What Infrastructure to Invest in?

NZ Herald, Tuesday, August 21, carried an "Infrastructure" supplement. With pieces from Stephen Selwood, Michael Barnett, Gerry Brownlee, Fran O'Sullivan and Tony Garnier....

It comes hot on the heels of Government plans to take out loans to fund its flagship "Roads of National Importance" projects - in the face of declining revenues from other sources (fuel taxes, tax revenues....) symptoms of the economic slowdown being experienced in New Zealand. 

But do we really believe that building more roads, and even taking out loans in desperation, is the answer to the questions now in front of NZ's economic planners? With new figures out about NZers moving across to Australia - and most of us have family members doing this - or talking about doing this - is building more motorways the best use of public money? Are people going to live and work in Australia because New Zealand doesn't have enough roads?

And - if we as country worry about the fact that property prices are still going up (some say it's because property is the only thing you can reliably invest in NZ) - why would you spend public money on an activity which is only going to fuel that fascination? One of the immediate effects in NZ of new roading projects is a proliferation of new subdivisions, property development projects away from existing urban environments (ie not for those looking for affordable housing near employment opportunities). So. We have a government which is keen to deal with the issue of affordable housing on the one hand - going ahead with infrastructure investment which is simply fanning the flames of NZ's love affair with property development and land speculation.

On the left: Wynyard Quarter, Auckland (referred to as Auckland's new social centre - in Ideolog Magazine). On the right the new motorway north out of Auckland (which various Ministers would like to extend to Whangarei.) The question: where do you get the best economic bangs for your public infrastructure bucks?

The  public investment in Wynyard Quarter came from Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council - and the land came from Ports of Auckland Ltd. It is difficult to quantify the overall public investment. There is also private investment in the shape of heritage buildings being retained. There is the loss of private property rights by agreeing to keep below certain height limits and in developing a high quality relationship with the public realm. I estimate that planned public money investment in waterfront infrastructure is in excess of $300 million - if you include the Viaduct Event Centre (top left on the image above). Considerable public investment is in the public spaces, public artwork, playgrounds and the like.... it's all infrastructure...

And what are we reaping down there. For a start there is a massive real estate boom going on. The anchor tenant is in effect the public investment and the public space quality. The most obvious private sector anchor tenant is the ASB bank HQ. That's the tip of the real estate economic iceberg.

But there's a whole lot else happening which has economic value down there. I challenge you to go down and sit at a table outside the old netshed on North Wharf about 5pm on a balmy sunny afternoon, Saturday, Sunday, Friday - whenever - and watch the promenading that's happening here in Auckland. You could be on the Mediterranean. Auckland has style and they like to show it, given an opportunity. Photos of this new phenomenon are getting around the world. People are wanting to visit. Businessses are wanting to invest. It's the new creative centre of Auckland.

In the NZ Herald article, Christchurch features strongly. Makes me grumpy everytime I hear how NZ's GDP is "strong" because of what's happening there. Takes an earthquake does it? Problem with GDP is it can be just a 3 month assessment, or 6 months - so the enormous economic losses that occurred a couple of years ago are not added in to the reported GDP figures. Bit of a nonsense really.....

I am impressed with the outline urban plan that has been developed for Christchurch - the green frame shaping a more compact centre, the emphasis on walking and cycling infrastructure, and the idea that a key piece of public infrastructure is the multi-sports centre there. Yes - business are calling for a convention centre. Calls for another one of those in Auckland have been around for a decade or more. However. In my experience it is not the lack of a convention centre that makes Auckland less attractive for business conferences - it has been because Auckland is basically not a very nice to visit. And with Wynyard Quarter that is changing. Fast.

If Government wants to stimulate private sector investment in New Zealand, and bring business into our existing urban centres, and attract high value business into urban centres, and make NZ cities as attractive and brimming with creative high value employment opportunities as Australian cities - then it needs to find ways of investing in those cities (learn from Welllington's waterfront and Wynyard Quarter), and do more of that, and stop throwing money at roads that pale into insignificance when subject to a modern economic comparison.

Council Development Levy Concerns

I have created this table to illustrate different Development Levies charged by District Councils, and to compare them with approaches adopted by Auckland Council....

The reason for identifying sub areas like: "Bethlehem, Paraparaumu, Taupo Town" etc in the planning for the relevant districts, is to comply with the provisions of the Local Government Act which require that Development Levies are to cover the costs of infrastructure, required to meet the needs of new development, in those areas of the city or district.

In the days of North Shore City Council, following due diligence of Council staff, development levies were calculated for different parts of North Shore urban area. The figures varied across the city. This reflected the uneven development of infrastructure that had occurred in the past, and related to future budgetted infrastructure projects planned to meet the needs of future growth. One effect of this approach - which is required by the LGA by the way - is that new housing development in parts of the city that are already well provided for with infrastructure are less expensive to develop. This acted as an incentive to more intensively develop parts of the city that had infrastructure with capacity to service the needs of more dwellings.

On a matter of detail - the "transport" figure in the table for Auckland Council includes public transport as well as roading infrastructure. You have to say this is a very blunt figure. It suggests that in every part of Auckland, a new home being built requires new transport infrastructure to the value of $4,969. No matter whether the home is in the CBD (where we want more homes and where there's roading and PT services for Africa), or Westgate (which needs new local roads and bus services as it's greenfield). How fair is that? In other parts of NZ, and Auckland's four cities pre-amalgamation, development levies reflected these very real differences. But not the new Auckland Council....

Auckland Council has adopted a very simple approach to development levies for water and wastewater infrastructure. Watercare will simply charge any and all developments a lump sum of $7935/housing unit for both services. Connection fees are additional. The $7935 is to cover the costs of future infrastructure requirements. There is no variation across the Auckland region - despite the fact that infrastructure for water and wastewater varies considerably across the region - both in terms of capacity and quality. For example, North Shore residents have paid for a substantial increase in the capacity of its Rosedale Wastewater Treatment Plant - while the Mangere Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) is periodically at the limits of what it is permitted to discharge into Manukau Harbour. To charge every new development the same amount ignores these variations.

It also ignores the very real differences in infrastructure service costs for new development which is close to existing sewer and water mains, compared with the costs for new development in greenfield areas at the edge of Auckland's metropolitan area.

The fineprint of Watercare's planning appears to include the capital cost of what is known as the "Western Interceptor". This gargantuan cave under Auckland budgetted at almost $1 billion is to store, and to transport stormwater and sewage overflows to Mangere WWTP (which is often at capacity on a wet day). This storage can be used to extend the life of Mangere - by allowing managers to slow the flows, by storing contaminated water on its way to Mangere, WWTP and then pumping it for treatment. But at enormous cost. In part this is a stormwater project - though super city amalgamation split stormwater away from Watercare, and gave it to Auckland Council to manage. Not sure - then - how the funding will work. Who will pay?

While the Auckland Council is seeking to harmonise payments and costs across the region - the approach taken by Auckland Council and Watercare is not fair, does not account of regional variations, and does not take accounts of investments made by ratepayers in recent years. It also does not appear to be consistent with the intent of the LGA which is built around the idea of there being a nexus between the costs of planned infratstructure for an area of the city, and the development levies payable for new development, in that area of the city.

In other words the legislation provides for the fact that some areas are more expensive to develop than others. There is a bluntness about Council's blanket development levy regime that suggests laziness and reluctance to engage with the diversity and difference that is Auckland.

Bikes and Ferry to Work

Another lovely day in Auckland, and commuters use their bikes, scooters and motorbikes to get the ferry at Devonport...

This little bike park under cover gets full very quickly... safe, lots of informal security...

This one round the back is pretty full too. Less informal security - but under cover. So bikes out of the sun and rain.

Here's that same Devonport bike park - in the distance. What's interesting is that scooters are using this informal area which has been created since the temporary wooden ramp was built. The message is - build it and they will use it. The message is - build more covered cycle parking and you'll get more people using their bikes to get the ferry to work....

Quite a few people take their bikes across on the ferry now. This day about 20 to 25 bikes on the ferry. Stacked against each other about 5 deep....

Not so much room for bikes while the Kea is out of service, but other passengers don't mind too much. It's a bit of a pain getting on and off full ferries that are not the Kea...

And over the city side there is some parking for bikes - but it's tiny. Almost always completely full. This provision needs enhancing. All those security guards could be put to good use guarding the bike racks...

Here's the other little bike rack at the downtown ferry terminal. There is room for expansion here...

Take this bike parking provision outside the Central Station of Malmo, Sweden - population of 300,000. It wasn't enough though, so they needed to build some overflow bike parking....

..and here it is... wasn't enough land so built a pontoon to park bikes.

Essay: Utopianism for Auckland?

This post contains an essay submitted as part of student course work for the Planning 100 "Introduction to Planning" course taught by me this year at Planning School, University of Auckland. The topic for the essay is: Argue a case, either for, or against, the value of using utopianism as a method in planning the future of a modern city of your choice. The essay is about Auckland and is by Kasey Zhai, who has kindly given permission for it to be published here.

Utopias are classified as destinations that are brimming with human ideals not yet limited by the existing boundaries and conventions that already define society. Consequently, the sheer existence of utopianism relies on those who view the future with hope rather than fear and believe that the implemented improvements and transformation of everyday life are not only feasible but beneficial to humanity. While utopian thinking is necessary within the infrastructure of any city to allow communities to develop and advance into the future with a particular vision to strive for, in the twenty first Century, utopianism has little value to the planning of the future of a modern city such as Auckland, New Zealand.

It is unreliable to aim for utopia as the ultimate goal for Auckland as New Zealand is a country that is globally recognised and viewed by emigrants to be the optimum location of settlement. In the nineteenth century, British colonists sought New Zealand in the longing of an envisioned future that was “more deferential, less industrial, and more decorous” than the reality that they found themselves in (Bassett, 1990). Auckland, among other major cities in New Zealand, was seen to be an escape from the over populated streets and financially uncertain lifestyles that were found in Europe. Thus, to many, New Zealand became a utopian paradise in itself – it blossomed with the promises of opportunity and allure of prosperity that tempted foreigners away from the social and economic problems that were present in the realities of their own countries. While New Zealand did not contain the makings of a perfect life, to many, it held the certainty of the beginnings of a better life. This appeal has not deteriorated nor diminished since the nineteenth century; the same qualities have differentiated New Zealand as a country to immigrants, attracting a range of foreign cultures that has resulted in the vast range of ethnicities that reside in the country today. Therefore, the city’s unique social framework requires flexible and sustainable planning practices that are not fixed or stationary, qualities that utopia fails to deliver.

Utopias often consist of fictional imagination and will strive for anthropogenic perfection that does not allow for communities to develop and change as social circumstances do. This is one of the flawed characteristics of utopias that make them not only ineffectual, but setback to urban planning in Auckland City. A single solution of idealistic perfection cannot be defined in Auckland where such a range of expectations and ethics dwell. As a result of Auckland’s culturally diverse demographics, it can be expected that one individual’s perceptions of ideal circumstances will not satisfy those of another as each arrive in New Zealand bearing not only their own unique culture, but the hopes of fulfilling their own personal dreams and aspirations too. This array of culture results in a range of varying expectations that cannot all be met under the structured regime that utopias tend to impose upon society. Not only do different cultures prevent a unified way of thinking within society, but the utopian ideal is a reflection of existing circumstances (Davis, 1981). These will never be the same for two individuals, as what is beneficial is often subjective to personal opinion; thus, utopian thinking is considered an irrational approach (Popper, 1963) to city planning as the plans of a perfect city cannot be agreed upon and obtained, nor achieved with the means that are available. When conflicting opinions and ways of life are suppressed, the symptoms of an ethnocentric society are likely to emerge. When Europeans first arrived in New Zealand in the early nineteenth century, the desire to secure New Zealand land for orderly settlement (Bassett, 1990) conflicted with that of the ecocentric values and beliefs that were held by Maori. Maori tribes had consented to share their land with the British in the hopes of gaining social advancement from the technologically superior foreigners (Gorst, 1864), however these desires were disappointed as private property rights were formed and ownership over land was claimed for the purposes of colonisation. As described by Claudia Orange, New Zealand was no longer considered as a Maori society in which a place had to be found for the British, but a settler New Zealand in which a place had to be found for the indigenous beliefs and traditions held by Maori.1 The collision of Maori and European that were apparent in the nineteenth Century are the results of the attempt to integrate two cultures under one party’s definition of idealistic circumstances. It illustrates that for two or more cultures to live in immediate proximity of each other in harmony proves difficult when the utopian visions of one culture are forced upon others. Striving for utopia has little value to the future of the Auckland as it is not possible to achieve an agreed definition of perfection in the present time that will satisfy all who inhabit the city, and unrealistic to assume that this vision will remain unchanged throughout different generations. It is within human instinct to constantly seek for something better than what is obtainable; a utopian destination will never be reached as society’s visions and expectations of perfection constantly change with the surrounding environment (Sargisson, Sargent, 2004).

Although utopian thinking stimulates advancement and progress, once implemented, utopias tend to unify and engineer society to function by means that are believed to be ideal (Pinder, 2005). Due to its very nature, utopian societies inevitably enforce discipline and control; the blueprints of utopia tend to ignore the prominent characteristic of original sin that is present in mankind, denying humanity the basic instinctive need to live naturally (Davis, 1981). Political utopias that are implemented within societies in the hope of reaching perfected welfare are not necessarily as beneficial as they appear in logical theory. Restrictions that are thrust upon any society bear the possibility of violence and more suffering, resulting in social conditions that are less desirable than those that were initially present. (Quoted in Judith Binney, Judith Bassett and Erik Olsen, (1990). The People and The Land: An Illustrated History of New Zealand Te Tangata me Te Whenua) In light of this, Popper (1963) believes that as man strives for his own ideal, he will “invariably crush his Utopianist competitors who do not share his own Utopian aims and who do not profess his own Utopian religion.” Auckland is particularly vulnerable to this assertion; while violence stands at the extreme end of the spectrum, social unrest and disruption can result from the attempt to fit such a range of cultures into a single frigid framework of how society should function. As it is not possible to satisfy each individual need while attempting to control the lives of so many, utopianism, in all of its envisioned paradise is not the solution to eradicate society of the problems it is faced it (Popper, 1963). As it is within human nature to act on one’s own freewill as individuals, the reinforcement of a utopian society often bears the same consequences and qualities of leftist ideology and communism (Pinder, 2005). Such criticism was given to Le Corbusier’s urban vision of the Radiant City that consisted of a geometrically arranged cityscape and the segregation of the elite and lower classes. Le Corbusier’s designs, although reasonable on a conceptual level, is not compatible in practice as it assumes that society is not resistant to change and that people can be controlled. This assumption is not limited to the Radiant City, but applicable to the theory of utopia – this idealistic approach to planning is not suitable for a modern city as it assumes that people and places are manipulable at will (Bingaman, Sanders & Zorach, 2002), and fails to recognise that society and urban neighbourhoods cannot be unnaturally contained; Kojin Karantni describes the notion of utopia as the attempt to irrationally establish order and structure in what by nature a world or chaotic activity2. Society, both in and out of Auckland, cannot be confined and restricted for an indefinite amount of time and be expected to function without the presence of social disruption. The enforcement of utopian perfection is not compatible with tendencies of human nature as it intends to create a set of values that bind society in uniformity and eliminates real people in the real world, which will consequently defeat and counter the purpose of prioritising the delivery of contentment to society and reducing social conflict.

Utopianism denies society the ability to make small incremental changes of improvement that happen naturally over time, but instead seeks for instant transformation. New Zealand’s attraction to foreigners as the promise of a new beginning subjected the country to a range of social experiments; these plans often do not take people within society into account and fail to predict and foresee the impact they create in a broader and long term context, utopian visions are fixed and unreactive to change, however, people are not. The implementation of the drastic changes that utopias hold will often bear high risks regarding urban sustainability, as there is no guarantee or even reassurance that the vision installed is compatible with the society it is thrust upon. When European settlements first appeared in the nineteenth Century, colonies were planned in what was regarded as systematic and scientific colonisation (Bassett, 1990), however these otherwise logical plans of settlement did not consider the different financial capabilities of British immigrants. (Quoted in Amy Bingaman, Lise Sanders and Rebecca Zorach, (2002). Embodied Utopias ) This resulted in those who could afford land in planned colonies living with the luxuries of schools, churches, elected local governments and refined social intercourse, while others were denied these services and live in less desirable, less appealing circumstances (Bassett, 1990). The implementation of a supposed ideal had resulted in segregation of rich and poor, subjecting the two classes to different circumstances much like Le Corbusier’s Radiant City had intended. Often by excluding certain groups within society through segregation, some of the most basic human rights turn into privileges; problems such as these are often difficult to pick up in the blueprints of utopia. Society is too fragile to become subjective to social experiments of instant transformation in the hopes that one will be successful, effective and sustainable planning is an on-going process that must be developed through time. Utopianism acts as an irrational approach towards city planning, it strives for social perfection, yet it does not grant the power for society to change and develop the physical environment to their changing needs, but rather forces communities to adapt around a single structured and rigid framework. In relation to city planning, it is unreasonable to assume that the ideal will appeal to generation after generation; meanwhile it is just as impractical to demolish an existing society only to re-create each generation’s vision of perfection as this will, inevitably change over time.

Although utopian thinking encourages improvements in society to be made as it pushes the human race to open new ways of thinking about the future that stimulates advances in urban planning, the preferable futures that utopias represent are often dreamscapes that fail to keep up with the fast moving mechanisms of real societies. Political utopias are often too systematic, too logical and clear cut as they are made up of black and white simplicity that holds little value to the modern cities of today’s day and age that consist of infrastructures of shades of grey. The ultimate downfall of utopias is that they fail to incorporate and consider the qualities of real people and the unique nature of civilisations; it is irrational to assume society will stand still and remain unchanging. Not only does utopianism hinder urban development, once implemented they have the tendency to eliminate real people and creative thinking; utopia as the ultimate goal is not sustainable or suited in the modern cities of the twenty first century.

References

Bassett, J. (1990). The Pakeha Invasion. In J. Binney, J Bassett, & E.Olsen (EDs.), The People and The Land: An Illustrated History of New Zealand Te Tangata me Te Whenua. New Zealand: Allen Unwin.

Bingaman, A., Sanders, L., & Zorach, R. (2002). Embodied Utopias. New York, United States: Routledge.

Davis, J. C. (1981). Utopia and the Ideal Society: A Study of English Utopian Writing, 1516-1700. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

Fishman R. (1997). Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard, Fank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier . Cambridge: MIT.

Pearson, W. H. (1958). Attitudes to the Maori in some Pakeha fiction. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 67(3), 211-238. Retrieved from http://www.jps.auckland.ac.nz/document/Volume_67_1958/Volume_67,_No._3/Attitudes_to_the_Maori_in_some_Pakeha_fiction,_by_W._H._Pearson,_p_211-238/p1.

Pinder, D. (2005). Visions of The City. Edinburgh, United Kingdom: Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London, United Kingdom: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Sargent, L.T. (2012). Utopianism: A Very Short Introduction. New York, United States: Oxford University Press

Sargisson, L., & Sargent, L. T. (2004). Living in Utopia: New Zealand's Intentional Communities. England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Sinclair, K. (1980). New Zealand declared a British colony. History Today, 30(7).

Essay: Utopianism and Paris

This post contains an essay submitted as part of student course work for the Planning 100 "Introduction to Planning" course taught by me this year at Planning School, University of Auckland. The topic for the essay is: Argue a case, either for, or against, the value of using utopianism as a method in planning the future of a modern city of your choice. The essay is about Paris and utopian approaches there and is by Julia Barker, who has kindly given permission for it to be published here.

This essay analyses the value of the utopian imagination in the theory of planning. It many ways I will remain highly critical of utopian planners whose ideal cities were enabled to be constructed only by deconstructing existing hubs of social activity. I will discuss some examples that demonstrate the negative implications of utopian projects but I will also emphasise their effectiveness at enabling or encouraging a planner to engage critically with the positive and/or negative social dimensions of a street or area. Both a utopian mindscape and a dystopian mindscape recognise that the physical form of streets and spaces effects or produces particular sets of social interactions. Rather than using utopian spatial designs to mass prescribe particular forms of relations, I will discuss how a utopian imagination can be utilised to challenge planning projects which can potentially undermine the present (and therefore the potential of future possibilities based on this present) sociability and character of the street.

In a poem titled ‘The Swan’, Charles Baudelaire laments the destruction of ‘Old (medieval) Paris’ during the mid-nineteenth century in the name of “progress” when he writes:

“Old Paris is no more (the form of a city
Changes more quickly, alas! than the human heart)”

In this poem not only does Baudelaire highlight the public street as a contested social and political space, he also refers to the rich connection that exists between social actors and their physical environment. As Pinder (2010) asserts “Streets have become prominent battlegrounds in modern urbanism” (Pinder, 2010:203). One therefore finds that “Utopian projects to remake cities have long targeted streets” (Pinder, 2010:204). Reconstructing the city entails a sort of surgery upon the street and simultaneously reconfigures the kind of human interactions that will be made possible on the street. Baudelaire’s poem refers to the radical restructuring of medieval (old) Paris, under the prefect of the Seine, Baron Haussmann’s, redevelopment plan which entailed blasting ruthlessly through the overcrowded working class quarters. Haussmann put a positive spin on this surgery by emphasising the project as one which would enable the improved circulation of air, traffic, capital and people (both inhabitants and troops) (Girouard, 1985). An urban utopianist recognises that the street orders different forms of public and private urban life and the street therefore becomes a stage upon which they can enact, or envision, new possibilities for social life (Harvey, 1997). Pinder (2010) however points out the problematic aspects of utopian planners who, like Haussmann, insisted upon a blank slate as a prerequisite for realising their vision. Highly critical of the way in which the utopian project “either through clearing the existing city or through turning to a fresh site; [constitutes] a break with the past and the announcement of a new beginning in time” (Pinder, 2010:209), Pindar criticised this utopian ‘new beginning in time’ when it is one which ruthlessly erases vibrantly complex social spaces. In ‘The Swan’ Baudelaire equates the loss of Medieval Paris to Andromache’s loss of her husband, the great and noble Trojan prince and warrior Hector. Andromache, who was forced to become the concubine of a Greek captor, serves as a striking metaphor for the placelessness and soullessness that Baudelaire associates with Haussmann’s Paris (my interpretation of the poem).

Pinder (2010) warns of the utopian ideal of a ‘new beginning in time’, and he describes it as: “enacted by the demolition of differences accumulated in space; and a perceptual shock or defamiliarisation sought by imposing a new space on an old urban fabric” (Pinder, 2010:209). Like Harvey (1997) emphasises, a planner must have a deep understanding of the socio-economic politics of planning. He urges utopian planners to persevere against planning designs which produce inequality and which prioritise in serving capital interests (Harvey, 2007). Elke Hauck's 2011 film ‘Der Preis’ (‘the Prize’) touches well upon the extent to which political ideologies can construct, re-construct or destroy live social spaces. The film revolves around an architect, Alexander, who wins a ‘prize’ to re-design or ‘modernise’ a German Democratic Republic (GDR/DDR) housing block which he grew up in but hasn’t returned to for 20 years. His return to the housing block brings to the surface the bygone social and political era of which the housing block was a product. The collapse of the GDR entailed with it a social and political restructuring which shook the comfortable and familiar parameters of social reality. It constituted an overturning of forms and arrangements of living, which until then had provided a stable normalized environment. When Baudelaire exclaims:

“Paris changes! but naught in my melancholy
Has stirred! New palaces, scaffolding, blocks of stone,
Old quarters, all become for me an allegory,
And my dear memories are heavier than rocks”

he is alluding to the human experience of disclosure and confusion that is felt upon the demolition or ‘renewal’ of live interactive public spaces. Charged with the task of demolishing or radically ‘modernising’ the space in which his personhood is so entwined proves a difficult task for Alexander. Rather than reductively exaggerating the housing block as a repressive and undesirable public space, Hauck emphasises the complexity of the level of engagement that individuals experience in social spaces.4 Both the film, and Baudelaire’s poem highlight individuals as they struggle to come to terms with the social and political implications of the reconstruction of social spaces to which they are, consciously or unconsciously, intimately attuned (the same theme is arguably made clearer in the James Cameron’s 2010 film ‘Avatar’: somehow it is easier to understand or comprehend ‘native’ or indigenous populations as intimately attuned with their environment).

Pinder (2010) draws focus on a distinct kind of utopianism which “renounces an ordering perspective from on high” and introduces one which is “concerned explicitly with everyday life and space” (Pinder, 2010: 205). He points out that the radical transformation of social spaces impacts enormously on the way in which people live their everyday life. Ultimately, it is for control of social space that radically different utopian visions of urbanism compete. Utopian visions which validate themselves on the pedestal, or in the guise, of ‘modernity’ must be understood as projects which seek to change the way in which social actors interact with one another in the city environment (Jacobs, 1961). Themes around the perceived ‘disorder’ of urban environments have been a major driving force in the development of utopian projects which have sought to address these issues. Jane Jacobs (1961) highlighted the inadequacy of utopian projects which are advocated from ‘on high’ and which disregard or play down the vitality and the richness inherent in perceived ‘disorder’. According to Jacobs, the utopian focus on ‘Disorder’ undermines the multitude of positive social interactions which might take place within these spaces, and more importantly, the future possibilities for positive social interaction within these spaces (Jacobs, 1961). Pinder (2010) points out that although Jacob’s stance could be described as ‘anti-utopian’ it needs to be understood in a 1950s and 60s context by which the classification of streets and cities as ‘disorderly’, and the legitimation of utopian projects under the guise of ‘urban renewal’, was effectively working towards endangering existing social interactions and forcibly engendering new ones.

Pinder (2010) implores the use and practice of “everyday utopianism” in the planning of cities. Unlike traditional utopian traditions ‘everyday utopianism’ “emphasises the potentialities in the present situation rather than projecting them into another time or space”. It is concerned with how “the ordinary can become extraordinary not by eclipsing the everyday, or imagining we can leap beyond it arbitrarily to some ‘higher’ level of cognition, knowledge or action, but by fully appropriating and activating the possibilities that lie hidden, typically repressed, within it” (Pinder, 2010:210). Rather than depending upon the destruction of social networks, an ‘everyday utopian’ is slightly more nostalgic, in the sense that he or she seeks to recognise new forms of social interaction possible by way of retaining, rather than destroying so determined disorderly or undesirable social arrangements (Pinder, 2010). As Carey (1999) points out, ‘Utopia’ is identifiable as an ideal form or representation of human desire whilst dystopia can be summarised as a representation of human fears or anxieties. To be fixated upon, or possess, an overly dystopian imagination demonstrates an inability to perceive that positive outcomes will or can be forged from the present condition of the public space (Harvey, 1997). Rather than fix this dilemma with the destruction of this space in order to create a tabula rasa, or blank slate, ‘everyday utopianism’ emphasises the possibilities and potentialities for a different way of living and interacting within the sphere of this disorderly space (Pinder, 2010) because, as Jacob’s identified, disordered spaces can be hotbeds for the emergence of new possibilities.

Baudelaire mournfully reminisces about Old Paris’s town squares teeming with a disordered array of bric-a-brac. His past, utopian version of Paris is one where confusion, hussle, bussle, and random encounters created a lively ambience for those who occupied the space. As an outcome of the changes, Baudelaire mentions the plight of orphans who are akin to withering flowers. Large numbers of inhabitants in Medieval Paris were uprooted without being re-located to other accommodation or being reimbursed for their losses (Girouard, 1985). Harvey (1997) insists that modern day planners enlisting the concept of utopia must have a strong sense of a ‘social conscience’ in order to ensure that streets and spaces are ‘socially just’ and see to it that they at the very least possess the potential for positive and meaningful forms of social interaction. When Harvey (1997) points out that “The logic of capital accumulation and class privilege, though hegemonic, can never control every nuance of urbanisation” (Harvey, 1997:3) he emphasises the possibility for emancipatory and liberatory human interactions within even the most seemingly limiting of spaces and he also highlights the incompatibility between the logic of capital accumulation to the logic of healthy, social living spaces.

Utopian urban planning entails with it a sort of how-to guide for re-imagining the functionality of space. If we consider a dystopian view as an expression of human fears and anxieties, then the value of utopianism becomes all the more important. To lose sight of utopia gives way to a dystopian tradition, or mind-set, that we cannot change urban spaces, or rather, that a project cannot be positively developed within an existing space. In this essay I have argued against an example of utopianism in Paris, but I have suggested that the value of utopianism as a means for re-imagining space is no less important, especially when it can access positive social possibilities in the present form of the street, rather than rely on the destruction of the street. In conclusion, a planner should be practical and realistic, but never play down the potential social possibilities of any spatial arrangement.

References

Baudelaire, C. Le Cygne. Accessed at http://fleursdumal.org/poem/220 on 29/05/12. (English translation by Aggeler, W (1954). The Swan. In The Flowers of Evil. Fresno, CA: Academy Library Guild.

Carey, J (1999). The Faber Book of Utopias. London: Faber.

Girouard, M (1985). Paris and the Boulevards. In Girouard, M (ed), Cities and People: a social and architectural history (pp. 285-300). Yale University Press.

Harvey, D (1997). The New Urbanism and the Communitarian Trap. In Harvard Design Magazine. Winter/Spring pp.1-3

Hauck, E (2011). Der Preis (The Prize). Germany: Schiwago Film. (http://www.berlinale.de/en/archiv/jahresarchive/2011/02_programm_2011/02_Filmdaten blatt_2011_20112309.php Sypnopsis accessed 29/05/12)

Jacobs, J (1961). The Life and Death of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.

Pinder, D (2010). The Street in Modernist Urbanism. In Gordon et al, Utopia/Dystopia (pp. 203-223). Princeton University Press.

Great Wynyard Quarter Heritage Opening

Saturday was a great day for Auckland and its waterfront. Here's Bob Harvey, Chair of Auckland's Waterfront Development Agency, scissors in hand, about to cut the ribbon and open an idea that's been worked hard for by Auckland's Classic Boat supporters for the past five years.

Standing next to Bob (on his left) is Baden Pascoe whose passion and energy has been a great driver for this project. He owns a Dory style working boat used for commercial fishing. He and John Street and Tony Blake of NZ's Classic Boat Association worked with me to get this initiative up and running. You can see that history, and artists concepts here. Behind the group of people you can see an interpretation sign, part of the heritage signage that is starting to appear in Wynyard Quarter now. Helping to inform visitors and Aucklanders of the history of this special place.

Here Bob acknowledges the contributions of many people to this project. Interestingly, even mentioning Prime Minister John Key. The children who'd come on classic boats were invited to share in the opening, and Bob handed the scissors to Baden.

The area of water is at the end of Silo Park, Wynyard Quarter, and was previously used for loading and unloading cement and gravels mined in the Hauraki. For a time it looked as if maritime heritage would get side-lined at Wynyard Quarter. You can see here and here some of the planning background that led to heritage protection today.

The ribbon was cut and the public walked down steps to a pontoon where classic boats have finally found a home on Auckland's waterfront, where they can form part of the environment, enriching the waterfront experience.

The idea is that owners of the boats can do some maintenance, the odd spot of varnish, and talk to visitors about their boats, the history, the roles they played and work they did on Auckland's waterfront - and often other parts of New Zealand and further afield...

The facility provides a great attraction which will develop as classic boat owners, the maritime museum, and all stakeholders in this living museum, engage with the public and visitors. It is expected that a number of events will occur annually which will also add to the attraction.

Some boats were used for pleasure by wealthy people, others for racing, and others were working boats - fishing, small tugboats, piloting and small trading purposes.

These are the sorts of pictures that visitors will take home. They are unique to Auckland. We are learning to recognise our history, and understand its value, to visitors, the economy, and in building the knowledge of local people, of Auckland's history. Where we have come from.

An opening like this needed a blast from a cannon, and staunch supporter of classic boats and the maritime heritage industry - John Street - was happy to oblige. Made a hell of a bang....

...caused great interest... I think the lad wanted it to go off again...

Owners of these boats are very proud and have many stories to tell. I think it will be useful to have - perhaps - some sort of interpretation attached to the sterns so visitors can get some info when owners are not in attendance. Given that the fleet moored here will always only represent a fraction of the heritage fleet - some sort of portable interpretation will be useful....

Every boat has a story to tell....

...full of memories...

...all sorts of memories...

And it all looks stunning. This is another picture that tourists will love to take - we might not see much in our Harbour Bridge - but it is iconic, and with classic boats it becomes something else. This was the picture I could "see" as I fashioned my crude images to convince commissioners hearing the plan changes that led to what we see today...

...and here is that image. I crafted it with Sketchup over four years ago, to try and "show" commissioners what could be in this place, to try and visualise what the Classic Boat advocates could see...

The Waterfront Development Agency has done us all proud.

Auckland is truly the City of Sails.

Water Foresight and Treaty of Waitangi

Here's my letter NZ Herald ran on Saturday - letter of the week...

Does Meridian Energy own for all time the water that flows in the rivers and fills the dams and powers its generators? Clearly Meridian Energy thinks so or it would not have taken legal action against Canterbury farmers who wanted water for irrigation. 

Does any New Zealand Government have the right to sell Meridian Energy's water right to the highest bidder? Clearly the Government hopes so to plug a short-term hole in its budget. 

But what of the future? Who knows what innovation might require some of that water?  

The fact we cannot predict the future underlies the Maori kaitiakitanga idea of natural resource guardianship. Protection to meet the unknown needs of future generations.

As a country we need to recognise and value Maori's long term approach, prioritise that kind of thinking when planning the use of finite natural resources, and thank our lucky stars for the weight and foresight of the Treaty of Waitangi.

You might also like to read what the Waitangi Tribunal had to say to Government on the 30th July. You can read that here. I thoroughly recommend it.