Context Nicole Daw 5690784
Contents History of Formation
5-7
Uses 9 Land Ownership
11
Seabed and Foreshore Ownership
13
Zoneing 15 Housing 17 Transport 19 Surrounding Areas
21
Coastal Buildings
23
Resource Management Act
25
History of Formation
The Waitemata Harbour that we know today was originally a forested valley. During the Miocene period the valley was submerged and covered in marine sediments forming the beginnings of the harbour. More recently the eruption of Three Kings volcano saw a reformation of the harbour and its coastline. Flowing lava from the crater terminated in the Waitemata Harbour, forming the Meola Reef. After European colonisation, the land surrounding the harbour became increasingly drowned under the infrastructure and the built form of the city. Development gradually began to advance beyond the limits of the land through the undertaking of major land reclamation around all edges of the harbours waterfront. Bayswater Marina is one of the many reclamations that occurred.
5
History of Formation
The creation of Waitemata Harbour can be remembered in a different way than that of the previous scientific geomorphological evolution. Maori tradition tells of deities creating Auckland’s volcanic formation. The fundamental creation story is based on Ranginui (the sky father) and Papatuanuku (the earth mother), who lied locked together in a tight embrace. Their five sons, forced to live between them, grew tired of the cramped, cold, dark conditions and decided to separate their parents. After the separation Rangi and Papa were both inconsolably full of sorrow. Rangi could not stop crying; his tears began to flood the land. To stop this, the sons decided to turn Papa face down, so their parents could no longer see each other’s sadness. The youngest son, Ruaumoko, was trapped under his mother when this happened and was carried into the world below. Tama-kaka, one of the brothers, gave Ruaumoko fire for warmth. It is believed that his movements below the earth cause earthquakes and volcanoes. In a more local myth, the wife of deity Mataaho, who lived in Mt Eden’s crater, left him, taking all his clothes. The goddess Mahuika sent Mataaho fire to keep him warm. “The wrath of Mataaho flowed from deep under the earth creating Auckland’s distinctive volcanic landscape.” Another myth explains that the creation of Auckland’s unique landscape is part of anouther ancient love story. Hinemairangi, from the Hanua Ranges in East Auckland, eloped with Tamaireia, from the Waitakere Ranges in the West, resulting in their two rival iwi’s breaking out in a fierce battle, creating deep cracks in the earth, thrusting up the scattered volcanic cones of Aucklands Ismuth. The significance of these stories and the land can be reflected in the place names. In Maori language Waitemata means sparkling waters referring to the waters resemblance to obsidian volcanic glass positioning the water as something of great value. Names have not been uniform throughout history, changing numerous times and in the process have been lost in translation along with their significant meanings and historical weight. Originally Bayswater was called O’neills point, after the O’neill brothers who were first to settle the area. This situation is also echoed in surrounding bays such as Ngatarangi Bay.
7
Uses
Waitemata Harbour has accumulated a rich history charged with encounters, conflicts, and trade. Since the beginning of New Zealand’s colonisation the Waitemata Harbour has been the main port for the Auckland region, which at one point was New Zealand’s capital. Since the beginning, the harbour played a large role in transferal of goods and sustinance of people with the bounty of the sea’s natural resources. The increase in commercial activity throughout history has been one of the main driver behind numerous land reclamations and waterfront developments. More recently the waterfront has been a place of consumption and recreation.
9
Private
Land Ownership Public
Land ownership throughout New Zealand’s history is a controversial subject. The Waitemata Harbour in particular has passed through numerous states of ownership. Initially land around the Harbour was disputed between Waiohua iwi and Ngati Whatua but since European colonisation, focus has been shifted to the unjust processes and treatment of Maori during the colonial acquisition of land. In the 1990s land was reclaimed from the seabed to form Bayswater Marina and thus by law was owned by the crown. The intention of the reclamation was to provide a site for public marine facilities and activities based on the benefits of the community. This was undermined when the land changed over to the private ownership held by Martin Jones. After Jones passing, Simon Herbert paid a mere $3.725 million in 2006 to freehold the land for the remainder of the 105 year lease. The lease was approved subject to rights of public access to the land. Under these conditions the developer provided number of public facilities, such as a boat ramp, an open green space, and public car parking. However these seem to be of minimal quality and other from this the public are largely kept at bay. It is fairly characteristic of private ownership to limit the public unless by permitting them results in possible economic and commercial profit. Also as the site has been focused on public for such a long period of time, the community feels that they have a right to the site and its amenities and thus should have say on what happens even though they legally they do not.
11
Seabed and Foreshore Ownership
In addition to land, the foreshore and seabed have recently been subject to contested public and governmental debate over the ownership and rights of access. Following European colonisation, English common law was introduced which positioned the Crown as the presumed original owner of the waters, seabed and the foreshore. In 1840 the crown implemented the concept of the queens chain; a 20 meter strip of land around the edge of waterways, from the high water tide mark, that was reserved for “places for recreation and amusement of inhabitants�. Thus it is falsely believed to give the public right to access. By law the public have no legal right to access the foreshore but do have the right to navigate over and fish the foreshore. Further confusion and dispute over the foreshore and seabed is due to its ambiguous identification as a result of the temporal fluctuating and subjective extents of the land. Legal definitions of the sea bed and foreshore vary between the English common law, Resource Management Act 1991, and Seabed Act 2004.
Queens Chain
20 meters
15 meters
Much of Waitemata Harbours waterfront is privately owned, including bayswater, yet are still subject to The Queens Chain. The new private owner of bayswater successfully lobbied for the queen chain to be reduced from 20 meters to 9 meters, arguing of the quality of the chains land versus the quanity of it. The constant ongoing battle between the private and the public, who are prioritised by the chain, is relentless. Land thata holds so much value and amenty to the entire city should not be restricted to only certain parties.
13
9 meters
3 meters
Zoning
Since the marina has been privately owned, there have been attempts to change the zoning to a special housing zone. In 2009 the environment court denied a proposal for a zone change for development of 250 units. Later in 2013, to the dismay of locals, a reapplication for change in zoning was approved. Residential development is no longer non-complying but instead a discretionary activity. The grant of this change entails that all applications to develop the site must be publically notified. Previously the site was in a state where development proposals could be private, prevented public awareness and comment and causing outrage. Disputes over zoning has brought forth the issues of what is appropriate to happen on the site and public-private synergy, questioning whether the economic profit of one party, over the benefit of the greater whole, is the main driver of all the proposed developments for Bayswater Marina. In the wider context, zoning is a generalised organisational device that has compartmentalised the city into archipelago of large homogenous areas that do not relate to their adjacent counterpart or are considerate and integrated into the local surroundings and conditions. Zoning creates imaginable fixed boundaries where the contained components don’t stray or amalgamate with the beyond. The intersecting junctions of zones are largely inactive, inefficient, unproductive and hinder social exchange and processes. This can also said about the collision between zone boundaries and natural systems causing an unproductive coastline along parts of the Waitemata Harbor.
Single housing Significant ecological area - Marine 2 Marina
Public open space - Informal recreation
Public open space - Conservation Heritage
15
Housing
The proposed development of Bayswater Marina is focused around providing residential housing on the site. There has been extensive debate on whether it is appropriate to put housing on this site and whether 125 units positively contribute to the community and Aucklands the housing situation or if it is purely for economic gain on the developers half. Arguably Auckland is in the midst of a housing crisis. Sprawl is reaching its limits, thus we are also reaching the limits of comfortable commuting, house prices are rocketing through the roof, space and natural resources are dwindling and with the population boom supply of housing is not meeting demand. Also with a changing demographic, the composition of housing is not as efficient and suitable to the population as it once was. In this sensitive case, it is essential to evaluate whether the pros of having residential housing really out way the cons. There are many widely discussed points on the Bayswater proposal some of which include the advertisement of units as ‘affordable housing.’ However on such a premium costal site this is questionable; its more likely these units will be top of the range. The dense housing on the site makes other developments on the site more economically feasible and potentially more successful as it ensures there will always be people occupying the site as well as that the housing is right on the doorstep of the CBD, and thus jobs, resulting in public transport being more efficient mode of transport than cars. Also the developers are emphasizing that the site is predominantly public but how public will it feel if people are watching you from their balconies. Is there a more appropriate proposal for this site than housing that will bring in revenue for the developer, keep the site constantly occupied and provide civic amenity? A recent survey was conducted to see how the local community felt about Bayswaters Village development. Newspaper articles portray the housing as undesirble from the community perspective but the conclusion of the survey is that majority of the community are in favour of the development. However interestingly the survey did not question about the housing development or inform the community very deeply about the scheme which possibly could have swayed the overall consensus in the other favour. The results are as follows: - Improved access to the water; In favour of = 93%, Against = 7% - The two public parks & children’s playground; In favour of = 90%, Against 10% - The new facilities and home for the Takapuna Grammar Rowing Club; In favour of = 86%, Against = 14% - Are you in favour of or against the Bayswater Marina Village overall? In favour of = 68%, Against 32% 17
Transport
The point of the initial reclamation at Bayswater was to extend the land out to deep water so the area was accessible by ferry. A tramline ran to the end of the reclamation to aid in transport and exchange of people and goods. The tram was removed and the ferry was inactive for a short period of time. Some remnants of the tram can still be found on the site today. Since ferry has started back up, the site has been converted into car parking. It is pivotal that this is dealt with, and resultantly access to and from the site, as it is not a productive use of such valuable land and it degrades the quality of the area. Additionally there has been a recent discussion of bridge to Bayswater. However this was not taken to warmly by the public and did not proceed. Part of the issue of Bayswater not being successful is not just the site itself but the journey getting to and from there, the access and frequency of the services and the transport facilties. The ferry and the journey to Baywater use to be enjoyble and very utilized facility. Ferrys had different structures and used to be steam powered, resulting in a clam, relaxed trip. The whole experience and atmopshere on these boats were completely different, they even had live bands playing on them. The current ferry services at Bayswater needs improving but it is not economically feasible to do so with out the density and demand to support it. In that sense the proposed housing on the site makes public transport, as well as other developments, more viable to invest in. On the tpoic of transport and development comes minimum parking requirements. This planning rule has been detrimental, essentially reducing the supply of valuable land and thus driving up the price of land available for productive uses and living, inhibiting compact growth and further exacerbating sprawl.
19
Surrounding Areas
Bayswater is surrounded by a multitude of other dynamic and unique sites. For example to the east of Bayswater Marina is Ngataringa Bay and to the right is Shoal Bay, which has a valuable salt marsh ecosystem covered by mangroves and inhabited by endanger native wildlife. However, currently Bayswater only has a strong relationship directly with Aucklands downtown and is fairly isolated from other neighbouring places around the Harbour, which offer a diverse array of experiences, and with other surrounding important geographical land features. Bayswater, and the Waitemata Harbour as a whole, could potentially benefit through the reestablishment of connection with its surroundings, grounding it more appropriately in its local context. A proposal for a padestrian sky path aims to remediate this issue.
Proposed skypath Proposed sea path
N
Ferry routs
21
Coastal Buildings
Around New Zealand’s coastline is an array of different marineoriented building typologies and structures that interact with the coast in different ways, some of which can be argued as vernacular as they emerged out of local conditions and materials. There are simple shacks, baches, stilted boat sheds, lighthouse towers, floating pontoons, wharfs and so on. On Bayswaters waterfront one of the historically significant buildings is Boating club which was established in 1914 and later re-established as the Takapuna Boating Club. The building is an old tannery building that was relocated from Panmure with a tidal pool established on the seaward side. The Takapuna Boating Club operated from this club house until the late 1960’s hosting a number of major regattas and acting as a sailing venue for learners. It is now officially recognised as an historic building and is currently being restored. The secondary schools rowing club is also significant to Bayswater Marina.
23
Resource Management Act
The Resource Management Act implies that buildings are detrimental to their surrounding environment. However this view is not neccessarily true. Some of the RMA legislation could be challenged to develop a more holistic, successful intergration, engagement and relationship of people and the built environment with natural martime systems that is beneficial and productive for both parties. Restrictions on use of coastal marine area: (1)No person may, in the coastal marine area,— (a)reclaim or drain any foreshore or seabed; or (b)erect, reconstruct, place, alter, extend, remove, or demolish any structure or any part of a structure that is fixed in, on, under, or over any foreshore or seabed; or (c)disturb any foreshore or seabed (including by excavating, drilling, or tunnelling) in a manner that has or is likely to have an adverse effect on the foreshore or seabed (other than for the purpose of lawfully harvesting any plant or animal); or (d)deposit in, on, or under any foreshore or seabed any substance in a manner that has or is likely to have an adverse effect on the foreshore or seabed; or (e)destroy, damage, or disturb any foreshore or seabed (other than for the purpose of lawfully harvesting any plant or animal) in a manner that has or is likely to have an adverse effect on plants or animals or their habitat; or (f)introduce or plant any exotic or introduced plant in, on, or under the foreshore or seabed; or (g)destroy, damage, or disturb any foreshore or seabed (other than for the purpose of lawfully harvesting any plant or animal) in a manner that has or is likely to have an adverse effect on historic heritage— unless expressly allowed by a national environmental standard, a rule in a regional coastal plan as well as a rule in a proposed regional coastal plan for the same region (if there is one), or a resource consent. (2)No person may, unless expressly allowed by a national environmental standard, a rule in a regional coastal plan or in any proposed regional coastal plan for the same region, or a resource consent,— (a)occupy any part of the common marine and coastal area; or (b)remove any sand, shingle, shell, or other natural material from that area.
25