Napier, like some other New Zealand cities, has relied on reclamation to facilitate growth and development, but Napier differs from other places because of the enormous reliance the town came to place on reclamation. Even in larger New Zealand cities, reclamation has been largely incidental to the growth and development of those centres when compared with their overall urban footprint. In contrast, for Napier it can be fairly said that all flat areas of the city, apart from the shingle banks that met Napier Hill and a small piece of land in the centre of town, came from areas that were reclaimed from the sea or swamp either by act of deliberate reclamation or act of nature through siltation or the uplift of land by earthquake.
Of the various schemes discussed in this chapter, one scheme stands out. This was the Napier South scheme undertaken form 1900 to 1908. It was also the largest scheme until the reclamation of the Ahuriri Lagoon just after the earthquake. The latter scheme, however, is not quite so important because the land reclaimed was only partly included in Napier in 1968, and not fully included until a nationwide reorganisation of local government throughout New Zealand in 1989. The Napier South scheme happened at a time when space for residential development was short. In contrast, the Ahuriri Lagoon project was more like a bonus extra, and the urban development of Napier could have continued adequately without much of this land, although the airport would have had to be sited further away from central Napier.
The planning aspects of reclamation could be represented in a model that included the following steps:
x Establishing the intention to reclaim land, as an idea in principle.
113
x Planning the reclamation as a project, in terms of participant parties, method of reclamation, financial arrangements, and the development of land, which includes street layout and the provision of services.
x Negotiating with parties, including other public agencies.
x Making a decision about the project, including consultation, obtaining permissions, and statutory approval.
x Constructing and implementing the project.
x Reviewing the project, as it proceeds through the planning and implementation stages.
The various Napier reclamations, to some extent, followed this model, with the steps causing the greatest difficulty being the detailed planning of each reclamation and reaching agreement with other interested parties. This was best illustrated for the Napier South reclamation, where the choice made was between schemes initiated by public authorities (the Harbour Board and Borough Council) and one largely promoted and carried out by private enterprise (the syndicate). The selection of the syndicate, and later friction between the Harbour Board and Council in the 1920s, represented low points in the relationship between the Board and Council.
From 1876, when the Board was first constituted, until 1968, there was some overlap in membership between the Board and Council, that is, a particular person or persons were, at the same time, both a member of the Harbour Board and the Municipal Council. However, this overlap or common membership was not of a sufficient extent to ensure that the Board and Council shared the same or similar outlook on reclamation and port development. This is because most members of the Board were elected from different parts of Hawke's Bay. Thus, for example, for the 1911 election, three members were elected from Napier, three from Hawke's Bay County, three from the southern area of the Board’s district, and one each from Hastings and Taradale. In addition, central government appointed two members at that time. Apart from the government appointees, the members were elected by the voting populations from the different geographical areas that made up the Board’s district or hinterland. Further, the Board members were neither appointees of the individual Councils nor needed to be a councillor, except that the Mayor of Napier was an ex officio member of the Board in earlier years.149 These electoral arrangements largely
explain that while seven of 14 Napier Mayors (up until 1968) were members of the Harbour Board at same stage of their political careers, only 21 of 184 Councillors also served on the Board. Only two Napier Mayors held office as Chairman of the Harbour Board concurrently, these being F.W. Williams (from 1902 to 1904) and J. Vigor Brown (from 1907 to 1911).150 At the meeting of the Harbour Board held in January 1900, at which the syndicate was awarded the Napier South tender, only two current members of the Napier Borough Council were present as Board members: G.H. Swan, who voted to accept the tender, and J. Vigor Brown, who voted against its acceptance.151 At that very important Board meeting, the Borough Council clearly had little influence on the outcome. For the 1926 election, held in the middle of the turbulent twenties when debates about reclamation and port location dominated local politics, Napier was represented by just four of 13 Harbour Board members. Of those elected to represent Napier on the Board that year, only J.C. Bryant was a Borough Councillor at the time, although two more became members of the Council the following year. In the 1920s, Harbour Board members were usually supporters of the Inner Harbour Party or Breakwater Party, according to their preference for future port development. While Napier representatives tended to support the Breakwater Party and other representatives the Inner Harbour Party, support along these lines was by no means universal. The 1926 elections in fact saw the Inner Harbour Party win back a controlling interest on the Board by eight seats to five, with a similar outcome repeated in the 1929 elections.152 The Chairperson of the Board from 1911 to 1932, except for two years in the mid-1920s, was A.E. Jull, who was elected to the Board from the Waipawa and Patangata area in the southern part of the Board’s district. Overall, Jull served 39 years on the Board and gained the reputation of being “the Breakwater Harbour’s most ardent opponent.”153
The benefits of reclamation to the Napier community were considerable. In the short term, the reclamation schemes initiated by the Harbour Board were beneficial to the Board in that they provided land directly to the Board for harbour activities or revenue to the Board from rents or sale of land. Indeed, the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into Harbour Board matters at Napier acknowledged that the primary use of Board endowments was to help the Board’s financial position, although a strong secondary factor was to take account of Borough Council views on the use of such lands. In the case of the Napier South scheme, the syndicate most likely made profits from its part in that scheme. In the longer term, however, there were wider community benefits. These included the
115
mitigation of health or other environmental hazards, for example the central area swamp sections and the Ahuriri pond reclamations, and, for most schemes, the provision of land to support a growing town. Extra space was needed not just for houses, but to provide areas where businesses, schools, parks and other amenities could be located. While the 1931 earthquake was a major tragedy in terms of loss of life and damage to property, it has also been regarded as having gifted land to Napier that, before the earthquake, could have become available only by reclamation. The importance of reclamation to the future of Napier was especially highlighted in the 1920s when the relationship between Board and Council became strained because of the apparent reluctance of the Board to make more land available for reclamation. Had there been no reclamations of any kind in Napier, all housing and commercial building would have been largely confined to Napier Hill, apart from a small flat area that accommodates a part of the central business district in 2012. There would also have been no port, as both the Breakwater and Ahuriri facilities required reclamations to establish and maintain them. Without a port, of course, the principal reason for the establishment of Napier at its present site could not have been satisfied.
In terms of the framework proposed by Pawson as an explanation of the development of urban places in New Zealand, the Napier reclamations may fairly be regarded as reflecting progressive, vulnerable and suburban attributes. The various schemes were progressive in that they sought to expand the size of the town for future growth and development, while two of the schemes were particularly innovative but carefully conceived – the Napier South and Ahuriri Lagoon projects. The vulnerable aspect of the reclamations was particularly evident with Napier South. This reclamation was seen as a means to better protect the town from flooding as well as provide more land for housing. Yet, as the land was being reclaimed, there was the real risk that much of Napier might have been swamped if the stop banks built to facilitate reclamation proved insufficient to hold back floodwaters in the event of a major flood. The siltation method of reclamation was not seriously considered for future reclamations, partly because of this risk. Similarly, earlier reclamation schemes were partly concerned with addressing public health concerns. Finally, some of the schemes were suburban. The Ahuriri Lagoon projects, before and after the earthquake, took place on the outskirts or fringe areas of Napier, while the Napier South project gave people the option of either living in an overcrowded borough, or setting up in a new home on more spacious sections. In some respects, Napier South represents the pre-earthquake prototype of later suburban development for Napier, in that each new
suburb was planned and developed as a single, integrated entity, so that 100 years later, the Napier urban pattern comprises suburbs that are relatively well defined, each having its own distinctive and cohesive character.
Conclusion
The influence of reclamation projects on Napier’s growth and development as an urban centre has been profound. This influence began almost from the beginning of Napier’s European history and continued for the next 100 years. Although the earthquake diminished the need for reclamation, projects continued, notably those associated with the Ahuriri Lagoon. The historical maps tracing the town’s growth and development present a picture of land expanding at the expense of water, so that what was largely water is now largely land. For Napier, reclamation was deliberate and planned. It was not a story of private enterprise expanding the available land in an ad hoc or uncoordinated manner, but rather represents the energies of public authorities in trying to provide more land for expansion and growth. This was the almost unwavering strategy of the Napier Borough and later City Council, but there were times when the Napier Harbour Board, as owner of the reclaimable or reclaimed land, was reluctant to participate in an exercise of geographical expansion.
While Napier is best known for the 1931 Hawke's Bay Earthquake and its subsequent reconstruction, the story of reclamation and the desire to acquire land on which to build a town is one of similar importance. Over the years, there were a series of reclamations, the most significant one being the Napier South scheme in which a complete suburb was planned, reclaimed and developed. Collectively, the various reclamation projects over the years have been promoted by public authorities to improve or enhance the urban environment. As such, these reflect a genuine planning concern in providing an adequate and proper urban infrastructure.
117
Endnotes
1
Jon A. Peterson, The Birth of City Planning in the United States, 1840-1917, Baltimore, Maryland: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 2003, pp. 21-26.
2
Peterson, The Birth of City Planning in the United States, 1840-1917, pp. 21-26.
3
Anthony Sutcliffe, “Introduction: British Town Planning and the Historian”, inAnthony Sutcliffe, (ed.),
British Town Planning: The Formative Years, Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1981, pp. 2-14, at p. 2.
4
Brian J. Hudson, Cities on the Shore: The Urban Littoral Frontier, New York: Pinter, 1996, p. 3.
5
Hudson, Cities on the Shore: The Urban Littoral Frontier, 1996, p. 1.
6
Hudson, Cities on the Shore: The Urban Littoral Frontier, pp. 1-28.
7
Grahame Anderson, Fresh About Cook Strait: An Appreciation of Wellington Harbour, Auckland:
Methuen, 1984, pp. 110-130; Auckland City Council: City Development Section, Auckland’s Historical
Background: Its Relation to Central City Planning, Auckland: Auckland City Council, 1969, especially
pp. 44-46; and A.H. Reed, The Story of Early Dunedin, Wellington: Reed, 1956, especially plan facing
p. 129.
8
Rodney Grapes, Magnitude Eight Plus: New Zealand’s Biggest Earthquake, Wellington: Victoria
University Press, 2000, pp. 91-111; and Geoff Conly, The Shock of ’31: The Hawke's Bay Earthquake,
Wellington: Reed, 1980, pp. 190-199.
9
Brian N. Davis and Edward S. Dollimore, “Bluff”, in A.H. McLintock (ed.), An Encyclopedia of New
Zealand, Wellington: Government Printer, 1966, vol. 3, pp. 213-214.
10
Randal Springer, “Reclamation Project a Major Step Forward for Wanganui”, Whanganui River Annual
2002, vol. 13, pp. 32-37.
11
A. Stuart, “Reclamation of Tidal Flat: Levelling and Regrassing at Invercargill”, New Zealand Journal of
Agriculture, 58:1, 20 January 1939, pp. 55-56.
12
Public display panels located at the New River estuary provided information about the development and failure of the Port of Invercargill formerly sited at this location.
13
Harbours Act 1950, section 175. See also Harbours Amendment Act 1910, section 42; Harbours Act 1923,
section 168; and P.T. Moran, “Some Legal Aspects of Land Reclamation’ Town Planning Quarterly,
June 1971, pp. 12-16.
14
David A. Pinder and Michael E. Witherick, “Port Industrialization, Urbanization and Wetland Loss”, in
Michael Williams (ed.), Wetlands: A Threatened Landscape, Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell, 1990,
pp. 234-266.
15
Pinder and Witherick, “Port Industrialization, Urbanization and Wetland Loss”, pp. 264-265.
16
Brian Hudson, “The Urban Littoral Frontier: Land Reclamation in the History of Human Settlements”.
Paper presented at 14th IPHS Conference, Urban Transformation: Controversies, Contrasts and
Challenges, Istanbul: 2010. Retrieved 6 April 2011, from http:/iphs2010.com/abs/ID25pdf
17
Brian Hudson, “The Urban Littoral Frontier: Land Reclamation in the History of Human Settlements”, pp. 3-4.
18
Hudson, Cities on the Shore: The Urban Littoral Frontier, pp. 138-148.
19
For information on the size of the Napier South reclamation, see notice inviting tenders in Daily
Telegraph, 16 December 1899, p. 3, and earlier report in Daily Telegraph, 21 February 1899, p. 3.
20
For information on the size of the Ahuriri Lagoon reclamation, see notes endorsed on Figure 4.14; and Alan Purdie, “The Lagoon: Amazing Production 22 Years After Napier Earthquake Raised Land From
Sea-bed”, New Zealand Farmer, 22 October 1953, p. 3.
21
Eric Pawson, “On the Edge: Making Urban Places”, in Eric Pawson and Tom Brooking (eds),
Environmental Histories of New Zealand, South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. 200-213. The quotations appear on p. 202.
22
Pinder and Witherick, “Port Industrialization, Urbanization and Wetland Loss”, pp. 264-265.
23
Letter, Robert Park, Surveyor, to the Chief Commissioner, 7 June 1851, in “Report of the Land Purchase
Department Relative to the Extinguishment of Native Title in the Ahuriri District”, in Appendices to the
Journals of the House of Representatives of New Zealand, 1862, C-1, pp. 313-314.
24
Report, A. Domett to Superintendent of Wellington, about the completed plan of Napier, New Zealand
Government Gazette (Province of Wellington), 20 November 1855, pp. 133-136, at p. 134.
25
Napier Harbour Board Act 1875, see especially sections 5, and 15-18. Land was vested in the Board by the Napier Harbour Board Act 1874.
26
H.K. Stevenson, Port and People: Century at the Port of Napier, Napier: Hawke's Bay Harbour Board,
27
Hawke's Bay Herald, 10 December 1859, p. 3; and W.M. Hall, The Growth and Development of Napier – Town, Borough and City: A Resource Unit for Social Studies on Urbanisation, Napier: W.M. Hall, 1986, p. 74.
28
Hawke's Bay Herald, 22 November 1924, p. 9; and Daily Telegraph, Hawke's Bay “Before” and “After” the Great Earthquake of 1931: An Historical Record, Napier: Daily Telegraph, 1981, pp. 27-28. Facsimile edition with additional chapters by D.G. Conly. Originally published in 1931.
29
Hawke's Bay Herald, 22 November 1924, p. 9. See also Daily Telegraph, Hawke's Bay “Before” and “After” the Great Earthquake of 1931: An Historical Record, pp. 27-28.
30
M.D.N. Campbell, Story of Napier 1874-1974: Footprints Along the Shore, Napier: Napier City Council,
1975, pp. 43-44; and Hawke's Bay Herald, 30 November 1875.
31
Hawke's Bay Herald, 1 December 1875.
32
Hawke's Bay Herald, 19 July 1878, pp. 2-3, especially p. 2.
33
Campbell, Story of Napier 1874-1974: Footprints Along the Shore, pp. 43-46.
34
Hawke's Bay Herald, 27 July 1878, p. 3.
35
Hawke's Bay Herald, 19 November 1878,
36
Hawke's Bay Herald, 3 March 1881, p. 3, 24 March 1881, p. 2, and 7 April 1881, p. 2.
37
Hawke's Bay Herald, 18 February 1886, p. 3.
38
New Zealand Parliamentary Debates, 58, 1887, p. 148.
39
Kay M. Mooney, History of the County of Hawke's Bay: Part II, Napier: Hawke's Bay County Council,
1974, p. 113.
40
Mooney, History of the County of Hawke's Bay: Part II, p. 113; and Hall, The Growth and Development of
Napier – Town, Borough and City: A Resource Unit for Social Studies on Urbanisation, p. 74.
41
Campbell, Story of Napier 1874-1974: Footprints Along the Shore, p. 83.
42
See correspondence in Daily Telegraph, 22 March 1898, p. 2, and 4 February 1899, p. 3.
43
Campbell, Story of Napier 1874-1974: Footprints Along the Shore, pp. 82-83.
44
Daily Telegraph, 3 February 1899, p. 3.
45
Daily Telegraph, 3 February 1899, p. 3. See also Daily Telegraph, 20 December 1898, p. 3, and 2 February 1899, p. 3.
46
Daily Telegraph, 21 February 1899, p. 3.
47
Daily Telegraph, 21 February 1899, p. 3.
48
Daily Telegraph, 30 November 1899, p. 3.
49
See advertisement published in Daily Telegraph, 16 December 1899, p. 3, and other dates.
50
Hawke's Bay Herald, 17 January 1900, p. 4
51
Hawke's Bay Herald, 17 January 1900, p. 2.
52
Hawke's Bay Herald, 26 January 1900, p. 4.
53
See historical sign about Napier South, located at Alexander Park at the pergola near Kennedy Road.
54
Mooney, History of the County of Hawke's Bay: Part II, p. 114; and Matthew Wright, Hawke's Bay: The
History of a Province, Palmerston North: Dunmore Press, 1994, pp. 131-132. See also Daily Telegraph,
12 September 1899, p. 3, and 21 September 1899, p. 4; Hawke's Bay Herald, 2 February 1900, p. 2, and
15 February 1900, p. 4; and obituary of C.D. Kennedy in Daily Telegraph, 18 January 1929, p. 7.
55
This description is by George Nelson, cited in Mooney, History of the County of Hawke's Bay: Part II, p.
116. See also newspaper report, dated October 1902, in Hall, The Growth and Development of Napier –
Town, Borough and City, p. 63.
56
Mooney, History of the County of Hawke's Bay: Part II, p. 116-117.
57
R.J. Paterson, William Nelson of Tomoana: His Legacy to Hawke's Bay: A Family Scrapbook, Hastings:
R.J. Paterson, 2001, pp. 102-103.
58
Mooney, History of the County of Hawke's Bay: Part II, p. 116.
59
Paterson, William Nelson of Tomoana: His Legacy to Hawke's Bay, p. 103.