Who is Auckland's CBD for?

COVID19 is like no other disruption we’ve seen in a lifetime. A gift from hell considering its dramatic and universal impact on human health. A gift from god considering the opportunities opened up as governments, communities and people have rapidly adapted.

Lockdown has provided unprecedented opportunity to reflect on what we do, and how we live, particularly in cities. It has focussed as much attention on what is essential as it has on how to live differently while still feeling satisfied and achieving most pre-pandemic goals.

We’re all getting a bit bored living in our bubbles, but the new urban silence, cycling and pedestrian safety, making do with less, cleaner and clearer air, no rush hour commutes and traffic jams, discovering neighbours and neighbourhoods, and the sheer power and utility of internet access to family, food, friends, information and work, has made people sit up and think. There’s a lot to like about the new urban paradigm that has been forced on us, despite the irritations.

What we are experiencing suggests new possibilities for cities.

What we have experienced in Auckland has roots in the “Competitive City” thinking of the last couple of decades. The minister’s introduction to The Ministry of Environment 2010 publication entitled: “Building Competitive Cities” begins:

An important component of the Government’s
economic agenda is ensuring New Zealand cities are
internationally competitive. This means cities that
enable their citizens to enjoy a great lifestyle and
affordable housing; cities that are efficient for business,
encourage investment and jobs; cities that are attractive
for visitors to support New Zealand’s increasingly
important tourism industry.

A key Government intervention toward this agenda was the amalgamation of Auckland’s four city and three district councils to form the supercity council, and the establishment of a cluster of independent Council Controlled Organisations. Further interventions in process now include opening up public infrastructure projects to private investment and reform of the planning system.

From its inception Auckland Council has embraced and enabled the Government’s economic agenda which has emphasised private property development and international tourism. Auckland’s CBD increasingly looks and feels like other international cities with their Dior, Prada and Gucci shops appealing to rich tourists and high-rise office towers sporting international brand neon signs appealing to investors. Much of this development and of the transport infrastructure to service it – including cruise ship berthage – has been at the expense of basic public and community infrastructure provision.

Standing in stark contrast, Wynyard Quarter’s internationally famous waterfront development with its playgrounds, heritage wharf structures, bridges, and wide-open public spaces came from a political agenda which emphasised the creative, playful and reflective qualities and needs of the resident and visitor population. It has also been a successful public economic investment.

Right now, Auckland CBD’s headlong plunge into the competitive city abyss, is at a standstill. Workers and contractors are in lockdown. They’ll be back as soon as the country’s lockdown rules allow it. But this pause in construction does allow some reflection on what is happening there, and whether the assumptions behind it still stand now that the world has changed.  

High street retail shopping has been coming under increasing pressure and competition from online shopping for some time now. People I know, and know of, buy furniture and even leather shoes online. My last two shirts came from eBay Australia. Lockdown level 3 will almost certainly open up online shopping to non-essential items. Every week of this lockdown indicates that shopping is moving off the street and into cyberspace. Yet much of the Auckland CBD Commercial Bay development which took away Queen Elizabeth Square is new retail.

International tourism is also at a standstill, and is likely to remain so for several years if New Zealand succeeds in its COVID19 elimination strategy. Allocating high-end retail space in new CBD property developments for high net-worth tourists cannot be justified economically. Existing such provision will need to be re-purposed to generate enough revenues to pay the ground rent.

The International Convention Centre is infrastructure to service what amounts to international business tourism. Its utility must be questioned, just as the future of high-end casinos is threatened by the absence of big-spending international tourists.

And on the subject of tourism, New Zealanders are big travellers. For the foreseeable future, many will now be looking to travel and enjoy holidays in their own country. Auckland’s CBD is being changed and developed now, but not to meet the needs of domestic tourists. Kiwis might like a drink and a bite in downtown Auckland, which they can find, but there’s so much else that could be done that would make the CBD more attractive to the domestic population. Places to play (on land and in the water), places to learn (Maori museum, Visitor museum, Maritime museum), places to create (music, street theatre), and places to chill and watch the world go by.

But one of the biggest changes that Lockdown has stimulated has been working from home. Already many companies are recognising that staff want that to continue in some shape or form – whether it’s one or two days a week, whether it’s week about, whatever – many working people have rediscovered their local neighbourhoods, neighbours and communities and built worthwhile relationships they’d like to retain. Working nine-to-five, five days a week, and all that time spent commuting, doesn’t seem so attractive – or necessary – anymore. Which means less CBD office space is needed, and less commuter traffic capacity is needed.

It’s easy to make these obvious points, and there will be many contracts and commitments that need to be delivered and completed. But this moment cannot be allowed to pass without learning from what is happening, as it provides a real-life glimpse into the future of cities in general, and an opportunity to break with the old paradigm and its assumptions.

Missing the Point - Moving the Port

For a good while now, NZ Herald has been publishing opinions about Auckland's port, and when, where, if, and how it might be moved. Its opinion writer of the year, Simon Wilson, can't let the story go. But much of the coverage doesn't properly explain this very big public policy issue. I'll try and explain my reasoning below, using Simon's article from today's NZ Herald.

But first a little bit of policy analysis 101. Considine's Policy Diamond is a good start....

This policy diamond diagram is general, not specific to POAL, but illustrates four main components needed for a public policy investigation which recognises that making or changing public policy is fundamentally a political process, and not a rational process, despite the hopes and aspirations of some of those who may be affected.

Simon's article today is entitled:  What happened to the plan to shift the Auckland port? (unless you have access to NZ Herald Premium you won't be able to see it).

This is where the problem of his explanation begins.

There is no plan to shift the Auckland port.

There are ideas about shifting it. There are visions about what could happen if it was moved. There are aspirations and hopes about that. But there is no plan. And there can't be a plan until there's a policy to have a plan from those with the power, and any "shift the port" policy investigation worth its salt needs to acknowledge the boxes in the diagram, and address them.

Otherwise all we're talking about in these NZ Herald opinion articles is ideas (not plans), which typically embody only the values of a selection of those affected (eg un-named citizens of Auckland), contain carefully chosen financial and resource information that supports the ideas, and generally fails to fairly describe the drivers and policies of the main institutions of influence. There's a place for writing about ideas and aspirations of course - but there's a world of difference between that and good investigative journalism about a complex public policy matter such as moving Auckland's port.   

Here is the Herald article, with my comments:

What happened to the idea of moving the port? Isn't this a good time, with no one around, for Northland to sneak in, load up all those cranes and straddle carriers and just steal them away to Northport? That's not quite as silly as it sounds, and it wouldn't need to be Northport doing it. Ports of Auckland (POA) could take charge.

It is misleading to imply that moving the port is this simple. Like scoring a cheap point in a debate. Readers can laugh. But are they any the wiser? I don't think so. And if POA "could take charge" shouldn't they be part of this opinion? Or is this just setting up another "right of reply" and so it goes round and round.

Susan Krumdieck was a member of the Upper North Island Supply Chain (UNISC) strategy group that recommended moving the Auckland port earlier this year. She told me this week that she had asked POA: "If the 1.4km of berth at Northport were built and ready, and your owners said, 'Pick up operations and move to Northport,' what would happen?"They said: 'If the Northport build had been done with the equipment and operations designed in, then it would take about a month to break down the POA, put the kit on ships and build it back at Northport. Call it three months all up to shift the POA to the new berth at Northport'."Krumdieck added: "With the land available and the ability to lay it all out from scratch, the efficiency of the operations could be improved to world class. The POA would make more money for their shareholders. POA business would 'move' to Northport, not be lost to the ratepayers."

Informed readers will be aware that it doesn't matter what point is being made, it is always possible to find an expert who will - for whatever reason, and with the best will in the world - apply their expertise and argue in support of that point, and an expert who will convincingly argue against it. This kind of quoted expertise might fill up the column, and it might cheer those who need cheering in COVID times, but it lacks balance and over-simplifies.

The POA shareholders, remember, are us - the ratepayers of Auckland. Moving the port north doesn't have to mean we would lose anything. And Northport, which is near Whangarei, is already part-owned by POA.

This is the heart of the opinion piece, and is where it fails as a piece of public policy analysis. Sure ratepayers are shareholders. But that group is only one of the groups who are affected. The customers of the port will also be affected. Auckland has changed since it was established in Waitemata Harbour, but having a port at its center was key to its development, and this remains a critical part of its economy. The logistics arrangements of POAL customers include port handling charges of course (and cranes and straddle carriers), but they also include roading and transport time costs. Many of those customers would lose if the port was moved. But those losses are ignored and dismissed in this opinion piece. They need to be addressed in any move the port investigation. I'm aware that issue has formed part of other reports, but it's ignored in this piece. And I haven't even got started.

So what did happen to the idea of moving the port? As we move out of lockdown, the Government says, there will be a massive spend on infrastructure to get New Zealand working again. The Auckland Council has submitted a list of 73 projects.Not a one of them bears any relationship at all to the proposal to move the port. Yet the council and the Government have said the car and container operations do not have a long-term future on the downtown Auckland waterfront. A working group representing all affected groups came to the same conclusion in 2016.   

The idea of moving the port is still pretty much that - an idea. It shouldn't come as a surprise that Auckland Council does not have any "shovel ready" projects to move the port, as it has yet to adopt any policy in that direction. Last time I looked at the port it was business as usual - a multi-story carpark is close to completion for its car import business, and the new automated straddle carrier systems and container handling facilities on Ferguson Terminal are close to being fully operational after more than a year's installation and testing. All funded by public money. Until Auckland Council, in collaboration with POAL and Central Government, has adopted a "move the port" policy, nothing will change, despite all the reports in the world. To be fair to Simon, the next part of his opinion piece does make that statement....

As yet, there is no political commitment to the UNISC recommendations, which include expanding Northport and the Tauranga port. The crisis has probably pushed a decision out to an uncertain future date.But it is agreed the port will need to move within 20 years or so. Even Auckland Mayor Phil Goff, one of the most vocal critics of UNISC, says yes to that.The thing about 20 years, with a project of this scale, is that it has to start now. Moreover, given all the money the Government is about to spend on economic salvage, if the port isn't included now, it may never be.There'll be no money left for anything else. Covid-19 could become a Trojan horse for killing off the idea. So what should they do?

In this part of his article, Simon moves from writing about "moving the port" as an idea, to it being a project, something that has gone beyond being just a plan, and is actually happening, and can be started right now. But it clearly isn't. As the millions being spent now on developing the port infrastructure in Auckland clearly shows. Despite this reality, Simon spends a good chunk of his article show-casing the project ideas of his expert advocate Krumdieck...

The heart of the UNISC proposal is not the move to Northport. It's that freight haulage should shift largely to rail. That requires a modern railway network and a new "inland port" or freight hub in Auckland's northwest, probably near Kumeu.The proposal is for a rail line "around the back door", as Krumdieck puts it. One that doesn't route freight on to State Highway 1 through the city, as the port does now, or across the harbour bridge, but skirts round to the west.It's the key to managing congestion on Auckland's roads. And the condition of the country's highways. And it's a vital component in our response to the climate crisis. In time, UNISC proposed, 80 per cent of the country's freight could be shifted by rail. Modernising the Northland-Auckland railway and building the inland depot, says Krumdieck, "should be top of the list" in the new infrastructure spend. Krumdieck, by the way, is a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Canterbury and a world-renowned expert in freight logistics. She did the freight modelling for UNISC, using an advanced programme common in Europe and Asia but not yet licensed to anyone else here.The new freight hub will become an "intermodal distribution centre" that "draws the heavy industry and warehousing out along that line and provide the lifeline for rational industrial growth". Getting goods into the city will be the "last leg", done by road freight, largely at night. The rail link will continue through Avondale to the industrial south and further, into Waikato and beyond.The freight hub would remain an Auckland operation. The city won't be losing out but will be able to function better and get many other benefits.

These are all good ideas. The idea of rail - especially freight rail - from Auckland to Northland has been around for decades. It is an aspirational idea that doesn't become part of a plan and then a planned and budgeted project just because an expert backs it. Until there is a policy to move the Auckland port - or parts of it - that is agreed by the relevant institutions and policy organisations, ideas like this will remain pie in the sky. Which clearly frustrates Simon...

As with the idea that a Northport operation could still be a POA business, this is something Goff has never seemed able to grasp.

Praising individuals who support your values, and mocking those who don't might raise a laugh and trigger supporting letters to the Herald newspaper, but it doesn't improve the quality of the journalism, nor the investigation. Institutional politics and the political economy of all of those who are affected are at the heart of this public policy issue. Getting to grips with what is happening inside those institutions, and bringing into the open the concerns and fears of those who are affected is essential to an understanding of this public policy issue. Simon finishes his piece like this... 

Re-establishing the Northland line, says Krumdieck, has a business case larger than two - for every dollar spent, the benefit will be more than $2.Also: "The cars on the Auckland waterfront could move to Northport and Tauranga today. The servicing jobs would move with them and the workers would be able to afford to live there."It all depends on the railway. Build a rail line able to carry the cars on electric trains and, right there, you've got an excellent model of what the future of freight in this country could look like.On the other hand, if we don't do it, keeping the port and its related operations where they are will cost at least $8 billion, with no new benefits to show for it. The business case for that, Krumdieck notes, is less than one.And what's the real cost going to be? Krumdieck puts it, "realistically", at $14 billion."That $14b will return more than twice because it enables a totally different future. The rebuild of New Zealand rail – preferably electric – is the main thing separating New Zealand's future as a prosperous nation from a future as a third world backwater. You either build the country that works well, or you are Ghana."Meanwhile, Ports of Auckland has just announced the arrival of 12,000 boxes of bananas and 12,000 cartons of pineapples. And more coffee beans.It's way beyond reason to use our downtown waterfront and clog up our roads for that.

It all sounds so simple. Build an electric freight rail line. Problem solved. But it isn't that simple. And dismissing New Zealand, and POAL, as being "Ghana" doesn't help.

Essential Development Vs Shovel Ready Planning

The following text was penned for NZ Herald a few days ago....

New Zealand’s immediate response to the pandemic includes prioritisation of essential services and protection of essential workers. Central Government has focused upon the food, health and financial needs of people, families and communities across the country in the sort of forced paradigm shift not seen since the Great Depression and after World Wars I and II.

Global norms and political priorities previously considered immutable by the rich and powerful have been torn asunder in the public interest. National governments have sacrificed their economies in radical actions to protect public health. Lockdown measures and rocketing unemployment are the new normal. Scott Morrison, Prime Minister of Australia, has called for businesses to “hibernate”. Around the world media reports of daily infection and death statistics sit uncomfortably beside the usual reports of GDP dips, exchange rate changes, and stock market swings.   

   

The pandemic has exposed gaping holes in public health systems and forced the world to redefine what is essential and to plan and act accordingly. Many of those changes should not be temporary just while there is an emergency. The priorities that underpin them need to be incorporated into a new social contract between government and people, a contract which protects and promotes what is essential.

Already there is discussion and debate about what sort of response will be needed in future after the worst of the pandemic has passed. Commentators around the world are thinking and writing about climate change and carbon emission changes, about changed work and commuting practices as people have adapted and learn and work from home, about changed travel demands as airlines are grounded and cruise ships are refused entry, about the need to prepare for the next pandemic, and about the importance of social networks within communities and families as they look out for and look after the vulnerable.

The New Zealand Government deserves much credit for its pandemic response on behalf of the people. Unfortunately this approach is not evident in preliminary accounts of what is planned for its post pandemic response which have focussed on “shovel ready” roading and poorly planned transport infrastructure projects, and a return to the old paradigm.

My grandfather was one of thousands of men employed in the 1930’s using a shovel and wheelbarrow to construct the Waitaki hydro-electric dam which still supplies our country with renewable electric power. An essential service if ever there was one, and a project with a huge benefit cost ratio.

Which is more than can be said for roading and light-rail projects that are apparently “shovel ready” for New Zealand’s economic recovery. Many of these transport projects are based on urban population growth assumptions and scenario planning that must be questioned. Rushing to build roads for a future that has changed and that are not economic is a poor use of resources and will serve to reduce the country’s productivity.  

Surely the investment emphasis needed post-pandemic is lots of essential small-scale health, education and community infrastructure projects throughout the country, rather than a few high-risk think-big projects that are based on high population growth projections. Already there are positive signs such as an educational TV station, providing school kids with computers, and internet in all homes.

Rather than put the country’s post pandemic project decisions into the hands of a few captains of industry, it would be better to establish local Community Pandemic Recovery Agencies (based on the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Agency model) working in partnership with local government to identify and lead local economic development projects. Some of these will already be planned and be “shovel ready” such as cycle paths, bus shelters, and footpath improvements, community infrastructure including day-care and drop-in centres, sports facilities and playgrounds, and environmental projects such as wetland restoration and coastal protection.

Projects like these would kick start local economies across the country, provide the revenues needed to bring smaller businesses out of hibernation, create employment opportunities, and bring the economic multiplier effects that stimulate community retail and entertainment enterprise.

These are the essentials of a post-pandemic recovery package that continues the paradigm shift and political priorities and values in action now.

Mangawhai Interlude Pictures

It's been almost two years since my last post. Been distracted since going to New Orleans. Smelling the roses a bit more. However this COVID19 pandemic has got me thinking. In the meantime - a single Mangawhai sunrise...