Auckland's Downtown Planning - or selective planning - is a cause of concern. It's not just that Auckland Transport and its arms length "City Centre Integration" team are occupying top dollar office accommodation in the HSBC and Zurich Towers - though associating with high end commercial business and away from what happens on the ground can be problematic and have perception risks. Tempting to take rent deals in exchange perhaps. It is symbolic of the kind of integration that is happening. It is an indication of the priorities for integration that are happening in the "engine-room" of Auckland (Council's 2032 vision is for the Engine Room to: … Auckland’s CBD, or Engine Room, is critical to New Zealand’s economy.)
Reflection: During my time at the ARC, legislation created Auckland Regional Holdings (ARH) and Auckland Regional Transport Agency (ARTA). This happened in 2004 - the year I was elected onto ARC. My responsibilities were in the transport space. An interesting thing happened. Senior staff of ARH decided that the Pitt Street offices of the ARC weren't salubrious enough, and so they took themselves off and found designer office space on the waterfront. Us minions didn't get to know about it for a while, but I remember Chairman Mike Lee took up the cudgel as only he can, and after a few months we got them back in house. ARH was in charge of about a billion dollars worth of public assets, including a load of cash, and Ports of Auckland Ltd. The feeling was that this treasury arm of Council needed to be close its governing body, accountable for its actions, and not too independent. Another experience came with Watercare. I was on the Shareholder Representative Group (SRG) for a few years. It came to our attention that the management team of Watercare decided to set up office in superior offices the ASB building. Maybe to be close to investors at a time when privatisation was to the fore. Top consultancy Halcrow came out from UK and did an audit of Watercare to advise the SRG on ways Watercare could become more efficient. One of those recommendations was that Watercare didn't need city based top end HQ offices. Eventually they moved back to Newmarket. End of that reflection.
Highly visible development projects in the area of Downtown Auckland bounded by Quay Street, Lower Queen Street, Custom Street West, and Lower Albert include the underground CRL enabling works (tunnelling - and obviously all underground) and the proposed Precinct Tower at the corner of Lower Albert and Custom Street West. Public concern has been expressed about the potential loss of downtown public space that would be associated with Queen Elizabeth Square being sold for private development, without commensurate public space being provided in public compensation.
Less visible - so far - but nonetheless high impact projects that are part of this major urban regeneration project are those needed to handle surface transport demands. By this I mean infrastructure required to handle the private traffic movements required to meet the travel demands of the proposed Precinct development, AND the bus stop and interchange infrastructure that will be required to replace the public transport infrastructure that is to be removed from Lower Queen Street. So far, none of those projects - all of which have an enormous impact on the public domain (footpaths, pedestrian walkways, road space utilisation, impact on adjacent public spaces) - have been shown to the public. They haven't been notified. There has been no opportunity for public consultation. And as such - despite the words "integration" - the emphasis is very much on sorting out arrangements between a private developer and Auckland Transport. (like living together!)
Reflection: I was Deputy Chair and then Deputy Chair of North Shore City Council's (NSCC) Works and Environment Ctte. Half of its agenda and responsibilities related to transport and transport infrastructure. Interestingly, in my time, and without naming names, two of the key characters with high level responsibilities relating to City Centre Integration and Development were General Managers in charge of transport at NSCC. So I got to know their modis operandi pretty well. I hasten to add that it wasn't particular to them. It appears that Auckland's local road and transport behaviours are much the same across the region. What I learned over those years, and the years that have followed, is that local transport planning generally goes below the public radar. I learned that a key reason for this was to maintain flexibility in transport project planning and in budgeting. You could see this as an excuse for sloppy management, but in fact - if you can persuade the powers that be - it is a highly rational strategy. It gives the transport department freedom to do pretty much anything it wants, whenever it wants - and avoid robust political or public accountability. Interestingly, I found that District Plan provisions relating to the management of adverse effects from transport projects, are almost entirely non-existent. "We need flexibility. We can't be notifying what we want to do every five minutes...", was the refrain. In the old colonial days this might have been appropriate behaviour. But today - when regenerating a central area of the city - engine room or not - this sort of behaviour is not acceptable and it is very much against the purpose and principles of the Local Government Act. End of that Reflection.
The redevelopment of Downtown West presents enormous development opportunities. It also presents opportunities to create a piece of city with remarkable public spaces and places. But those opportunities inevitably conflict with private development opportunities and desires, and they also conflict with the need to provide for transport needs. It is unhelpful to wish these conflicts away with wishful "integration" thinking, and by minimising public engagement and putting all hopes and trust in the hands of a few urban design professionals unable to put hand on heart and say they agree what "good urban design" actually is. Because there is no such thing. There might be a process. However, in every urban regeneration project someone loses, and someone gains. These gains and loses are measurable - particularly loses in public space and pedestrian amenity - even if the goodness of urban design is not.
It is because these gains and loses are measurable that it is dishonest to wish those issues away and hope for the best with an integration process reliant on deals being made between Council (Auckland Transport) and the private developer. Some may argue that this is a good example of a PPP - a Public Private Partnership. But unless the goals and ideals and objectives of unhindered and freely accessible and useable public spaces are fully integrated into the planning processes - this PPP has to be seen for what it is: a deal between a private investor and a publicly owned institution that has - so far - excluded wider public interests.
Facts supporting this criticism are hard to find, because little has been public notified. Setting aside the CRL which is underground, and putting the poorly managed sale of QE Square aside as well, there are a number of transport infrastructures and activities that will have significant adverse effects. I understand that Precinct want a three lane wide entry and exit crossing into Lower Albert Street. Assuming the underground parking provision doubles on the site, both for private cars and for commercial vehicle movements, that footpath crossing will be dangerous. It will have the movements of a side street. The quid pro-quo for this, the deal between Precinct and Auckland Transport - we'll help you if you help us, lies in the detail of how Auckland Transport proposes to replace the bus interchange infrastructure that is presently located in Lower Queen Street. Vague drawings were shown in the Downtown Framework - but these were widely criticised as being inadequate and unspecfic (consistent with the need for "flexibility"). Where will all this infrastructure be placed? What will it do to Lower Albert Street? What will it do to the small streets within Britomart? And what will it do for the pedestrian amenity and endangered public spaces?
Looks like the engine-room will be filled with engines.
That's the sort of outcome that is the risk of a planning process that does not properly integrate and include public ideas, aspirations and interests, and which does not honestly do the calculus of who gains and who loses with the various options under consideration, and those which are not. Yet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Saturday, August 1, 2015
City Centre Integration
Auckland's Downtown Planning - or selective planning - is a cause of concern. It's not just that Auckland Transport and its arms length "City Centre Integration" team are occupying top dollar office accommodation in the HSBC and Zurich Towers - though associating with high end commercial business and away from what happens on the ground can be problematic and have perception risks. Tempting to take rent deals in exchange perhaps. It is symbolic of the kind of integration that is happening. It is an indication of the priorities for integration that are happening in the "engine-room" of Auckland (Council's 2032 vision is for the Engine Room to: … Auckland’s CBD, or Engine Room, is critical to New Zealand’s economy.)
Reflection: During my time at the ARC, legislation created Auckland Regional Holdings (ARH) and Auckland Regional Transport Agency (ARTA). This happened in 2004 - the year I was elected onto ARC. My responsibilities were in the transport space. An interesting thing happened. Senior staff of ARH decided that the Pitt Street offices of the ARC weren't salubrious enough, and so they took themselves off and found designer office space on the waterfront. Us minions didn't get to know about it for a while, but I remember Chairman Mike Lee took up the cudgel as only he can, and after a few months we got them back in house. ARH was in charge of about a billion dollars worth of public assets, including a load of cash, and Ports of Auckland Ltd. The feeling was that this treasury arm of Council needed to be close its governing body, accountable for its actions, and not too independent. Another experience came with Watercare. I was on the Shareholder Representative Group (SRG) for a few years. It came to our attention that the management team of Watercare decided to set up office in superior offices the ASB building. Maybe to be close to investors at a time when privatisation was to the fore. Top consultancy Halcrow came out from UK and did an audit of Watercare to advise the SRG on ways Watercare could become more efficient. One of those recommendations was that Watercare didn't need city based top end HQ offices. Eventually they moved back to Newmarket. End of that reflection.
Highly visible development projects in the area of Downtown Auckland bounded by Quay Street, Lower Queen Street, Custom Street West, and Lower Albert include the underground CRL enabling works (tunnelling - and obviously all underground) and the proposed Precinct Tower at the corner of Lower Albert and Custom Street West. Public concern has been expressed about the potential loss of downtown public space that would be associated with Queen Elizabeth Square being sold for private development, without commensurate public space being provided in public compensation.
Less visible - so far - but nonetheless high impact projects that are part of this major urban regeneration project are those needed to handle surface transport demands. By this I mean infrastructure required to handle the private traffic movements required to meet the travel demands of the proposed Precinct development, AND the bus stop and interchange infrastructure that will be required to replace the public transport infrastructure that is to be removed from Lower Queen Street. So far, none of those projects - all of which have an enormous impact on the public domain (footpaths, pedestrian walkways, road space utilisation, impact on adjacent public spaces) - have been shown to the public. They haven't been notified. There has been no opportunity for public consultation. And as such - despite the words "integration" - the emphasis is very much on sorting out arrangements between a private developer and Auckland Transport. (like living together!)
Reflection: I was Deputy Chair and then Deputy Chair of North Shore City Council's (NSCC) Works and Environment Ctte. Half of its agenda and responsibilities related to transport and transport infrastructure. Interestingly, in my time, and without naming names, two of the key characters with high level responsibilities relating to City Centre Integration and Development were General Managers in charge of transport at NSCC. So I got to know their modis operandi pretty well. I hasten to add that it wasn't particular to them. It appears that Auckland's local road and transport behaviours are much the same across the region. What I learned over those years, and the years that have followed, is that local transport planning generally goes below the public radar. I learned that a key reason for this was to maintain flexibility in transport project planning and in budgeting. You could see this as an excuse for sloppy management, but in fact - if you can persuade the powers that be - it is a highly rational strategy. It gives the transport department freedom to do pretty much anything it wants, whenever it wants - and avoid robust political or public accountability. Interestingly, I found that District Plan provisions relating to the management of adverse effects from transport projects, are almost entirely non-existent. "We need flexibility. We can't be notifying what we want to do every five minutes...", was the refrain. In the old colonial days this might have been appropriate behaviour. But today - when regenerating a central area of the city - engine room or not - this sort of behaviour is not acceptable and it is very much against the purpose and principles of the Local Government Act. End of that Reflection.
The redevelopment of Downtown West presents enormous development opportunities. It also presents opportunities to create a piece of city with remarkable public spaces and places. But those opportunities inevitably conflict with private development opportunities and desires, and they also conflict with the need to provide for transport needs. It is unhelpful to wish these conflicts away with wishful "integration" thinking, and by minimising public engagement and putting all hopes and trust in the hands of a few urban design professionals unable to put hand on heart and say they agree what "good urban design" actually is. Because there is no such thing. There might be a process. However, in every urban regeneration project someone loses, and someone gains. These gains and loses are measurable - particularly loses in public space and pedestrian amenity - even if the goodness of urban design is not.
It is because these gains and loses are measurable that it is dishonest to wish those issues away and hope for the best with an integration process reliant on deals being made between Council (Auckland Transport) and the private developer. Some may argue that this is a good example of a PPP - a Public Private Partnership. But unless the goals and ideals and objectives of unhindered and freely accessible and useable public spaces are fully integrated into the planning processes - this PPP has to be seen for what it is: a deal between a private investor and a publicly owned institution that has - so far - excluded wider public interests.
Facts supporting this criticism are hard to find, because little has been public notified. Setting aside the CRL which is underground, and putting the poorly managed sale of QE Square aside as well, there are a number of transport infrastructures and activities that will have significant adverse effects. I understand that Precinct want a three lane wide entry and exit crossing into Lower Albert Street. Assuming the underground parking provision doubles on the site, both for private cars and for commercial vehicle movements, that footpath crossing will be dangerous. It will have the movements of a side street. The quid pro-quo for this, the deal between Precinct and Auckland Transport - we'll help you if you help us, lies in the detail of how Auckland Transport proposes to replace the bus interchange infrastructure that is presently located in Lower Queen Street. Vague drawings were shown in the Downtown Framework - but these were widely criticised as being inadequate and unspecfic (consistent with the need for "flexibility"). Where will all this infrastructure be placed? What will it do to Lower Albert Street? What will it do to the small streets within Britomart? And what will it do for the pedestrian amenity and endangered public spaces?
Looks like the engine-room will be filled with engines.
That's the sort of outcome that is the risk of a planning process that does not properly integrate and include public ideas, aspirations and interests, and which does not honestly do the calculus of who gains and who loses with the various options under consideration, and those which are not. Yet.
Reflection: During my time at the ARC, legislation created Auckland Regional Holdings (ARH) and Auckland Regional Transport Agency (ARTA). This happened in 2004 - the year I was elected onto ARC. My responsibilities were in the transport space. An interesting thing happened. Senior staff of ARH decided that the Pitt Street offices of the ARC weren't salubrious enough, and so they took themselves off and found designer office space on the waterfront. Us minions didn't get to know about it for a while, but I remember Chairman Mike Lee took up the cudgel as only he can, and after a few months we got them back in house. ARH was in charge of about a billion dollars worth of public assets, including a load of cash, and Ports of Auckland Ltd. The feeling was that this treasury arm of Council needed to be close its governing body, accountable for its actions, and not too independent. Another experience came with Watercare. I was on the Shareholder Representative Group (SRG) for a few years. It came to our attention that the management team of Watercare decided to set up office in superior offices the ASB building. Maybe to be close to investors at a time when privatisation was to the fore. Top consultancy Halcrow came out from UK and did an audit of Watercare to advise the SRG on ways Watercare could become more efficient. One of those recommendations was that Watercare didn't need city based top end HQ offices. Eventually they moved back to Newmarket. End of that reflection.
Highly visible development projects in the area of Downtown Auckland bounded by Quay Street, Lower Queen Street, Custom Street West, and Lower Albert include the underground CRL enabling works (tunnelling - and obviously all underground) and the proposed Precinct Tower at the corner of Lower Albert and Custom Street West. Public concern has been expressed about the potential loss of downtown public space that would be associated with Queen Elizabeth Square being sold for private development, without commensurate public space being provided in public compensation.
Less visible - so far - but nonetheless high impact projects that are part of this major urban regeneration project are those needed to handle surface transport demands. By this I mean infrastructure required to handle the private traffic movements required to meet the travel demands of the proposed Precinct development, AND the bus stop and interchange infrastructure that will be required to replace the public transport infrastructure that is to be removed from Lower Queen Street. So far, none of those projects - all of which have an enormous impact on the public domain (footpaths, pedestrian walkways, road space utilisation, impact on adjacent public spaces) - have been shown to the public. They haven't been notified. There has been no opportunity for public consultation. And as such - despite the words "integration" - the emphasis is very much on sorting out arrangements between a private developer and Auckland Transport. (like living together!)
Reflection: I was Deputy Chair and then Deputy Chair of North Shore City Council's (NSCC) Works and Environment Ctte. Half of its agenda and responsibilities related to transport and transport infrastructure. Interestingly, in my time, and without naming names, two of the key characters with high level responsibilities relating to City Centre Integration and Development were General Managers in charge of transport at NSCC. So I got to know their modis operandi pretty well. I hasten to add that it wasn't particular to them. It appears that Auckland's local road and transport behaviours are much the same across the region. What I learned over those years, and the years that have followed, is that local transport planning generally goes below the public radar. I learned that a key reason for this was to maintain flexibility in transport project planning and in budgeting. You could see this as an excuse for sloppy management, but in fact - if you can persuade the powers that be - it is a highly rational strategy. It gives the transport department freedom to do pretty much anything it wants, whenever it wants - and avoid robust political or public accountability. Interestingly, I found that District Plan provisions relating to the management of adverse effects from transport projects, are almost entirely non-existent. "We need flexibility. We can't be notifying what we want to do every five minutes...", was the refrain. In the old colonial days this might have been appropriate behaviour. But today - when regenerating a central area of the city - engine room or not - this sort of behaviour is not acceptable and it is very much against the purpose and principles of the Local Government Act. End of that Reflection.
The redevelopment of Downtown West presents enormous development opportunities. It also presents opportunities to create a piece of city with remarkable public spaces and places. But those opportunities inevitably conflict with private development opportunities and desires, and they also conflict with the need to provide for transport needs. It is unhelpful to wish these conflicts away with wishful "integration" thinking, and by minimising public engagement and putting all hopes and trust in the hands of a few urban design professionals unable to put hand on heart and say they agree what "good urban design" actually is. Because there is no such thing. There might be a process. However, in every urban regeneration project someone loses, and someone gains. These gains and loses are measurable - particularly loses in public space and pedestrian amenity - even if the goodness of urban design is not.
It is because these gains and loses are measurable that it is dishonest to wish those issues away and hope for the best with an integration process reliant on deals being made between Council (Auckland Transport) and the private developer. Some may argue that this is a good example of a PPP - a Public Private Partnership. But unless the goals and ideals and objectives of unhindered and freely accessible and useable public spaces are fully integrated into the planning processes - this PPP has to be seen for what it is: a deal between a private investor and a publicly owned institution that has - so far - excluded wider public interests.
Facts supporting this criticism are hard to find, because little has been public notified. Setting aside the CRL which is underground, and putting the poorly managed sale of QE Square aside as well, there are a number of transport infrastructures and activities that will have significant adverse effects. I understand that Precinct want a three lane wide entry and exit crossing into Lower Albert Street. Assuming the underground parking provision doubles on the site, both for private cars and for commercial vehicle movements, that footpath crossing will be dangerous. It will have the movements of a side street. The quid pro-quo for this, the deal between Precinct and Auckland Transport - we'll help you if you help us, lies in the detail of how Auckland Transport proposes to replace the bus interchange infrastructure that is presently located in Lower Queen Street. Vague drawings were shown in the Downtown Framework - but these were widely criticised as being inadequate and unspecfic (consistent with the need for "flexibility"). Where will all this infrastructure be placed? What will it do to Lower Albert Street? What will it do to the small streets within Britomart? And what will it do for the pedestrian amenity and endangered public spaces?
Looks like the engine-room will be filled with engines.
That's the sort of outcome that is the risk of a planning process that does not properly integrate and include public ideas, aspirations and interests, and which does not honestly do the calculus of who gains and who loses with the various options under consideration, and those which are not. Yet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment