WATERFRONT SPOILED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20323, 2 August 1929, Page 14

WATERFRONT SPOILED.

SHED ON OLD DOCK SITE.

LEASE BY HARBOUR BOARD.

ACT OF OFFICIAL VANDALISM. Strong objection' is taken by loading citizens at. tho cheapening of tlio waterfront by tho erection on tho old dock site of a corrugated iron shed, intended to servo as a petrol station. It is contended that tho Harbour Board has in this instanco held in low estimation its duty as custodian of Auckland's front door.

Contrasted with its magnificent situation, the shod is low and mean. Its erection at a timo when the Town Planning Association 5 was formulating a considered scheme to grnco this fino open spaco is folt by many to bo a flagrant defianco of the worthy aspirations which would givo a dignified and beautiful approach* to Auckland from tho open highway of tho Waitemata. Tho offence against aesthetic standards is emphasised by the fact that the shed has been erected under the Harbour Board's own windows and forms, by an inverted sort of poetic justice, a shabby background to tho board's war memorial beacon.

Tho question has been asked how so temporary a structure was allowed to pass tho City Council's by-laws for erection on a site that must bo within tho "brick area." Apparently this objection was surmounted by a provision in the by-laws permitting such temporary erections because authority has been duly obtained from tho City Council. "Purely Temporary." The suggestion of a correspondent that the lease was granted by "hole-in coiner" methods must also bo ruled out, because the lease was advertised for sale, and its letting was duly recorded. Tho Harbour Board urges in justification of its action that the lease is purely temporary, being for two years only, and terminable at anv time in the interim

Previous experience of these "purely temporary" arrangements on tho waterfront has. however, taught citizens to bo vigilant. The marine side of Quay Street already is made drab and ugly by several tin sheds, some of which at least were to be "purely temporary" when erected. They havo proved very tenacious of lifo, and fears are entertained lest the new shed should grow from temporal into permanent gracelessnoss. It is also contended that a wealthy body such as tho Harbour Board could well afford to forgo tho comparatively insignificant rental derived from such a lease.

Objection is also being taken to tho board's plant to erect a permanent threestorcv building on tho marino side of Quay Street. This would block out for over another outlook to the Waitemata, a proceeding that is held to bo unnecessary because the board already possesses on the landward side of the street a site acquired for the purpose of erecting a building to accommodate the waterside workers. It is urged that the board, by its wharves and'the sheds thereon, and by other buildings, has already greatly circumscribed the seaward outlook without unnecessarily adding another obstacle to the prospect from Quay Street. Spoiling the Front Entrance.

Expression of those views is given in a letter from Mr. Albert Spencer, who writes:—"After all the wonderful talk about town planning, I was astounded to notice right on the waterfront a hideous contraption consisting of an iron shed erected on tt>e old dock site. This shed is a disgrace and a blot on the waterfront, and is spoiling the front entrance to our beautiful city. "This plm of land, which has been desecrated bv this contraption with wilful disregard to public opinion, possibly is leased only for a short period, but notwithstanding this, it will be interesting to learn who has givon the lessees permission to override the by-laws which roc|uiie buildings in this district to be erected in brick or othet permanent material. It is a shocking example to set "Plans Gone Astray."

"Another very glaring instance of plans gone astray is the question of providing a meeting and rest-room for the waterside workers. A site was specially bought finru a well-known engineering firm for this special purpose, and it was intended to erect a suitable building on this piece of land. The site is still there, and it is now proposed to build on the opposite side of the street this accommodation, another act of vandalism. Tt would be interesting to know why this Quay Street site was discarded. "The Town Planning Committee, 1 understand, is watching the interests of the city, and has voiced its protest, but is it strong enough to stand up to our wealthy Harbour Board without the backing of public opinion ? People interested in saving our beautiful city from the approaching commercial vandalism should enter their strong protest."

DISCUSSION BY COUNCIL

WATCHING CITY'S INTERESTS. The opinion that the Town-Planning Committee should receivo assurance that there was nothing detrimental to the waterfront in the proposed treatment of the old dock site and in the erection of a new building on the Central Wharf was expressed last evening by Mr. Grey Camp bell at the meeting of the City Council. Mr. Campbell said the Harbour Hoard proposed to take early action to finalise its proposals. The Mayor: We have no jurisdiction Mr. Campbell • It was my idea that we might enter an objection if it is intended to erect an iron building. The Mayor: They might ask us to mind our own business. On the motion of Mr. Campbell it was resolved that the Town-Planning Committee should consider the proposals and make representations to the Harbour Board if it was considered that they were prejudicial to ' tho interests of the city.