QE Square +Tram -HSBC

I posted a few renderings last week from a rough sketchup model I made of Queen Elizabeth Square. Showed what might be possible if the bus interchange was moved as has been discussed. A few comments came back supporting the retention of the bus interchange..... So.

How about a modern tram service.....?

You see here modelled the sort of modern tram that's now used in Dublin, and which interconnects with its waterfront development. You can see an image of it halfway through this post which is about UK urban regeneration projects... (BTW - click these renderings - they are good resolution and better bigger....)

The tram would serve to interconnect inner city public transport infrastructure - such as train, ferry, and the inner city bus interchanges that are being discussed (one in vicinity of East Britomart, one in Lower Albert, and one in vicinity of Victoria Park/Fanshaw Street), and it would, in the first instance, run from Wynyard Quarter, to Fanshaw, into Custom Street West, down Lower Albert, along a little part of a pedestriansed Quay Street, through Queen Elizabeth Square, and up Queen Street.

It would be a high amenity service, high frequency - between 2 to 4 minute service frequencies. Like light rail, but good and urban.

Here you see the track turning left into Quay Street. This sort of service provides for expansion. For example, at Custom Street, there could be a turn into a line (which would connect directly with the East Britomart bus interchange), turn up Anzac Street, and run along Symonds Street to AUT and University of Auckland.

And here's how Queen Elizabeth Square might look with the removel of the old HSBC Tower (which should probably never have been built in that location). You can see how Queen Elizabeth Square would flow onto Queens Wharf (as was envisaged 30 years ago). Precinct Properties would be free to build a replacement tower on the corner of Custom Street West and Lower Albert. And it would benefit from being very well serviced by rail, tram and ferry services. And the public would gain something which has been promised for decades.

Protect Princes Wharf Colonnaded Public Spaces

I have written at length about Auckland's Princes Wharf.

There isn't much use crying over split milk - but we do need to learn from what happened and ensure the same mistakes are not made again. I say "mistakes" advisedly, because there were some major winners on Princes Wharf, alongside the major losers. The private developer did very well and so did Ports of Auckland Ltd which pocketed a tidy sum in exchange for selling the leases.

It was the public that lost - despite the fact Princes Wharf was a public asset - and my research suggests that incremental losses in public amenity are continuing today, as you will see toward the end of this post. But first some relevant introduction....

Significant blog postings include:

• Princes Wharf Planning: Pocket History
• How sad is Princes Wharf (Part 1)?
• How Sad is Princes Wharf? (Part 2)
• Princes Wharf Today: How it happened...
• Parking Takes Princes Wharf Public Accessway

I want to be a little bit constructive in this post, mainly because I - and many others - are not ready to completely give up on Princes Wharf. Something needs to be rescued from the wreakage.

When Clinton Bird was retained by Auckland Regional Council to advise commissioners on resource consent conditions that would allow the proposed Hilton Hotel and apartment development to go ahead, he put as his Number 1 Recommendation for conditions:

(i) (the certifier recommends that the application for resource consent be appropved, subject to the following conditions).... the applicant giving the ARC an undertaking that all colonnade spaces between the exterior wall of individual tenancies and the outer face of the columns supporting the first floor, around the entire perimeter edge of the development and along both sides of the central street be given over to the exclusive and uninterrupted use of the general public, in perpetuity.....

These are strong words: an undertaking....all colonnade spaces... entire perimeter edge... exclusive and uninterrupted use of the general public.... in perpetuity...

These words were largely carried forward into the resource consent permit by ARC (dated 3 March 1998), where they can be found at condition 12:

(12) All colonnade spaces between the exterior wall of individual tenancies and the outer face of the columns supporting the first upper level, around the entire perimeter edge of the development and along both sides of the central street, shall be set aside as an accessway for the use of the public.

You can see the toning down of these words, but the meaning and intention is clear.

This picture was taken a few days ago, in the central street, and clearly shows the existence of a public accessway, between  the exterior walls and the outer faces of the colonnades. You can see a pot plant a little way along - but apart from that the space is being used in accordance with the resource consent conditions.

This picture is at the end of Princes Wharf, and shows again that the open public accessway space between interior walls and colonnades has been respected at deck level. You'd have to say that the space is not that well looked after in terms of being a paved square - and this is partly explained by the ambiguity that exists over whose space this is, and who controls it and looks after it on behalf of the public.

This picture is also at the end of Princes Wharf, but across the "central street" from the picture above. It's the side of Princes Wharf that is opposite Queens Wharf. Here you can see the colonnaded area has been enclosed in now appears to be under the sole use of an operator known as Bellini's coffee. You can see the low hedging used to delineate the space which is no longer a public accessway....

And speaking of hedging, at the Quay Street end of Princes Wharf, not only does the space between the colonnaded areas get taken over by the adjacent land use, but the hedging moves right out into the space that was originally deemed public....

Here is another view of that hedge. The employee is out bright and shiney, carrying tables and chairs that further privatise this space - and given their proximity to the hedge - make walking even close to the hedge the sort of experience that most pedestrians would prefer to avoid - unless of course they were looking for a place for lunch....

Here's that hedging again, and in the foreground you can see the raised paving that has been established....

Will I, won't I.....

Meanwhile, on the other side of Princes Wharf, a certain amount of redevelopment has been underway. You can see the barriers in the middle of this picture....

Getting closer, you can see the sign: "New Offices for Sale or Lease....", this relates to level 1 perhaps, but what is happening at ground level here....?

Taking a peek behind the barriers, something is revealed....

The ASPEC sign reads: "Shed 19 INFILL...."

That's how you describe infill - between colonnades, of public space, whichever spaces are being expropriated for commercial purposes.

Who gives permission for this incremental loss and decay of public amenity....? Why is it happening?

And who pockets the proceeds...?

Judicial Review Backs Mangawhai Residents

Justice Heath's "unsealed" judgment in respect of the judicial review proceedings brought by Mangawhai Ratepayers and Residents Association (MRRA) against Kaipara District Council (KDC) regarding its management of the EcoCare Wastewater Scheme was released on the 28th of May.

The judgment is not sealed because he intends to hear further submissions from counsel about the orders he proposes to make.

In summary, however, he has declared that the decisions to enter into both Ecocare contracts were illegal. He has also awarded the MRRA indemnity costs (without being clear what that actually means). The judge is having a conference with the parties on 20 June when he expects to consider submissions about orders he might make to finalise his judgment.

The judgment is lengthy but is a good read. In my assessment the key features are:

• that KDC did not properly consider reasonable options for addressing Council's huge debt problem, instead going ahead with hefty rate increases as its only option (submissions are now sought from parties on what orders might be made regarding this matter.) 
• that Parliament was constitutionally entitled to bring in the Validation Bill (which validated many prior decisions which have been acknowledged as "unlawful"), and that the timing of the Bill could not be seen (in terms of the Bill of Rights) to be deemed an unconstitutional attack on MRRA's right to judicial review. 
• that KDC decisions in respect of the Ecocare Scheme agreement, and its modification, were both illegal in terms of the Local Govt Act 
• that the loans entered into by KDC are “protected transactions” for the purposes of the Local Government Act, in respect of which the creditor is entitled to take enforcement action if the Council were to default on its obligations. 

Key quotes from the judgment follow:

[7] At an institutional level, this proceeding has exposed a high degree of incompetence among those who were elected to serve on the Council, and also their executive officers. At a human level, it has caused a great deal of stress, anxiety and financial hardship to many ratepayers who will now be required to pay rates at a significantly higher level than they might reasonably have expected. They might also be at risk of a significant capital loss, if they were to sell their properties in an endeavour to avoid continuing costs to meet (potentially) increasingly higher rates.

[21] (Ed: In terms of modification 1 and increased costs of the EcoCare proposal....) The Auditor-General said that this increase “was not appropriate”. That is a gross understatement. I find it incomprehensible that a democratically elected Council (in conjunction with its executive team) could decide to increase the cost of a major infrastructure project by approximately $22.1 million without consulting with its constituents; namely, the ratepayers who were to pay for it. It must have been blindingly obvious to the Mayor and Councillors that while ratepayers might (given that the project did not enjoy universal approval) have been prepared to pay increased rates to meet a cost of $35.6 million, it could not be said confidently that they would agree to pay $57.7 million for a similar facility.

[43] I am satisfied that the Association has made out a case for a declaration that the EcoCare agreements were entered into in breach of Part 6 of the Local Government Act and, therefore, unlawfully.

[45] Having reviewed the evidence on which the Association relies, I am satisfied that the decision made to proceed with Modification 1 agreements failed to comply with Part 6 and that a declaration to that effect should be made. That finding leaves to one side the question whether the financing agreements fall within the “protected transaction” regime, a point to which I now turn.

[52] Under the protected transaction regime, even if the Council’s decision to borrow was unlawful, the creditor is left with a valid and enforceable debt owing from the Council. If the Council falls into default of its obligations under the loan, the creditor is entitled to bring proceedings to recover the amount payable. If judgment were obtained, enforcement processes are available.

[59] The Council is not under a duty to levy rates to meet the debt. It should consider all available options in an endeavour to ascertain what approach to repayment will be in the best interests of its ratepayers. That includes evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of negotiating with existing creditors to ascertain whether there are means of restructuring debt arrangements that would place less of a burden on its ratepayers. The possibility of recovering some of the costs from third parties should also be considered. That type of analysis should enable the Commissioners to make more informed decisions about its options.

[61] In summary, while the creditor has an enforceable debt, the Council has a number of options available to it. In determining which option to take, it is necessary to have regard to the best interests of its ratepayers. Just like any other entity, the Council has the ability to negotiate to restructure the loan arrangements. If negotiations were unsuccessful, it could legitimately leave its creditors to exercise what remedies are available to it at law, or levy rates to pay the debt.

[62] In this case, there is no evidence that such an assessment was undertaken by the Council at the time it struck the rates. For that reason, the Association has not advanced any challenge on any administrative law unreasonableness ground. Nevertheless, in relation to future rates that might be struck, it will be necessary for the Council to give proper consideration to these issues before making its rating decisions.

[114] The Association has succeeded in obtaining declarations in relation to the unlawfulness of the EcoCare and Modification 1 agreements entered into by the Council in 2005 and 2006. It also has the benefit of reasoning that suggests that a more nuanced approach must be taken by the Council to the way in which it should deal with creditors, given the Council’s current parlous state, and the effect that significant rises in the levels of rates are likely to have on its ratepayers. Other factors in favour of the Association’s claim for costs are the usefulness of the declarations I will make in respect of potential third party liability and the need for the ratepayers who comprise the Association to contribute to the costs incurred by the Council through their rates.

An interesting decision indeed.

We will await with interest the orders that appear in the sealed judgment.

Rethinking Auckland's QE Square

Auckland Council have seen "opportunity" in Queen Elizabeth Square for downtown developers and for a hefty capital sum. There has been urban design criticism of the square - forlorn - neglected - wind swept - some say. This behaviour is what goes with "de-territorialisation". It's a well known process where public attachment and attraction to land is gently undermined, so that no-one really cares when it's gone. Or maybe until it's gone - but by then it's too late.

However there are always a few canaries in Auckland's coalmine of development. Which is a good thing. Auckland needs whistle blowers to prevent "de-territorialisation" of public space, and to prevent it being "re-territorialised" as private land.

I wrote a few days ago in a posting entitled "Love QE Square". I gave it that name because I wanted to do more than simply "save" QE Square. It needs love, from the public, from people who use it,  from those who see other opportunities for it, and from Council. Especially now that Auckland Council is getting close to digging it up to make way for the first section of the Central Rail Corridor tunnel, and now that Precinct Properties is getting ready to develop its downtown buildings and land.

Hence these images below, from a Sketchup model I threw together, as part of a campaign to "love", "own", and "re-territorialise" Queen Elizabeth Square. Transform it into Auckland's premier waterfront civic square..... click to enlarge...

The main thing that I've taken away is the bus interchange and through road which bisected the square. The interchange included a glass covered canopy above bus-shelters which also served as a sheltered walkway for people accessing ferry services from downtown. This is gone from my renderings because Auckland Council's plans are to re-locate the QE Square bus interchange. This will be done by expanding the Britomart bus interchange (behind the heritage CPO building which functions as the railway station), constructing a new facility at the bottom of Lower Albert Street, and constructing an interchange on Fanshawe Street across that road from the Eastern corner of Victoria Park.

That is what presents a huge opportunity for opening up and rethinking QE Square.

There will still be a need to provide for shelter from the elements: sun, wind and rain. Let's see some options for this from Council. If QE Square has to be dug up then perhaps we can construct an underpass pedestrian walkway - following the examples of downtown Singapore and Kuala Lumpur, and line the passageway with well-lit boutique shops and takeaways. This walkway can also connect to ferries and the railway station. On the many good days pedestrians can choose to walk on QE Square - rather than take the underpass.

This is to get the creative juices flowing a bit. What Auckland sorely needs now is a joined up vision for the CBD waterfront - what we're planning on doing down there, and what we're not doing down there. Big picture stuff which gives at least as much emphasis to the public realm as it does to providing for urban economic development.

This vision needs to look forward 30 years and should include: the CRL (built - above and below ground); Downtown redeveloped; Queens Wharf developed; Quay Street pedestrianised; Custom Street reshaped; Light rail from Wynyard Quarter inter-connecting with the new bus stations and running up Queen Street; and expanded ferry services. Broad brush stuff. Detail can come later.

And it needs to be done with public engagement and participation.

Wynyard Qtr Innovation Precinct Starts

The first stage of Wynyard Quarter's innovation precinct opened last week. It's interesting for many reasons like: it's re-using character and heritage buildings; it's seeking to embrace a range of technologies; there's a critical mass emerging there - quickly; and social networking provision is incorporated with shared cafe and meeting spaces....

The opening was for GridAKL, which is a collective workspace for digital entrepreneurs that is housed in the refurbished Polperro building (see pic, it fronts onto Halsey Street, you can see from the reflections in its windows that it has great views over the Viaduct to CBD skyline...). 

The opening speeches were by ATEED CEO (Brett O'Riley), Mayor Len Brown, and MBIE cabinet Minister Stephen Joyce.

Auckland Mayor Len Brown says GridAKL is a fantastic milestone for the region: “The innovative and entrepreneurial vibe at GridAKL is palpable, as some of our world-class ICT and digital media creative talents spark off each other. I am excited and proud to see Council’s innovation precinct vision becoming reality amid Wynyard Central, which is gaining momentum and taking shape as the most exciting multiuse urban development in the city....." (Ed: need to drop the 'world class' speak.)

ATEED chief executive Brett O’Riley says: "GridAKL will be a catalyst for Auckland developing more innovation-based entrepreneurs who can spark off each other in a worldclass environment. (Ed:He's at it too...)

ATEED studied models in California’s Silicon Valley and worked with MIT in Boston through its Regional Entrepreneurship Acceleration Program to shape the planned precinct. The Government was involved in the initial feasibility study, and Brett O’Riley expects it will have a future role in the development. “Grid AKL is based on global best practise for creating an environment to stimulate innovation and collaboration. It will be part of the wider innovation ecosystem, and be part of ATEED’s work with tertiary and research institutes to capitalise on the Government’s new acceleration and incubation programmes,” says Brett O’Riley.

Waterfront Auckland chief executive John Dalzell (who couldn't be present) says the precinct is an important part of the $850 million integrated Wynyard Central development, which will see the delivery over the next five years of a diverse range of commercial and residential buildings, outstanding public spaces and a five-star hotel. “As the new builds become available from late 2015, Wynyard Central promises to be a world-class showcase of multi-use urban revitalisation and design – an exciting place to live, work and visit,” says John Dalzell. (Ed: They're all at it...)

GridAKL’s innovation hub will be in the Polperro building and the nearby character Lysaght building, which is expected to open in early 2015. The heart of the precinct will be actively managed and curated by the operator. There will be flexible and shared working space, business incubation, mentoring and/or accelerator programmes, independent digital media and ICT companies, shared meeting facilities, a café/drop-in area, and space for networking and industry showcasing activities. This stage will initially be home to incubator startup businesses with between four and eight staff. (I was interested in getting to grips with criteria that needed to be satisfied for entry, and also how GridAKL ensured that cuckoos that were fully fledged were pushed out of the nest to make room for new startups.....). The Flowers building is being considered now as a Waterfront Centre....

The GridAKL space will host a range of business incubation programmes and there's a purpose-built event space for GridAKL residents and the wider community. A tech café on the ground floor of the Polperro building will be open to the public in June and will provide a drop-in collaboration space for the technology startup community in the area. Once the Lysaght building is overhauled by early 2015, companies with as many as 200 staff and with international operations will be able to move in.

The BizDojo and the Icehouse were appointed to operate the hub of the Auckland Council investment precinct by Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) last year.

Nick Shewring, BizDojo partner, says GridAKL’s physical environment has been curated to house a mix of technology, design and high-growth innovative businesses. “They'll be connected to each other and to New Zealand’s tech community by a programme of events, meetups, hackathons, partnerships and activation. It will create a high tech heart for New Zealand."

And for those of you after a few more pics and details from the launch event, I have included below a selection of open plan incubator space itself (you will see a variety of working areas, and the fact you plug into the ceiling for communications and IT - so the space is very much a "hot desk" environment.) I have also included pictures of the window display which contains detail about where this project fits within the overall Wynyard Quarter, and Auckland Council economic development vision and plans.

Auckland Council Votes to Sell Square

The Auckland Development Committee, of Auckland Council, on 15th May 2014, voted 14-7 to sell "in principle" part of Auckland City's downtown civic square (aka Queen Elizabeth Square), because of an "opportunity" that has arisen associated with an adjacent property development by Precinct Properties. This video is Joel's reasonably raw reporting (from his notebook) of who said what at that meeting, and his reflections on the quality of debate and decision-making.

Love Auckland's Queen Elizabeth Square

(Click this image to see the whole picture....)

This is the section of Queen Elizabeth Square that Auckland Council has voted, in principle, to sell, to Precinct Properties, so it has a larger site for its proposed downtown development. (It should be noted, by the way, that Precinct Properties has indicated that it has perfectly good plans for developing the site without having this section of Queen Elizabeth Square.)

These pictures were all taken about 9:00am on Friday morning, May 16 2014. So it's late in autumn. Sun is low, but for a while at this time of year QE Square is a nice place to be. It has been like this in public ownership since the 1970's, I understand. Before that the land was taken up with older style buildings not unlike those we can see still standing in Britomart.

A number of cafes have opened around the square, but you can see that the Downtown frontage to the square, and that from the both the HSBC Tower and the Zurich building, don't help the success of this part of Auckland. The kauri tree forest was a recent attempt to change things. Again, in my opinion, not very successful in terms of producing quality paved park space that is attractive to linger and meet up in by members of the public. (In fact it shares many of the poor design characteristics of Aotea Square which was developed around the same period.)

Other cities around the world recognise that ensuring success in public spaces is a constant challenge. They remain works in progress. Auckland now has the opportunity (with demolition of Downtown Centre and earthworks associated with the proposed Central Rail Loop) to improve Queen Elizabeth Square - but not to sell it.

Auckland Central is very poorly provisioned with good sized, centrally located, successful, civic spaces suiting a city of more than 1.5 million souls.

When I was there this morning, the police were there supporting a "Time4Youth" community fund raiser campaign "focussing on helping teens all over New Zealand..." Part of Blue Light youth charity's work.

You could choose to get locked up, and be photographed. These are the sorts of activities that can happen in the morning rush hour. Great in the sun. Perfect use for a paved pedestrian civic square. Like Queen Elizabeth Square....

It's not as if Precinct Properties are going to be short of passing trade when their development is completed. A pity perhaps that with its large proportion of overseas investment that profits will likely leave New Zeraland, but surely that is enough. Provide access to Auckland pedestrians, but don't let them have Auckland's public space as well. That's not a good equation.

Here's how the Square looks from Britomart building. When the bus interchange moves from here (as promised, certainly reduced, as other CBD interchange facilities are developed), you can see the scope for the whole civic area. You can see the grand civic space that can emerge, when this public area is not severed by a road for buses....

The pedestrian walkway can be shifted, or changed. perhaps its alignment would be better closer to the railway station - creating a larger coherent civic space.

Yes, this area is sometimes shaded, and it is sometimes windy - but nothing like Wellington. All built public spaces are in the shade for part of the day. What's new in that? But if Queen Elizabeth Square was widened, then parts of it would more often be in sunshine. In summer, when the sun is almost overhead, Queen Elizabeth Square is bathed in sunshine most of the day. Don't forget that.

These next 3 pics are from slightly higher in the Britomart building. Again, I draw your attention to the dismal outlook of the Downtown Centre. Its uninteresting, unarticulated wall does not attract interest.

Look at these pics and think. Surely it is right for Auckland Council to consider who these public assets - including Quay Street and Queens Wharf - can be seen in an integrated way, but from the view point of Auckland's citizens first, not from the point of view of how many bucks can be made from an overseas investor.

Interestingly we had Auckland Transport down here also, at the Glass Box, offering free bike checks. Thanks for that anyway.