Ocean Sports Centre - Lost Opportunity

So. North Shore City Council is pressing ahead with the proposed National Ocean Water Sport Centre (NOWSC) on public land adjacent to beachfront reserve. There has been one public opportunity to see what is planned. That was on Thursday 29th July. The handout there answers the question: "Was the public consulted about this project...?" with this answer: "While Council has complied in full with Local Govt Act requirements that excuse councils from consultation due to the transition to Auckland Council, the timing of this proposal has restricted the ability of council to consult fully on this matter...." Yeah right. The picture above shows an architect's idea of how the Centre might look like above ground, as the idea is the rest of it is underground, with windows and entry ways directly onto the Takapuna Beach Reserve. I believe the project is a lost opportunity for three reasons, three opportunity costs that need to be taken properly into account in the economic analysis of this project: 1) While a National Ocean Sports Centre is a great idea (and it is true that lots of ocean sports competitions are held off North Shore beaches) putting it on Takapuna Beach is like putting a cuckoo in a sparrow's nest. There is not enough room for it at Takapuna - especially as it's aimed at canoe, kayak, sailing, sail-boarding. There's not enough room for the car-parking requirements which will compete with Takapuna parking for shoppers, shop-workers and office workers. So there will be continuous pressure for NOWSC to stay small and generate tiny effects. It will not be able to develop in this location. It will be a lost opportunity. That is one opportunity cost of putting NOWSC on Takapuna Beach. Because you can bet your bottom dollar there won't be Government money to build another one anytime soon, when this one gets too small (NB: Millenium Institute has just needed to double in size. Remember that.)

(2) The second reason it will be a lost opportunity is explained in these next few maps. This one shows the whole of Takapuna Beach. You can see how little of Takapuna Beach has a public frontage.....

This public amenity is precious, based on a chunk of beachfront reserve paid for at great cost by the Council with ratepayer dollars. Takapuna has a low provision of public parks and beachfront reserves, compared with other Auckland coastal suburbs. This land, how it is fronted and used, becomes more important. If it is taken for another purpose, or alienated, the public will be the loser of this valued opportunity of enjoying Takapuna Beach without being pressured by commercial activities - even if those activities are associated with an ocean sports school.

This aerial photo shows how much of Takapuna beachfront reserve was taken up by a SailBoard Event run out of Takapuna Boat Club. There are structures on the reserve, trailers pulled up, cars parked. Sail boards all about. I estimate about half of the reserve area and amenity was taken by this event. However the public are prepared to accept this on a temporary basis. Event by event permission being given for some times in a year. Strict conditions. But not a permanent facility. Not incurring public opportunity cost. There is no way to offset it.

(3) The third lost opportunity embodied in the NOWSC proposal is that Takapuna risks losing the opportunity of transforming its waterfront space to something that is really stunning by good urban design. Stunning for the public, for the town centre, and for visitors. These next few pictures show the urban design of recognised Sydney beachfronts. The urban layout is exemplary. We need to learn from what the Aussies do well.

Look at this close up of Manly Beach front. You can see how the beach edge of the road is not developed. It is for pedestrians, and some car parking. It is purely public. As is the beachfront reserve. As is the beach itself. Commercial activity - retail and food - is on the other side of the road. Along with verandahs and lanes. The road is the separator between public and private.

And here's a closer view. There's no way Manly Beach residents would allow half its beach width permanent rights for Year round Ocean Sports education for NSW or the whole of Australia. Nor should that by happening on Takapuna Beach.

And here is Bondi Beach. You can see a similar development pattern to Takapuna generally - ie low rise, development, grid streetscape, beachfront reserve, beach. But Bondi has obeyed the same urban design rule as Manly. The street between the beach and commercial area is developed on one side only. The rest is public.

Here's one end of Bondi Beach in closer view. While there's the odd changing area on the reserve grass, all the way from the shop fronts to the waves is public. Pure and simple. And that is the case for the whole length of the beach, apart from a facility in the middle which is a public facility anyway.

But here is an artist's impression of what is proposed in and on Takapuna's Beachfront Reserve. The squares you can see are plate glass windows - eight or ten of them - fronting right the way along almost half of Takapuna Beachfront reserve. A bit like the most expensive house you can imagine, having its windows and deck right on and up against and in your face on the public reserve.

This aerial/map shows the footprint of the NOWSC proposal. It is a very extensive area - most of it underground, with the proposed observation deck above ground on the beach side of the footprint.

This aerial shows the proposed realignment of the road to carry traffic and to provide some parking. It is also proposed that some public walking access be over the top of NOWSC, though the detail of that is unclear. The road shift is needed to make way for NOWSC. It is another indication of the size and demand of NOWSC pushing public amenity to one side. It also comes at a huge opportunity cost to Takapuna.

Let's take a second look at the Takapuna beachfront reserve. Here it is shaded in green. Undeveloped at the moment, and with street space (street reserve) that can also be taken to expand beachfront reserve, or used to deliver great urban design, and a frontage and amenity like Manly and Bondi.

The first building development needs to front the side of the street opposite from the beach and away from the beachfront reserve. So shoppers or whatever can look across the street, across the reserve to the sea and Rangitoto. Following the exemplary urban design of Bondi and Manly. That is the economic and amenity opportunity at risk. It risks being lost, by instead giving in to the enthusiasm of NOWSC.

The next stages of ideal and exemplary development could proceed in time. With laneways extending up into Hurstmere Road, and access laneways between the new "yellow" blocks and the rear of the buildings built facing Hurstmere. Let's not lose any of those opportunities. And by the way, I understand there are some great potential spots for NOWSC on Regional Parkland. Sure they don't have hotels, but then - we only have one Takapuna. The price and opportunity costs are too great.

Wynyard Quarter Commercial Pressure Shows

Up till now the ARC and the public have been enjoying some wonderful design work from the team of urban designers working for Sea + City on the public areas of Wynyard Quarter. Silo Park. North Wharf. Fantastic spaces. But last week ARC councillors got a taste of what could be happening in the commercial spaces. We had a look at some draft drawings of Precinct 1. That's the area outlined in this image.

As you can see, the area of Precinct 1 includes the purplish residential buildings to the right with activated street edges in red (these are as they appear in Plan Change 4 - no surprises here). The dark blue are the fish industry and market Sanfords buildings. While the orange blocks fronting Jellicoe Street are likely to be for the ASB headquarter building.

Artist's depictions of that building have been published before today. I reproduce them here. These are on the footprint of the orange blocks in precinct 1.

Here's a closer picture of the orange blocks. The details to look at include the blue floors (at levels 2 and 3), and the yellow section between the two orange blocks.

Here's those blocks again, looked at from ground level in those draft drawings. We were advised that the yellow blocked out area wasn't a roof - as such - - but could be. Could be an atrium. Could be skywalks between the blocks. And could also be car accessways - maybe even carparks in the levels 2 and 3. Because it turns out rhe blue levels are carparking. Could be sleeved at Jellicoe Street frontage. This was a concern. The residential blocks all have 2 levels of basement parking. Why doesn't this building? Question-mark?

The covered laneway was a big concern for me. This image here was one I made for the submission I presented to Plan Change 4 Commissioners. It shows the building envelopes that were allowed in the Plan Change, and how they make the Sanfords building look insignificant. But they also show the laneway along the street between the taller building blocks.

In my submission I showed this picture illustrating how Auckland City does its laneways just up the road off Nelson Street. Great amenity don't you think? Activated edges. Great pedestrian amenity. Is this the sort of thing we want in Wynyard Quarter? I don't think so. And especially not a laneway that's turned into a tunnel.

Here's a good example of a laneway. It's from the Chancery development out onto a street in Auckland City. High quality and attractive pedestrian accessway, good edges, safe walking. We need this sort of attention to detail in the laneways fronting onto Jellicoe Street on Wynyard Quarter. And it would be appropriate for buildings there to have basement carparks. Its cheap and nasty to have them above ground, fronting to street, and forcing buildings to be higher as a consequence.

Auckland’s waterfront needs iconic public places – not iconic buildings

This piece was submitted to NZ Herald on Wednesday last week, 24th June. You will read it here first. You might only read it here:

The Queens Wharf debate has been dominated by kneejerk calls for an iconic building. When Tank Farm/Wynyard Quarter was liberated from Ports control the debate then was about the need for an iconic building. And while original planning for Princes Wharf redevelopment advised against an iconic building, the Hilton Hotel got built there anyway. Big enough to block surrounding harbour views, and big enough to dominate the small public spaces squeezed around it.

Auckland needs iconic public spaces on its waterfront far more than it needs another iconic building.

Public space has been undervalued in Auckland’s CBD for as long as I can remember. The development of Aotea Square marked the start of public space decay. Conceived as a transformational urban project – together with Mayoral Drive, Aotea Theatre and new Council offices – its main driver was the need to decongest city traffic.

Much of central Auckland’s built heritage, character streets and public spaces were destroyed. Aotea Square works as a market place but is largely unsuccessful as a public place and remains unloved by Auckland. Queen Elizabeth Square is a more recent example of the decline in the quality of Auckland public places. Now a desolate bus park with a few struggling Kauri, though the addition of the glasshouse coffee kiosk has been an improvement.

Forty years ago American urbanist William H Whyte filmed people using New York’s public places in an attempt to analyse what made them successful. His findings boil down to a few simple amenities:

* toilets;
* seating;
* food;
* shops.

Whyte noted that the most attractive public places “retained heritage buildings” and “worked with the grain of the city”. He wrote later, “…(these findings) should have been staggeringly obvious to us had we thought of them in the first place…”

The absence of alcohol in these findings reflects the fact Whyte’s research encompassed the whole demographic. He was as interested in understanding what attracted children, families and the elderly to New York public places, as he was in the behaviour of youth and the upwardly mobile.

Last year I worked with a group of Auckland University Planning Masters students who analysed Auckland’s waterfront public places using Whyte’s observational methods. We added: harbour views; wind shelter; and activities of interest to Whyte’s criteria, allowing analysis of waterfront open space amenity.

We found that Waitemata Plaza in Viaduct Harbour is the only downtown Auckland waterfront space with public toilets. Compare, for example with Wellington’s waterfront. Wide harbour views can only be had from the end of Wynyard Point and the Hilton Hotel. Compare, again, with Wellington’s waterfront. There is limited provision of simple food (as opposed to restaurants and bars) or retail in and around Auckland’s waterfront public places.

The best waterfront public seating is across the road from the Price Waterhouse building. But there are no public toilets, no takeaway food or retail, and harbour views are obstructed by the Hilton Hotel building that dominates Princes Wharf.

Auckland must learn from its mistakes or they will be repeated on Queens Wharf.

The Hilton was consented just over ten years ago in 1998 by Auckland Regional Council. The application was not notified, so the public didn’t get a say. At the time relevant planning documents stated: “…a fundamental objective of the redevelopment of Princes Wharf is that it should contain an appropriate mix of uses so as to achieve a balance between commercial activity and public access and enjoyment of the Wharf. To ensure that an appropriate mix and balance of uses is provided and maintained, there is a requirement for a minimum percentage of the development to be of publicly orientated uses – 'people places' – such as Art Galleries, Museums, Theatres, Entertainment or Educational Facilities, and in addition certain 'private commercial' uses shall be limited to maximum percentages of the development….”

Reading these words today it is hard to understand how the Hilton Hotel complex actually got built on Princes Wharf.

The ARC consenting process required formal certification of building plans by ARC’s appointed adviser: architect Clinton Bird. He advised commissioners of the proposed Hilton Hotel: “…by retaining the existing sheds, the development relates not only to the earlier wharf structures, but also to the dominant texture of the city. The resulting city texture on the wharf would be not too dissimilar to assembling six slightly longer but similarly wide and high Ferry buildings in the same pattern of layout…”

It is hard to reconcile those words with what got built. Where are those sheds now on Princes Wharf? Where are theatres and art galleries? What about public enjoyment?

Today, after an investment of $40 million of public money Auckland has public control of Queens Wharf. I am relieved that a combination of the need to provide space for a Rugby World Cup party and scarcity of public funds, means one option is to tidy up the old sheds on Queens Wharf.

This presents an opportunity for civic experimentation and the creation of a successful waterfront public place. I agree with Alex Swney - now is not the time for hasty, iconic and embarrasingly permanent structures.

Instead lets bring theatres, food markets, and fashion shows into the sheds, and flag poles and light shows, moveable-feasts and treats-on-wheels onto the wharf.

Open up the Queens Wharf sheds and restore their verandahs, so that in 2012 when they are exactly hundred years old they are fit for purpose, providing for the needs of the public and fans from the floating hotels moored alongside.

And don’t forget toilets and seats sheltered from the wind.

That's what I think about Queens Wharf. By all means go down the road of iconic buildings when RWC is over. Perhaps. But let's have a good solid design competition first. At least as comprehensive as was deployed for Britomart Railway Station. Not a a bunch of architect's drawings slung together in a jury-rigged process. In the meantime, let's use those sheds.

Wellington Waterfront - permeable places and spaces

Wellington Waterfront. Midwinter pictures. Permeability 1. This series of posts about Wellington's waterfront visually analyse what I see as a very successful and popular people's waterfront. There are several themes in these posts. This first one is permeability portrayed in these 7 pictures. Urban transparency.

This first one shows the closeness of the city, and its connection with the waterfront...


Wellington Waterfront. Midwinter pictures. Permeability 2.

This is another point of linkage and connection between waterfront edge and city behind. Close, direct, desire line evident. Showing the way...


Wellington Waterfront. Midwinter pictures. Permeability 3.

And here's a wet day, cold and grey, access easy to the waterfront. Shelter above. Buildings ahead. But gaps in between. Not walls between you and the view....


Wellington Waterfront. Midwinter pictures. Permeability 4.

...stepping forward a bit, turning left, a variety of buildings, some old some new. Gaps in between revealing new surprises. New views. And always the water the sea. Distant views. Not walled away...


Wellington Waterfront. Midwinter pictures. Permeability 5.

This view is tighter. Interesting sights to look at, some near, and some far. Ways to continue - various. But not walls. Not closed off. Pathways to the distance, to the next place, the next interest, near. No need to walk backwards...


Wellington Waterfront. Midwinter pictures. Permeability 6.

Substantial waterfront building to the right. But more than compensated for, by the space ahead, by the open view to the heads ahead. No sense of enclosure. Places to walk. Public places to go. No sense of invading the private...


Wellington Waterfront. Midwinter pictures. Permeability 7.

And inside the private for a coffee. The building itself is permeable, see through. When a wall is not a wall. Maintaining that sense of distance protecting and preserving distant views, even for those not inside, and access to distant treats and pleasures.

Queens Wharf - Hasten Slowly

At last. Thanks to a mixture of Ports of Auckland suffering from effects of recessionary trading conditions, and a Government keen to be seen to be doing something positive in Auckland for a change, Queens Wharf has been taken for other purposes. It is now 50/50 owned by Auckland Regional Council and Central Government.

Government has a short term vision of the space being freed up to become "Party Central" during Rugby World Cup. Auckland Regional Council has voted for a mixed use development including public access, ferry services and a "fit for purpose" cruise ship terminal. These two ideas are not incompatible.

The Rugby World Cup event is about 2 years away, and in between Auckland's Local Government will be abolished and re-established. That's a big ask to do anything big on Queens Wharf. So. I think it very sensible that we do enough down there to tie up a couple of Ocean Liners as temporary Hotel accommodation during Rugby World Cup, and provide some amenity on the wharf that will attract the locals and keep them happy during large events. More later on this. I did a lot of work preparing an Urban Design Framework for Queens Wharf with some fellow Masters students at Auckland University. This work included a detailed analysis and critique of Auckland's existing waterfront spaces, and concludes with an Urban Design Framework for Queens Wharf in the medium term.

You can download this from links you will see on this page: Queens Wharf

But in the meantime, here's the big picture we came to: