had done most if not all of what it could to alleviate these impacts.

It’s improved client perceptions of the area - they’re now going away and telling our story for us. (Key stakeholder)

Many of the positive and negative impacts centred on increased numbers of people coming to the area.

• Some had gained customers from the increased foot-traffic.

• Others felt that the increased numbers of people coming to the area had reduced the availability of parking for their own customers, which potentially meant that their customers would go elsewhere. These respondents (often in the marine sector) did not believe that the types of people attracted by the new Wynyard Quarter were the sorts of people who would buy much from their business.

• Similarly, increased numbers of people using the area meant that it could be more difficult to get trucks in and out.

With the increasing commercialization of this area it became more and more difficult for customers to park, so parking became a real issue, before they were able to whizz down and park on either side of the road. It would have been a lot harder for them to do that now with the opening of the restaurants and other activity around here. (Local business)

There is obviously more people, especially in the weekends as well this area would have been quite devoid of people on the weekend previous to that. Now there is quite a vibe, quite a busy little place. I guess one of the negatives I have seen personally is perhaps the traffic management, especially for pedestrians on this area here. You are competing with some of the port traffic, you are competing with people going to Wynyard Quarter, you are competing with the office traffic as well. And also the tram. Whether there is scope to put some more crossings in because it can be quite dangerous. (Local business)

Just because another 40,000 people come down here on the weekends, that doesn’t add to our business. (Key stakeholder)

We don’t have to walk past traffic so we are not picking that up. It is particular items, if we sell another two sets of mega yacht sales a year that will increase our turnover by 20%. [How many of these massive sales would you sell a year to make the business work?] If these big boats need full replacement they can be up for a million dollars a sail. It is not as bad as the boat builders because they get a job and then nothing, we at least have that trickle through. (Local business)

It is probably the parking issues, not so much for us because we pay for our own car parks here but for our clients. Already they struggle to find a place to pull up here and park. With increased pedestrian activity there is also the problem with rubbish. We do seem to have a bit more rubbish now outside and the council doesn’t clean up here unless there is a World Cup so the streets don’t get cleaned that is up to us to pick up the rubbish in the morning that has been left certainly after the weekends. (Local business)

On the practicalities of working here - it is probably the parking issues, not so much for us because we pay for our own car parks here but for our clients. Already they struggle to find a place to pull up here and park. With increased pedestrian activity there is also the problem with rubbish. We do seem to have a bit more rubbish now outside and the council doesn’t clean up here unless there is a World Cup so the streets don’t get cleaned that is up to us to pick up the rubbish in the morning that has been left certainly after the weekends. (Local business)

Pedestrian traffic down there you have to be really, really careful, we have got trucks going in and out of there so we are trying to roll our trucks in early in the morning when there is no one there and in the afternoons and evenings we try not to have traffic there unless it is an emergency. (Key stakeholder)

The changing nature of the area could also create security issues for some of the more hazardous and/or sensitive businesses. These again had been worked through reasonably well with Waterfront Auckland and respondents accepted that they were simply an inevitable part of the future.

I would have to say that with the development they have done a great job, the design is great and it is working well but it is impacting on us with more and more foot traffic, more vehicles coming down, more risk to our security and that is only going to accelerate as the years go by and more and more attractive things come into place for the public to go and view and to enjoy the waterfront. (Key stakeholder)

9.5 Lifting equipment

Where there were highly negative perceptions of Waterfront Auckland, these tended to centre on this deal. A small number of respondents either raised concerns about the way that this deal was done, or argued that the wrong decision has been made. These respondents had often had concerns about Waterfront Auckland to begin with, and their problems with the deal over the lifting equipment often reflected this underlying negative perception of the organisation.

Objections to the way the deal was done focused on the perception that the process had changed part way through. One respondent in particular complained strongly about the fact that his organisation had been encouraged to put in a tender on the basis that there would be no council funding but had withdraw from the process on the grounds that it would be too hard to make profitable, only to find that the council had decided to put up some money and the contract awarded to someone else. This respondent felt that he had not been given an opportunity to submit a revised tender, and that he might have done so if he had known about the council subsidy.

They’re a law unto themselves. We’ve been members of a working group, and they kept asking us questions like ‘how do we build marinas, what do we do?’ We’ve made no commercial gain out of being involved. They went through a tender process but have changed the rules since. There was no compromise and they didn’t go back to all the interested parties and say the council is putting $8 million into it. We’ve put in all this effort but they feel they have to be seen to be fair to all. (Key stakeholder)

Other respondents took the view that this was not the sort of deal that the council should be involved in, and that the deal to fund lifting equipment was in effect a subsidy for smaller operators. One respondent in particular felt that the council was subsidising companies who did not ‘deserve’ to have the same prominence in the industry, because larger organisations like his had built up the industry themselves without council subsidies.

They don’t understand our operation, and now they’re getting into the marine business. They justify it by saying that it will bring jobs and grow the industry, but the people who have 95% of the business are us. It only came up in the last six months, and we didn’t know they were planning for it. The plans are there but not the specifics of how it affects us - how are they going to be achieved? There’s no business in the world that gets a free lunch. You get the small guys complaining, but none of them have invested as much as us. (Key stakeholder)

Although this was a council decision, Waterfront Auckland still picked up some ‘guilt by association’. Respondents who took a negative view of the situation thought that Waterfront Auckland had been in some way involved in the process and that it had made comments supporting the deal. They also assumed that the council probably would not have acted if Waterfront Auckland had not been pushing for the deal. It is also worth bearing in mind that the boundaries between the council and Waterfront Auckland were sometimes blurred in respondents’ minds.

9.6 Future plans

Knowledge of what was planned for the Wynyard Quarter varied markedly even amongst stakeholders and local businesses, and there were certainly some circumstances where respondents did not know things that would definitely have been useful for them to know. One such example was the respondent in a technology business who had not heard of the planned innovation precinct until shortly before the interview.

See that is news to me and given that we are right in the heart of it, the hub it is of interest. That was absolutely news to me this week. So things like that obviously it is official because the person who spoke to us about it had been to a meeting so we are not informed about that. That would be nice to know even if it is just draft ideas when they get to a certain stage it would be nice to have some information. (Local business)

Smaller local businesses in particular were often sketchy about what was planned, often not knowing, for example, about the linear park or plans to connect the tram with Britomart, or about the planned scale of the Headland Park.

By and large, however, respondents were not calling for a lot more information than they received now. While many would like to know more, they were by no means angry with the amount of information they had received or feeling that they were being kept unnecessarily in the dark.

What respondents did know about the future plans was mostly viewed as a continued significant step in the right direction. As mentioned earlier, often they were reacting as Aucklanders who valued their waterfront as much as they were reacting as stakeholders and local businesses. Most could see that the plans would be good for Auckland and liked the idea of parks and better access to the water partly because they would enjoy it themselves.

We are excited by the Headland Park that is touted for down there. There is again an opportunity, green space, recreation space right on the harbour edge but there is that and the major streets that are being developed plus the other parks through the area obviously, opportunities for biodiversity enhancement and so we are excited about all of those possibilities through there … Aside from that there is obviously the development that is planned in terms of that mix of commercial and residential type construction down there and a lot of that new construction there is opportunity to follow sustainable design principles which we would be very interested and supportive of. (Key stakeholder)

At the same time, numerous representatives of local businesses believed that their days in the Wynyard Quarter were ultimately limited.

• The concept of reverse sensitivity, dominant in 2009, was also present in the 2012 study. Industrial operations in particular believed that it was inevitable that residents would complain about or otherwise restrict noisy and/or disruptive businesses, even if they had nominally accepted this when they moved in. Assurances to the contrary from Waterfront Auckland had little impact, simply because respondents felt that Waterfront Auckland could not do much to help (e.g. signed agreements about acceptable noise levels might eventually be dismissed if public pressure from residents grew enough). At the same time, these concerns did not come through as strongly as they did in the 2009 study, which suggests that efforts to alleviate them have at least had some impact.

There is no way you are going to be able to have a fish cutting facility when you have got a 4 or 5 Star Hotel across the road with apartments over there. So if I was Sanford I would be particularly concerned about the long term viability even though they have a long term lease there having a fish processing plant in the middle of a highly built up residential area is probably not necessarily a good mix. (Local business) 59

Waterfront Auckland can look at the pretty pictures of this working wharf and it looks lovely and you see the photos and you have got people down on the promenade and a fishing vessel there unloading. Fishing vessels are often unloading at 4.00 - 5.00 in the morning so often they are ignoring the logistics of that and the health and safety aspects of trucks meandering and driving up and down. And secondly there is the other aspect of it that it doesn’t always look beautiful it can be a bit smelly. It is a working wharf. So from our perspective long term we would not be interested in investing in a major processing operation in this area. You know it is just going to be difficult long term. (Local business)

There is going to be people living in those who have spent an awful lot of money to buy a nice apartment down there looking over the water. They are going to look out over the water and they are going to see some tanks there and say when are you going to get rid of those tanks and then there are 10 people saying who cares but 1000 people saying get rid of the tanks. There will probably be complaints about fishing vessels coming in and the noise that they make and trucks going by etc. Who was here first, we were here first, we need to be able to go about our business peacefully through until the conclusion of our lease. So that is reverse sensitivity, it is a crazy situation where you have an original organisation. Here is a classic example of it, Bay Park Raceway in Mt Maunganui then they developed land around it, houses all around it, people bought houses right beside it and then they complain about the noise of the track. Then the rates go up on the race track and they sell it and it is subdivided and it is gone forever. (Key stakeholder)

• There were similar concerns about businesses eventually being forced out of the area by increased rents. This again was seen as an inevitable consequence of the area becoming more desirable - the very success of the area could mean that others are prepared to pay rents that the businesses which are in the area at the moment could not afford. This was similarly an area where Waterfront Auckland’s reassurances had little impact, because respondents believed that the market forces would eventually become too strong no matter what the restrictions on usage were.

In terms of the planners they have probably done as much as they can which is say marine industrial, then there is the other side of the question which is how can it be affordable? (Local business)

• Local businesses also often felt that the parking pressures would eventually be bad for their operations (if they were not already). This particularly applied to retailers selling larger goods which could not be carried on public transport. Respondents were also concerned that, if driving to the area became too difficult, they would lose customers to competitors who were based in locations where the parking was relatively easy.

Parking will be the key to the success of the Wynyard Quarter there is no doubt about that, people on the weekends will jump in the car and say let’s go down to Wynyard Quarter because we are a car based city. Most of us have got one if not two cars. It is going to be one of the things that drives the retail, council own and Waterfront Auckland have developed the North Wharf, 10 restaurants and bars, we are going to have a similar number across the road in our development and Sandford have something similar within their building as well. So we could end up

with 30 to 40 retail outlets of which 25 of which are likely to be food and beverage, dining and they will need car parking. (Key stakeholder)

Waterfront Auckland’s efforts to address these problems were appreciated even when they were assumed to be unlikely to succeed in the long run. By and large, the assumption that these efforts would eventually fail did not hurt Waterfront Auckland’s image significantly.

We have told them basically the difficulties we are facing and they are trying to find a solution for us … Certainly Waterfront Auckland are making all the right noises and saying we want to keep you here and they are putting some effort into investigating if there can be an option found. (Local business)

At the same time, there were some, even in the marine sector, who believed that the improvements would eventually be good for their business.

In general if we can stay here it will help our business because from the marine side it is going to open up new marinas, large berths over on the Westhaven side are part of the plan. It just makes the area more vibrant and exciting, people want to come here. (Local business)

Knowledge of the innovation precinct was generally limited and respondents did not have particularly strong views on it. The precinct was seen as a good enough idea, but it was not something that excited them greatly.

There is a tenant who shifted in a few months ago and it was only when they came in that I was aware they are trying to turn this into a bit of an information hub or technology hub - what did they call it? And I hadn’t heard of that prior to them shifting in. To be honest I don’t know how they are going to achieve that. [Is that a good thing for your business or not?] What is more important for us is through the area of zone marine industrials remains a viable area that yachts can be serviced in and it becomes attractive for yachts to come to, that is the most important thing from a business point of view. (Local business)

I heard something about that last week, technical centre of Auckland. My initial thoughts were wow that is such a good use of that space there and we are probably going to need some more infrastructure to assist with that. [So it could potentially be good for your business you think?] Could be yes. (Local business)

Once respondents were reminded about plans for the Linear Park, they saw it as a logical and positive next step in the process. At the same time, it was not something that they thought would transform the area - it was just a nice incremental improvement.

I am not sure what that would entail and what the impact would be because if there is a green boulevard where does it start and where does it end and what does that do to access here. I mean off the top of my head yes that could be very positive. [When I say green boulevard it does have a road in it, but it is mainly for walking and cycling but there will be a road for cars to come down?] Anything that creates more people into the area therefore has an obvious potential result for us. (Local business)

How will it impact us with Linear Park? It is going to be more of the same, more and more people coming into the area. I think we may well get to the point where we need some visual barrier to entering that area, that has been talked about but hasn’t been put in place yet. (Key stakeholder)

In line with the concerns about the public getting into areas where they were in private property or where it was hazardous to be, some stressed the importance of carefully managing future events.

I think it will be ongoing - I wouldn’t want to call it an issue, ongoing management around events and activities that take place here. [What can they do to make that easier for you to manage so you come out more in favour?] Just think advanced warning and making sure that access is retained at some point, doesn’t necessarily have to be through the obvious avenue here it could be down Halsey Street for passengers and staff. (Local business)

Appendix

The other Auckland quantitative survey divided Auckland into five zones, as the sample sizes would not allow reporting by all thirteen wards. The relationship between the five zones and the thirteen wards is outlined in the table below.

AREA SUBURBS INCLUDED AUCKLAND COUNCIL WARDS Central Balmoral, Epsom, Greenlane, Kingsland, Maungawhau, Mt Albert-Eden-Roskill, Eden, Morningside, Mt Albert, Mt Eden, One Tree Hill, Maungakiekie-Tamaki, Owairaka, Pt Chevalier, Sandringham, Waterview, Orakei, Waitemata & Gulf Hillsbrough, Lynfield, Mt Roskill, Three Kings, Waikowhai, Wesley, Ellerslie, Glendowie, Kohimarama, Meadowbank, Mission Bay, Orakei, Remuera, St Heliers, St John, Glen Innes, Mt Wellington, Onehunga, Oranga, Panmure, Penrose, Pt England, Royal Oak, Te Papapa, Auckland CBD, Grey Lynn, Herne Bay, Newmarket, Parnell, Ponsonby, St Mary’s Bay, Westmere, Waiheke, Great Barrier, Other Gulf Islands West Auckland Glendene, Henderson, Massey, Ranui, Te Atatu, West Waitakere, Whau Harbour, Westgate, French Bay, Glen Eden, Laingholm, O’Neill Bay, Oratia, Titirangi, Waiatarua, Waitakere, Whatipu, Wood Bay, Woodlands Park, Avondale, Blockhouse Bay, Green Bay, Kelston, New Lynn, New Windsor, Rosebank, Waterview North Helensville, Huapai, Kawau Island, Kumeu, Matakana, Rodney, Albany, North Shore Warkworth, Wellsford, Browns Bay, Campbells Bay, Mairangi Bay, Orewa, Silverdale, Waiwera, Whangaparoa, Albany, Greenhithe, Hobsonville, Northcross, Paremoremo, Pinehill, Wainoni, Whenuapai, Castor Bay, Devonport, Stanley Bay, Sunnynook, Takapuna, Beach Haven, Birkdale, Birkenhead, Chatswood, Glenfield, Hillcrest, Marlborough, Northcote South Franklin, Favona, Mangere, Otahuhu, East Tamaki, Manukau, Manurewa- Manukau Central, Middlemore, Otara, Papatoetoe, Papakura, Franklin Puhunui, Homai, Manurewa, Wattle Downs, Weymouth, Wiri, Alfriston, Drury, Hingaia, Pahurehure, Papakura, Red Hill, Takanini, Ardmore, Awhitu, Beachlands, Clevedon, Karaka, Kawakawa Bay, Maraetai, Orere Point, Pukekohe, Waiuku, Whitford Howick ward Botany, Bucklands Beach, Cockle Bay, Dannemora, East Howick Tamaki, Eastern Beach, Farm Cove, Flat Bush, Half Moon Bay, Highland Park, Howick, Mellons Bay, Northpark, Pakuranga, Shelly Park, Somerville, Sunnyhills

Those who lived in the defined local resident area were excluded from the other Auckland survey. Respondents have allocated themselves to these areas based on the suburb list, reflecting the assumption that many Aucklanders will not yet be familiar with the ward system and which ward they are actually in.