The Auckland Council has published 4 plans and invites submissions from citizens. These must be in by October 25th. Through NZ Herald, Deputy Mayor Hulse worries there might be more than 3000 submissions and they might not be able to be heard. Apparently - in law - any citizen who wants to be heard can request to be heard, and Council must meet that need. Cllr Hulse is seeking advice about this.... it's a worry... Unfortunately, the documents are massive.
That's around 800 pages total. I've looked briefly at the Auckland Plan and it's a dense read. You can get printed copies, and you can download files from the Council website. But as Brian Rudman reports today in his NZ Herald column, these files are huge and even caused his computer to hang.
So. It's a big ask. Rudman's advice is to download the questionnaires and enter your feedback into them. That's not a bad idea. You can meaningfully submit without reading 800 pages.
Click here to go to that webpage. It has links to the plans, and links to submission forms.
But you probably miss the real objectives behind these plans.
My two decades of experience of Auckland "Long Term Planning" suggests that it is not really about long term planning at all. It is really about short term projects and short term thinking. Auckland local government institutions - despite their history - have a remarkably short term focus. Apart from motorways. But then those were planned by Central Government's Ministry of Works years ago. Even the North Shore Busway was planned as mitigation for a motorway project, by Transit, the nation's motorway provider.
What happens in Auckland "long term planning" is that it all crystallises in those pages at the back where actual projects get listed. The ones at the top get built. The rest don't. It's pretty easy really.
Why do we think short term - especially in Auckland? I'd like to introduce some new thinking here. National cultures can be described according to the analysis of Geert Hofstede. These ideas were first based on a large research project into national culture differences across subsidiaries of a multinational corporation (IBM) in 64 countries. Studies identified and validated four independent dimensions of national culture differences, with a fifth dimension added later.
A good link about these ideas is here.
The cultural dimensions are:
• Power Distance
• Individualism
• Masculinity
• Uncertainty Avoidance
• Long-Term OrientationI won't go into detail here, but just summarise the key cultural differences between New Zealand, Japan and Sweden. I should point out that these assessments are averages. They are not immutable. They change over time. They can be recognised and compensated for - in planning terms. But they shouldn't necessarily be given into. Especially if planners recognise the problem caused by doing as we have always done (A: You get what you've always got....).
So. Comparisons. See the table. Hofstede’s Power Distance Index measures the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. This represents inequality (more versus less), but defined from below, not from above. It suggests that a society’s level of inequality is endorsed by the followers as much as by the leaders. NZ's score indicates a low acceptance that power be distributed unequally. Which you'd expect.
Individualism is the one side versus its opposite, collectivism, that is the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups. On the individualist side we find societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him/herself and his/her immediate family. On the collectivist side, we find societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended families (with uncles, aunts and grandparents) which continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. NZ's score is high. Influenced by a mix of free market entrepreneurialism, and the happy anarchy that many NZers have.
Masculinity versus its opposite, femininity refers to the distribution of roles between the genders which is another fundamental issue for any society to which a range of solutions are found. The IBM studies revealed that (a) women’s values differ less among societies than men’s values; (b) men’s values from one country to another contain a dimension from very assertive and competitive and maximally different from women’s values on the one side, to modest and caring and similar to women’s values on the other. The assertive pole has been called ‘masculine’ and the modest, caring pole ‘feminine’. This is one of the interesting ones for NZ to look at - not so much the difference between NZ and Japan, but the difference between NZ and Sweden - one of the caring Nordic countries. Read in NZ planning - look out for male bullying.
Uncertainty avoidance deals with a society’s tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity; it ultimately refers to man’s search for Truth. It indicates to what extent a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations. Unstructured situations are novel, unknown, surprising, and different from usual. Uncertainty avoiding cultures try to minimize the possibility of such situations by strict laws and rules, safety and security measures, and on the philosophical and religious level by a belief in absolute Truth; ‘there can only be one Truth and we have it’. Again, NZ is much less tolerant of uncertainty and ambiguity than Sweden. Read: NZ unhappy with uncertainty in planning (though the process of planning is uncertain by its nature, though not of its findings in the end).
Long-Term Orientation is the fifth dimension of Hofstede which was added after the original four to try to distinguish the difference in thinking between the East and West. From the original IBM studies, this difference was something that could not be deduced. Therefore, Hofstede created a Chinese value survey which was distributed across 23 countries. From these results, and with an understanding of the influence of the teaching of Confucius on the East, long term vs. short term orientation became the fifth cultural dimension.
Below are some characteristics of the two opposing sides of this dimension:
Long term orientation:
-persistence
-ordering relationships by status and observing this order
-thrift
-having a sense of shame
Short term orientation:
-personal steadiness and stability
-protecting your ‘face’
-respect or tradition
-reciprocation of greetings, favors, and gifts
While NZ scores on a par with Sweden, what makes this an interesting cultural aspect of NZ institutional behaviour, especially how local Government institutions behave, is its relationship with Masculinity and Uncertainty Avoidance.
Could it explain why Auckland Local Government is characterised by male bullying (high masculinity score), pet projects (reciprocation of favours and gifts), blaming others (protecting your 'face'), no genuine consultation (discomfort with uncertainty)? Food for thought.
Politicians and others with an inside track in this major Auckland Council planning exercise make sure their projects - their pet projects - are in there somewhere. Near the top preferably. Doesn't really matter about the long term vision. It will never happen. Just make sure my project happens.
My experience of Auckland local government politics reinforces this. Want to know what happens immediately after most council elections? Generally the mayor meets with councillors - one on one - and asks them, "what do you really want to deliver in the next three years. For your area. What project is really important to you...?"
And councillors, once they get over the realisation that this is how it's done, answer the question. The mayor makes a list. Knows what to do.
These projects have nothing to do with long term planning. They are usually ill-thought-out and populist. maybe you think I'm being a bit cynical. Long term planning is paralysis by analysis and we'll never build anything. Might as well build something.
That's how we get Cruise Ship terminals right to the end of Queens Wharf that will stuff the waterfront up for the public long term. It's how we get the crazy idea that Warkworth should be an intensively developed satellite town - part of the sustainable growth strategy. It's how we get a railway station at the least justified option at Parnell. It's how we get a ferry service to Takapuna.....
To name a few pet projects that have crept onto these 800 pages, and been prioristed, without adequate justification. Proper justification would demonstrate how those particular projects contribute to the delivery of long term goals AND demonstrate in a robust manner that of all other options that exist, the chosen project is the best use of public money.
I would like the submission process and timetable to be a time when people discover or uncover these pet projects lurking in the fine print of these glossy publications, and out them. So that they can be exposed and be subject to the submissions they deserve. Long term planning should not be manipulated by turning it into a vehicle to deliver pet projects and populist promises.
Come on Auckland Council. Look in the mirror and learn from past behaviour. Auckland neither wants nor needs an action reply of past planning practices.
1 comment:
Agree fully - this too project based.
To me it's not a "plan" - it's a dump of "visions", with no plan of how to get there.
Very confused between urban design and architecture. And makes sweeping statements re "quality", then can't back up with the "how".
As we know though, once this gets rammed through (which is what a 5 week consultation during the RWC, is deliberately designed to do), then staff hang all their pet projects off it in future, and constrain future Councillors.
Given its looking ahead 30 years, it's very much copying other cities now. Where's the innovative transport technology?
Where’s the floating cruise terminal? Where’s the wow factor in any of it?
Post a Comment