How to urbanise Auckland's sub-urbs

All this talk of intensification and compact development for Auckland. All this analysis of why Auckland's Growth strategy is not being delivered on the ground. All the reports exorting politicians to release land for more development at the edges. Cheaper houses for everybody. And on and on.

But what about the existing suburbs? Auckland is full of truly sub-urban development. Less than urban. More than rural, but less than urban. Conurbations of people in cul-de-sacs, dead worm streets. Urban design for cars, but not for good urban living.

These sub-urban areas of Auckland are where you MUST drive to do anything. Pretty much. Get a paper, some milk, go to work, get to primary school or kindy, find a community service, get a coffee. And you have to drive 2 or 3 kilometres. And you wouldn't send the kids on their bikes because it's too far, too dangerous...

We need a strategy to urbanise Auckland's suburbs. While we plan for future development, we need to plan for the future of existing development.

We need thinking and options for this. It might include a zone change to allow amalgamation of a couple of lots to provide a shop, with a home above. Or something a bit more mixed. The shop or service might need a bit of subsidy, because to begin with it might not be economic. But surely it is better to plan for and think about how the sub-urbs will survive, when fuel and driving becomes too expensive. When transport costs become too big for the household budget.

Sub-urban communities will have ideas about this. It's about bringing in some urban amenity.

How Sad is Princes Wharf? (Part 2)

This continues the story about Princes Wharf, and how the present development came about… I’ll try to be pithy. This is not an Environment Court submission. It's the court of public opinion. I need to explain the planning history a bit...

The stories I tell in this posting are:

1. Ports of Auckland’s decision to commercially develop Princes Wharf


2. Waitemata Harbour Maritime Planning Scheme Change No 4: (Princes Wharf)


3. Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal adapted to include Port Management Area 3


4. POAL’s decision to sell its leasehold interests in Princes Wharf to Kitchener Group


5. Clinton Bird’s certification for Kitchener Group’s redevelopment of Princes Wharf


6. Subsequent events

1. Ports of Auckland’s decision to commercially develop Princes Wharf

From what I can glean from people who were around in the mid 1980’s, Princes Wharf was in a pretty run-down state. And the then Auckland Port Authority became interested in the possibility of a commercial development. Money could be made. It appears a sort of design competition was held for ideas. About 15 groups contributed. There was a short-list. The best was chosen. I haven’t seen any documents about this process.

It’s my guess that the process for changing the Waitemata Harbour Maritime Planning Scheme must have been triggered by this opportunity. Apparently there was considerable public debate – I wasn’t in Auckland then – maybe someone can shed some light (add a comment). It appears the whole thing went before the Planning Tribunal which made the final decision.

However enthusiasm for the development idea evaporated after the 1987 crash.

2. Waitemata Harbour Maritime Planning Scheme Change No 4: (Princes Wharf)

Scheme Change No 4 (Princes Wharf), was finally determined by the Planning Tribunal in May 1990. Must've taken a while. It seems there was a lot of public interest. The scheme change created a new Port Zone C. It relates to Princes Wharf. The purpose of the zone:

“is to provide for the development and operation of port facilities
(particularly those serving overseas and ferry passengers and visitors) and the
redevelopment of the ferry wharves, Quayside and Princes Wharf in a way which
will retain and promote the visual and public access links between downtown
Auckland and the harbour, provide a range of activities which will encourage
public use and create a vibrant social environment focussing on the maritime
setting, and which will have a sound economic base…”

This sounds remarkably positive and upbeat – reminscent even of the words used for Tankfarm. And no mention of the need to optimise revenue! The scheme change included special requirements for uses on Princes Wharf. These make interesting reading in hindsight:

“…it is a fundamental objective of the redevelopment of Princes Wharf that it should contain an appropriate mix of uses so as to achieve a balance between commercial activity and public access and enjoyment of the Wharf. To ensure that an appropriate mix and balance of uses is provided and maintained, there is a requirement for a minimum percentage of the development to be of publicly orientated uses – 'people places' – such as Art Galleries, Museums, Theatres, Entertainment or Educational Facilities, and in addition certain 'private commercial' uses shall be limited to maximum percentages of the development. There is a further requirement for minimum percentages of internal and external public spaces….”

This is even more positive. Imagine if that had actually happened.

But the zone starts to come undone a bit with the specifics. The fine print. The planning detail includes various specific requirements, more words:

"...that the maximum gross floor area of all buildings shall not exceed 100,000
square metres; and not less than 25% of that maximum GFA shall be occupied “…by
a museum and a threatre or cinema, and one or more of any of the following other
publicly orientated uses; passenger terminal, retail market place, taverns,
bars, restaurants, foodhalls, cafes, additional museums, cinemas and theatres,
art galleries and other entertainment facilities…”

Sticking the passenger terminal in there, along with Cinemas and Museums – especially the passenger terminal we have to tolerate on Princes Wharf – hardly a public place – soaks up this 25% quickly. Without really delivering on the nice words in the objective.

Then there are the specifics for public space. The scheme distinguishes between external public space (public space outside the building footprint) and internal public space (public space within the building footprint). These requirements are stated as:

* A minimum of 35% of the wharf deck area shall be retained as external public space (I assume this includes the central street, cross streets, as well as wharf perimeter and end areas);
* A minimum of 30% of the required external public space shall be located within the northern third of the wharf area (ie at the end);
* Not less than 15% of the gross floor area of the wharf deck level, and the first
upper level of all buildings shall be in the form of internal public places and
pedestrian circulation areas…
* A minimum width of 6 metres of external public space shall be provided for the
full perimeter of the wharf.

It’s obvious now that the 6 metre external walkway is too narrow and dominated. Hard to change now. A good example not to follow. And I'm doubtful about the public nature of the streets. They seem highly private. More like driveways. Basically car parks.

What is less obvious is the nature and quality of internal public spaces. Where might I find those within the development? That's a rhetorical question - by the way.

The scheme change goes into some detail, however, describing how the public space at the northern end of Princes Wharf should work. It states that

“a length of 64 metres shall be provided at and around the northern end of the
development within the building envelope as external public space containing
flights of public steps, ramps, associated elevated landings… for the purpose
of:
* providing public access from within the development to the public areas
at the end….
* Enhancing the quality and aspect of the northern extremities of
the building as public space…
* Ensuring that visually and functionally the public facilities at and about the northern end of the development are attractive and encourage public use…”

You’d have to say that there is a whole swag of problems at the end of Princes Wharf (for example the design of the public spaces and steps – which might be attractive - do not encourage public use. If anything the design actively discourages public use.).

3. Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal adapted to include Port Management Area 3

You’re doing well if you got here. Basically the ARC incorporated the Waitemata Harbour Maritime Planning Scheme Change No 4, into ARC's Plan Coastal which was prepared under the newly enacted Resource Management Act 1989.

The Port Management Area 3 chapter of the ARC Plan Coastal notes that by 1991 the development that had been originally envisaged by Ports of Auckland had not taken place, and states:

“… the upgrading and modernisation of facilities on Princes Wharf could
significantly benefit tourism, recreation, and the public amenity values of the
waterfront. Any development would need to complement the urban landscape, be in
scale with adjacent land-based development, and retain views of the harbour from
surrounding locations. A high level of public access would need to be
maintained, particularly around the northern end of Princes Wharf…”

Nice words. But very hard to reconcile with what got built there. In retrospect I find it quite extraordinary that the ARC decided that it need only retain a tiny amount of discretion in considering any resource consent application for Princes Wharf. Probably because the Scheme Change had already been argued in front of the Planning Tribunal. Basically ARC’s Plan Coastal said that anything that fitted within a horrendous building envelope 37 metres high, sloping to 22 metres and 15 metres high at the sides, and running solid along the wharf, could be built as of right, as a fully complying activity. No notification necessary. Apply and you’ll get consent.

Ports of Auckland had their wicked way. In it for the money.

The tiny bit of planning discretion retained by the ARC - the foot-in-the-planning-door - that the ARC did give itself, was that the ARC:

“had control over… the extent to which the design and external appearance of any
buildings or structures recognises the city/harbour relationship, the prominent
maritime setting of the site, and the public use of the development…”

That was pretty feeble. I’d love to have been a fly on the wall as the ARC capitulated, and almost entirely abrogated its public interest RMA responsibilities over Princes Wharf. It’s as if the RMA had never been written. The Act’s high ideals and principles could’ve been used to relitigate this pre 1987 crash proposal. But instead the old style Waitemata Harbour Scheme Change was simply incorporated. Rolled over. Pretty much unchanged. Note to self: check out the ARC committee reports around this time.

With a planning regime like that in place, it was only a matter of time before a resource consent application to develop Princes Wharf would be received.


4. Ports of Auckland’s sells its interests in Princes Wharf to Kitchener Group

In the mid 1990's, with the fallout of the 1987 crash long forgotten, development in Auckland took off again. It was business as usual.

On the 18th June 1997, Ports of Auckland Ltd issued a media release through NZX (Capital Markets) which announced the sale of POAL’s leasehold interests (98 years) in Princes Wharf to Kitchener Group of Companies for $25.752 million.

The media release noted that the proceeds of the sale “will be used for general business purposes…”, I wonder what those were. The release also noted that the sale “is the result of Ports of Auckland’s review of its asset base and continuing focus on its core port operational activities…”


5. Clinton Bird certifies Kitchener Group’s redevelopment of Princes Wharf

Now we get to the business end of this. The Scheme Change, which was mostly incorporated into ARC’s Plan Coastal, required that the developer should obtain a certificate from an independent registered architect. That person needed to formally certify: “that the design and appearance of the proposed development of Princes Wharf is responsive to the city/harbour relationship, the prominent maritime setting of the site and the public use of the development and its setting…” You might recognise those words from ARC's Plan Coastal (above).

The issues that certifier should consider were all listed in the Scheme Change. Some of these filtered through into ARC’s Plan Coastal. But not all. Not even the obligation to have a certifier. Not sure why. Anyway. The ARC did decide to get a certifier in. They wanted someone who knew stuff about urban design issues to look at the plans. They chose Clinton Bird. After he’d done the work, it turned out that Mr Bird wasn’t actually a registered architect. So ARC had another architect who was registered, endorse and certify Mr Bird’s report. This was Diane Brand. She didn’t go through the process that Mr Bird went through, but commissioners were satisfied the process as a whole complied with the intent of the Scheme Change.

In his introduction to his Princes Wharf project design and appearance certification report, Mr Bird describes how he worked:

“…throughout the … process, regular contact and close dialogue has been maintained with the manager of the Kitchener Group.., his architect, and his planning consultant. This approach was considered to be the most positive, efficient, and constructive, given the collective aspiration to extract the best possible architectural and urban design result from the opportunity to develop Princes Wharf…”

I have to say this sort of collaboration gives me the heebie jeebies. They all work together. Then commissioners get to see the document. Everything all sorted out. And how expert and independent was Mr Bird? And what urban design prejudices and opinions might he bring to this process? I'm concerned because my academic and practical experience of urban design issues and questions is that they are never clearcut. Lots of subjectivity and little objectivity. There is lots of fluffy opinion. Hard for commissioners to see the wood for the trees in all this fluff.

First I'll note some facts from Mr Bird’s report.

He notes that there is a contractual agreement between the Kitchener Group and Ports of Auckland which imposes constraints on the proposed development. Some of these constraints are summarised by Mr Bird. He states that these include a commitment to: "....retaining the structure of the six existing sheds..." and "....re-establishing the two way central ‘street’ which was traditionally a busy thoroughfare associated with loading and unloading in the ‘heart’ of the wharf...."

I bolded these because they seem pretty important commitments. The quote marks round 'street' and 'heart' are Mr Bird's. There is much talk in his certification document of the centrality in the design proposal of the streets on Princes Wharf, and of the retention of the existing character sheds.

There is also an assurance that the proposed building “is not an iconic building…” Interesting.

In the guts of his report, Mr Bird provides the following reassuring text:

“By retaining the existing sheds, the development relates not only to the earlier wharf structures, but also to the dominant texture of the city. The resulting city texture on the wharf would be not too dissimilar to assembling six slightly longer but similarly wide and high Ferry buildings in the same pattern of layout…”

(Pardon my language. This is so misleading.)

And he writes:

“Within this new city texture, the development contributes a new city street running north-south down the centre of the wharf, two pedestrian waterside promenades along the eastern and western sides of the wharf, a series of colonades on both sides of the central street and on one side of the waterside promenades, together with a major new public space at the northern extremity of the wharf…”

(Again. What a misrepresentation of reality. So misleading. Not a word of caution. No suggestion of conditions that might deliver the reality of this vision. Beware the silver-tongued urban design expert with an agenda.)

His pen runs on:

“Also evident in this plan is the good neighbourly relationships the redevelopment establishes with respect to other civic uses in the vicinity. For example, the ocean racing yacht architectural design imagery is entirely appropriate to the Maritime Museum uses and small yacht harbour to its immediate west. The same imagery will also provide a counterfoil to the industrial shed-like imagery of the Maritime Museum architecture….”

(Boy oh boy. This is why you have design competitions. This is why you involve the public and try out a few ideas. Here all we have is an apologist for a single idea. )

But the Bird opinion that really gets me is this:

“Although the height of the buildings will be greater than those currently existing on the wharf, and greater than those currently on Queens Wharf to the east, the additional height proposed will help to achieve a sense of enclosure and definition to the harbour space in front of the Ferry building. The proposed development will act like a ‘constructed headland’… this will assist in restoring a more visually interesting and spatially attractive city waterfront which, as a result of of successive harbour reclamations since the founding of the city, has been reduced to a relatively flat, straight edge…”.

(Fantastic. In fact the opposite is the case. The best view of Auckland’s waterfront now is the end of Tankfarm. You have an extraordinary sense of space, left to the Harbour Bridge, right to Mt Victoria and Rangitoto. The notion that Auckland city’s waterfront view should somehow be “enclosed” is narrow, and somehow very sad. Like - you are only entitled to a really decent view of Auckland’s harbour if you are employed in a highrise office. Or own an apartment on Princes Wharf.)

But I do owe Mr Bird thanks for a couple of recommendations. He was worried about signs, and he worried about seats and other amenity in the public areas. (NB: I think it totally deficient that there are no public toilets at the end of Princes Wharf. How many public parks and spaces can you think of that don't provide public toilets? )

Mr Bird called for a further stage of design and appearance certification for the design of the urban landscape, and he also reckoned the same sort of process should apply to the design of signage and visual identification.

Not sure what happened there. Eg the “Hilton” sign on public assets. How did that get permitted? And the lack of seats on the wharf deck area (mind you – if the deck edge is a race track for Hilton-bound taxis and shuttles – seats would get in the way, wouldn’t they.)

6. Subsequent events

This brings me to the end. Of this posting anyway. More about Princes Wharf to come later.

I am aware that more than one ARC councillor is embarrassed by Princes Wharf.

There was even a court case over the fence/gate that’s there to prevent public access when a cruise ship might come. That gate was closed even when there was no ship. That's been fixed it seems. Now that side of the wharf gets used as a car park. You often see cars stacked up between the colonades that will be kept “free for pedestrian acceess…”.

And then there are the elevated viewing platforms at the end. Story was that private tenants would come out and scare the public away. Not really public at all. So in a celebrated picnic, Cllr Walbran went there with family, but couldn’t gain access because of padlocks on the gates. It was all reported by Rudman:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10342524
But nothing much has changed since. Sure the padlocks have gone. But it’s still a forbidding place to find some public peace. Hard to untangle public space from all those private hands.

Professional urban design investigation would involve placing a video camera and analysing how people actually use the end of the wharf. It’s all very well to stamp down there as Chair of Regional Strategy and Policy – knowing what the rules are. It’s quite another to hesitantly go down there (why would you anyway?) – confronted by all the signs saying thou shalt not fish, sit, stand…. Hilton branding everywhere - and find that quiet people place.

The one good thing about ARC’s resource consent that permitted the Princes Wharf development is the standard review clause. It’s a review condition. It states that the conditions of consent may be reviewed by the ARC in order to deal with any adverse effect on the environment which may arise from the exercise of this consent.

It also provides for the ARC to carry out a review of the conditions of consent including altering monitoring requirements … in light of results carried out from investigations. Time for some formal investigation I think.

The ARC owes the public a review of the conditions of consent for the Princes Wharf development. We can’t keep our back turned. Not forever. Not for 98 years. It's time to fix this.

ARH Diversified Fund failure hits $50 million

Accounts reveal that Auckland Regional Holding's controversial "Diversified Fund Asset" was down $50,715,000 on plan for the 6 months ending December 2008. This includes the $25 million losses reported in the September 2008 quarter.

One helluva Christmas present for Auckland.

Sure some of these are reported as "paper losses", but you'd be a brave - perhaps even foolhardy - person, to bet your bottom dollar on results getting better any time soon.

Put simply, at the start of this financial year - 1st July 2008 - this ARH fund (which includes global equities, global bonds and some NZ cash assets), had a market value of $300 million. Now it's worth $262 million. The losses include losses in capital value plus losses against planned earnings due to the fact the investments performed so badly.

Put even more starkly, the DFA was fully established in December 2007, when it's market value was $309 million (because ARH put in about that amount in cold cash). This fund was established following ARC's majority vote decision to support this "material transaction". This vote was opposed by a significant minority of ARC councillors - including me.

So $309 million of regional savings - held in trust for public transport and stormwater investments - was invested in the stock exchange just over a year ago. And as at the end of December 2008 it was worth $262 million - without generating any revenues along the way.

If ARC had insisted ARH kept that money in the bank instead, earning 5% interest, that capital sum would have been worth $324 million by Christmas 2008.

A nice regional nest egg.

But instead it's worth $262 million. A cool $62 million less than if it had been left in the bank earning 5% interest.

You could buy a lot of new trains for that.....

How sad is Princes Wharf (Part 1)?

The Princes Wharf disaster is one of my main motivations for trying to get the public planning and public outcomes right for Wynyard Quarter. I don't want to see more Princes Wharf mistakes made again. But I have a bad feeling in my belly. The same people, and the same organisations are still involved. But I get ahead of myself.

To do this story justice it's necessary to start somewhere near the beginning. Based on the simple idea that if we don't learn from history we are sure to repeat it. Here's how Princes Wharf looked in the 1930's....



You can see that the buildings rose about 2 or 3 stories above the wharf. You can also see the classic and attractive architecture that was involved. This next picture is one of the few surviving pictures that I could find that looks down into the heart of Princes Wharf...

There are ships tied up. It was used mostly for cargo. You can see, on the right of the picture that the buildings on Princes Wharf consisted of two blocks with a street running up the centre, and the buildings had frontages to that street. I understand there were a couple of cross streets too. The uses changed a bit with time, and a public car park was established on the wharf at some later date.

I need to jump ahead now and include a few of pictures of how it looks today.

The central street idea is still sort of there - except it's basically a car park. You can see some of the colonades retained at street level. But basically it's a carpark, with its very own setof traffic lights, with a road up the centre. Cars go to and from their carparks, taxis and shuttles go to and from the Hilton hotel at the end. You can also see cars parked between the colonnades on the Eastern side of Princes Wharf - on public space. And any time of day you can see taxis and shuttles intruding on the public open space at the end of Princes Wharf. No penalties for driving all over a public park there!

And at the end there is a tiny remnant of the fine old architecture that was originally at the end of the wharf. That's the part that is emblazoned with the sign: "Hilton". It also frames a public viewing area - quite nice when you find it - one of the best kept public space secrets in Auckland.

Here's another picture of the viewing area - this time with 4 ARC Councillors checking it out.

The councillor on the left is Cllr Walbran. He was one of the ARC councillors who granted the resource consent needed to build the Hilton Hotel and the apartments. He was one of those who granted the consent in March 1998. Not that long ago when you think about it.

Intuitively, you'd think Auckland City Council would have been the one to grant these consents. After all, it's a building. After all, it's pretty in your face down there on Auckland's waterfront. And there's traffic issues and urban design issues.

In fact, the reason ARC granted the consent is that the building is not on land, it's on water. Or above the seabed to be precise. So the Plan the application was tested against was the ARC's Plan Coastal, and - presumably, its Regional Policy Statement. So Auckland City Council's fine-grained isthmus section of its District Plan didn't have jurisdiction.

That is also why ARC Councillors heard the application. When I say "heard" that's somewhat of a misnomer, because the application was not even notified. ARC Councillors made that decision too. That it didn't need to be notified. This was largely possible because an earlier Scheme Change going back to 1990 had been adopted to the Waitemata Horbour Maritime Planning Scheme. ARC councillors could quite easily have decided to notify the application - citing public interest issues and all that good stuff. But they did not.

Time to include another picture....

This one shows a bunch of ARC councillors checking out the East side of Princes Wharf. It's hard to believe, but one of those councillors was heard to opine, "I don't know what all the fuss is about. This is really good...".

When you read the councillor's decision to grant consent, and the conditions attached, you can see the emphasis of the ARC coming through. It's all about sewage, stormwater, sediment, and wind, with some mention of signs. These are classic issues for ARC with its adverse effects to environment regulatory hat on. But as for urban design, streetscape, traffic effects, public space design - all of the things that contribute to public amenity. Almost total silence.

I'm getting grumpy now, so I'll end this post while I'm still cheerful. There will be one or two more coming up, with a few more facts and figures. What I wanted to end with though, is the fact that this ARC consent was granted having complied with a rather unusual requirement. This was that the design and appearance of the building had to be certified by an independent architect. This was presumably so that the ARC councillors - with no experience in such matters - could rely on some independent planning advice.

The certification for this application was carried out by Clinton Bird, who at the time was Director of Clinton Bird Urban Design Ltd, and Associated Professor of Architecture at University of Auckland. His analysis is a revelation. So are some of the other facts behind this project. More to come later....

Smart Auckland Commuter Rail is about more than New Trains

I've already blogged about this a bit, but I need to share with you some Perth wisdom, because at ARC, especially at Chairman Lee level, there is a fixation that buying new electric trains will somehow, magically, be the silver bullet.

It's hard to find another apple to compare with Auckland. Perth comes close - because it has similar urban density (low), private car ownership (high), and a pre-existing railway system (both narrow gauge). A major difference though, is that Perth's old railway was already largely separated from the roading network. Perth's rail network partly arose from the need to drag tonnes of ore for refinement and shipment. These heavy, long trains needed to run so they did not affect road traffic. So they were built with underpassess, viaducts, bridges to run clear over road traffic. Not everywhere, but largely.

Auckland could not be more different. It's railway was always a bit hesitant and runs in a sort of co-habiting way with the roading network. You can see this most clearly at Onehunga and NewLynn where the at-grade road crossings cause more and more conflict between road traffic and train traffic.

Everybody is clear in Auckland about one thing when it comes to electrification and modernisation of Auckland's commuter rail network, and that is that it will carry between 30 and 60 million passenger trips annually. That is the sort of achievement of Perth Rail. So we might as well learn from what Perth did, what it cost, and where the money went.

A very useful power point summary of some of that experience can be seen at:
http://rtsa.com.au/assets/2008/12/the-expansion-of-the-urban-rail-system.pdf
Some useful thinking is in there about what needs to happen to get people to use modern rail in low density urban environments like Auckland. While it's not exactly apples and apples, this presentation also makes the point that the costs of the MetroRail expansion project were "19% for railcars and depots" and "70% for the Perth Mandurrah" section of railway. Then it itemises the elements of that project to include: underground stations & tunnels; freeway bridges and infrastructure; track, signalling and communications; suburban railway stations; train control system; other infrastructure.

A key idea that emerged was the need for integrated planning - where the transport planning of State highways and railways through Perth became integrated. These pics show some of that thinking on the ground.

Probably the most important point throughout that presentation - one which they really bang on about - is the need for comprehensive master-planning. The presentation ends with these concluding remarks about what is needed for success in applying rail to low density settlement:

• A proper understanding of the market
• Good preliminary planning
• The production of highly credible, persuasive Master
  Plans that define the demand and scope of work to
  sufficient detail to lock the scope in
• Followed by good project management and an
  understanding how that needs to be applied
  

In Auckland, with Chairman Lee fixated on buying trains, Ontrack rushing into rail, but land use authorities and state highway authorities prioritising cars and roads - we will certainly spend money, but risk missing the benefits from a modernised commuter rail network that more effective and long term planning can deliver. In particular we must get away from the present silo approach to rail planning. Integrated planning is about more than integrated land and transport planning - it's about integrating the planning functions and coordinating the relevant activities of all the main players.

The Aucklander Vs NZ Herald Vs Royal Commission

Not long to wait now. But thankfully the NZ Herald has given up trying to influence the Royal Commission. The best media place to look these days for a good feel for where the Royal Commission might be going is The Aucklander. It is to be congratulated in running some useful backgrounders containing useful and insightful discussion with Peter Salmond - the Chair of the Royal Commission.

Part of any change strategy must include some sharing of information and ideas with the public in advance of formal hard decisions. Within reason of course. Better to have prepared the ground a little so people are not too surprised and so there is s better chance of having the ideas received thoughtfully rather than dismissively.

A few weeks ago, the Aucklander ran a very thoughtful story about Vancouver, and about the Royal Commission's reactions to their visit there. You can see it at:

http://www.theaucklander.co.nz/news/story.cfm?storyID=3792088

This week's issue (yesterday I think it was circulated), contained an insight into the transition process that will be needed to give effect to the Royal Commission's recommendations. It considered the possibility of Peter Salmond acting as the commissioner in charge of oversee-ing the transition between now, and the elections in October 2010. When it's on the Aucklander website I will include a link to it here:


But for now, the article is a useful steer. Thank about it. Any change will likely require legislation. This will need to be in place well before the 2010 elections. It will need to go through Parliament and its Select Ctte processes. Other changes - such as amalgamation of certain local council institutions, or their breakup - will be profoundly destabilising for current operations and for staff. Strong regional plans will need to be put in place. A transitionary commission maybe the best way of ensuring the development of that plan.

In the meantime - read the Aucklander. It has its finger on the pulse of the Royal Commission. The NZ Herald seems to want to force feed it.

What's the connection between Beckham & Iron Maiden?

You might wonder what the connection is. Well, the first connection is that there was a separate story about each on TV1 news last night. They were in the same news hour.

In the first story ARC's Chief Executive had to front the announcement that ARC had sustained a $1.74 million dollar loss in hosting the Beckham LA Galaxy Soccer event at Mt Smart Stadium. You can see some of the devastatingly empty seats behind the pic of Beckham shown here. He put on a good show.

The second story on TV1 was about the concert being held tonight at Mt Smart (20th Feb) where Iron Maiden is to perform. It was a nice story about 3 guys sleeping outside the gates for tickets. They came up with a question about Iron Maiden that even the band's manager couldn't answer - and it turns out the trio will get free passes back stage tonight, so they can ask their question in person. Fantastic.

But here's the thing. TV1 also announced a "two for one deal" on Iron Maiden tickets. Now where have I heard that before? What does it usually mean?

And to wrap this one up, just to note that ARC's Chief Executive on TV1, said that the lessons of running the Beckham Event will be learned by the Auckland Regional Council, "...so that this sort of thing never happens again..."

Funny thing happened at the waterfront...

This is a wee story about what's happening down at the Viaduct. Or what's planned to happen at the Wynyard Quarter edge of Viaduct Harbour.

Just to orient you first, here's a general picture of that part of the Auckland waterfront:


You can see Auckland Harbour Bridge in the background, and Wynyard Quarter or TankFarm in the middle distance, with Te Wero Island in the bottom right of the picture. On the Eastern edge of Wynyard Quarter you can see the America's Cup bases. Here's a closer picture of them:


On the right is where Team New Zealand was located, then there was Alinghi, and Oracle and so on. Those pictures were taken a few years ago.

However, during the recent Louis Vuitton regatta, these buildings were well used, and so was the big apron of land between those base buildings and the Viaduct Harbour. In fact it was regularly packed with interested members of the public....

So what's the big deal? Well, Auckland Regional Holdings - under ARC direction - is still keen on "optimising return" from this land, and recently presented to ARC its idea of what should go on the land where the America's Cup bases currently stand. They want to put a hotel there - believe it or not. There are advanced plans to replace the America's Cup syndicate base buildings, and that wonderful big public space in front, with a 27 metre high hotel. And there will be a 10 metre wide public access strip in front. ARC was only told about this towards the end of last year. Even Cllr Walbran seemed to be surprised.

Here is their artistic impression of that idea:

The white thing sticking forward in the middle is where the proposed Te Wero Bridge is proposed, crossing from Te Wero Island to Jellicoe Street.

You can see how wide that 10 metre access strip would be, and how dominated it would be by the proposed hotel frontage. It would feel much like that eastern side of Princes Wharf, which is dominated by the Hilton Hotel building and apartments. I suppose there's some consistency because Cllr Walbran was one of the commissioners who consented that Hilton project, and now he's on the boards of Sea + City and ARH. My concern is that Auckland will lose something really precious, a special amenity, if this is allowed to happen. Why do we allow history to repeat itself?

And this is where it gets funny. In early 2005 the joint Political Liaison Group of the Auckland City Council and the Auckland Regional Council consulted the public on what should happen down there. It was a widely publicised consultation. By the closing date sometime round the end of March 2005, 851 public submissions had been received. Of these 7.3% said they lived in the waterfront, 17.5 worked in the waterfront area, 63.5 lived in Auckland City, 21.4% lived outside Auckland City but in the Greater Auckland region, and 1.4% were visitors.

The results of this survey were then reported to both Councils.

Just 9 specific questions were asked in the survey.

Question 5 asked: "How strongly do you support or oppose some of the future options for the former America's Cup bases?"

Respondents were given 6 options to choose between: Marine Events Centre; Marine services activity; Open public space; Education; Residential development; Office and commercial development. The key results are summarised here:

• 77% of respondents supported or strongly supported Open Public Space.


• 65% of respondents supported or strongly supported Marine Events centre.


• But - only 13% / 12% supported or strongly supported Residential development / Office and commercial development respectively.


• And underlining that - 61% / 63% strongly opposed or opposed Residential development / Office and commercial development respectively.

Now, you might ask: but they didn't ask about hotels. True. But the effects on people using public space are much the same. It would be like another Westin Hotel with all the same reverse senstivity and dominance effects. In case you don't believe me about the survey, I have scanned the publicly reported results of this question, and you can download it yourself here: http://www.joelcayford.com/AkWfrontbasesopinionsurvey.jpg

So. What can be done to deliver an outcome supported by the public of Auckland?

Right now, submissions are being prepared for the inevitable appeal of Plan Change 4, promulgated by Auckland City Council, and which provides for this change of use on what is known as Quarter 7 (oddly) of the Wynyard Quarter. Auckland Regional Council is finalising its appeal documentation. So is Auckland Regional Holdings (ARH) - still driven by the directive to "optimise revenue". You'd think ARC might give some regard to what the public wants in its submission. You could ask your ARC Councillor what he or she thinks....

When the ARC committee discussed what should be on our submission about this we were rightly advised we could only raise matters already covered in our main submission to the plan change. That's the law. Tweedeldee sat quiet in the corner because he's also on the Board of Sea + City - and ARH for that matter. But Tweedledee opined that ARC had "known about this Hotel project for years....". News to me, and many others round that table.

You can bet your bottom dollar that ARH will be pushing for that Hotel at the appeal with all its energy and resources, while ARC is there wondering how far it can go, pushing in the opposite direction - given the public mandate it sought....

This is another funny thing. ARH is totally owned and governed by ARC. You'd think both institutions might sing from the same song sheet. Something for the Royal Commission to ponder upon.

Who to blame for ARC losses?

The ARC is groaning under the weight of Official Information Act requests for details of losses sustained by the LA Galaxy/Beckam football event held at Mt Smart late last year. During the night of the dramatically low turnout, the ARC Chairman appropriately fronted TV cameras and accepted full responsibility. But as the full magnitude of the loss became apparent, and details emerged about which staff member had done what, tactics changed and ARC's Chairman asked the Office of the Auditor General to investigate everything and anything related to the event. The O.A.G. has been offered wide terms of reference for its investigation. Last I heard that report might come in a few months. These things take time.

Interestingly, on a David Beckham blog site at: http://www.davidbeckhamnet.com/ the following extracts from a NewsTalkZB report are quoted:

"The new Local Government Minister wants to know what went wrong, after the
disappointing LA Galaxy exhibition match which will leave the Auckland Regional
Council out of pocket.For organisers to break even, 19,000 people were needed to
attend Saturday night's game at Mt Smart Stadium between David Beckham's
football team and the Oceania All Stars. However, the crowd numbered only 16,600
with many taking advantage of the two-tickets-for-one deal which was on offer
when it was realised attendance would be lower than expected.Minister Rodney
Hide says if the Auckland Regional Council can afford to promote football
matches, it is obviously swimming in cash. He says rates need to be brought
under control and ratepayers need to be getting value for money.The ARC has said
ratepayers will not be affected and the loss will be offset by profitable events
such as the upcoming Big Day Out and the Iron Maiden concert. LA Galaxy won the
match 3-0. Earlier this year, The Herald reported that the Galaxy's match fee
was $1.71 million...."

While the details of the ARC meeting (Full Council 28th April 2008) which decided to go ahead with the Beckham event are confidential, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to guess how much the event would have cost in total, adding to the match fee: LA Galaxy travel and accommodation costs; marketing and promotion costs; and all the other costs that are properly associated with a professionally run event like this.

We can all see what happened. The idea of a Beckham event in Auckland was attractive. But it could only be guaranteed if LA Galaxy were booked and paid for well in advance. The die was cast in the middle of 2008. Then along came the mother of all crashes. But the show had to go on. It was then a question of maximising attendance in the teeth of a recession which saw people scratching around to fill their family christmas stockings. A completely different economic context from the time when the decision to commit to LA Galaxy was taken.

Who do you blame for the recession?

Anyway, shortly after the Herald published a dramatic front page expose of ARC's losses on another front (losses sustained by its treasury function ARH which manages Ports of Auckland Ltd, Regional cash reserves, Waterfront development etc on ARC's behalf)

(see: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10554681),

the Hon Rodney Hide paid the ARC Chairman a visit. I can't reveal what was discussed, but again, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to guess.

What a conundrum. The Chair has stated he's responsible for the Beckham losses - speaking for the ARC Council. Now everybody and their dog wants to know what the losses are, and they are leaving no stone unturned trying to get at the facts. And now the Auditor General has been asked to investigate. Where will it all end?

The Beckham thing is all very interesting, but surely the losses sustained by ARH - following decisions by the ARC - are of rather greater significance. Somewhere between $35million and $70million in the past 12 months. With more in store. Who is to blame for them? Who is accountable? How did those decisions get made based on available information?

Surely it would be a better use of public money to have the Office of the Auditor General investigate that one, if it is to investigate anything at all.

Electrification: ARC needs to work with Government

Under present funding arrangements, it was never going to be possible for ARC to fund Auckland Region's share of modernising and electrifying Auckland's rail network. Even if all we talk about is the existing network. And we ignore how rail to the airport and the Britomart rail tunnel might be funded.

It is critical also, that integrated ticketing is implemented as a matter of priority - probably higher priority than electrification itself. The transport and economic benefits that acrue from rational integrated ticketing and fares would be vast even for the present network and rail, bus and ferry services.

The ARC has got itself up a bit of gum tree on this issue. There is a combination of "Little Red Hen" and "Little Engine that Could" about its behaviour. Which is unfortunate, and does not help the region go forward. In my view, effective implementation and modernisation of Auckland's rail will require the concerted effort of central, regional and local government.

As its funding power has dropped there is a growing desperation among some at the ARC, and a sort of vainglorious hope that it alone can still lift Auckland from its bed of motorways (Little Red Hen meets Little Engine that Could - aka Tweedledee in this blog). This is reflected in the desire to concentrate only on buying trains - as if shiney new trains are the be-all and end-all of a modern urban rail system.

I have been advised by Aussie rail experts that while there are similarities between Perth's rail project and Auckland's, is that Perth's rail was already largely separated from the roading network - before electrification, and that few intersections (where roads physically cross railway lines) needed to be grade separated (through viaducts, bridges, tunnels, road closures etc). This is not the case in Auckland. Locals living in Onehunga, West Auckland, and around Pukekohe will atest to the huge number of rail crossings - which would be almost permanently closed to roading traffic when electric trains run at 5 to 10 minute frequencies.

The ARC has notionally allocated about $20 million to this. Kick start funding in the hope that City and District councils would pick up this issue and deal with it. Fat chance. The New Lynn rail station project is a good example of what is in store. It's a good project. I like it. All sorts of objectives met: urban development, urban intensification, Transit Oriented Development, bus/rail interchange, economic development incentive, AND several road crossings separated from rail tracks. But at a cost of more than $100 million.

That's what it costs.... and that's the tip of the iceberg.

Trains need maintaining and garaging amd washing and cleaning. Those buildings and facilities need to be built and paid for. Modern stations need to be built which optimise local development opportunities - and encourage private development. At least. Each station is a major opportunity for urban renewal and economic transformation.

Buying a shiney set of trains - alone - does not cut it. It is no way to run an urban railroad.

The ARC needs to lift itself from its bunker on the hill, and build trusting and robust and enduring relationships with central government and city and district government, and walk the talk of building networks for tomorrow.

Time to wind up Auckland Regional Holdings

The Auckland Regional Council's treasury - Auckland Regional Holdings (aka ARH) - has been getting some bad press lately: Ports profits down; huge losses on global bond and global equity investments; property industry decline impacting returns from proposed waterfront developments. I accept that this downturn has been significantly worsened by the global financial meltdown. But the seeds were sown for this failure 2 and 3 years ago. That was when ARH recommended to ARC:

1. that sweet-heart deal with Maersk (driven by an absurb combative attitude to Ports of Tauranga, and which has led to Ports of Auckland almost subsidising container handling the prices are so low, and Maersk laughing all the way to the bank - Cllr Walbran told us: "it's all about volume" - I say: "a million times bugger-all is still bugger-all..."), and
2. that around $300 million of carefully garnered public cash (set aside for public transport investment), be thrown to the wolves of international fund markets.

There was advice then, in front of councillors, that there were risks with these courses of action. Votes were taken in confidential meetings where there was significant opposition. But the majority won, and now the region reaps the consequences.

The problem now is that these reduced assets are not able to generate the returns anticipated and expected to fund the region's share of either the purchase of an effective electric rail system, nor its operation. Desperate measures are being considered including the rapid windup of the global investments - when paper losses will become real, but the region will have most of its money back.

So what to do?

It has always been an option for ARC to significantly reduce the role and workload of ARH, by transferring assets and responsibilities back under the direct control and management of ARC. ARC has a highly experienced and skilled bunch of financial managers, as well as those whose job it has been to monitor the performance and effectiveness of ARH itself. There is significant duplicated effort. There is also a lot of cost associated with the monthly, quarterly, and annual processes currently required between ARC and ARH.

ARH has already transferred one significant asset to ARC, and that is the waterfront parkland at the end of Wynyard Point (half under control of Auckland City Council, and half with ARC).

It is time to cut the losses imposed by the relationship between ARC and ARH, and by the conflicting purposes inherent in ARH:

• by transferring Ports of Auckland Ltd to ARC;
• by transferring all cash and financial investment assets to the ARC's own highly effective treasury function;
• and by moving Sea + City to the ARC, where it would be governed by the ARC's Transport and Urban Development Committee and expert staff.

The Port company would retain its own board (as would Sea + City) - as at present - and operate somewhat akin to the way ARTA now runs - governed by ARC, but at arms length.

Running Auckland Regional Holdings costs the region annually about $2.3 million in admin expenditure, it spends about $2 million annually in managing its falling global investments, and has authorised significant planning and consulting costs in their efforts to "optimise" return from private development of Auckland's waterfront. There's also the cost of running a whole layer of governance and the ARH Board whose responsibilities would largely shift to ARC and existing staff.

It's time to fix this.

Of Demographia, Bottlenecks & Capital Gains Taxes

This blog is a bit late, but I just wanted to make a few comments before I forget them.

You may remember about 10 days ago - I think it was after the new Alpurt motorway opened and there was a big queue and eveyone was a bit surprised by the fact there was only 1 lane North Bound through the tunnel. The new Minister of Transport The Hon Joyce spoke of the need to get rid of bottlenecks in Auckland's State Highway network.

At the same time that rather disreputable outfit based in Christchurch which calls itself Demographia came out with its oft repeated claim that the main cause of houses in Auckland being so expensive was the fact that land supply is constrained. They want the MUL (Metropolitan Urban Limit) released. Demographia stated that people should be able to buy a house for $130,000 - made of $30,000 for the land, and $100,000 for the improvements. Crazy I thought at first - then I remembered that CBD apartments in Auckland have been going for around that figure at auction (and sometimes much less).

And then there was in the media a little discussion about the need for a capital gains tax to remove some of the economic incentives that presently exist around property investment.

These three sets of ideas are all linked. But the dots are not being joined up.

Before I write anymore, I need to note here the fantastic piece of journalism that was in the last Saturday Herald about the Demographia claims. It was written by Chris Barton. You can see it here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10554387

Going back to the bottleneck thing. Everybody wants to get rid of bottlenecks. But the thing is, if you have a bottle, you always have a bottleneck. A road contains cars. It's a container of cars. They get tipped in, and tipped out. You can't have a road without a bottleneck. The only decision that's rational is to decide where the bottleneck will be, rather than where it won't be.

And the other thing about bottles, is that you can always think of a situation where what was once a nicely flowing bit of road suddenly grinds to a halt. In other words every road has limits in its ability to maintain free flow. Increase the demand - more cars, faster cars - and that limit will be reached. While traffic demand is on the increase we can expect more bottlenecks.

Please don't talk about eliminating bottlenecks. Unhelpful.

The interesting thing about the Herald cost of housing article, is the comparison between similar home costs in Auckland and Houston. While the capital value of each home is similar, the real difference is in the service rates payable. In Auckland the figure was around $1,500/annum, but in Houston it was more like $8,000/annum. Also in Auckland the cost of getting to work in public transport was about $1, while in Auckland it was $4. These costs need to be weighed in with capital or purchase cost when looking at the true costs of housing.

A major problem we have in Auckland is our ability to pay for infrastructure, and who pays. Will stop this now. But will come back to it.