Precinct Properties and Downtown 1

On Wednesday I attended two different meetings about possible public private initiatives on Auckland's downtown waterfront. The first was the public part of Waterfront Auckland's Board meeting where the Ferry Group presented their ideas for Queens Wharf and the Ferry Terminal (these have previously been canvassed in NZ Herald here and here). The meeting itself was also reported. I took extensive notes of the presentation which I thought contained some interesting ideas for Queens Wharf that certainly deserve further consideration - both publicly and by Council and Waterfront Auckland - but I'll report those thoughts later.

The second meeting I attended was a "Media Briefing" convened by Auckland Council Development Ctte Chair Penny Hulse assisted by Auckland Council Urban Design Champion Ludo Campbell-Reid. The purpose of the briefing was the Downtown West area - in particular the controversial Precinct Properties proposal which may or not incorporate Queen Elizabeth Square.

In attendance were reporters for Metro, Radio NZ (earlier report), Stuff, TransportBlog (and here), a TV1 reporter, and Bob Dey (earlier report). They have put up some useful reports from the meeting - transport blog are to be especially commended for including historic images and maps of Downtown Auckland. I was there in my capacity as a blogging commentator on Auckland planning issues.

There is trouble up road. The tip of the iceberg shows in Precinct Properties submissions to the Unitary Plan. And I'll introduce those at the end of this post. But first, a bit of introduction. What was the difference between these two Council meetings? And what appears to be happening...?

The Difference

There were many differences between the meetings. But I'll start with what's the same. Each of these public/private proposals involves publicly owned assets (Queens Wharf / Queen Elizabeth Square); each involves a private sector investor with adjacent investments (Ferry Group own the Ferry Building / Precinct Properties own the HSBC Building and Downtown Shopping); each investor is engaging with the relevant public entity (Waterfront Auckland / Auckland Council). What's different is the way in which public interests are being treated, the way in which the public is being involved, and the amount of information about the private sector proposals that is being shared with the public.

The Appearance

The Ferry Group proposal, as far as I understand it, was presented to the Mayor first, who liked it, and then it went to Waterfront Auckland, who were less impressed. But it's continuing to do the rounds. The Ferry Group want a leasehold interest on Queens Wharf deck space, they want to build a couple of Shed 10 like structures there with public space beneath (a little like what was proposed by Auckland Harbour Board when it constructed its HQ on Princes Wharf with three stories of clear space for pedestrian permeability below) and office and commercial activity above, and they want to build a more efficient ferry terminal. (There's more - but that's the guts of it. They propose that the northern end and the sunny side of the wharf would be permanent public space. But the proposal doesn't address transport requirements that well.) So it's on the table. A public offer. It is what it is.

The Precinct Properties proposal appears to be very different. It has the appearance of having been swallowed hook line and sinker by Auckland Council. And now Auckland Council is in the unfortunate position of having to sell it to Councillors, to the media (hence the briefing), and the public. But this is without showing anybody anything of the proposal. What we are seeing is a pile of post-decision justification.

I'll give you one example. At the media briefing Ludo spent quite a lot of time dissing QE Square. It appears Auckland Council has commissioned Urban Design advice which gives some positives but more negatives. Surprise surprise. We know it's not working well. But what highlights Ludo's lack of professional detachment was his selective use of an assessment of QE Square that was prepared by Ministry of Works planners in 1977.

Here are extracts Ludo quoted from the report:

What he could have done was to provide the context from the report, which looked also at Lower Queen Street and QE Square, and how what we see now came about. The report discusses how the redevelopment came about and the role of Auckland Harbour Board (which owned the land then)....

The Ministry of Works reviewer notes the emphasis on "economic" uses, and draws attention to the fine words that were in the original proposal....but which were not present when it was all done.... 

And what is relevant to what is proposed now, is the 1977 report's critique of the downtown shopping area's urban design contribution to the failure.... 

The department store was developed like a mall. It faces inwards. It does not activate the square by facing outward. This is a key contribution to the desolate feel of QE Square. Why didn't you tell the media that Ludo?

...and the 1977 critique goes on to draw attention to the absence of verandahs and shelter - the sort of amenity that is an essential part of pedestrian amenity...

Ludo, your credibility as an urban design champion is compromised by your selective use of information to support a position that appears to be consolidating, in Auckland Council, at the expense of the Auckland public. The winners in the scenario that appears to be emerging are the Council (money in the bank from the QE Square sale), and Precinct Properties (in control of an enlarged downtown/waterfront land-holding). The losers are the public of Auckland.

The Reality

So how can we find out what's planned by Precinct Properties? They can hide behind Auckland Council and its senior staff who have gone into bat for them. But what do they really want? A good place to look - I discover - is the Precinct Properties submission to the Unitary Plan dated 28 February this year.

The PAUP (Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan) currently has this provision:

So that's a quote from the Proposed Unitary Plan. You can see it sets out the requirements in the event that QE Square is reconfigured or replaced (how did this provision get in to the PAUP in the first place?) Anyway, what Precinct Properties want is for that provision to be deleted. To be removed from the plan. They submit that "there are other ways" to achieve a better street and open space network. But give no detail. Just want that provision deleted. What do you think about that, Ludo?

And there's a whole lot else. Other PAUP changes wanted by Precinct Properties are listed in the bullet-point summaries below. They relate to its proposals (which remain to be seen) for the redevelopment of Downtown West. (I have provided brief explanations in the brackets):

• delete the policy: "require buildings to transition in height from the core central business district to the waterfront and neighbouring, lower scale precincts". (PP wants to go higher and be untroubled by public spaces and places, or more human scale adjacent precincts like the waterfront.)
• relax the graduated Harbour Edge Height Control Plane between CBD and waterfront for Downtown West  (PP wants to go through that height control.)
• remove the requirement for a formal Framework Plan for Downtown West (because PP reckon there are other ways of getting integrated development without going through the detail of a Framework Plan)
• remove the requirement that new laneways have no or limited vehicle access to qualify for development bonus (because PP wants to free up these new streets for non-pedestrian traffic.)
• remove the requirement that new laneways be publicly accessible 7 days a week, 24 hours day (because PP says this is not possible for safety, security and operational reasons.)
• allow building demolition as a controlled activity (ie permitted without need for a consent or permit as presently proposed).
• increase particular building height limits from 50 metres to 75 metres
• remove requirement for a Design Statement for new development in accordance with the Auckland Design Manual (Man. What does Auckland's Urban Design Champion think of that submission! Like throwing the Auckland urban design bible out the window isn't it?)
  
• remove the amenity yard beside No 1 Queen Street because it is unduly restrictive (this is where the glass box coffee shop is across Quay Street from the ferry building)
• remove provisions requiring sustainable development standards of new buildings such as Green Star and Living Building Challenge
• change the current policy: "provide for an interconnected network of high quality public open spaces which vary in form and function in highly accessible locations within the precinct that are activated" by the addition of the phrase: "as far as practicable".  (And that just about sums it up for PP. It wants to be let off the hook for most of the things that the unsuspecting public might want.)

I challenge any Auckland Councillor to stare at this list - which is not comprehensive - and not be afraid.
Be very afraid guys. Beware what you risk getting us into here.
And if you don't believe me, check out the submission here.

Successful Cities have Successful Civic Places

For decades the significance of public urban places and their role in facilitating public life has been given low priority by those responsible for shaping Auckland. But that does not mean the desire for civic space has gone away. Public concern over Queen Elizabeth Square and Queens Wharf attests to that.

Public places in cities have significantly contributed to urban life throughout history. In the beginning, people came together for social reasons. Gradually public places assumed spiritual, civic and market functions. And later, combinations of social, economic and cultural life happened in city squares and streets, in places adjacent to the cathedral or civic buildings, on streets where people lived, and where shops and workshops were located.

But with the advent of the automobile, urban squares and streets became receptacles for the movement and storage of the car, endangering those places for social and civic activities. Planners and engineers prioritised private vehicle use over public pedestrian safety. While this trend was largely reversed in Europe, especially during the 1970s when cars were excluded from central parts of hundreds of cities and towns, the automobile is still an important presence and burden.

The measure today of how civilized a city is, of how successfully a city has provided city squares and streets for public life, is the volume of pedestrian traffic in its civic spaces. However civic success is not just about managing the motorcar skillfully, it is primarily about remembering and respecting the skills of public space management. 

Civic spaces are not successful by accident – though sometimes they are – they are caused and planned by careful and deliberate action. Successful civic spaces need constant curating to ensure the balance of activities and uses is optimized. Left alone they become places of neglect. Empty places for lonely statutes, empty experiences, and empty of people. Civic spaces in cities are about people and life and culture.

Here in Auckland we have a world class civic space – developing and being curated in front of our eyes – from Silo Park with its collection of heritage boats, cement silos for photo-exhibitions and art and interpretation, children’s playground and basketball hoops, piano-playing by passer’s by, civilised outdoor food and eateries adjacent, popular coffee and food bars there - whose economic livelihoods are guaranteed by the presence of the ASB headquarter building and its workers, plenty of places to sit and stare, and a working waterfront with fishing boats, ferries, and marine industry, with more to come.

How this contrasts with Auckland’s dreadful Queen Elizabeth Square, privatised civic spaces on Princes Wharf, threatened public spaces on Queens Wharf, and mismanagement of Quay Street.

You don’t have to look hard for an explanation for these civic failures because they have have one influence in common. They are Auckland’s legacy from the development activities of the Auckland Harbour Board (AHB) and its corporatized offspring known now as Ports of Auckland Limited (POAL).

In 1963 AHB owned the reclaimed land at the foot of Queen Street now occupied by the Downtown Shopping Centre, HSBC Tower and Queen Elizabeth Square which was the public by-product of a successful overseas development tender. Despite objections from the Auckland Architects Association which built a model of the scheme demonstrating the wind and shading effects of the twenty-storey tower formally known as Air New Zealand House, the scheme went ahead largely unchanged. It is ironic that AHB’s prospectus for tenderers stated that: “pedestrian amenity will be a prime objective”.

AHB’s plans for its distinctive octagonal headquarter building on the base of Princes Wharf included paving and pedestrianisation of Quay Street to Queen Street, and from Queen Elizabeth Square across and up Queens Wharf. They also emphasized pedestrian access onto Princes Wharf from Quay Street beneath its headquarters whose first floor was built three stories above the wharf. The plans were granted upon appeal, but subject to the pedestrian areas being constructed “contemporaneously”, and that the building was only to be used as AHB’s HQ. Construction began in 1983, but promised pedestrian amenity never eventuated. AHB moved out after a few years, sublet the building as commercial office-space, and infilled the lower floors of the building, blocking that pedestrian access off Quay Street and onto Princes Wharf.

The development approach adopted later by POAL for Princes Wharf exhibits the same pattern: early proposals included significant public space around the wharf and at the end and a central street shown populated with pedestrians, maritime museum, galleries, a theatre and other public attractions; much of this was gone from plans by the time construction commenced in 1998; and since then a steady sequence of infill and development has been encouraged shading the central street, blocking access to public spaces, and allowing largely uncontrolled parking and traffic movements.

Today POAL still holds property rights around the edges of Queens Wharf which affect its public use, even though the wharf is “owned” by Auckland Council and Central Government, and its grip on other central wharves and surplus waterfront reclaimed land is primarily about delivering on its “successful business” objective.

Auckland stands at a kind of cross roads now. I’m picking that Auckland wants North Wharf on Quay Street, Queens Wharf and Queen Elizabeth Square. It most certainly does not want another Aotea Square, and certainly not another Princes Wharf.

It is time for a successful city – not just a collection of successful businesses – and in significant part that is about developing and managing successful civic spaces.

PT Plan: Unaffordable for Auckland, Unavailable to Many

Len Brown has nailed his colours firmly to the mayoral mast in this, his second term of office, declaring, “My number one priority is to bring forward the start date for the Central Rail Link to 2016….”

Central Government has indicated support for the project (cautious support) but is firm on a start date of 2021, unless a number of public transport patronage targets are met which could bring the start date forward. Nevertheless, Mayor Brown in true little red hen fashion, is doing it himself. Auckland Council has already purchased properties worth $35 million along the route.

I write here as a former Chair of Transport (North Shore City for 3 years, Auckland Regional Council for 3 years), and as a strong supporter of public transport investment. While the Mayor’s determination is laudable, his lack of experience in city-building is on display, and the risks that arise from his actions and aspirations (presuming they are supported by councillors) will be borne by the city and its citizens – not by him or them. These risks include putting our few transport eggs into one basket thus ensuring good public transport services remain unavailable for decades to those outside that basket; hoisting Auckland’s debt level even higher and foisting debt repayment obligations on future generations; and tempting foreign investors into the scheme by sacrificing civic assets like Queen Elizabeth Square.

I am not the only commentator increasingly concerned by the Council’s fixation on this very expensive project. The pro-PT transportblog writes on May27th: “…the council are getting to a point where they are going to need to make some tough decisions on what projects they actually build. Carrying on trying to do everything simply isn’t possible so the council will need to prioritise what they do. This is something we’ve been saying for some time and is a basis to many of the things we advocate for including the CFN (Congestion Free Network) and walking and cycling….” (NB: Matt L comments that Transportblog believes the CRL is "the most important project".)

The City Rail Link (CRL) is a 3.5 kilometre rail tunnel under central Auckland that is projected to cost $2.8 billion to construct. Its route and construction method is illustrated in the image below which also shows the locations of the three proposed stations.

The CRL project will bring a number of benefits to Auckland. These are listed below:
1) To increase the capacity of Auckland’s rail network by turning Britomart into a through station and adding another rail entrance to the city centre from Mt Eden.
2) To ease the pressure on the city centre’s roading network by reducing the level of future increases in buses and cars.
3) To significantly reduce travel times on Auckland’s rail network.
4) To allow higher train frequencies to be operated on all lines of the Auckland rail network.
5) To provide sufficient capacity in the rail system for future extensions (eg rail to the airport, Avondale-Southdown line.) to be possible.
6) To stimulate business activity in the city centre and other rail served centres and generate agglomeration benefits including increased development density.
7) To stimulate higher intensity residential development around the rail network and reduce the need for Auckland to grow via urban sprawl.
8 ) To enable and support a more efficient and effective bus network.
9) To improve rail access in the city centre.
10) To allow trains to be routed through the city centre and offer one-seat rides between centres on different sides of Auckland.

However, the CRL is a massive project that improves just one of Auckland's transport networks – the rail network. It will have a huge impact on Auckland CBD during construction because of the cut and cover sections through Queen Elizabeth Square and up Lower Albert Street. It will offer major opportunities for land development – including the Downtown Precinct which abuts Queen Elizabeth Square. And it comes at enormous cost.

So it needs to be right. It is more important that it's planned right, than that construction gets started in 2016. And it is critically important that its construction takes its place in the queue with other important public transport network improvements.

This Auckland Transport map depicts the proposed Frequent Network which would/could have services running at least every 15 minutes 7am to 7pm 7 days a week. What it amounts to is a strategic re-organisation of Auckland bus routes in particular. It has largely been agreed after detailed consultation. Parts of the South Auckland network have already been improved.

The transport objective underpinning this plan is the establishment of frequent services right across Auckland. Not just on Rail and the Northern Busway (which you can see in black). NB: The proposed CRL is not shown on this map, but its route is more or less from Britomart, via K’Road to Mt Eden station (shown as the purple star).

Given the affordability of the CRL, the low hanging fruit public transport priority needs to be to deliver the frequency and promise that can be obtained from the new frequent bus sections of the network, which require modest investments in key sections (bus priority lanes, other priority measures such as priority signalling, some network interchange stations, extended lanes, corridor widening, and additional bus stops and shelters).

I understand that all of these bus network corridor improvements have been planned and await funding in a package of works that will cost about $200 million, but that this package is being stalled because of the perceived priority of the CRL. Under the mayor’s current direction, the CRL project is becoming a black hole. All consuming. Surely it's a priority for South Aucklanders to benefit from the promised frequent bus service.

The political problem that I see is that the pressure to "start CRL in 2016" (especially in a substantial way) threatens a tight public transport budget. And threatens to delay the rollout to wider Auckland region of frequent bus services that might not be "world class", but they will be a lot more reliable and attractive alternatives to car than the bus services available now. And the packages of work required a whole lot more affordable for Auckland Council than trying to get the CRL off the ground all by itself.
 
And as for the rail network and patronage targets, I am advised that the new electric trains don't just look good running on their newly electrified lines. They carry more passengers than the ones they replaced. In fact they carry on average about 50% more passengers per train set than the equivalent trains they replaced. What this means is that the existing rail network (without the CRL, but with electrification and the new trains) can carry about 50% more passengers/hour now than before. That's a significant increase in capacity which at the present rate of patronage increase will take some years to be taken up – allowing time for other public transport priorities.

Bearing that in mind, and the opportunity begging for improvements to bus corridors, surely it is the right thing to do to protect the budgets for those improvements and prioritise them, get them done over the next couple of years, complete the planning for CRL, and maybe go ahead with foundational tunnel works which will permit the Downtown Precinct development and Queen Elizabeth Square works to proceed without much delay. And plan to build the CRL in stages.

Which brings me to the proposed sale of Queen Elizabeth Square.

This picture is from the Britomart Railway station building. Queen Elizabeth Square is mainly taken up with a bus interchange and a small paved area with a few struggling Kauri trees. The proposed CRL starts here, runs under QE Square, and turns left up Albert Street. A single developer – Precinct Properties now owns the HSBC tower (in the centre of the picture, and the Downtown Shopping Centre to the left. Auckland Council officers have assessed the Square as being “windy, shaded and unattractive” and come up with a plan to sell the paved area to the developer for a $60 million contribution towards the CRL cost.

But here’s a better idea.

Auckland Council plans to replace the Britomart bus interchange with three smaller interchanges around the edges of the CBD.  This creates a wonderful opportunity for Auckland to transform Queen Elizabeth Square into a waterfront civic square across a pedestrianized Quay Street from Queens Wharf. The perfect place for a modern tram interconnecting the bus interchanges, Wynyard Quarter, Ferry Terminal, Central Railway Station, Queen Street, and Universities.

Then finish the CRL.

Mangawhai: What Now?

This is not a wrap-up, more of an update on where things have got to with the legal action and other matters relating to the EcoCare wastewater scheme at Mangawhai, the rate strike, judicial review, Office of Auditor General report, Mike Sabin MP's stance, and what Kaipara District Council is doing....

The judicial review proceedings are not complete. The judge gave an interim decision on 28th May. Which you can download here - my post about it is here, and NZ Herald's report is here. There are various other reports on the decision, including stuff, Northern Advocate, the Bob Dey report, and The National Business Review. 

The judge requested submissions from the parties to the court action for a judicial conference which was scheduled for June 20th. But this has now been changed - see below. But first a little recent background.....

The parties to the action are Mangawhai Ratepayers and Residents Association (MRRA), and Kaipara District Council. Though Justice Heath did seek written submissions from Ms Gwyn, on behalf of the Attorney-General. It is unclear at this stage (outside the tent) whether the Attorney General or/and Dept of Internal Affairs are involved now.

Here is what Mangawhai Ratepayers and Residents have told members, after the interim decision:

The High Court judgment is a draft judgment only. The judge has made no final determinations on any of the matters before him (although he has indicated what he is “minded” to do) and in a move that we understand is highly unusual he is seeking input from counsel before he finalises his position and seals the judgment.

No court judgment can take effect until it is sealed. The process of getting counsel’s views will not take place until June 20th at the earliest.

After that the judge may alter some aspects of his judgment, or add things to it.

While the judgment as it stands vindicates the MRRA’s contention that the council was acting both illegally and ultra vires over many years, it does not yet contain declarations on some matters upon which declarations were sought by us.

The situation is very fluid, with extensive legal review and discussion under way, including new discussions between the MRRA and the Commissioners, initiated by them, which are productive, cordial and candid. We will come back to you as soon as possible with advice about whether or not to pay any of the withheld rates. Pending this advice, please patiently wait a little longer in the knowledge that we are hard at work advancing your interests.

The judge clearly wants the parties to find a way through the legal and financial quagmire we are in that gives fairness and justice to everyone. He has signaled the things that are of concern to him and suggested the matters that need to be brought to him. He has indicated that parties other than the ratepayers should be pursued for the illegal debts. This is, of course, of fundamental concern to us on your behalf. We will not agree to anything that does not satisfactorily deal with this issue.

Just so that nobody is left wondering, both parties to this litigation have the option to appeal all or part of the judgment. If in our view the judgment, when finalized, is wrong, or is harmful to our interests, we will not exclude the possibility of lodging an appeal. KDC will also reserve the right to do this, of course. If we go to appeal it is highly likely that we will have to again ask our members to assist with financing that, but it will not cost anything like as much as the previous hearings. If an appeal is necessary, and we sincerely hope it is not, we will only proceed if we have enough money to see it through.

And what about the Commissioners? Well. Immediately after the preliminary/interim decision was released Chairman Robertson launched a media offensive defending KDC's actions. The key phrase in his media release states:

"...the court's judgment has made it crystal clear that rates are valid and payable...for those who have withheld their rates on the advice of MRRA... the decision will cause you to review your position..."

This is a very disappointing representation of what the judgment actually means. It is also untrue. For a start the judgment is interim, and cannot therefore be called a decision. It is likely that Justice Heath's view of the Validation Bill will prevail - ie that it was within Government and Parliamentary power to enact the validation bill - but that did not deal with the huge and illegally incurred debts.

When I was involved with MRRA (I was on the Exec for a year) and the legal action was being prepared, I wrote this post in April 2013 - about the law being an ass. The final paragraphs of that post follow:

The law that is the ass here, is the local government law that allows banks to sell loans to badly informed councils whose ratepayers appear to have no redress, and the light handed regulatory law that appears to allow government entities like the Office of the Auditor General and its agents to wash their hands of the consequences of their failures to protect the public interest.

Central Government needs to step up.

An earthquake has been allowed to happen in Mangawhai. And the law, the enforcers of the law, and those who regulate and audit compliance with the law, permitted it to happen.

At the time the legal advice I had sought on behalf of the MRRA was to the effect: that the matter of the legality of the loans was, in his pro-bono words: "a slam dunk", but, because of the protected-transaction-get-out-of-jail-free-card, the fundamental issue he saw for MRRA was how to get existing ratepayers off the hook for these illegally incurred debts....? That was the $64,000 question then, and it is still the $64,000 question today, even with the interim judicial review decision on the table.

What Justice Heath says in his interim judgment about this matter is this:

[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.

The KDC commissioner media release (quoted earlier) is surprising when read in the light of Justice Heath's comment quoted just above. Clearly, commissioners have NOT considered all options, or indeed any options other than rating the socks off existing residents, otherwise we'd have heard about that by now.

A quick read of their terms of reference indicates  that their role includes this:

Phase three - June 2013 to June 2015: The Commissioners will: - carry out extensive community and iwi engagement to continue to rebuild confidence and trust in the Council; - conduct a review of the Council’s financial strategy, plans, rating policies, and capability (including debt and asset management), to ensure financial resilience and equitable and sustainable funding;

Now. I'm not sure what the word "equitable" or even the word "sustainable" might mean to KDC's commissioners. But I'd hazard a guess that, given Justice Heath's arguments to date, that imposing rates on existing ratepayers for an illegally incurred debt could not be described as equitable or sustainable.

Mike Sabin, MP for the area, has been especially noisy of late. In the Mangawhai Memo dated 23rd June he urges the Office of the Auditor General to front up:

"... the buck stops with them ... debt blowout of scheme from $35 million to $63 million... further and ongoing failings of the OAG .... a sheepish apology doesn't cut it...  principle at stake here... ... I will not give up on this..."

Strong words. But maybe Mike's got agreement from his party for him to step out of line here. You can almost hear PM John Key saying, "fill your boots Mike, go for it. We understand you've got to speak out. But don't be under any illusion that we're going to do anything real here...."

Is your objection and fight a real one Mike? Or are you just going through the motions?

Finally, it appears that the judicial conference that is the next step in finalising the judicial review decision will now be held on 1st July. The advice that MRRA has circulated to members in the last few days includes this information:

4. For the judgment to be acceptable to us there will have to be a compulsory road map out of the shambles that has been created by the KDC that does not simply dump all the problems on the shoulders of the Kaipara ratepayers. .
5. We have developed a detailed settlement plan for consideration by the council.
6. If they accept it, or if they come to the table and negotiate a compromise that is workable and fair, we will present it to the judge as a joint proposal which he can then issue as a court order. That way, each side has to abide by its respective undertakings, because the order will have the force of law.
7. If they do not accept it, we will make it available to the court, indicating that we were willing to settle on fair and reasonable terms, but the council would not.....

Go for it MRRA.

So. Is the law still an ass?

Possibly not. Now. Certainly Justice Heath's interpretation of Local Government Act consultation provisions is a line in the sand that has not been drawn by the High Court until now. So that's progress. Councils can still take out loans from banks, and banks can still be secure in the protected transaction regime and provide loans at 2% off commercial interest rates (because they don't carry so much risk), but the law is now clearer about the principle of Councils needing to consult before deciding to take out such loans. It would be helpful though for the LGA to explicitly provide a mechanism so that ratepayers are entitled to go after any councillors, mayor and CEO involved in sanctioning unlawful loan decisions.

But this still does not get the unfair proportion of the debt paid. It may be that MRRA can get KDC Commissioners to deliver in accordance with the spirit of their terms of reference. It should not now be beyond the wit of Commissioners to meet up with Mike Sabin and go together to the PM and get a pragmatic resolution. That's one thing John Key's government seems to be good at. Whether the money comes from OAG's professional insurance (does it have such a thing?), or from the consolidated fund, it's time the powers that be fronted up to the banks, negotiated a sensible number, and cleared the debt.

Wellington Waterfront Watch

The website for Wellington Waterfront Watch is minimal....
  
Vision: A waterfront with plenty of open spaces and panoramic views.

"....We are committed to preserving this resource for the people of Wellington and whilst we will support appropriate development that enhances public spaces and usage, we will question any excessive development that seeks to privatise and restrict public access, remove views and viewshafts, downgrades our heritage or introduces excess shading or wind issues...."

And a little bit history:  "In 1995, the area that is now Waitangi Park was part of the infamous "Variation 17" proposals by Wellington City Council which threatened high-rise apartment blocks over the area, and all along the rest of the waterfront. Not surprisingly, the people of Wellington were in an uproar and thus Waterfront Watch was formed under the astute leadership of Lindsay Shelton and Helen Glasgow."

The policy adopted by Wellington Waterfront Watch takes up just one page:

• The Wellington waterfront should be a place of public open space for people and their children, now and for the future. It should be a natural environment where everyone can gain refreshment and relief from traffic, pollution, and the noise of streets and buildings.
• There should be at least a 20-metre walkway along the entire waterfront, free of vehicular traffic and there should be easy walking connections to the water from the city.
• At least 75 per cent of the waterfront should be retained as freely usable public space open to the sky, such as parks, walkways and squares, free of motor vehicular traffic.
• There should be comfortable places to linger - benches, ledges, seats and sheltered corners.
• There should be a defined cycle track, and space dedicated for skateboarding, separate from the walkways.
• There should be two major green open parks - Frank Kitts Park and Chaffers Park. Chaffers should have only low rise buildings for public, cultural or recreational purposes associated with the park.
• Views from the harbour to the hills and from the streets to the harbour should be preserved.
• There should be sunlight protection over the entire waterfront.
• All remaining heritage buildings should be restored and brought into use before any new buildings are permitted. The historic iron railings should be brought back into use.
• Any new development should be no higher than sheds 11 and 13 (i.e. 15m above sea level).
• Any new buildings should incorporate architectural excellence and should be in sympathy with their surroundings.
• All land should remain in public ownership.
• There should be public consultation on any future waterfront development and any new developments or buildings should require prior public notification.

Given the evident public success of Wellington's waterfront, maybe this is something that Auckland could think about.

Downtown and QE Square: Student Design 1

NB: The numbering of this post reflects the order I put this student work up. There are 18 students doing this course. A few have allowed me to post my selections from their work. My numbering does not reflect the assessments of their work.

This post contains imagery from Alan Syxomexune's work for the Advanced Design Studio for the University of Auckland degree of Masters in Architecture. For the studio, students were invited to explore the research and design methods of Cheshire Architects and critically apply those methods to a design for the Downtown Shopping Centre site. (The "site" includes QE Square, the HSBC Tower, the Zurich Building, and the Downtown Shopping Mall - which is up for demolition to make way for the first leg of the Central Rail Link tunnel.). The course outline goes like this:

Poem, screenplay, parable, graphic novel, myth or even opera: this project harnesses literary forms to conceptualise and propose architectural designs. Although the use of writing is widespread in architectural practice as a means of explanation or description – specifications, annotations, design reports, promotional websites, etc - it’s not regularly employed in conceptualisation where other representational practices such as drawing, diagramming and modelling hold sway.

One architectural practice which extensively employs narrative genres at the early stage of its projects is Cheshire Architects, headed by Pip and Nat Cheshire. NZIA president and last year’s NZIA Gold Medal recipient Pip Cheshire described to students how his practice employs writing at all stages of design, particularly at conceptualisation to unlock what he calls “the big questions” and speculate on design possibilities.

Cheshire Architects’ design process involves the production of a “book” – in itself a dynamic design object - that aims to capture the essence and opportunity of the project. "....Part client pitch, part provocation, the Cheshire book serves as a creative, sometimes playful, evocation of design promise and is presented to the client before design drawings occur....." For example, in a recent proposal for a hotel, Cheshire Architects revealed their design story as a libretto (operatic text) of acts and scenes with accompanying imagery.

In this studio students were invited to explore the research and design methods of Cheshire Architects and critically apply those methods to a design for the Downtown Shopping Centre site. Students chose narrative or other writing forms to reveal and articulate their design ideas and intentions. They were asked to produce three carefully crafted booklets in quick succession in the first six weeks of the project.

One of the booklets was a response to a challenge by Auckland Council’s Design Champion and Environmental Strategy and Policy manager Ludo Campbell-Reid, who attended the studio and outlined the Council’s vision for the site in the context of the Council’s City Centre Masterplan. (The course description describes his role: "Campbell-Reid is Auckland Council’s first ever Design Champion, accountable for eradicating outdated policies, plans and rules, promoting the urban design agenda at all levels within the council and the wider community. He advocates for a “clutter free” city, favouring the pedestrian as the economic powerhouse of the city and has championed the introduction of “shared space” in the central city..."..)

Following critiques of each booklet, students developed selected concepts into completed designs presented in a book form, integrating narrative text and other media (drawings, photos, video, audio, models, animation, etc) to articulate and promote the purposes of their design.

The following selected images are from the Books 1, 2, 3 and 4 work of Alan Syxomexune.
Click to make them bigger. Enjoy....

Downtown and QE Square: Student Design 2

NB: The numbering of this post reflects the order I put this student work up. There are 18 students doing this course. A few have allowed me to post my selections from their work. My numbering does not reflect the assessments of their work.

This post contains imagery from Tessa Forde's work for the Advanced Design Studio for the University of Auckland degree of Masters in Architecture. For the studio, students were invited to explore the research and design methods of Cheshire Architects and critically apply those methods to a design for the Downtown Shopping Centre site. (The "site" includes QE Square, the HSBC Tower, the Zurich Building, and the Downtown Shopping Mall - which is up for demolition to make way for the first leg of the Central Rail Link tunnel.). The course outline goes like this:

Poem, screenplay, parable, graphic novel, myth or even opera: this project harnesses literary forms to conceptualise and propose architectural designs. Although the use of writing is widespread in architectural practice as a means of explanation or description – specifications, annotations, design reports, promotional websites, etc - it’s not regularly employed in conceptualisation where other representational practices such as drawing, diagramming and modelling hold sway.

One architectural practice which extensively employs narrative genres at the early stage of its projects is Cheshire Architects, headed by Pip and Nat Cheshire. NZIA president and last year’s NZIA Gold Medal recipient Pip Cheshire described to students how his practice employs writing at all stages of design, particularly at conceptualisation to unlock what he calls “the big questions” and speculate on design possibilities.

Cheshire Architects’ design process involves the production of a “book” – in itself a dynamic design object - that aims to capture the essence and opportunity of the project. "....Part client pitch, part provocation, the Cheshire book serves as a creative, sometimes playful, evocation of design promise and is presented to the client before design drawings occur....." For example, in a recent proposal for a hotel, Cheshire Architects revealed their design story as a libretto (operatic text) of acts and scenes with accompanying imagery.

In this studio students were invited to explore the research and design methods of Cheshire Architects and critically apply those methods to a design for the Downtown Shopping Centre site. Students chose narrative or other writing forms to reveal and articulate their design ideas and intentions. They were asked to produce three carefully crafted booklets in quick succession in the first six weeks of the project.

One of the booklets was a response to a challenge by Auckland Council’s Design Champion and Environmental Strategy and Policy manager Ludo Campbell-Reid, who attended the studio and outlined the Council’s vision for the site in the context of the Council’s City Centre Masterplan. (The course description describes his role: "Campbell-Reid is Auckland Council’s first ever Design Champion, accountable for eradicating outdated policies, plans and rules, promoting the urban design agenda at all levels within the council and the wider community. He advocates for a “clutter free” city, favouring the pedestrian as the economic powerhouse of the city and has championed the introduction of “shared space” in the central city..."..)

Following critiques of each booklet, students developed selected concepts into completed designs presented in a book form, integrating narrative text and other media (drawings, photos, video, audio, models, animation, etc) to articulate and promote the purposes of their design.

The following selected images are from the Books 1, 2, 3 and 4 work of Tessa Forde.

Click to make them bigger. Read the text if you want to properly understand and appreciate the process leading up to the designs. Enjoy....

Downtown and QE Square: Student design 3

NB: The numbering of this post reflects the order I put this student work up. There are 18 students doing this course. A few have allowed me to post my selections from their work. My numbering does not reflect the assessments of their work.

This post contains imagery from Katy Turner's work for the Advanced Design Studio for the University of Auckland degree of Masters in Architecture. For the studio, students were invited to explore the research and design methods of Cheshire Architects and critically apply those methods to a design for the Downtown Shopping Centre site. (The "site" includes QE Square, the HSBC Tower, the Zurich Building, and the Downtown Shopping Mall - which is up for demolition to make way for the first leg of the Central Rail Link tunnel.). The course outline goes like this:

Poem, screenplay, parable, graphic novel, myth or even opera: this project harnesses literary forms to conceptualise and propose architectural designs. Although the use of writing is widespread in architectural practice as a means of explanation or description – specifications, annotations, design reports, promotional websites, etc - it’s not regularly employed in conceptualisation where other representational practices such as drawing, diagramming and modelling hold sway.

One architectural practice which extensively employs narrative genres at the early stage of its projects is Cheshire Architects, headed by Pip and Nat Cheshire. NZIA president and last year’s NZIA Gold Medal recipient Pip Cheshire described to students how his practice employs writing at all stages of design, particularly at conceptualisation to unlock what he calls “the big questions” and speculate on design possibilities.

Cheshire Architects’ design process involves the production of a “book” – in itself a dynamic design object - that aims to capture the essence and opportunity of the project. "....Part client pitch, part provocation, the Cheshire book serves as a creative, sometimes playful, evocation of design promise and is presented to the client before design drawings occur....." For example, in a recent proposal for a hotel, Cheshire Architects revealed their design story as a libretto (operatic text) of acts and scenes with accompanying imagery.

In this studio students were invited to explore the research and design methods of Cheshire Architects and critically apply those methods to a design for the Downtown Shopping Centre site. Students chose narrative or other writing forms to reveal and articulate their design ideas and intentions. They were asked to produce three carefully crafted booklets in quick succession in the first six weeks of the project.

One of the booklets was a response to a challenge by Auckland Council’s Design Champion and Environmental Strategy and Policy manager Ludo Campbell-Reid, who attended the studio and outlined the Council’s vision for the site in the context of the Council’s City Centre Masterplan. (The course description describes his role: "Campbell-Reid is Auckland Council’s first ever Design Champion, accountable for eradicating outdated policies, plans and rules, promoting the urban design agenda at all levels within the council and the wider community. He advocates for a “clutter free” city, favouring the pedestrian as the economic powerhouse of the city and has championed the introduction of “shared space” in the central city..."..)

Following critiques of each booklet, students developed selected concepts into completed designs presented in a book form, integrating narrative text and other media (drawings, photos, video, audio, models, animation, etc) to articulate and promote the purposes of their design.

The following selected images are from the Books 1, 2, 3 and 4 work of Katy Turner.
Click to make them bigger, and read the text to appreciate and understand the design ideas. Enjoy.....