A Spatial Plan for Auckland

The grapevine suggests that Auckland Local Government Bill No. 3 will include a prescription for a Spatial Plan that is to be prepared by the new and incoming Auckland Council after election in Nov1 2010. That's interesting. Wonder what it will provide for?

Currently Auckland has a few regional planning instruments: The Regional Policy Statement (being reviewed now, but not much more than set of sustainable development controls); Draft 1 of the One Plan (this is a disappointing document that amounts to little more than a wishlist of unfunded and unprioritised projects); the Auckland Sustainability Framework (a useful and visionary document - but not a spatial plan) and the Regional Land Transport Strategy (good as far as it goes, but increasingly irrelevant with legislative moves to marginalise its effect).

There's lots of talk about "spatial planning" in Auckland - it trips off the lips easily - a bit like "iconic waterfront building". The words mean different things to different people. That's a comfort, but will not lead to any certainty, or delivery or change.

How about spatial planning Jakarta style:

On November 8, 2009 Jakarta’s Governor Fauzi Bowo closed and locked a gas station located on Jl. Jendral Sudirman to symbolically close down 27 gas stations and convert the areas into green spaces. The Jakarta Parks and Cemetery Agency announced that the 27 gas stations will be closed by the end of the year and the closure of these gas stations will add another 10,505 square meters of green areas in Jakarta (The Jakarta Post, November 11, 2009).

The conversion of gas stations into green areas is to meet the target for green areas in Jakarta stipulated in the Jakarta spatial plan 2000-2010 to cover 13.94 percent of Jakarta's total 63,744 hectares by 2010. In 1965, green areas made up more than 35 percent of Jakarta and have been shrinking ever since. Currently, green areas in Jakarta account for only 9.3 percent of the city's area, far below the target of 30 percent set by the Spatial Planning Law 26/2007.

I commend Governor Fauzi Bowo and his city administration for converting gas stations into green areas because of two main reasons. First, the conversion of gas stations into green areas is a good precedent for implementing spatial plans. Over the years, the spatial plan seems to be a legal document that is not fully enforced and implemented. The 27 gas stations are located in the areas designated as green areas in the Jakarta spatial plans 1965-1985, 1985-2005 and 2000-2010. For many years, the city conceded to the powerful owners of the gas stations and could not enforce and implement the spatial plans. In March 2008, the city proposed the plan of the gas stations conversion but it was rejected by the Jakarta City Council. This year, the city resubmitted the proposal and it was approved by the newly elected Jakarta City Council.

This an extract from http://indonesiaurbanstudies.blogspot.com/ prepared by Deden Rukmana Professor of Urban Studies and Planning at Savannah State University. Imagine doing something like that for an Auckland Spatial Plan. The Auckland Council would be competing with Infratil to buy the network of Shell Petrol stations across Auckland - and its depots and other land holdings. Imagine that as an initiative...

It is useful to begin with higher level thoughts about spatial planning. The European Parliament adopted a European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) in 1999.

The aim of spatial development policies is to work towards a balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the European Union. In the Ministers' view, what is important is to ensure that the three fundamental goals of European policy are achieved equally in all the regions of the EU:

• economic and social cohesion;
• conservation and management of natural resources and the cultural heritage;
• more balanced competitiveness of the European territory.

What is interesting about this is that it considers not just a single city region, but the inter-relationship between cities and regions across Europe. And about balanced development. We could do with a bit of thinking like that in New Zealand - before imposing an Auckland spatial development plan.

Why? Well - for a start the Auckland growth projections show the lion's share of NZ growth is assumed to occur in Auckland, at the expense of other cities and regions across the country. ie Auckland competes with the rest of New Zealand for people, resources, employment - and just about everything else. Is it really sensible to promote and develop Auckland at the expense of the rest of New Zealand, and without at the same time, promoting other parts of New Zealand? I don't think so. I can think of many councillors in the past who have called upon NZ Government to adopt a national population strategy - in an effort to ensure that NZ growth and development was regionally distributed.

There is not good reason to stuff up Auckland through requiring it to absorb the rest of the nation's growth as well as its own.

The ESDP objectives may be summarised as follows:

• sustainable development
• polycentric pattern of towns and cities
• new urban-rural relations
• creative management of cultural and natural values

Which is fairly broad and uses the "s" word which may not pass the lips of anyone in present government. It seems. However, much of what emerged from further consideration of the "sustainable development" objective was the economic development thrust of what became known as the Lisbon/Gothenburg objectives, part of which go like this:

1. Making Europe and its regions more attractive places to live and work
• Expand and improve transport infrastructure
• Strengthen synergies between environmental protection and growth
• Address Europe’s intensive use of traditional energy sources
2. Improving knowledge and innovation for growth
• Increase and improve investment in RTD
• Facilitate innovation and promote entrepreneurship
• Promote the information society for all
• Improve access to finance
3. More and better jobs
• Attract and retain more people in employment and modernise social protection systems
• Improve adaptability of workers and enterprises and the flexibility of the labour market
• Increase investment in human capital through better education and skills
• Develop effective administrative capacity
• Help maintain a healthy labour force

And this is part of a European spatial development plan - spatial development including economic development - and relating to cities and regions.

Turning back to Jakarta, we find that Spatial Planning has been adopted by law as an institutional planning tool. This is apparently referred to as Law 6/2007. It requires a National Spatial Plan with National Strategic Area Spatial Planning. Then there is a spatial planning requirement at provincial (regional) levels, and a spatial planning requirement at urban (city) levels. There is a requirement for Metropolitan Spatial Planning and what is termed Agropolitan Planning.

It appears that this new planning approach (and the gas station story above, came as a reaction to a previous spatial plan, which is criticised in this 2006 newspaper story as follows:

"...July 14 2006 What will Jakarta be like in 2010? It will be a money-driven city with less social justice and no improvement in public facilities, urban planners say. While Jakarta's residents hope it will be more livable in the future, the city's spatial planning blueprint, known as Jakarta 2010, would likely disappoint most people.

There is a significant increase in land allocated for "prospective economic areas," which will occupy half the city within the next four years. Meanwhile, living area shrinks, a plan that according to urban planning expert Bianpoen would most likely affect the 5.4 million poor people living in kampongs and slums.

"The city plan lacks social justice as it continuously evicts the poor to make way for the rich elite," Bianpoen said after a Wednesday urban planning revitalization workshop held by the Jakarta chapter of the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (Walhi).

Currently, Jakarta's population swells to 12 million during the day, when commuters from surrounding towns make their way into the city. Some 8.7 million people actually live within the city limits. Each year, about 350,000 newcomers move here from other regions. Jakarta 2010 projects a total of 12.5 million inhabitants.

Meanwhile, the city has lowered its sights in terms of providing open space and greenery. Bianpoen said although the city plans to increase green areas to some 9,200 hectares from the existing 7,250 hectares, the target has actually been reduced to almost half that identified in the 1985-2005 master plan....

Not all spatial plans are sustainable. But they clearly need to be rather more than maps with future roads and railways marked on them. (I have spoken to a number of prospective candidates for Auckland Council who - when asked about spatial planning - speak only about rail to the Auckland Airport and the Britomart Tunnel).

Canberra has adopted a spatial plan. Part of Canberra planning. Goes like this:

The Canberra Spatial Plan is the key strategic
planning document for directing and managing
urban growth and change. It sets actions for
30 years and beyond to achieve this. The
Canberra Spatial Plan outlines a strategic
direction to achieve the social, environmental
and economic sustainability of Canberra as part
of The Canberra Plan.

The key principles underpinning The Canberra Spatial Plan are to:
■ Contain growth within 15 kms of the city
centre to reduce sprawl and protect biodiversity.
■ Increase the number of homes within
7.5 kms of the city centre to provide a
wider range of housing close to
employment and services.
■ Locate new residential areas close to town
centres and transport routes.
■ Locate employment close to residential
areas and transport routes.
■ Provide good travel connections to
minimise journey times and trip length.
■ Protect areas of high conservation value
from the impact of development.
■ Protect and enhance important assets.
■ Be a responsible partner in the region.

The Canberra Spatial Plan will be implemented over the next 30 years
through key interventions including land release, investment strategies
and further investigations. Some immediate actions include land release,
investment in infrastructure, Central Canberra Implementation Program,
master plans for urban renewal sites, policy changes to the Territory Plan
and the National Capital Plan and further investigations. The Canberra
Spatial Plan contains indicators for measuring progress and developing
new or revised strategies.

This is a large topic, and a large posting, so I'll bring it to a close, picking up on the Canberra mention of indicators (targets). In Auckland we haven't been that good at targets. We like the big hairy strategy and vision, but we don't mention targets, or how they will be met along the way. Some Auckland documents do mention targets though, and I think any Spatial Planning exercise would be irresponsible without them. These are development performance measures contained in the Auckland Sustainable Development Framework:

GDP per capita.
Labour productivity.
Multi-factor productivity.
Patent applications per capita.
R&D spend as a percentage of GDP.
Carbon emissions.

Resource effi ciency.
Occupation by industry.
Percentage/number of businesses in knowledge-intensive
high-tech services and creative industries.

Unemployment/labour force participation or utilisation.
Retention of skilled people and skills gap.
Business survival rates.
Access to broadband and cost.
Number of venture capital deals.

Proportion of private motor vehicle travel compared to sustainable transport.
Community resource accessibility index.
Percentage of population within identified growth areas.
Percentage of employment within identified growth areas.
Community perceptions of design (satisfaction with neighbourhood and new development).
Urban design review (expert opinions).
Total number/proportion of residential dwellings that meet minimum insulation standards.
Number of new residential dwellings built with solar water heating.

Kilometres and connectivity of bike paths.
Fuel consumption per capita.
Resident rating of satisfaction with accessibility; e.g. to services, shopping, open space, recreational facilities, passenger transport, etc.
Percentage of total development (new building consents) in growth areas and green field areas.
Urban density (number of people/dwellings per hectare).
Ratio of high/medium/low-density dwelling types in growth areas.
Housing stock by style, number of bedrooms, location.
Number of new residential dwellings built with rainwater tanks.
Percentage of all new public buildings that are built to 4 star Green Star standards.

Means of travel to work.
Average length of journey to work.
Percentage of population who live within 500 metres of a train station or transport hub.
Activity mix in centres and pedestrian traffic (measure of vibrancy in centres).
Total urban footprint and measures of land use (industrial, residential, business etc).

I have not included them all, and there will be others. Of course. Just to give you an idea. And these targets or measures need to be in the spatial plan, by area, and with targets each 3 year period, or so. So that progress can be measured. Not just soft words.

What I wanted to do here, is to broaden the idea of spatial planning, and to send a message to those who are presently drafting words for Auckland Local Government Bill No. 3 - don't confine your thinking to Auckland, and don't confine New Zealand's growth to Auckland either. The whole country needs to share in our country's economic development - the good bits and the bad bits.

Looking Forward to First Term of Auckland SuperCity

Looking Forward....

By "looking forward" I don't mean as in: "looking forward to three weeks at the bach" or as in: "looking forward to a week in Rarotonga". I mean is in: "looking forward to tidal wave risk" or as in: "looking forward to potential change of government in order to plan for consequences...."

There are lots of conversations now about November 1st 2010. Some of the best brains, and most experienced operators, and most determined problem solvers, are hard at work now, crystal-ball gazing, planning, preparing (and a more than a little plotting) for that date.

Everybody is putting their best foot forward, trying to make the best of the opportunity that is presented, and trying - also - to avoid catastrophe. And here I am referring to the professionals, consultants, policy analysts and council staff who are - increasingly - being drawn into and over the abyss of SuperCityrestructuring.

But what will it be like on Auckland Council, for councillors, during its first term? Potential candidates for the job - like me - are looking hard and wondering. I pose a few questions below, and hazard some opinions....

What will Auckland Council do in its first couple years?

My answer to that question comes in a couple of parts.

Firstly, I would point out that the main legislation that determines what Auckland Council does will have been changed by Parliament to ensure that Government objectives are delivered at regional and local levels.

The Acts I am referring to include: The Resource Management Act (first tranche of change done, second wave scheduled for 2010 including potential changes to controls like Metropolitan Urban Limits), the Local Government Act (changes embodied in Auckland Bills 1, 2 and 3 - to come, and also a comprehensive suite of changes including potential changes to Development Levy regime), and the Land Transport Management Act.

There are also changes proposed to the NZ Energy Strategy and to NZ Energy Efficiency and Conservation targets. Thus the legislative framework for local and regional government will change fundamentally, in order to promote Government objectives for growth, productivity and economic development - with reduced regard for sustainability and environment.

These changes will make it difficult for Auckland Council to develop and implement regional plans and strategies with the sorts of priorities that have been reflected in Auckland approaches over the past decade.

Secondly, I understand that the Auckland Transition Agency (ATA) will only achieve and complete a small proportion of the restructuring required and expected in the establishment of the new SuperCity structure and its institutions.

This is not a bad reflection on the efforts of the ATA and the teams of people working on transition. It is simply a statement of fact. The scale of change in this restructuring is huge. It is on scale of change and upheaval never before seen in New Zealand.

I understand from ATA discussion documents (see elsewhere in this blog), that transitions that will be completed include Regional Planning and Strategy. But that few of the myriad different computer systems and databases will be converted, and most of the core services will remain housed in their current physical locations to ensure "seamless" delivery of services such as waste collection, and many environmental and community services.

A massive amount of restructuring and reorganising and relocating and integration and creation of new systems will fall to the incoming Auckland Council. While the legislation provides for the windup of ATA on October 30th, I believe it will be essential for a large hunk of that function to be incorporated as a functional division into Auckland Council, where it will be required to continue transition tasks for several years to come. Some estimates suggest that transition tasks will not be complete and bedded in for a decade.

All remaining transition and restructuring activities will require political oversight and decision by Auckland Council. These will involve painful personal decisions, costly building and systems decisions, and will be hugely distracting to councillors as they engage with SuperCity.

I should mention here, that unless legislation is passed requiring a transfer of duties and roles to Local Boards, the Auckland Council will also be hugely distracted by 19 Local Boards demanding meaningful duties and roles and responsibilities with commensurate budgets. And rightly so.

(Water, Wastewater and most Transport services will - in theory - be run by their respective CCO's. No need for any governance by Auckland Councillors of these areas - which make up 60% of local government service expenditure.... I jest of course. But then - many a true word is said in jest. In fact these areas, and the Spatial Plan and good integrated regional planning will be an enormous challenge for Auckland Council - not made any easier by arms length CCOs....)

Who will be elected to Auckland Council?

This is always an interesting question for prospective councillors. What company will they be keeping? Who will be calling the shots? What will be the political style?

I know no more than anybody else. But here are a couple of thoughts....

Firstly. This will be a Blue Vs Red election campaign.
Auckland Council elections and council structure will be largely party political, with a few independents. There are strong indications about this already.

John Banks campaign initiatives are very blue, and National, as are his political backers. And Len Brown's connections with the Labour Party are equally well known. Meetings of potential candidates are happening now, especially since the Local Government Commission announced boundaries and wards for Auckland Council.

It is obvious that the main objective of these two big political parties is to win a majority at the General Election and take control of Parliament. Local Government elections that become party political serve as dress rehearsals for the General Election - an opportunity to get election campaign machines up and running - environments to test the mettle of prospective candidates. And so on. New Zealand's main political parties don't really take local government that seriously.

There are consequences for Auckland from this. For example, party political local government campaigns are mainly about power and control, and not really about what's best for Auckland and its ratepayers. That's a big statement I know - and I would love to be proved wrong - but the proof of this particular pudding will be in the depth and detail of the development plans, policies and strategies that are contained in the election campaigns put in front of the public.

Unless these have real substance and real commitment to delivery, they should not be taken as serious indications as to what either Party will do for Auckland. Under a Party Political campaign flag it is more likely that alternative appeals to social and community cohesion and jobs for all through clean economic development and growth - or some such - will be presented for support and votes. And whoever has the numbers, or the mayor, will then make it up as they go along once they get round the Auckland Council table.

Secondly, there is potential for Auckland to elect a caretaker council of the great, the old, and the wise - rather than a Council of the dynamic, the progressive and the visionary. Next year, the media will have many disturbing stories to run about the trials and tribulations of transition. These will shape public awareness and influence voting decisions. Disaffected employees will leave, and tell all, spill the beans, reports from ATA will be difficult and upsetting - rather than exciting and hopeful. Current councils will wind-down to their destructive ends. Staff will step gingerly from one desok to another. Councillors will wonder what lurks under the stones they will be tasked with turning over. Inevitably the media will reflect all of this. I think this will create a feeling of concern and care among voters, rather than excitement at the opportunity, and this will lead them to vote predominantly for safe hands and conservative (small "c") attitudes. And maybe that will be just what the doctor ordered for Auckland Council, and just what Auckland will need as it repairs and rebuilds its local government institutions.

And those conservative and safe hands will cautiously guide Auckland into an uncertain future.

More Representation needed in SuperCity Local Boards...

I have not commented particularly, in previous posts, about issues I see with the SuperCity structure contained in the Local Government Commission recommendations for Auckland Council Wards, and their associated Local Boards.

I agreed broadly with the LGC recommendations re multi-member wards, and also their view that there should be fewer but larger Local Boards - not lots of small ones. But I did feel there was a problem.

I think there are not enough Local Board Members, to do the job they will be required to do.

In the beginning there was a widespread view (pushed by Rodney Hide and backed by his supporters), that Local Boards should be many, and small, and confined to listening to local opinion and feeding back to SuperCity. This view was always hopelessly naive. That somehow all that was needed at the lowest level of local government was a bunch of committed locals who would listen carefully, and act as a communication channel back up to big SuperCity, and do little else, and certainly not have any local powers, duties and independence.

Thankfully that has all changed. I understand that even Rodney Hide himself is calling for substantial powers and duties to be allocated to Local Boards. I have even heard it said that the criteria for deciding what duty goes where is: "that unless there is good reason for a service or role NOT to be done locally, then it MUST be done locally...."

Things have come a long way since those first crazy ideas for Auckland were floated. The proof of all this will be in the pudding of Bill 3, which has yet to be introduced to Parliament, but which is promised before the end of the year. I understand that Bill 3 will provide for a significant role for Local Boards. Far more than originally conceived. And significantly more than the duties and responsibilities currently undertaken by Community Boards.

And there's the rub. The LGC's recommendations will not deliver enough Local Board councillors/members to do the work they will need to do.

Case in point: Devonport and Takapuna. This is proposed to be amalgamated into a single Local Board. At present Devonport Community Board has 4 elected Community Board Members, and 2 Appointed Members (these 2 are also North Shore City Councillors). Thus it has 6 Members. The Takapuna Community Board is the same - ie 4 elected Community Board Members supported by 2 appointed Members (who are North Shore City Councillors). This gives a total of 12 Members across the two Boards.

The LGC's recommendations are for only 5 Local Board Members for the amalgamated Devonport/Takapuna Local Board.

A good job description would help in any detailed assessment of the work load that will fall on the shoulders of Local Board Members. ie form follows function - and we still don't really know what Bill 3 will provide for in terms of duties and roles of Local Boards - and we still don't really know how the SuperCity will delegate tasks and duties to Local Boards.

But I would suggest that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that any transition that presumes 5 elected members can do the work that was previously done by 12 elected members - PLUS the extra workload that can be expected for Local Boards - needs a second look....

Local Board functions and Local Board Member roles need to be carefully analysed and allocated. It is not appropriate to simply assume that everything Board Members can't fit into a working week will be delegated to officers and professional staff.

It is about representation, and it is about making good decisions.

I don't think it will be helpful to relitigate the whole matter of boundaries and all that, but I do think that all Local Boards that have been proposed across Auckland will suffer from the same under-representation that is evident in Devonport/Takapuna. Presently Local Boards range from 5 to 9 members (and - as an aside - I do think it is a nonsense that Great Barrier has a Board of 5 members for a tiny population, while Devonport/Takapuna - and others - have the same representation for populations of tens of thousands).

The solution to this conundrum would be to pick a multiplier.

I suggest around 1.5, or an increase in Local Board Members across the board of between 40 and 50%. An increase of 40% would mean that Devonport/Takapuna would have 7 members (not 5), with 3 in one subdivision, and 4 in the other.

It would mean that Local Boards with 9 members would increase to - say - 13 members. That would be the maximum. 13 is a good round maximum number for a Local Board. And I would suggest 7 should be the minimum for a Local Board the size and challenge of Devonport/Takapuna.

There may be other factors that could come into play, to determine an appropriate multiplier. Whatever. Local Boards need more members than presently proposed.

Masonic Hotel - Devonport - Evidence and History

Claudia Page is co-convenor of the Masonic Friendly Society Inc, an incorporated Society with a current membership of 389. The group was registered as an Incorporated Society on 19 August 2008, and registered with the Charities Commission on 10 June 2009. It has been fighting against destructive redevelopment of the Masonic Hotel in Devonport.

The Society has appealed to the Environment Court against a resource consent obtained from North Shore City Council by the owner of the Masonic Hotel to redevelop the site.

The case has yet to be heard. However, a very considerable body of evidence has been unearthed and researched by the Society. This information is of enormous value.

Given this material is now in the public domain, I have copied a tiny fraction of it below. Should anyone wish to see more, then I am sure a donation to the Masonic Friendly Society would secure copies of this material.

Below is a little snippet of the history of Masonic Hotel that has been uncovered by Susan Joffe, who is an independent historical researcher, and which is contained in her substantial evidence to the Environment Court....

Figure 1. Masonic Hotel, c.1879. J. Richardson.

3. Summary of History

3.1 Masonic Hotel was built in 1866 by George Beddoes under contract to Thomas John Duder. It was intended to be a resort for wealthy travelers and a holiday destination. With eleven bedrooms and two sitting rooms on the second storey all well decorated and furnished. The ground floor rooms catered to gentlemen’s
sports such a billiards and meeting rooms.

3.2 It immediately became the center of social and commercial activity in the new settlement of East Devonport. It was the watering hole for workers in the shipyards of Torpedo Bay and the meeting place for community groups, sports clubs and local government – Flagstaff Highway Board.

3.3 Photographs of this time show the thriving industry on the foreshore – ship
building, timber milling, wharves with unloading scows.

3.4 The 1883 extension added more bedrooms and kitchen was moved to in a separate building. The south and west facades were altered. It was renamed Pearce’s Masonic Hotel.

3.5 It remained the premier hotel in Devonport until the Esplanade 1902. At this time the commercial center had gradually moved to Victoria Road. However, the
community use of the facility for celebrations and meetings continued.

3.6 The hotel narrowly escaped a fire that damaged the separate two storied building housing servants rooms and the kitchen in 1905.

3.7 Masonic Hotel was sold out of the Duder family in 19247 and, after less than a
decade in private ownerships, was bought by Dominion Breweries in 1937.

3.8 Alterations in the 1960s included the filling in of the verandas.

3.9 With the extension of the licensing hours in 1967 it became Masonic Tavern and
no longer provided accommodation....


4. Historic Significance

There are many aspects to be considered when evaluating historical and cultural
significance. The Masonic Tavern (Hotel) is over 140 years and is therefore
valued for its age. Having been designed by one of Auckland’s early architects
and that the form and ornamentation are typical of public buildings of the time,
also attracts merit. However, it is the social and community values and the part it
has played in the history of the development of Devonport, the associations with
events and people that are of utmost importance in assigning historical
significance in this case.

Dr David Throsby Professor of Economics at Macquarie University, Melbourne
has researched and written widely on the cultural value of heritage buildings.
These values are multi faceted and include the aesthetic, spiritual, social, historic,
symbolic and educational. They are not easily translated into economics as there
is no single unit of account but attempts are being made. The non use values
include the fact that heritage buildings exist, are part of the landscape, are
pleasant to look at and contribute to a sense of well being and belonging.
Heritage buildings are cultural capital that demand a duty of care. There must be
a balancing of economic and cultural values to ensure that future generations have
equitable access to our heritage.

The following definitions are taken from the Auckland City Council assessment
criteria 2009 (draft)
4.1 People: Is the place directly associated with the life or works of well-known or
important individuals?

The Masonic Hotel’s association with person or persons is significant.

The name Duder is inextricably linked with the early Development of Devonport.

Thomas Duder owned the land the Masonic is built on, caused it to be built and the hotel remained in the family for nearly sixty years.

Robert Duder lived in the hotel for many years and many of the Duder enterprises were concentrated in the immediate vicinity.(Annex I p.19)

George Beddoes a pioneering shipbuilder, the first industry in Devonport, built the hotel.(Annex p.25)

Richard Keals one of New Zealand’s early architect who built many public
buildings, designed the hotel (Annex II p.22)

Edward Bartley architect of 1883 additions is recognized as a leading influence in colonial architecture, designed the 1883 alterations.(Annex II p.28)

4.2 Themes/subthemes: – does the place have a direct and demonstrable association with important aspects of historical significance?

4.2.1 Masonic’s role in the rivalry over the establishment of the commercial center of Devonport. The Masonic was built as a direct result of the opposition to the Holmes Bros. establishment of the Flagstaff Hotel on the foreshore at Victoria Road. The competition to have the center of commercial and civic activity at Church Street involved prominent leaders in the development of Devonport who – who are commemorated in place names.

4.2.2 Contribution to Devonport becoming a holiday destination .
The Masonic Hotel was designed for the holidaying families,
honeymooners and invalids and recuperating patients.
This was reported in the accounts of the opening which extol the well
appointed bedrooms, sitting rooms and sanitary facilities. Mr Cock in his
opening speech expressly mentions that he does not want to cultivate the
‘bar trade’. He also planned to build bathing sheds – salt water and
swimming was considered to have curative powers. The bathing machine
was built in 1869 by Mr James.

The tourism attractions in Devonport were expanded with the Esplanade
Hotel built in 1902 and the Ventnor on King Edward Parade.
The North Auckland Hotel at Stokes Point (Northcote) was built for
travelers going north or coming to the city. It was a holiday destination.
It burnt down and was replaced by the Northcote Tavern.
Masonic remained as a hotel until 1967 when it became a tavern.

4.3 Rarity: Is the place unique, uncommon at a district, regional or national level in relation to particular historic themes?

4.3.1 The Masonic is oldest hotel (tavern) in Devonport and arguably the oldest building in the area. The hotel has served the public in the same fashion for 143 years apart from offering accommodation, which ceased forty years ago.

4.3.2 The two other hotels opened in 1866 in Victoria Road, British Hotel and Victoria Hotel had both ceased to exist by mid 1880s.

4.4 Social Values: Community association Is the place important to a community
because of the associations and meaning developed through use and association?
Identity: Is the place a focus of community identity or sense of place, and
does it have social value and provide evidence of cultural or historical
continuity.

Throughout its history the Masonic has been a meeting place for locals,
and venue for social occasions. It is identified with the beginnings of
many of Devonport’s sports clubs – many of which are still functioning.

The Flagstaff hotel no longer exists and the Esplanade built in 1902 cannot claim to have played a similar role in the life of the community as the Masonic. Being forty years later it was not the center of the development of local politics, sports clubs and other social activities of the young settlement.

Even before it officially opened its doors the Masonic Hotel was the center of social activity in the community. In July 1866 a lunch was held to
celebrate the launching of a ship.

Significant to the yachting community from the early days of Auckland
Regatta to Peter Blake planning for his America’s Cup Campaign, the
Masonic has served this maritime community.

Throughout its existence the Masonic has played host to the various
defence forces occupying North Head and Fort Tamaki.

Of more recent times it has been the venue for developing musical talent
as being in a band has become a right of passage for Devonport youth.

4.5 Public esteem: Is the place held in high public esteem for its local or
district significance of cultural sentiment?

The Masonic Hotel and the buildings around are valued as evidence of the early days of Devonport and the industry and commerce that gave thrived there. It was the first public meeting space. The first local government entity, the Flagstaff Highway Board Annual Meeting 1867. The meeting for fund raising for the Devonport Hall was held there.

The hotel itself has been host to generations of Devonportians who enjoy
the knowledge that their grandfather celebrated in the same hotel.

It holds a special place as the venue for the beginnings of sports clubs
their meetings and after match celebrations....

Interesting, don't you think. And that's just a taste of the detail and colour that has been uncovered by Susan Joffe. Other affidavits add considerable architectural detail. Worth protecting that heritage and those historic connections with old Auckland. Great work guys.
You can see more at: http://www.masonicfriendlysociety.org/

North Shore - as recommended by Local Government Commission

This blog contains extracts from the Local Government Commission Super City Boundary, Ward and Board recommendations that relate to North Shore City. The LGC has recommended that North Shore be divided into one and a half, 2 member wards for SuperCity representation. The extra half of the northern ward is "taken" from Rodney District, to form a ward that extends from Mairangi Bay up and including the Whangapaoroa Peninsula....

These 2 Super City wards are made up of 3 Local Boards....

And each of these Local Boards are further divided into Subdivisions, which each have a quota of members. Candidates will stand for a specific subdivision. This is to ensure that each community of interest has representation on the Local Board...

The relevant maps are below...


North Shore Ward
This map shows the North Shore Ward of the proposed Auckland Council. It extends from Campbells Bay in the North, to Devonport in the South, across to Northcote, and up to Beachhaven. It will have two councillors elected at large across the ward. Thus voters will cast two votes, for their preferred two Auckland Councillors. It will have two Local Boards - maps shown further below.




Hibiscus-Albany-East Coast Bays Ward
This map shows the Hibiscus-Albany-East Coast Bays Ward of Auckland council. (By the way - the LGC expects submissions about names. What should this Ward be named?) This ward will have 2 Auckland Councillors elected at large from across the Ward. Voters will have two votes to cast for their ward councillors. This ward extends from Wairewa in the the north, to Mairangi Bay in the south. It includes Paremoremo and Greenhithe. It will have just one Local Board. Map below.










Glenfield/Birkenhead Local Board
This map shows the Glenfield/Birkenhead Local Board, which is contained in the North Shore Ward of Auckland City Council. This Local Board is divided into 2 subdivisions: The Glenfield subdivision will be represented by 3 members on that Local Board, while the Birkenhead subdivision will also be represented by 3 members on that Local Board. Giving a total of 6 members.

Devonport/Takapuna Local Board
This map shows the Devonport/Takapuna Local Board, which is contained in the North Shore Ward of Auckland City Council. This Local Board is divided into 2 subdivisions: The Devonport subdivision will be represented by 2 members on that Local Board, while the Takapuna subdivision will be represented by 3 members on that Local Board. Giving a total of 5 members. (This tends to suggest that Takapuna will always have a majority on that Board....)












Hibiscus/Albany/ECB Local Board
This map shows the Hibiscus/Albany/ECB Local Board, which is contained in the Hibiscus/Albany/East Coast Bays Ward of Auckland City Council. This Local Board is divided into 3 subdivisions: The Hibiscus subdivision will be represented by 3 members on that Local Board, and the Albany subdivision will also be represented by 3 members on that Local Board, and the East Coast Bays subdivision will also be represented by 3 members on that Local Board. Giving a total of 9 members.

Local Government Commission Recommendations for SuperCity

I went along to the Hyatt Auckland on Friday - with keen interest - to hear the Local Government Commission (LGC) announce its recommendations for SuperCity Ward and Local Board structure plus boundaries. About a hundred of us gathered in the darkened room, which probably had room for a hundred more at the while cloth covered tables that awaited us. One table at the back groaned under the weight of copies of map books and reports that contained the LGC recommendations (these were handed out after the Commissioners presented their power point summary.)

Sue Piper, Chair of the LGC, emphasised at the beginning that Auckland Council, plus the Local Boards, would be involved in: "shared decision-making". And that set the scene. We also heard from Grant Kirby and Gwen Bull - the other two commissioners.

I won't summarise the recommendations here, because these are reasonably public, but you can get the report (a good read), and the maps, at this link:
http://www.lgc.govt.nz/lgcwebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Auckland-Governance-Proposals-for-Wards-Local-Boards-and-Boundaries-for-Auckland!OpenDocument

The very broad numbers in the recommendations are these:

- there will be eight 2-member wards
- there will be four single-member wards (Rodney, Franklin, Maungawhau - Auckland CBD and environs plus Hauraki Gulf Islands, New Lynn)
- there are 19 Local Boards, of these 13 will have Subdivisions (with specific numbers of Board Members elected from each Subdivision)
- the Local Boards vary considerably in size, with from 5 to 9 members

I published my view about what was needed from the LGC, in September, at:
http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/09/supercity-boundaries-and-local.html

I argued there in support of Multi-Member Wards for Auckland City (ie not single member wards), and also in support of fewer and larger Local Boards - with no more than 3 for the present area of North Shore City.

The LGC recommendations are along these lines, and so I am relieved. I know that not everybody agrees with this approach, but in my view, provided Local Boards are delegated significant local responsibilities, duties, roles, powers, and commensurate funding tools - then the shared decision-making structure recommended by the LGC will make the best of the severe re-structuring of Auckland local government.

To conclude I quote a couple of chunks from the LGC report:

Re Multi-Member Wards:

...."Apart from the arrangements for the two single-member wards for rural
Rodney and Franklin, we have proposed two-member wards in most cases.
We have found that in Auckland, two-member wards provide greater
opportunities than single-member wards to combine like communities of
interest and in other cases to avoid splitting communities of interest. Two member
wards also provide potential for more diverse representation of
communities at the council table and will provide a choice for residents on
who to approach with local concerns following the election.

We also note that larger ward areas would not require the degree of boundary
changes over time, as smaller wards would, in order to comply with the ‘+/-
10% fair representation rule’. We see this as an important consideration in
our objective to establish an enduring representation structure.
On the other hand, wards larger than two members would mean that
councillors could be seen as that much more remote from local communities.

Large wards are also seen by many as likely to discourage independent
candidates from standing at elections given the resources required to
campaign in such wards. On balance we believe two-member wards are
generally an appropriate size for wards. We also noted a level of support for
two-member wards in the initial views we received....

On Local Boards:

...."we noted a number of other provisions in the
Local Government (Auckland Council) Act relevant to the establishment of
local boards. These provisions include the decision-making responsibilities of
the Auckland Council which are to be shared between the Council itself and
the local boards. Principles for the allocation of decision-making
responsibilities under the Act include that decision-making for non-regulatory
activities should be exercised by local boards unless, for particular prescribed
reasons, decisions should be made by the Auckland Council.

To us, this suggests that boards will need to be of a sufficient size to ensure
they can attract capable people to stand for the board and they have the
ability to generate sufficient resources to undertake effective local-decisionmaking.
For example, a local board may wish to request the Auckland
Council to levy a targeted rate in its area to fund a particular local service or
amenity. To ensure this is effective, the local board area will need to be an
appropriate size, have boundaries that relate to local service delivery, and
contain sufficient capacity to support decision-making on such local services.

We also noted other provisions in the Act which we believe should be taken
into account when establishing local boards. In particular, will the total
number of boards impact on the ability of the Auckland Council to meet its
responsibilities? These provisions include the powers of the mayor, which
include establishing processes and mechanisms for community engagement.

There is also a requirement for the Auckland Council to have an agreement
between it and each of the local boards and for these agreements to be
included in the Council’s long-term council community plan. Clearly a
particularly large number of boards will affect the Council’s ability to carry out
these tasks efficiently and effectively....

You can see more in the very readable LGC report, accessible at the link above. Submissions are due by 11th December. These will be considered by the LGC, and their final determination must be completed by 1st March 2010.

Proposed Auckland Transport Agency

On Friday 20th November, Auckland Transition Agency (ATA) released a "draft organisational structure" for Auckland's Transport Agency. This short document can be downloaded from the front page of: http://www.ata.govt.nz/

A few thoughts strike me. The first is this....

The draft contains "the top three tiers" of the Auckland Transport Agency. Looking at this structure plan, with all of the boxes and all of the activities, I was reminded of a typical Council Traffic Engineering Department. It's mainly about roads: planning new roads, project specs for new roads, planning options for new roads, assessing new road options, designing new roads. And of course I appreciate and understand that roads are part of the transport system.

However, in established and built up cities, new road projects are thin on the ground. Because there's no land left for more roads. Instead emphasis is on re-allocating space on existing road reserves, providing much better share and quality for pedestrians and cyclists, and very much improving the look and feel of road edges, so that local economic development and economic activity is stimulated and thrives and flourishes.

Auckland needs to move to that way of thinking if it is to ever climb out of its current sprawling, energy and transport time wasting habits. And it needs institutions that reflect that need. ARTA - what we have now - does reflect that need. Its emphasis is travel demand management. Its driver is a Regional Land Transport Strategy which - while recognising the role that roads play in transport - calls for the delivery of multiple objectives and co-benefits.

There is very little balance in this proposed Auckland Transport Agency structure. It reflects colonial times - roads, roads roads - and roading infrastructure construction priorities.

The second thought that strikes me is driven by one of the "guiding principles" that apparently have guided this draft structure.

It goes like this: "The Auckland Transport Agency will be the subject of legislation which will set out its accountabilities and reporting relationships with Auckland Council as a council-controlled organisation (CCO)....."

So. The Government has yet to show its hand in respect of how the Auckland Transport Agency will be governed, and also who will govern it.

As a systematic sort of person, I go with the general idea that form follows function. That means when you design something, you first of all figure out what you want it to do. That would be a reasonable guiding principle.

But here, with this draft Auckland Transport Agency we have what amounts to a stand alone Traffic Engineering Agency, without any understanding as to how it will be accountable to SuperCity (let alone the New Zealand Transport Agency or to Central Government), nor any understanding as to the governance arrangements around such planning matters as: project prioritisation; budget allocations across activity classes (ie split in funding between roads, public transport, sustainable modes, land use stimuli - such as stations, undergrounding and such like); relative emphasis on demand management rather than supply management; marketing and communications; modelling....

Planning matters. And so does the governance of planning. It includes strategic planning. It includes funding. It links with important tools such as developer levies - both at regional and local levels. And it very strongly links with regional land use planning.

A great deal of careful thought was put into these governance and accountability matters when ARTA was established a few years ago. And while there may have been complaints, the model has worked well for the Auckland region.

My third thought....

ATA's proposals for the Auckland Transport Agency look very like Watercare. This organisation has operated independently for almost a decade, largely free of public scrutiny, implementing strategic infrastructure, its pumps one of the biggest consumers of Auckland electrical energy. And while Watercare has successfully built a number of large scale projects, it is way behind the eight-ball when it comes to best practice for water and wastewater. Auckland's trade waste record is abysmal. The fact Watercare is determined to dump biosolids in Puketutu reflects badly on Auckland's reputation. The fact Watercare obstructs initiatives to enable non-potable reuse of significant amounts of highly treated wastewater is another example.

Watercare may be viewed as a success by some. It has been a successful business. It has supported a substantial water and wastewater infrastructure industry sector. But it represents old thinking, and it resists efforts to achieve the broader co-benefits that arise from integrated planning. It is driven by supply management objectives - not demand management objectives. That is a major risk of the proposed Auckland Transport Agency CCO also.

As a contender for role of SuperCity Councillor, I view with growing concern the ability of the SuperCity to shape the future of Auckland through the tiny lever of Annual Statements of Intent of a plethora of powerful, independent, narrowly focussed CCOs.

(I thought CCO meant "Council Controlled Organisations")

Victoria and Alfred Waterfront - Capetown

Looking around the world for waterfronts a bit like Auckland, I came across the Victoria and Alfred waterfront in Capetown, South Africa. Others who have been there have told me about it before, but I'm seeing it though new eyes right now. The redevelopment shares quite a few characteristics with Auckland - not least being the similar age and similar buildings.

Anyway. Here's a bit of the history, and a few photos of what they've done....

"...Calls for greater public access and a wider use of Cape Town's historic harbour started in the early 1970's. In 1988, the then landowner (State-owned transport corporation, Transnet Limited) established a wholly owned subsidiary company, Victoria & Alfred Waterfront (Pty) Limited, to redevelop the historic docklands....

...This was received with large-scale public acclaim.... Since its origins in 1860, the Port of Cape Town has been the scene of excavations, reclamations, harbour construction programmes and land based developments....

By the time Prince Alfred* tipped the first load of stone into the sea to initiate construction of Cape Town's harbour, the trade routes to the East had transformed the city into a hive of seafront activity. The discovery of gold and diamonds in South Africa meant that the first section of harbour, the Alfred Basin, had to be added to and the Victoria Basin was built.

The area is notable for its outstanding heritage buildings. It retains the charm of Victorian industrial architecture and the scale of a harbour built for sail and the early days of steam travel.

In the 1970s, containerisation had developed worldwide as the major method of cargo handling and transportation. It was this, together with South Africa's economic isolation at the time and the reopening of the Suez Canal, that led to a sharp reduction in the utilisation of land and harbour facilities surrounding the Victoria & Alfred Basins. At the time, Transnet was in the process of rationalising harbour facilities and reviewing its harbour and other land holdings with particular emphasis on the returns being generated by these assets.

The Victoria & Alfred Waterfront project is the culmination of nearly three decades of planning and development proposals....."

Helensville Rail Service Trial Cancelled

I was Chair of ARC's Transport Committee in 2007 when the ARC voted in support of the Helensville Rail Service trial. At the time I opposed the trial, based on advice received from ARTA and from Connex - the precursor of Veolia. The decision to support the Helensville trial service was made by ARC politicians in the absence of a comprehensive officer report.

There was a lot of enthusiasm for the trial service among some ARC politicians: there had been passenger rail services to Helensville little more than 20 years ago; the line was there and in use by freight services (albeit slow - because of the poor state of the track); and there was strong support from the local Nor-West Rail Support Group. At the time rail patronage was growing strongly across the region and there was a feeling of success in the air....

The advice from ARTA and Connex was predominantly to the effect that regional financial resources were tight, that rail public tranport services are expensive (on a per kilometre basis), and that emphasis must be placed on maintaining and building high patronage core services. I can't recall the exact numbers, but the CEO of Connex advised me that extending the rail service to Helensville was equivalent to extending the length of Auckland's passenger rail line services by about 30% - with all of the attendant servicing costs - but without the justification of significant patronage. I well remember the CEO saying to me at the time, "it would be cheaper to buy each Helensville rail commuter a BMW".

Perth has extended the periphery of its passenger rail services to areas of very high growth. And while Helensville and Huapai and Waimauku will grow, growth is slow in sheer population terms, and competing bus services offer a better service than rail in terms of trip times and frequency. I appreciate the argument that growth could be shaped by the provision of good rails services also. However we need to be mindful of priorities for the money we have.

The figures provided to the ARC yesterday about the performance of the Helensville trial spoke for themselves. The Helensville Trial Service comprised one morning and one evening service to Britomart. The trip time was between 93 and 98 minutes. Bus journeys are quicker. For example the 6:34am Helensville to Britomart bus arrives at 7:50am, 17 minutes before the 6:32am Helensville to Britomart rail service.

The ARC report states that the annual net operating cost to ARTA for the trial service was $367,027. (Though this figure excludes Track Access fees and Station Maintenance.)

On average 14 passengers took each train to/from Helensville. That equated to a subsidy of $45.72/passenger for each trip @ 99 cents/kilometre. Thus the subsidy for a commuter round trip to Britomart was $90. For a commuter using the train for a year - 200 working days - this equates to an annual subsidy of $18,000/Helensville-CBD commuter. And overall this equates to $250,000 annual subsidy for 14 people - a high price to get 14 cars off the road. Maybe the Connex CEO's prediction was understated.

The figures provided in the ARC report do not include the cost of line access. This is the fee charged by Ontrack/Kiwirail, to generate the revenues they are reliant upon to carry out track maintenance. At the meeting a figure of $1.5 million was mentioned as the annual track access fee that would normally be payable for the 30km or so of additional track that is involved with the Helensville service. Apparently Ontrack agreed to waive the fee for the period of the trial.

So. The trial is over. Some investment - $1.25 million - was spent to upgrade station infrastructure and basic amenity. That investment should be protected for the future. And we all learned something. It is a good idea to connect growth areas with good public transport services, to prevent motorcar dominance. But that idea's time, has not yet come to Helensville.

Auckland Leaders want WOW on the Waterfront

The commentators have used up all the words for the Queens Wharf Design Competition: farce, mockery, joke, sow's ear.... Senior officials have mentioned the sheer number fo design competitions that have been had, but not built.

Something's wrong in the state of Auckland.

I think we are trying to wrestle our city out of a state of urban barbarianism.

This barbarianism shines out for all to see when elected leaders make pronouncements about "wow factors", "iconic buildings" and Auckland being "world-class". Some Herald writers are just as bad. In Auckland, mayors, chairs and leader writers are not where they are because they are fantastic designers, or great urban designers, or even architects.

Most of them would say to this, "yeah, but I know what I like, and I don't like that..."

Some cities do things differently, and I guess we can learn from them, but more likely we'll just learn from our mistakes. I just hope we don't make too many more. At least Queens Wharf is on the back-burner. Wanton and hurried destruction followed by hasty construction won't happen.

I went with a dozen invited officials and local government politicians to Curitiba, Brazil, to see what they do there, and to understand the local government process. Morgan Williams, parliamentary commissioner for environment organised the study visit. In a nutshell, I learned this about City Hall:

- 30 years ago, or so, local business and community interests decided their city needed good governance if it was going to get anywhere;
- their plan was to get skilled people into Council;
- a design competition was held at the local university, architects and planners were invited to enter. The objective? A Master Plan for Curitiba; - a bunch of winning entries were selected. The prize? A couple of years post-graduate study in the Sorbonne in Paris, and the opportunity to implement the Master Plan, provided they got elected to Curitiba City Hall on their return

You get the picture. Jaime Lerner - Curitiba's famous mayor, who I met and talked with, trained as an architect. He was elected to Curitiba Council with a bunch of fellow councillors who were also architects, designers, and planners. Their mandate? to implement the Master Plan. And that's what they've been doing...

All this process took a couple of decades. The results are excellent.

Auckland has a lot of design and planning talent. You see them employed privately and in consultancies and agencies. A good number are also employed in Auckland local government. Many from the private sector got involved in the Queens Wharf design competition. Many did not because they felt the design brief was flawed (Cruise ship terminal would compromise Queens Wharf, inadequate budget, insufficient design time etc....). And some were included in the Design Panel, where they provided professional advice about the entries. Advice to Auckland Leaders and Ministers Gerry Brownlee and Murray McCully.

I get the impression their advice was ignored.

The "we know best" approach won the day.

Getting the best out of Queens Wharf and Auckland's waterfront should not be about Cruise Ships and iconic buildings. Nor should it be about one politician's idea of WOW.

I think Auckland people have been short-changed on their waterfront for decades. That is the need that should be addressed, and that is why I see the need for Urban Design and Urban Planning down there, long before I see the need for Architectural Designs.

In the past decade there have been two responsible initiatives at Auckland's waterfront. The first was Britomart - in the time of Mayor Fletcher. That project was a success - sure Queen Elizbeth Square could be improved and it still can be - but the overall result (including Takutai Square behind the railstation), the retention of heritage buildings, and the station restoration itself is outstanding.

The other project - in the time of Mayor Hubbard - was a visionary look Quay Street and the whole waterfront from Ferguson through to Westhaven. Didn't go anywhere fast, because ARC had not been involved in that visionary look and was concerned to protect the viability of Ports of Auckland.

And there's the rub. Ports of Auckland, and its viability, its appetite for wharf space and container space and cruise ship space, continues to be the tail that wags the dog of Auckland's waterfront. Perhaps SuperCity will keep it chained, and allow some sort of design renaissance to flourish in Auckland, beginning with Queens Wharf and Quay Street.

She sells sea-shells on the sea-shore...

Joel Cayford - 15 years of Local and Regional Government Achievement

Joel has been politically active in local government in Auckland for almost 2 decades. He has been involved in major regional projects including the North Shore Busway, North Shore’s wastewater cleanup, and regional planning of transport, land use, and the waterfront redevelopment. During this period he individually led and initiated important governance changes, for which he can rightly take personal credit. To make change he translated his passions into practical focussed actions attracting majority support on Council. This support delivered collective decisions that have led to lasting public results.

This table lists an example of changes led by Joel Cayford from each year he's been active in local government in the Auckland and North Shore environment.

His Passions	His Actions	Public Results
“Navy should not avoid RMA and ride roughshod over Devonport residents to redevelop Navy base...”	1993: Established Ngataringa Bay 2000 Inc 1994: Learned sections of the RMA, wrote legal submissions, and led Environment Court and High Court actions. 1995: Was legal advocate heard by Principal Env Court Judge Sheppard re Defence Purpose Designation. (Main submissions).	Precedent setting Environment Court decisions. Quietest gymnasium in NZ! Judge Sheppard ruled that “Defence Purposes” designation needed to be specific, giving more public certainty and limiting Navy development freedoms. This was a ground-breaking decision which brought the Navy into compliance with the RMA.
“Auckland’s drinking water should be drawn from clean forest catchments - NOT the polluted Waikato…”	1996-1997: Made individual appeal against Watercare consents to take Auckland’s drinking water from Waikato. Commissioned evidence from U.S. experts Prof Okun and Dr Standish-Lee re cryptosporidium microbial and organochlorine pollution risks. (Standish-Lee evidence). Fronted appeal in Court with Tainui, and tomato grower John Hamilton.	Manukau City Council became s.274 party to Joel’s appeal due to Council concerns about water quality. Jointly resulted in Manukau Agreement, which obliged Watercare to add Carbon Treatment and Micro-Filtration stages to Waikato water treatment plant process. Significantly reduced Auckland public health risks.
“North Shore and Auckland ratepayers should NOT be subsidising costs of transport and wastewater infrastructure built to service greenfield developments…”	1998: Stood for election to North Shore City Council (NSCC) under “Healthy Water – Public Transport” mandate. And publicly campaigned for law change through debate and Herald Opinion in 1998. Moved that NSCC fund and lead an Auckland wide initiative to provide for Developer Levies in the new Local Govt Act. Supported.	NSCC voted budget for this regional advocacy activity. Simpson Grierson was engaged to draft the new laws. Support was obtained from all of Auckland’s City Councils. Developer Levies were provided for by Parliament in LGA 2002. Rates reduced accordingly, and Developer Levies were applied across Auckland region.
“Stormwater planning needs to be integrated with fresh water and wastewater. North Shore City needs to integrate management of its 3 waters…”	1999: Presented Water - What Needs Legislating? paper to AIC Water and Infrastructure Conference. Called for 3 Water Management nationally, and for NSCC to re-organise water management structures.	When Joel became Chair of NSCC Works & Environment Ctte, stormwater management was integrated into the NSCC water services division. Where it has remained. (NB: This risks being undone by SuperCity reforms.)
“North Shore City needs better public transport. Bus services to Auckland CBD, and within North Shore need significant expansion. Buses need priority lanes. People need good, clean, safe, bus shelters ….”	2000: Called for establishment of Esmonde Road buslane to speed CBD bus services. Moved motion to get it built as temporary measure. Supported. Published photo in North Shore Times of mother-in-law in dirty bus-shelter.	Temporary Esmonde Road bus-lane established, giving buses priority past peak am congestion. Patronage increases. Several years later, NSCC votes to make lane permanent. Bus shelter build and maintain program funded and actioned.
“North Shore leaky sewer repair project risks throwing good money after bad ‘down the toilet’. Needs to be scientific approach to improving wastewater network…”	2001: Moved council motion for an independent peer review of NSCC sewer rehabilitation program which was part of Project Care. Supported.	Halcrow International engaged. They dug up sections of Devonport sewer that had been “repaired” and found them to be faulty and still leaky. Led to change in leak reduction strategy to building wastewater overflow storage facilities.
“Auckland has so much to learn about innovation in water, wastewater, and stormwater. If we do what we've always done - we'll get what we've always got…”	2001 (more): He wrote papers for NZWWA conferences and was invited to speak at Sydney hosted Xth World Water Conference. Papers include: Community Participation, Integrated Management, Economy, Equity & Sustainability, Community Wastewater	Joel addressed several national & international water conferences. Afterward he was invited to join Parliamentary Commissioner for Environment's "Murky Waters - Aging Pipes" project team, and also MfE's "Community Sanitation" project team.
“North Shore city needs to be made attractive and safe for cycling. Few children can bike safely to school. Commuter cycling is unsafe…”	2002: Now Chair of NSCC Works Ctte moved council motions to provide Cycling budget adequate to improve pavement cyclelanes, to increase driver awareness, and to develop a Cycling Strategy. Supported.	In 2003, after recruitment of appropriate staff, NSCC adopted the first North Shore Cycling Strategy. This called for cyclepaths as part of green network, and also Lake Road like cyclelanes.
“Bayswater reclamation needs formal protection from development encroachment and privatisation…”	2003: Moved council motion to provide for engagement of top Queens Counsel legal representation, for High Court action over Bayswater reclamation marginal strip. Supported.	QC Rayner Asher represented NSCC in Court and won marginal strip recognition and protection against Bayswater Marina Ltd. Rights to this piece of land continue to be hotly contested, but marginal strip is recognised and protected.
“Auckland transport governance is piecemeal. Rail is run by one entity, buses another, and railways and busways by others. This needs to be integrated so commuters have better public transport services…”	2004: As Chair of NSCC’s W&E Ctte took leading role on regional forum about transport governance. Had run Herald Opinion pieces about the need for a Greater Auckland Transport Authority since 2001. Herald Opinion in 2001.	The LGAAA 2004 legislation established ARTA – Auckland Regional Transport Authority. Joel was elected to ARC shortly thereafter, and because of his advocacy role and public transport experience was appointed Chair of ARC’s Transport Policy Ctte, and the Regional Land Transport Ctte (RLTC).
“Too much money is spent on motorways in Auckland - NOT enough is invested in public transport. Auckland’s compact city ideal will not be achieved unless this changes….”	2005: As Chair of RLTC, took the lead and advocated for Scenario 5 in the Regional Transport Strategy review, which called for a shift of $1 billion from roading to public transport over next 10 years. The RLTS 2005 won the support of all of Auckland’s Councils. Herald Opinion in 2005	Auckland adopted a radically different RLTS, which ARTA was required by statute to “give effect to”. This directly led to ARTA’s “Step Change” lobbying of central government to support rail and electrification of rail.
“Auckland's transport planning - including Busway planning - does not properly integrate with land use planning, and the economic benefits are not factored in properly….”	2005 (more): Joel's energy for this cause and technical interest led him to analyse Auckland transport deeply, and speak at various national conferences. Papers include: Learning from Curitiba, Planning Northern Busway, Auckland Transport and Land Use, Trans and Economic Develop't A Transport and Econ Develop't B	Joel was invited by PCE on transport fact finding trip to Curitiba, and also by Waitakere City Council to Perth. His analysis and campaigning efforts have been influential shaping Auckland transport and land use planning.
“It’s great to have a pro-public transport strategy, but it needs to be funded (my suggestion is a 5c/litre fuel tax), and implemented to be useful on the ground. Implementation needs consistency and reliability…”	2006: Campaigned using Herald Opinion pieces Herald Opinion about fuel tax etc . Argued for rail service frequencies to be reduced to ensure timetable reliability. Fought rearguard action (in the Herald) to ensure Newmarket Station was built with 3 rail platforms (not 2).	Finally Government supported electrification, and supported the idea of a Fuel Tax to fund it. Newmarket got built with 3 platforms. Train frequencies were reduced from 10 minute, to 12 and 15 minute, with service reliability improving from 60% to 90%+
“The TankFarm redevelopment of Auckland’s waterfront spaces should NOT be for high rise apartments and offices, to maximise ARC revenues. These surplus Port areas should be for public places, spaces and attractions….”	2007: Made personal submissions to waterfront plan changes, using his own computer model images of the damaging visual effect of proposed development densities. This campaign was based on a personally funded trip to 5 European waterfronts, which Joel published on a website: http://www.places4people.org.nz/. Ran public purpose arguments in NZ Herald and at ARC meetings. Finally got support.	Commissioners deleted proposed buildings on Wynyard Wharf, and also changed the designation on land that had been “stormwater purposes” to “public open space”. ARC also changed its TankFarm directive so that it “becomes a visitor destination by delivering high quality and accessible public spaces and attractions alongside high quality private works”.
“NSCC’s wastewater improvement program is exemplary, but problems remain. It is still ‘OK’ for houses to connect to the sewer network using rigid ceramic piping which will crack and let in water. NSCC can do better. Auckland will benefit when NSCC’s best practise is copied by other Councils – whose networks still pollute Auckland’s harbours….”	2008: Appointed as Commissioner to consider NSCC’s Network Discharge Consent application required under the RMA. Obtained information through the hearing that old leaky technologies were still acceptable. Heard about other problems. In deliberations all commissioners supported need for NSCC to improve its sewer network management in specific areas.	While NSCC appealed the ARC Commissioner decisions, mediation process has led to comprehensive result. Good for North Shore City and for environment. Condition agreed that leakproof technologies will be required. This consent sets benchmark for Watercare, as it vertically integrates local sewer networks, under SuperCity proposals.
“Auckland’s transport strategy needs to account for the cost and supply risk of transport energy. This is consistent with climate change imperatives. The strategy needs to set stronger direction for walking and cycling at local level – to deliver compact city. …”	2009: Conducted research into transport energy, and Auckland Transport Carbon Reduction, using London’s VIBAT work, and Victoria Transport Planning Institute policies. And advocated for their inclusion in the RLTS review. Supported.	The draft Auckland Regional Land Transport Strategy includes more robust and defensible strategies and policies responding to energy scarcity and government climate change initiatives. It promotes Pedestrian Oriented Development.
“Queens Wharf should not be dominated by another cruise ship terminal. This must be a people place, filled with public attractions. Sheds are an important part of Auckland’s history with great bones for future restoration and reuse.…”	2009: Built a computer model of Queens Wharf and applied ideas to sheds to stimulate imagination around public uses. Made public a Queens Wharf Urban Design Framework document prepared with 5 mature students as an Auckland University Urban Design project. Ran Herald opinion pieces.	Contentious design competition process ensued, made difficult because of cruise ship requirements. In any case most designs incorporated sheds as options, and public places as requirements. This is a work in progress right now….

Queens Wharf - Let Sleeping Dogs Lie....

There's wisdom in the more considered remarks of Hamish Keith in today's NZ Herald, and also in the letter there by Architect and ideas man Stephen Smythe.

Their advice calls to mind a wise comment made to me by an experienced former councillor. He said, "a good day in council is one where a bad decision was not made..."

The Queens Wharf design brief was a bad decision because ARC wanted to turn Queens Wharf into Auckland's primary Cruise Ship Terminal - with Cruise Ships allowed on both sides. That's what killed the plan to have a great public space there.

ARC's plan - led by its Chair - should have been put out for public consultation, along with other broad ideas for the use of Queens Wharf - like emphasising its public purpose and ferry use and using its heritage buildings for other purposes - long before Auckland's design community was put to work designing a dog of a design. Trying to make a silk purse out of a dog's ear.

Government's idea of Party Central was always a good simple idea, because all it called for was some temporary renovation and structures. Put them up in time for the Rugby Event and take them down afterward. Use the time as an opportunity to experiment with ideas - as I wrote in the Herald months ago.

I have always wanted to see much more effort put into fixing the Cruise Ship terminal on Princes Wharf. Making it work better than it does now. I've seen reports which indicate that the Cruise Ship industry is not unhappy with Princes Wharf. Sure they'd like it to be better, and two terminals are always better than one, but hey - we only have a couple of these big wharves downtown.

In my opinion the Cruise Ship industry can have access to one of these - but we'll have the other one thank you very much. If there must be another cruise ship terminal, then allocate wharf space further east. Learn - again - from where Wellington is locating its new cruise ship terminal.

My objective through this whole sorry process is to ensure that the existing sheds are not lost and denigrated in a fervour of Iconic Cruise Ship terminalitis.

It has been disappointing to see politicians normally keen to save wooden hospital buildings and historic railway station buildings - all dilapidated and crumbly before careful conservation - jump so quickly to disparage and demolish Queens Wharf's extraordinary sheds. The Heritage Assessments I have read - which have yet to be shared with the public - indicate these are treasures of national importance.

The NZ Historic Places Trust’s Northern Registrar, Martin Jones, who is researching the history of the sheds and wharf, says this in his account of the role this infrastructure played: “The sheds on Queen’s Wharf are the last remaining structures associated with that huge ‘machinery’ of export and as such are an extremely important part of the country’s economic as well as social heritage.” He writes: "The history of Queen’s Wharf sheds and their place in the maritime landscape make them every bit as important as the iconic Ferry Building...”

“The Sydney Blue Gum joists and decking, riveted metal frames, and original electric lifts add character to both buildings which are striking for their modern ‘industrial’ appearance. They have considerable potential to be successfully readapted for new use both inside and out.”

Martin notes further: “The sheds are the last link to a waterfront history that shaped Auckland, but which has all but disappeared.... Cities overseas have shown what buildings like these can become with a little creativity and investment. In the right hands, the Queen’s Wharf sheds could become some of the waterfront’s most prized assets,” he says.

Show some leadership guys. Do the right thing.

Look at Queens Wharf Designs - Put yourself in the picture...

Did you know that the Auckland Sydney Opera House design competition almost brought down the Government? It's true. Totally polarised the community...

Hasn't gone that far in Auckland. Storm in a tea cup by comparison. But remember the screams over the proposed waterfront stadium? I don't mind admitting I was in favour of an stadium on Bledisloe Wharf. An appropriate one - scaleable. Could have up to 60,000 seats, but otherwise an open-ended structure with views to CBD and Rangitoto, and a base of around 30,000 seats on each side. Plenty of examples around the world. But I digress....

The tyranny of the majority (or do I really mean: of the uninformed) threatens what has been an action packed and highly participated and idea-filled design competition. Sure the brief is tight: short-term party central, longer term legacy opportunity, keep the sheds vs demolish the sheds, cruise ship terminal, $47 million. But actually: money is tight, time is tight, and there's lot that's mighty fine about the ideas that have been put up.

I've selected a few images here from among finalist designs. They are beautifully executed, and show real care for the purpose: people space, gathering space, Auckland.

Put yourself in these pictures.
They are not oil paintings - to be looked at from a distance.
They are places for people to go and see and enjoy themselves.

Take a look at them. Go down to Quay Street and understand them.
Or look at them yourself on the website: http://www.queenswharf.org.nz/

And don't be put off by the baying of politicians.


From Design 8


From Design 4


From Design 6

From Design 3

From Design 2

Put yourself in these pictures.
They are not oil paintings - to be looked at from a distance.
They are places for Auckland local people to go, and see, and enjoy themselves.
And don't be put off by the baying of politicians.