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.