Editorial: Waterfront defines the capital city

OPINION: Wellington City Council has made a bold decision in limiting the public's ability to have a say over what goes on part of the waterfront.

It is asking the public to trust it to get things right. If it doesn't, the councillors who voted to accept Variation 11 should expect to pay at the ballot box.

Wellington's waterfront is the thorniest of political problems. The council needs to allow enough development to ensure it is abuzz with activity, not the desolate wasteland of tarseal that Mayor Kerry Prendergast fears parts of it are now.

At the same time, it must ensure that there is not so much development that a phalanx of buildings cuts the rest of the city off from the harbour, turning it into a wasteland of glass and steel.

There is an understandable scepticism about the council's ability to make sound judgments on the waterfront.

Critics need only point to the existence of the events centre, an architectural abomination that makes no use of its location on a prime piece of waterfront real estate, and the similarly-styled neighbouring retail centre. Nor does the Statistics NZ building add a great deal of lustre to the area.

The council's acceptance of the variation means the public will get no say on buildings proposed for each site as long as they do not breach height and size limits.

In the case of buildings that meet the requirements, the public will also be barred from appealing to the Environment Court – a scenario that makes a repetition of the events centre debacle all too possible.

However, it is easy to look only at the failures and forget that much of what has been done so far has been admirable.

Anyone strolling along the waterfront on a sunny weekend can see that Waitangi Park has met its ambition of becoming a focus for casual recreation, that Te Papa has fitted into rather than dominated its surroundings, that Frank Kitts Park is well-used, and that the cafes and bars have brought a bustle to the area.

That is what makes the frustration of those who supported Variation 11 understandable. Some seem determined to oppose any development on the waterfront, and to use every opportunity the planning process affords them to achieve this end, holding up developments for as long as possible in the hope they will go away.

Waitangi Park for example, was dismissed as smelling of extravagance and unneeded.

The naysayers fail to realise that there needs to be that commercial development to pay for the parks and open spaces they want. Neither of the alternatives – leaving the area as is, or reaching deeper into ratepayers' pockets – is attractive.

Some also fail to appreciate the role that commercial developments such as offices, cafes, bars and hotels play in drawing people into the area.

Wellington's waterfront defines the city, and that is why it is so important that the city gets its development right. Both sides in the debate now need to remember that is the goal – not scoring political victories.

- © Fairfax NZ News