Downtown Needs A Plan Change

Behind the scenes Auckland Council and CCO staff are working, discussing, coordinating and strategising how to progress Downtown planning. The pressure's on to sort out and fund the Central Rail Link (CRL) enabling works (the cut and cover section from Britomart, across Queen Elizabeth Square, under Custom Street West and some way up Albert Street) and to enable Precinct Properties to gain certainty and direction for the redevelopment of its property.

So far, one outcome of these frantic activities, is that the public has been involved in one decision and vaguely informed about a cluster of others:

• For example the designation for the CRL route has been notified (leading to various property owners affected being compensated, some properties being purchased) and Auckland Council's annual plan (which was consulted) did provide for these costs. 
• The public might have heard about the idea of Queen Elizabeth Square being sold to Precinct Properties (if they read the Herald), but they've not been consulted about this, though they could be involved in the formal process that would be required of "stopping" QE Square being a "road". (That is QE Square's planning status at the present. It is not a park. Nor has it ever been reserved for any public purpose other than being "road" - which might explain why it was used as car park and why it is still regularly used now by courier companies to park their vehicles.)
• There has also been the pasteurised Downtown Development Framework. I mean "passed your eyes". The public has not been consulted about the ideas or priorities in this strategy document. Some attentive members of the public may have learned a bit from the Herald or the radio, but this cannot be described as reasonable public participation given the significance.

Is this a good public process? You'd be a charitable person to say that it has been a good process lately, even if you ignore waterfront redevelopment planning history. For example there's the recent decisions that led up to the present situation including a sequence of shonky resource consent decisions by the previous Auckland City Council granting Westfields the right to build a 41 storey tower, 471 basement carparks, a double width vehicle crossing into Lower Albert, commercial frontage onto Lower Albert and Custom Street infringing pedestrian amenity standards, and with barely any regard at all for the impact on bus services and interchange facilities. None of these planning decisions were publicly notified.

What constitutes good process? To answer that we need to look a little further back to the redevelopment planning for Quay Park, Britomart, Viaduct Harbour and Wynyard Quarter....

Any good urban planning starts with some understanding of the history of land uses in the vicinity. Something which seems to be strangely absent from anything I've seen so far from Auckland Council - except where it might support a particular rationale - such as the sale of QE Square.

The black line in this map indicates how much of Auckland's waterfront is on reclaimed land (the map shows reclamations before the current container port was reclaimed). By 1973 a total of 162 hectares of land had been reclaimed in proximity to the Auckland Central Business District. Of this, 27.5% was vested for industrial uses (including railways, post office, power station and a bus terminal) by Auckland Harbour Board. An extensive street system was made on a further portion (25 %) of the reclaimed land. Today, Ports of Auckland Ltd (which replaced AHB as part of neoliberal reforms in the last 1980’s), operates Auckland’s port on about 55 hectares of reclaimed land.

 So what happened to the the rest of the land and wharves that was surplus to ports and historic uses? Much of it has been redeveloped. And there's an interesting and simple history of this, some of which is good planning, and some of which is not good.
  

Quay Park Precinct
 This map shows the portion called Quay Park Precinct. It included the old railway station and today includes Vector Arena and other developments.

The important point to note for this posting is that the land went through a Plan Change before it was redeveloped. You can read the Quay Park Precinct district plan provisions. I suggest you click on the link and have a read. These changes went out for public consultation, were subject to submissions and stakeholder engagement, became operative, and then enabled complying redevelopment and public space provision.

Viaduct Harbour Precinct
 This map shows another portion of Auckland's CBD waterfront that went through a Plan Change process. This is Viaduct Harbour Precinct. Again - it inludes land that was privately owned and land that was public.The Plan Change allowed development to commence in the late 1990's that you can see today.

Critically, there was a set of Urban Design Guidelines that went with Plan Change 61. I suggest you have a read of these. They begin with this quote within a quote: "...."Determination and reservation of permanent open space is one of the, if not the most important design decisions in city planning: Open space, once made public, remains forever. It is thus to be carefully considered as to form, volume, meaning and symbolism." - extract from Capital Development Authority Dodoma, Tanzania; Urban Design for the National Capital Centre , June 1980, p 79. The spirit of this document is vested in the recognition of, and respect for, the fundamental importance of high quality public space in the urban environment...."

Britomart Precinct
This site had a controversial start to redevelopment planning. The Les Mills led Auckland City Council vision proposed a cluster of 30 storey plus towers and around 5,000 underground carparks associated with a railway station. It would have necessitated the demolition of most heritage buildings. Public outcry triggered a different approach. The newly elected Christine Fletcher led Auckland City Council promulgated a District Plan Change for the area which allowed redevelopment of the area to proceed in accordance with specific planning controls in the early 2000's. It clearly protected and defined public space and the alleyways and streetscapes that are now threatened by the higgledy piggledy bus "planning" being talked about by Auckland Council for the Downtown area.

Wynyard Quarter Precinct
Two major plan changes preceeded the developments now visible down there, particularly on North Wharf and Silo Park, which have attracted international recognition as well as public acclaim. There was Plan Change 3 by Auckland Regional Council relating to coastal provisions, and Plan Change 4 by Auckland City Council relating to land uses. See here the s.32 analysis of Plan Change 3. 

You can see how this precinct is provided for in the District Plan today, here. In that precinct plan document you can see recorded part of the planning process leading to the final provisions:

"The vision for Wynyard Quarter is based on four interrelated public strategy documents being; 
• Auckland Waterfront Vision 2040; 
• Auckland CBD Into The Future Strategy; 
• The Wynyard Quarter Concept Vision and Urban Design Framework; and 
• The Wynyard Quarter Urban Design Background Information Document. 
These documents were developed following extensive public consultation and input from key stakeholders." 

And that is only talking about the vision. Following that process was the plan changes themselves in which all stakeholders and public had the opportunity to make submissions about public spaces, buildings heights, heritage buildings, activity relationships between commerce, industry, fishing and recreation, and more. What you see on Wynyard Quarter was not some happy accident. It is the legacy of good planning.

So. You'd think that Auckland Council would learn from this experience and repeat what is good about it in planning what is arguably the most significant and central part the Auckland waterfront CBD. (NB: the one area of Auckland's waterfront that was redeveloped in what amounted to a non-notified way was Princes Wharf. Very few obervers consider that Princes Wharf planning is a model to be repeated. Yet that is the risk of the Downtown Precinct planning process at present.)

Downtown Precinct
So here's the remaining bit of Auckland's downtown sitting on zonings and planning controls that were put in place several decades ago. I understand the Price Waterhouse tower was permitted after a non-notified process. At present Auckland Council appears to only be looking closely at the right half of the Downtown area - the land bounded by Quay, Lower Queen, Custom, and Lower Albert Streets. But the "pasteurised" Downtown Framework considers the whole area - including opportunities like the Hobson Street flyover ramp and the downtown carpark building.

The rationale for requiring a Downtown Precinct Plan Change - even if it's one block at a time - is to protect both public and private interests, to provide opportunity for public and stakeholder input, and to deliver some certainty around outcomes, including bus movements and interchanges, typical of the plan change processes described above. The rationale for avoiding a publicly proposed Downtown Precinct Plan Change can only be seen as favouring private interests over public interests, and of avoiding the costs of due public process. It is neither appropriate nor fair to expect Precinct Properties to take responsibility for downtown development planning by means of its own private plan change or by seeking consent.

It is time for Auckland Councillors to call for wise action over expediency.
Auckland's Downtown Precinct needs a public plan change.

Auckland Planning Ignores Buses

It would have been more accurate to entitle this post "demeans", or maybe "sidelines", buses. But others who risk losing out in Auckland's Battle for Downtown include pedestrians. Winners and grinners look like developers, drivers and, ultimately, train commuters, part-funded by public property liquidation. But the option of a win-win-win-win outcome still lies on the table...

Downtown redevelopment planning, Queen Elizabeth Square, the Central Rail Link project, Quay Street and Custom Street are all in the public eye right now. There's been considerable public interest which will grow and should be welcomed by those responsible for planning and implementation.

I'm one stakeholder interested in how it's all going and learning from the past so we don't risk repeating historic mistakes. That's why I've sought information about the various resource consents and planning processes relating to the Downtown site, or Number 7 Queen Street, which is the address of the Downtown Westfield Shopping Centre that has been purchased by Precinct Properties for redevelopment, and under which will pass a section of tunnel allowing the Central Rail Link access into Britomart station.

This posting contains extracts from the decision report which went with the non-notified consent granted in 2008 to Westfield to build a 41 storey tower at 7 Queen Street (the picture shown is part of the original consent application documentation, looking North East across the Custom Street/Lower Albert Street intersection). That consent would have lapsed in 2013. This posting considered the extension process whereby Auckland Council, in 2011, changed the lapse date from 2013 to 2018. This is the resource consent purchased by Precinct Properties when it took ownership of No 7 Queen Street.

This newspaper article is based on information I obtained about the process that occurred between Auckland City Council, Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA), Ontrack, and Westfields in 2008 in regard to the problem of the CRL tunnel going under the site planned for the tower, and through the basement area planned for 471 car parks. In essence this appears to be what happened:

• Westfields applied to Auckland City Council on the 14 April 2007 to build a 41 Storey Tower and 471 basement carparks on the corner of Lower Albert and Custom Streets. Despite letters from Auckland Regional Transport Authority and documentation from Ontrack about the proposed CRL tunnel, and despite conflicting legal advice, Auckland City Council officers decided the application did not need to be publicly notified and it was granted “without any issues of contention”.
• Consent was granted in April 2008 at which time the senior planner wrote to an adjacent land owner stating: “I am informed that it may be several years before redevelopment proceeds.”
• It appears that ARTA and Ontrack commenced judicial review proceedings shortly thereafter in May 2008 but these did not proceed. Documents suggest an MOU was signed between Ontrack and Westfields.
• A year after amalgamation, in August 2011, Auckland Council received another application from Westfield, this time to extend the life of the consent from 2013 to 2018. It argues in that application: “Westfield was unaware of the rail tunnel proposition when the decision was taken to invest in the proposed scheme, and seek consent for the redevelopment of the site.” But documents indicate Westfield met with ARTA almost a year before the original consent was granted.
• This time, Auckland Council dealt with the application, but it was the same Auckland City Council officer. He recommended the extension be dealt with non-notified again. A single commissioner sitting alone took a few minutes to sign it off, and the Auckland public remained none the wiser.

So - What About The Buses?

Most of the above has been about rail public transport. But the untold story, and one which needs to be appreciated and taken seriously by those planning Downtown now - especially as there's a commitment to getting buses out of Queen Elizabeth Square - is what has happened to the buses? How were they planned for in 2008, and what will happen now?

The original application included 471 carparks, a new double-width vehicle entry crossing on Lower Albert Street, and the commercialisation of part of the street frontage to Lower Albert Street. You can see what consent was needed for at the bottom of this posting.

The application lodged by Westfield in July 2007 contained in its assessment of effects, this statement which is a quote from the Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) part of the application, which had been prepared by Traffic Design Group (TDG):

Then, in an email dated 1 August 2007 to Auckland City Council officers from a Senior Associate of Traffic Planning Consultants Ltd who had been asked to review the ITA part of the Westfield application, we read:

Documents indicate that T2 Traffic and Transportation Engineers were then commissioned by Auckland City Council officers to formally review the applicant's ITA, and to make recommendations accordingly. This review was provided to Auckland City Council on or about 23 January 2008, and it states:

The T2 review recommends that the applicant: "is to liaise with ARTA to ensure that the location of the access does not cause any issues in relation to the proposed bus stops. This should be included as a condition of consent."

Now I don't know about you, but I read all this as meaning that two different consultances were asked to review the applicant's Integrated Transport Assessment and found it woefully inadequate in regards to the impact on existing and proposed bus services on Lower Albert Street. The advice is that the traffic access/entry points associated with the applicant's proposal "do not cause any issues in relation to the proposed bus stops", and that this be a condition of consent.

In the end, Commissioners were not provided with advice reflecting the clarity and concern expressed in early reviews of the application's ITA. Instead they read of T2's vague proposal to deal with the problem caused by the applicant's carpark traffic by relocating the bus terminals off Lower Albert Street and onto Customs Street West! Man oh man. As if such a thing is so easy - and let's not bother notifying ARTA about this as an affected party.

This is shonky.

And not even a condition of consent as suggested by T2. Instead officers recommended a nice little "advice note" to the permit. (Some of you may be aware of the significance of an advice note. Not a lot.) Advice note 8 reads:

No "musts" in this feeble advice note.Words like "should"..."consider"...."unduly compromise"...suffice as far as Auckland City Council officers were concerned. This is would be a joke if it wasn't so tragic.

And now we have the situation where Precinct Properties holds a consent that presumably still allows it to build a double width crossing into Lower Albert Street, AND Auckland Council have decided to dispense with the bus terminal in Lower Queen Street and relocate half of it into Lower Albert, alongside the bus stops that are already there. Man oh man. I think I can see the rationale now for Queen Elizabeth Square. To sell it unencumbered, the bus terminal on it had to be relocated. Don't really care where. Will deal with that problem later. One thing at a time. Top priority is to liquidate Queen Elizabeth Square....

And then there's the related decision to shoe-horn the other half of the Lower Queen Street bus terminal into the little pedestrian-friendly laneways that we fought so hard to retain in the Britomart Precinct.

Sorry guys, but this is not good planning. Check out the bottom bullet point here.

So what to do about buses?

Not enough room in this post for that question. But I'd suggest for a start, that the solution lies in the treatment of Custom Street West and perhaps its intersection with Lower Albert Street. And that the time for the work is at the same time as CRL enabling work at that intersection, and that it involves strategic undergrounding of buses and bus infrastructure there. This is more of a transport priority now, as CRL enabling works advance, than de-tuning Quay Street.

Downtown Precinct Cup of Tea Time

Lots of reasons to be cheerful this week, and then a couple of things to think about next week:

• Auckland Council released its Downtown Framework coordinated by Council's City Centre Integration Team. The geographic extent of the framework is appropriate. It allows for integrated evaluation and assessment of projects and transformation opportunities in the downtown waterfront CBD area. The Downtown Projects list is comprehensive, and considers the removal of the Hobson Flyover, the redevelopment of the downtown carparking building, and potential redevelopment of Copthorne Hotel. It's good to see the Beach Road cycle infrastructure. However the framework is vulnerable to critique that its purpose is PRIMARILY to enable CRL enabling works and PPL Downtown development to go ahead AND the sale of all of QE Square land. All else later – maybe. But nothing else is costed.
• Precinct Properties are proposing to lodge a new resource consent application for the Downtown development in January 2015. This is good news because it clearly signals PPL's interest in considering designs and outcomes that are different from those in the original Westfield consents. PPL will be interested in achieving floor area objectives, parking provisions and other commercial objectives which would be expected from this significant investment. PPL have for some time signalled a willingness to work with Auckland Council to achieve excellent outcomes on this very important site.
• Other Auckland stakeholders are becoming engaged in the planning process. Yesterday's Auckland Council Development Committee meeting received deputations from the Allan Matson and Julian Mitchell of the Auckland Civic Trust. Next week's Urban Issues Group of the NZ Institute of Architects are holding a special meeting about Downtown Waterfront planning. This growing public interest presents Auckland Council with an opportunity to constructively engage with Auckland's creative community in planning and developing this part of the Downtown Waterfront.
• Auckland Council has adopted a more nuanced approach to the sale of Queen Elizabeth Square land. What appeared to be a blunt sell it all approach, has now moved to an approach where lease options are to be investigated, as well as options of selling just a part of it (the shaded part for example). That's more like it.
• Auckland Councillors are being provided with more information about the proposal, and about the planning issues, and the history of how the Downtown area developed to where it is today. This will lead to empowered and informed Councillors which is what Auckland needs. There is a very useful and readable article about Auckland's Downtown development in a recent issue of Architecture Now magazine. Which I would suggest is compulsory reading for all Auckland Councillors and officers working on this project.

Those are my reasons for being cheerful, apart from today being Friday.

They are also my reasons for thinking about what we could now discuss over a cup of tea. What could be on the table next week and beyond - with Auckland Council and with Precinct Properties.

I've got suggestions for a conversation or two...

• Before trading away QE Square, offer Precinct Properties 2 or 3 more floor levels and the associated GFA on the low rise sections of its development site in exchange for lowering or demolishing the HSBC Tower. This would produce buildings on that section of the Downtown site of similar height to the Britomart building, capable of being nicely activated at ground level, of human scale, and delivering PPL commensurate value. This would at a stroke address the main QE Square quality issues (wind and shading) raised by the Jan Gehl and Reset Urban Design expert reports that were predicted by the Auckland Institute of Architects in their submissions at the time that tower was being planned (see article referred to above) which were dismissed by Auckland City Council when it granted planning permission.
• The Downtown Framework discusses scenarios for the development of QE Square and downtown bus operations. The text states: "the CRL enabling works will require reinstatement of many of the streets in this downtown block. We need to determine what is to be put back to avoid missed opportunities and reconstruction works." Tne Downtown Framework also suggests that Quay Street will be "de-tuned" and that Custom Street will somehow at the same time be made more pedestrian friendly (at Queens Street and Albert Street intersections) without suggesting any projects that might achieve that outcome. It also indicates that a part of the current downtown bus interchange will be relocated to Lower Albert Street, which is also where PPL has consent for a substantial traffic crossing providing access to its basement car-parking. The Downtown Framework is silent on this. So what might be done? I have heard of concepts for off-line or underground bus interchanges that can take the buses off city streets. Several friends have talked about this for Custom Street. A tunnel for buses along Custom Street could be built with its entry east bound near the Downtown Council carpark building, and its entry west bound in the vicinity of Emily Place. Work could occur when the 20 metre wide and 20 metre deep trench is dug for the CRL enabling works that will cut across Custom Street. Taking buses off this section of Custom Street would make it for traffic and bikes only and with wider footpaths. It would be busy but much safer than it is now for pedestrians. Getting buses underground would improve pedestrian amenity in Britomart too. A variation of this idea would be to permit traffic accessing the Precinct Properties parking facilities to also use this infrastructure, thereby allowing traffic to access this important city block underground, and making Lower Albert much more pedestrian friendly and economically successful.

But I don't think this sort of discussion will happen over the teacups if the rationale for negotiation is simply the liquidation of council land by ACPL for the highest price. The conversation needs to be creative and future looking. Otherwise Auckland risks missing the multiple benefits that arise from this opportunity.