"Place Shaping" without Community Boards

Woke early today with community board abolition on my mind.

The Royal Commission fundamentally undermine their opposition to community boards with their arguments in defence of community boards being retained at Waiheke and Great Barrier. In terms of character, difference, history and heritage, Devonport is as much an island in the North Shore, as Waiheke is in Auckland. Half a metre rise in sea level and Devonport will actually be an island - can it have a community board then? There are other parts of Auckland just as special as Waiheke. We must not lose them or their potential, through failure and absence of governance, just because they are not surrounded by the sea. That sounds positively archaic.

When Peter Salmon - Chair of the Royal Commission - announced its recommendations, he made much of the duty of proposed Local Councils (Urban ones in the city especially), as being "place making" or "place shaping". That's about urban design, streetscapes, local colour, detailed planning. Stuff like that.

In fact I know from my 10 years in local government, and living in Devonport - that stuff is what Devonport Community Board spends 90% of its time doing. Like:

• Devonport Commissioners (Community Board members do this) consider all resource consent applications that break the rules. These are consents for building activities with adverse effects that exceed the rules in the District Plan. These involve real people who live in house and work in buildings. But they also involve their neighbours. This stuff needs genuine local care. It's at the heart of "place making".
• Trying to stop the Devonport Recycling Depot being flogged off by Council for other purposes, when local people use it for green waste, for rubbish transfer, and as a place to buy garden stuff locally. For "place making".
• Making sure that changes to Market Square (by the supermarket), and Marine Square (by the Devonport Wharf and Ferry Terminal), are upgraded as people want, and taking account of best urban design principles and ideas. More "place making".
• Championing the cycleway infrastructure through local parks, around the coastal edge and along Lake Road. This is real "place shaping" stuff, and without Devonport Community Board it simply would not have happened.

Council was the fly in the ointment on all these projects. Community Board input and advocacy was critical. Under the Royal Commission's recommendations, Devonport would by lucky to have one councillor to act for it's interests on the new Waitemata Urban Council (the proposed council transformed from North Shore City Council). It will have its own higher level urban place shaping requirements to tend to - such as the Busway, Bus stations at Browns Bay, Takapuna, Glenfield - parks, integrating Hibiscus Coast into its planning. And so on.

And I wonder whether the Royal Commission added up the number of resource consents that would have to be considered by these Local Urban Councillors, if they lost the services of Community Board members who are now certified for RMA consent hearings by MfE and who hear or otherwise deal with the bulk of local home improvement consents. Perhaps the Royal Commission is reliant on RMA streamlining that is so draconian that few consents ever get dealt with publicly.... I hope not...

This is not to say that I think Community Boards should be retained everywhere. I think some on the North Shore were unnecessary, or were dysfunctional, or became dysfunctional. These local entities can fall into ruin with the wrong mix of members, and with lack of community interest or involvement. But these factors can inter-relate. Chicken and egg. When a community board turns to custard no-one wants to get elected onto it, and the community laughs at it, and ignores it. That's a tragedy of the commons...

Setting that aside, across Auckland there are highly developed and special places. Property values are high there. Families and people want to live there. The sense of place, the opportunity for further "place shaping and making" is tangible. It is also precious. People and communities value it - both financially (they are prepared to pay the higher property prices), and spiirtually (these places have soul).

I don't know all of them. Of course we know about the soul in Waiheke, and The Barrier. But it absolutely exists in Devonport, Highbury (North Shore), Grey Lynn, Mount Eden, Remuera, New Lynn, and Onehunga. These are local communities and high functioning community boards I know something of.

There is something about these types of communities and how they develop in the future that is seriously threatened by the prospect of community board abolition. These communities are what give Auckland its diversity - at local level - and character.

I think, before the baby is thrown out with the bathwater, that those who advocate most strongly for their retention, need to construct some metric or set of criteria and thresholds that will enable selected community boards to be retained, and for new community boards, at a later time, to be established.

So. What about the Royal Commision?

It's been an interesting day. Absorbing the Auckland Royal Commission's report - well - the Executive Summary, listening to comment, watching TVNZ's report, and we had an ARC Council briefing at 2:30 today. It's been enlightening. But there's still a few clouds over Auckland with these recommendations.

My first positive thoughts were these: good to see regional governance strengthened; good to see second level of local government retained with entities based around the existing North Shore, Waitakere, Auckland and Manukau City structures, and Rodney District, and Papakura combined with Franklin.

And it was interesting to see the approach to Auckland City: separate Auckland CBD and Waterfront and give special treatment through direct governance by Auckland Council, and local input through an Auckland CBD and Waterfront Community Board. That would be a doozey of a community board to be on!

But I was disturbed to see Community Boards generally abolished - except for the obvious examples retained at Waiheke and Barrier Islands.

I was also disturbed to see the recommendations regarding Auckland City Council mayoral power. I don't think Auckland is ready for that sort of executive power at all.

The Commission has recommended that Auckland's elected-at-large mayor should have these additional powers and duties:

• power to appoint the deputy mayor (currently done by majority of council members);


• power to appoint the chairs of each committee of the Auckland Council (currently done by majority of council members);


• power to chair committees as he or she may determine;


• power to propose the draft LTCCP and the draft annual plan to Auckland Council;


• power to propose the budget;


• power to initiate and formulate major policy for consideration by council;


• power to establish and maintain an appropriately staffed office;


• power to obtain independent advice.

That's a lot of powers!

It also recommends interestingly - that the mayor should have four annual meetings with members of the public "mayors days"; and meet monthly with the chairs of the 6 local councils; and have quarterly plenary meetings with all councillors and chairs from across the region (around 70 would be in the chamber for those meetings.)

The degree of centralised decision-making, and the lack of grassroots local government is the main concern I have. This is not the same as the model advocated by ARC: "the one and the many". This is: "the one and the few", but without the truly local.

The functions of the local level of local government that have been proposed by the royal commission - essentially as the local delivery point of centrally governed services and policies, and with a strong responsibility for being Auckland Council's "ears and eyes" into the local community - means that it will be difficult for that role to be further decentralised.

It might make sense for Area Offices to be maintained throughout each Local Council Area. But that might be thought wasteful.

The challenge - I think - is for those supporting the abolition of community boards to demonstrate that the functions today of good and well-functioning community boards can be well provided by the proposed local councils. Conversely - those wanting some form of community board - or equivalent function - to be retained need to argue why, and also how that might happen. Difficult. But unless this is done well and responsibly, there is real risk here of the local baby being thrown out with the regional governance bathwater.

On a detailed front, things I like about the Royal Commission recommendations, in no particular order, include:

• stuff about the waterfront like: an emphasis on urban design, management and planning; that future waterfront development be done by an agency with a masterplan - "as opposed to the present piecemeal approach" - hooray!


• integration of water and wastewater especially that water and wastewater will be charged volumetrically and that there is to be an independent services performance auditor and that Watercare will be required by legislation to promote demand management. Boy. Watercare has long needed that....


• that Auckland council is to appoint a parks ranger responsible for volcanic cones!


• that the 6 local councils (4 urban, 2 district) won't have elected mayors, they'll appoint chairs.


• that North Shore City will become Waitemata and include the urban developed Hibiscus Coast part of Rodney (basically Whangapaoroa (sp?) and Orewa, and encompass the Busway from Takapuna through to Silverdale).


• that elected councillors will be prohibited from being appointed to CCOs (like Auckland Regional Holdings, Watercare, RTA (made from ARTA), the proposed Urban Development Agency etc).


• that local roads will still be controlled by Local Councils as they exercise their "place making" or "place shaping" roles.


• particular recognition is given that stormwater management need to be shared between Watercare and the Local Councils. This is a complex issue.


• that Auckland Council should develop a regional waste management strategy, including for organic waste, and integration of waste management with other encironmental programmes. About time I say.

Anyway. While I can get excited about this stuff, at the moment it's only a set of recommendations. Though the Royal Commission has also gone to the trouble of drafting legislation to implement its recommendations. But it won't happen until Government enacts the required legislation.

Do you think Government will want an Auckland Mayor as powerful as London's Mayor of Greater London Council? Depends which Party puts him/her in there I guess. But that's a political lottery. When I was in Curitiba Brazil I met Jaime Lerner - the famous ex-mayor of that city. Did some amazing stuff. Had huge personal power. But that was South America. And London is very established. Auckland is in between. I don't think it's ready for the sort of individual mayoral power that the commissioners would like.

But I could be persuaded.

Thank you ARTA and Auckland City for India Vs Black Caps!

I was lucky enough to go to the cricket on Saturday with a mate. What a fantastic night. We started with the ferry trip across from Devonport. Then at Britomart we were informed by the smiling asian woman at the ticket office, that of we showed the ticket inspector our tickets, the train to Kingsland Station would be free. Coffee and pastries in hand, we assembled on the platform among a happy and highly prepared bunch of Indian cricket groupies. Faces painted with Indian flags. We were outnumbered.

Quick trip to Kingsland station, out the door, onto the street, highly organised, good humoured and efficient pedestrian management. And we were there. Indian flags and painted faces everywhere. The fans were everywhere.

We took our seats in the stadium which was filling up, and it was like being in a busy, noisy, colourful India street. What a buzz. Everytime a face went up on the big screen, or a blue uniformed cricketer did some training on the group - the roar went up. And then there was the big game, with 6's and 4's for Africa (India and New Zealand). Reminded me a bit of being at Cardiff Arms a long time ago - I was there when the AB's won 13-12. Such a passion for their sport. An unaggressive passion. The newspapers and TV are full of the results. The Black Caps won.

Back on the street - to go home.

The feel of Kingsland Station - with the Taiko takeout so near, and the neon beckoning other attractions up the street nearby, the co-location of heritage buildings, everything close. I had a glimmer of how many other parts of Auckland could be - if we keep working at it. Make that public realm by our rail stations really work for pedestrians, ensure there is a mix of activities. Good access and street amenity.

We got on the train with a group of youthful Auckland Indians. They seemed to be using the train for the first time. Didn't know it would stop at Britomart and we'd all tumble out. Which we did. They were delighted they hadn't had to pay. Felt a bit guilty. Muttered, "thank you" to the guard as they bounced up the platform ready to continue their night in the CBD.

Thank you ARTA. That free train service was great. Appreciated. A present for Auckland. Maybe you should let people know it was deliberate - not a case of not enough ticket collectors! And bits of Auckland are showing we can do really attractive urban design. Thank you Auckland City Council.

Alsop's Architectural Vision for Britomart & Waterfront

I was invited to attend the Ignite Architect's evening out (26th February) with world renowned architect Will Alsop. Billed as a discussion about the adverse effects of the RMA, and an opportunity to see the concepts for Britomart and Waterfront put together by a collaboration of Ignite staff and Will Alsop. We were treated to pictures of some of Alsop's stunning architectural achievements. You get the flavour from a selection I have pasted in here.

When he applied himself to Auckland, several things he said stuck in my mind.

"You have no big public place for people to congregate and celebrate. Where are you all going to go when you win the Rugby World Cup? Where will you gather?..."

He didn't refer to Aotea Square. Funny why that space doesn't really work. OK for the Friday Market. But bleak otherwise - apart from the wonderful Maori gateway. It has very weak edges - using urban design speak. They are unqualified. Especially the Aotea Building itself. It presents a very cold and unfriendly exterior. I won't mention the Council building. Unspeakable. And the edge of the entertainment complex is a strip of what Auckland does well. Bars.

"And then there is the Red Fence. I am told we can't go past that. But why wouldn't you want to? It's where people really want to go. In my experience if you want to develop public places down by the waterfront, where the Port company has been, you need an Act of Parliament. Ports Companies have too much power..."

I have to agree with him. Even today we see on the front page of Herald a news article where the Auckland Port company - 100% publicly owned - wants a "capital restructure", and then to flog itself off to the highest private bidder. Fantastic. Just because it's going down the fiscal gurgler is no reason to pass off to the private sector all that waterfront land. Auckland would be richer if Ports simply gave itself back to the public, rather than selling itself on the open market.

Anyway. I digress. Alsop and his team came up with a series of concepts for Britomart. One image of which I have been able to find. The idea really was to lift development in Britomart precinct above ground level, put it on stilts (a Department Store with offices, and an apartment tower at one end), and - importantly - leave the ground level public space. You can see that in this picture:

Then sticking out the Northern side of this elevated building would be: a library (in a sort of elephant's trunk shape extending between existing heritage buildings and running out above Quay Street to a place vertically above the red fence), and hotel (in a different sort of elephant trunk shape, located a block away from the library, but also running out to the red fence).

Radical. Hard to get the presbytarian approach of Auckland to engage with that. Maybe. Alsop was very strong on the need to engage the public in this process. I agree. The Britomart Railway station was itself a very public design process. Whereas what we have seen for TankFarm, and for Princes Wharf, have been behind-the-scenes revenue maximising activities.

Needs to change. Thank you Ignite for a bit of stimulation and that kick in the bum.

North Shore City Council reviews Cycle Strategy...

If you take a keen interest of cycling issues in and around Auckland, you'll know about the Lake Road cyclelane, and the public debate that whirled around that...

One of the outcomes at North Shore City Council of all the hot air and incendiary letters that ensued, was that it decided to review North Shore City's Cycle Strategy. That strategy was put together by a previous council - one a little more representative of the interests of cycling and of pedestrian oriented development and other modern ways of thinking about urban development and transport.

It is essential - I think - that a good number of thoughtful submissions are made. The strategy is being reviewed now. Submissions close on the 16th of March - a week's time.

You can see the current North Shore Cycle Strategy, and the form to make a submission (you can do it on the internet), on NSCC's website at:
http://www.northshorecity.govt.nz/have_your_say/walk_and_cycle_strategies/cycling_strategy.html

I've put in a submission. The submission form asks for your response to the vision, 5 goals and 7 strategies. You can go into those in detail at the NSCC website - but they are big files, and take a while to download etc. But the heart of the NSCC cycling strategy is as follows:


Vision and 5 Goals for cycling North Shore
The vision for cycling on the North Shore is:

“To provide a safe, convenient and enjoyable cycling environment that meets the needs of cyclists and encourages cycling as a mode of transport and as a means of recreation.”

This vision is supported by five goals which reflect national and regional transportation and community objectives. The goals are:

• To increase the number of people cycling


• To increase the number of students cycling to school


• To improve safety for cyclists


• To improve convenience for cyclists


• To improve enjoyment in cycling

The Executive Summary contains a brief description of the current 7 strategies to deliver that vision, and the 5 goals. I have pasted them here:


North Shore City Council 7 Cycle Strategies

Strategy 1 - Develop safe, convenient and quality cycle networks and supporting facilities to meet cyclists’ needs The provision of safe, convenient facilities for cyclists is paramount in encouraging people to change their travel behaviour. People must feel safe and know they can get to their destination easily. This strategy provides for the development of the cycle network (strategic and local) through cycle specific projects and other road improvements, and supporting facilities such as parking, learn to ride facilities, hand rails and integration with public transport.
Strategy 2 - Apply best practice cycle design guides to cycle networks and to cycle facilities Ensuring that the appropriate cycle facilities are located in the correct location and to the required guidelines and standards (safety and otherwise) will create a vibrant, well-used cycling environment on the North Shore. This strategy provides best practice solutions for cycle facility type, design and location,
incorporating Austroads documents and guides from Transit NZ, Transfund and the Land Transport Safety Authority. It also provides a comprehensive process for delivering the best solution on a case by case basis, recognising that each situation is different. Best practice design guides also apply to urban design and safety guides and Land Transport Rules. This chapter also outlines enforcement in terms of ensuring appropriate behaviour from motorists and cyclists.
Strategy 3 - Maintain cycle infrastructure to a high standard. Once facilities are in place it is important to ensure that they are kept up to standard and updated where and when necessary. This strategy outlines the cycle facility maintenance plan. Another important facet of maintenance is monitoring and evaluation – ensuring that the facility or programme is achieving the goals of this Cycling Strategy. North Shore City is following the lead of the Regional Cycle Monitoring Plan in its monitoring and evaluation programme.
Strategy 4 – Support education and training programmes that improve cycle safety North Shore City Council is dedicated to protecting its citizens and improving road safety. This strategy provides for the ongoing expansion of the Council’s cycle safety programme, which includes education sessions delivered in schools and workplaces
as well as other community initiatives. Driver awareness and education is addressed through active support of regional and national campaigns. Current programmes include:
• ‘Bike It’ the North Shore City schools’ bike programme
• Kids Bike Day
• ‘Share the Road’ campaign (regional and North Shore City level)
• Adult beginner bike sessions
Strategy 5 – Support programmes promoting cycling In order to
maximise the number of people using the cycle facilities provided around the city, a programme is required for promoting cycling as a safe and efficient way to get around. This strategy provides for the ongoing implementation and development of programmes such as the TravelWise school programme and the workplace travel plan programme, which are important channels for promoting safe cycling to people travelling to school and their place of work. The Council will also continue to promote cycling through cycling events, community based programmes, neighbourhood accessibility plans, personalised journey plans and by supporting promotional activities initiated by other organisations.
Strategy 6 – Improve the coordination of efforts amongst groups affecting cycling. The provision of cycle facilities and programmes is progressed by many different parts of North Shore City Council. This strategy seeks to develop processes and structures to maximise the efficiency of these different parts of Council and ensure the successful delivery of this plan. The main driver for coordination will be a cycle steering group made up of relevant Council officers. This group will monitor the implementation of this document and report back to other Council departments and external organisations and groups.
Strategy 7 - Ensure that where possible, adequate resources are available to implement the Cycling Strategy Resources are required to action the strategies outlined above. This strategy puts in place the processes required to ensure that, where possible, this funding is available from all obtainable sources – in particular from the New Zealand Transport Agency and North Shore City Council itself.

I recommend you make a submission.


The survey questions, and my submission, were basically this:

Do the vision statement and goals reflect your vision and goals for cycling in North Shore City?: Yes.

Are the seven strategies appropriate to achieve the vision and goals?:
No

If not, please suggest how these could be improved.:

Strategy 1 is supported. Safety is paramount to deliver the vision. If people don't feel it is safe to cycle on North Shore, then this effectively means North Shore City does not "encourage cycling as a mode of transport..."

Strategy 2 goes too far, in my opinion, in emphasising "best practice cycle design guides to cycle networks and to cycle facilities". It is more important now to be re-allocating road space to cycling (by setting it aside with white painted lines for example), and by removing the right to park cars in the road reserve. It is also more important now to be working with Parks Dept (and ARC's Parks Dept) to allocate space within parks and reserves for green cycleroutes - which can connect with road cycleroutes. Then later, as demand and acceptance grows, then resources can be allocated to improving the standard of cycleway infrastructure. It is better to have a safe cycling network that is less than perfect, than it is to have a few short sequences of cyclepaths which are world class, but which don't connect, and lack utility.

Strategy 3. My response to this is similar to Strategy 2. What is important to cyclists is that cyclepaths on road reserves are swept regularly, and are kept clear of glass fragments and other detritus that can make cycling unsafe or unreliable. It is better that existing cyclelanes are kept functional, rather than money being wasted keeping them beautiful. In cash-strapped times the priority needs to be utility and safety - rather than perfection.

Strategies 4, 5 and 6 are essentially motherhood and apple pie. It is good to do these things. It is good for NSCC to be walking the talk. It is also appropriate for NSCC to act consistent with its vision for cycling on the North Shore.

Strategy 7. I don't support the caveat "where possible" in this strategy. NSCC has a duty to deliver multi-modal transport infrastructure. There is clear direction from all levels that Auckland, and its sub-cities, need to do far more to encourage land use settlement patterns, and urban form which "encourage cycling as a mode of transport...". Just as NSCC has promulgated Plan Changes 22, 23 and 24 to require much greater responsibility on the part of land developers to ensure that stormwater effects are minimised etc, then in the same way, NSCC needs to be ensuring that its District Plan guides and shapes land use patterns which will genuinely "encourage cycling as a mode of transport" - ie that people are encouraged to use a bike for local errands, shopping, going to school, going to work etc - rather than feeling actively discouraged to use a bike by land settlement patterns, absence of safe lanes, and large physical distances between land uses, limited mixed uses etc. Thus - NSCC has a duty to financially support cycle infrastructure development, but it also has a planning duty to ensure that land use patterns also "encourage cycling as a mode of transport".

If this is relevant, please tell us how we can work together. :
As an ARC councillor, I am keen to ensure that Regional Planning and TLA planning is well integrated and coordinated. Am happy to come along and talk about this, or/and facilitate sharing of ideas with ARTA.

Are the actions listed in the Cycling Strategy 2009 appropriate to achieve the vision and goals?: No

If not, please explain what we could do better or differently.:
In particular, my comments in regard to Strategy 2 and 3 indicate that the priority now is to establish NSCC cycle path networks (that don't need to be gold-plated). Cycle infrastructure needs to be connected and joined up. PM Keys initiative for a national cycleway is a good opportunity for NSCC to share this popular vision, and engage over how this path might integrate with North Shore cycle infrastructure. It is important for North Shore's economic future and tourism, that North Shore is part of this initiative.

For your interest.

Peddling for a National Cycleway

Don't you think it's fantastic that the Prime Minister of a National Government should advocate for a cycleway the length of New Zealand? I certainly do. Key's enthusiasm for cycling should surely make all those who whine about cycling being for masochists, and on and on, many of them unreconstructed petrol heads, to think twice.

Choice is good - they might even think.

But I do have a little note of concern nagging - being a few days away from booking my own family cycling expedition on the Otago Rail Trail.

You might recall that this very same National Government has let out a few squeaks about certain bits of the NZ rail network being unprofitable - as if any railway - or indeed any motorway - is actually profitable (when you add all the true costs up). There might be a little agenda here.

Imagine if it was proposed that those railways should be ripped up to form the spine of a national cycleway - like the Otago Rail Trail writ large.... You can almost hear the comment: "we can kill two birds with one stone here..."

Setting that possibility to one side, I think a national rail trail would set cycling solid into NZ's national psyche. A bit like a cycleway across Auckland's harbour bridge would. Everybody would want to connect to it - especially towns and cities along the way. It would be the trigger for the establishment of a nationwide network of cyclepaths.

That is an outcome NZer's and tourists would love.

See also NZ Herald opinion piece by Barbara Cuthbert:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10560821

How to urbanise Auckland's sub-urbs

All this talk of intensification and compact development for Auckland. All this analysis of why Auckland's Growth strategy is not being delivered on the ground. All the reports exorting politicians to release land for more development at the edges. Cheaper houses for everybody. And on and on.

But what about the existing suburbs? Auckland is full of truly sub-urban development. Less than urban. More than rural, but less than urban. Conurbations of people in cul-de-sacs, dead worm streets. Urban design for cars, but not for good urban living.

These sub-urban areas of Auckland are where you MUST drive to do anything. Pretty much. Get a paper, some milk, go to work, get to primary school or kindy, find a community service, get a coffee. And you have to drive 2 or 3 kilometres. And you wouldn't send the kids on their bikes because it's too far, too dangerous...

We need a strategy to urbanise Auckland's suburbs. While we plan for future development, we need to plan for the future of existing development.

We need thinking and options for this. It might include a zone change to allow amalgamation of a couple of lots to provide a shop, with a home above. Or something a bit more mixed. The shop or service might need a bit of subsidy, because to begin with it might not be economic. But surely it is better to plan for and think about how the sub-urbs will survive, when fuel and driving becomes too expensive. When transport costs become too big for the household budget.

Sub-urban communities will have ideas about this. It's about bringing in some urban amenity.

How Sad is Princes Wharf? (Part 2)

This continues the story about Princes Wharf, and how the present development came about… I’ll try to be pithy. This is not an Environment Court submission. It's the court of public opinion. I need to explain the planning history a bit...

The stories I tell in this posting are:

1. Ports of Auckland’s decision to commercially develop Princes Wharf


2. Waitemata Harbour Maritime Planning Scheme Change No 4: (Princes Wharf)


3. Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal adapted to include Port Management Area 3


4. POAL’s decision to sell its leasehold interests in Princes Wharf to Kitchener Group


5. Clinton Bird’s certification for Kitchener Group’s redevelopment of Princes Wharf


6. Subsequent events

1. Ports of Auckland’s decision to commercially develop Princes Wharf

From what I can glean from people who were around in the mid 1980’s, Princes Wharf was in a pretty run-down state. And the then Auckland Port Authority became interested in the possibility of a commercial development. Money could be made. It appears a sort of design competition was held for ideas. About 15 groups contributed. There was a short-list. The best was chosen. I haven’t seen any documents about this process.

It’s my guess that the process for changing the Waitemata Harbour Maritime Planning Scheme must have been triggered by this opportunity. Apparently there was considerable public debate – I wasn’t in Auckland then – maybe someone can shed some light (add a comment). It appears the whole thing went before the Planning Tribunal which made the final decision.

However enthusiasm for the development idea evaporated after the 1987 crash.

2. Waitemata Harbour Maritime Planning Scheme Change No 4: (Princes Wharf)

Scheme Change No 4 (Princes Wharf), was finally determined by the Planning Tribunal in May 1990. Must've taken a while. It seems there was a lot of public interest. The scheme change created a new Port Zone C. It relates to Princes Wharf. The purpose of the zone:

“is to provide for the development and operation of port facilities
(particularly those serving overseas and ferry passengers and visitors) and the
redevelopment of the ferry wharves, Quayside and Princes Wharf in a way which
will retain and promote the visual and public access links between downtown
Auckland and the harbour, provide a range of activities which will encourage
public use and create a vibrant social environment focussing on the maritime
setting, and which will have a sound economic base…”

This sounds remarkably positive and upbeat – reminscent even of the words used for Tankfarm. And no mention of the need to optimise revenue! The scheme change included special requirements for uses on Princes Wharf. These make interesting reading in hindsight:

“…it is a fundamental objective of the redevelopment of Princes Wharf 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. There is a further requirement for minimum percentages of internal and external public spaces….”

This is even more positive. Imagine if that had actually happened.

But the zone starts to come undone a bit with the specifics. The fine print. The planning detail includes various specific requirements, more words:

"...that the maximum gross floor area of all buildings shall not exceed 100,000
square metres; and not less than 25% of that maximum GFA shall be occupied “…by
a museum and a threatre or cinema, and one or more of any of the following other
publicly orientated uses; passenger terminal, retail market place, taverns,
bars, restaurants, foodhalls, cafes, additional museums, cinemas and theatres,
art galleries and other entertainment facilities…”

Sticking the passenger terminal in there, along with Cinemas and Museums – especially the passenger terminal we have to tolerate on Princes Wharf – hardly a public place – soaks up this 25% quickly. Without really delivering on the nice words in the objective.

Then there are the specifics for public space. The scheme distinguishes between external public space (public space outside the building footprint) and internal public space (public space within the building footprint). These requirements are stated as:

* A minimum of 35% of the wharf deck area shall be retained as external public space (I assume this includes the central street, cross streets, as well as wharf perimeter and end areas);
* A minimum of 30% of the required external public space shall be located within the northern third of the wharf area (ie at the end);
* Not less than 15% of the gross floor area of the wharf deck level, and the first
upper level of all buildings shall be in the form of internal public places and
pedestrian circulation areas…
* A minimum width of 6 metres of external public space shall be provided for the
full perimeter of the wharf.

It’s obvious now that the 6 metre external walkway is too narrow and dominated. Hard to change now. A good example not to follow. And I'm doubtful about the public nature of the streets. They seem highly private. More like driveways. Basically car parks.

What is less obvious is the nature and quality of internal public spaces. Where might I find those within the development? That's a rhetorical question - by the way.

The scheme change goes into some detail, however, describing how the public space at the northern end of Princes Wharf should work. It states that

“a length of 64 metres shall be provided at and around the northern end of the
development within the building envelope as external public space containing
flights of public steps, ramps, associated elevated landings… for the purpose
of:
* providing public access from within the development to the public areas
at the end….
* Enhancing the quality and aspect of the northern extremities of
the building as public space…
* Ensuring that visually and functionally the public facilities at and about the northern end of the development are attractive and encourage public use…”

You’d have to say that there is a whole swag of problems at the end of Princes Wharf (for example the design of the public spaces and steps – which might be attractive - do not encourage public use. If anything the design actively discourages public use.).

3. Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal adapted to include Port Management Area 3

You’re doing well if you got here. Basically the ARC incorporated the Waitemata Harbour Maritime Planning Scheme Change No 4, into ARC's Plan Coastal which was prepared under the newly enacted Resource Management Act 1989.

The Port Management Area 3 chapter of the ARC Plan Coastal notes that by 1991 the development that had been originally envisaged by Ports of Auckland had not taken place, and states:

“… the upgrading and modernisation of facilities on Princes Wharf could
significantly benefit tourism, recreation, and the public amenity values of the
waterfront. Any development would need to complement the urban landscape, be in
scale with adjacent land-based development, and retain views of the harbour from
surrounding locations. A high level of public access would need to be
maintained, particularly around the northern end of Princes Wharf…”

Nice words. But very hard to reconcile with what got built there. In retrospect I find it quite extraordinary that the ARC decided that it need only retain a tiny amount of discretion in considering any resource consent application for Princes Wharf. Probably because the Scheme Change had already been argued in front of the Planning Tribunal. Basically ARC’s Plan Coastal said that anything that fitted within a horrendous building envelope 37 metres high, sloping to 22 metres and 15 metres high at the sides, and running solid along the wharf, could be built as of right, as a fully complying activity. No notification necessary. Apply and you’ll get consent.

Ports of Auckland had their wicked way. In it for the money.

The tiny bit of planning discretion retained by the ARC - the foot-in-the-planning-door - that the ARC did give itself, was that the ARC:

“had control over… the extent to which the design and external appearance of any
buildings or structures recognises the city/harbour relationship, the prominent
maritime setting of the site, and the public use of the development…”

That was pretty feeble. I’d love to have been a fly on the wall as the ARC capitulated, and almost entirely abrogated its public interest RMA responsibilities over Princes Wharf. It’s as if the RMA had never been written. The Act’s high ideals and principles could’ve been used to relitigate this pre 1987 crash proposal. But instead the old style Waitemata Harbour Scheme Change was simply incorporated. Rolled over. Pretty much unchanged. Note to self: check out the ARC committee reports around this time.

With a planning regime like that in place, it was only a matter of time before a resource consent application to develop Princes Wharf would be received.


4. Ports of Auckland’s sells its interests in Princes Wharf to Kitchener Group

In the mid 1990's, with the fallout of the 1987 crash long forgotten, development in Auckland took off again. It was business as usual.

On the 18th June 1997, Ports of Auckland Ltd issued a media release through NZX (Capital Markets) which announced the sale of POAL’s leasehold interests (98 years) in Princes Wharf to Kitchener Group of Companies for $25.752 million.

The media release noted that the proceeds of the sale “will be used for general business purposes…”, I wonder what those were. The release also noted that the sale “is the result of Ports of Auckland’s review of its asset base and continuing focus on its core port operational activities…”


5. Clinton Bird certifies Kitchener Group’s redevelopment of Princes Wharf

Now we get to the business end of this. The Scheme Change, which was mostly incorporated into ARC’s Plan Coastal, required that the developer should obtain a certificate from an independent registered architect. That person needed to formally certify: “that the design and appearance of the proposed development of Princes Wharf is responsive to the city/harbour relationship, the prominent maritime setting of the site and the public use of the development and its setting…” You might recognise those words from ARC's Plan Coastal (above).

The issues that certifier should consider were all listed in the Scheme Change. Some of these filtered through into ARC’s Plan Coastal. But not all. Not even the obligation to have a certifier. Not sure why. Anyway. The ARC did decide to get a certifier in. They wanted someone who knew stuff about urban design issues to look at the plans. They chose Clinton Bird. After he’d done the work, it turned out that Mr Bird wasn’t actually a registered architect. So ARC had another architect who was registered, endorse and certify Mr Bird’s report. This was Diane Brand. She didn’t go through the process that Mr Bird went through, but commissioners were satisfied the process as a whole complied with the intent of the Scheme Change.

In his introduction to his Princes Wharf project design and appearance certification report, Mr Bird describes how he worked:

“…throughout the … process, regular contact and close dialogue has been maintained with the manager of the Kitchener Group.., his architect, and his planning consultant. This approach was considered to be the most positive, efficient, and constructive, given the collective aspiration to extract the best possible architectural and urban design result from the opportunity to develop Princes Wharf…”

I have to say this sort of collaboration gives me the heebie jeebies. They all work together. Then commissioners get to see the document. Everything all sorted out. And how expert and independent was Mr Bird? And what urban design prejudices and opinions might he bring to this process? I'm concerned because my academic and practical experience of urban design issues and questions is that they are never clearcut. Lots of subjectivity and little objectivity. There is lots of fluffy opinion. Hard for commissioners to see the wood for the trees in all this fluff.

First I'll note some facts from Mr Bird’s report.

He notes that there is a contractual agreement between the Kitchener Group and Ports of Auckland which imposes constraints on the proposed development. Some of these constraints are summarised by Mr Bird. He states that these include a commitment to: "....retaining the structure of the six existing sheds..." and "....re-establishing the two way central ‘street’ which was traditionally a busy thoroughfare associated with loading and unloading in the ‘heart’ of the wharf...."

I bolded these because they seem pretty important commitments. The quote marks round 'street' and 'heart' are Mr Bird's. There is much talk in his certification document of the centrality in the design proposal of the streets on Princes Wharf, and of the retention of the existing character sheds.

There is also an assurance that the proposed building “is not an iconic building…” Interesting.

In the guts of his report, Mr Bird provides the following reassuring text:

“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…”

(Pardon my language. This is so misleading.)

And he writes:

“Within this new city texture, the development contributes a new city street running north-south down the centre of the wharf, two pedestrian waterside promenades along the eastern and western sides of the wharf, a series of colonades on both sides of the central street and on one side of the waterside promenades, together with a major new public space at the northern extremity of the wharf…”

(Again. What a misrepresentation of reality. So misleading. Not a word of caution. No suggestion of conditions that might deliver the reality of this vision. Beware the silver-tongued urban design expert with an agenda.)

His pen runs on:

“Also evident in this plan is the good neighbourly relationships the redevelopment establishes with respect to other civic uses in the vicinity. For example, the ocean racing yacht architectural design imagery is entirely appropriate to the Maritime Museum uses and small yacht harbour to its immediate west. The same imagery will also provide a counterfoil to the industrial shed-like imagery of the Maritime Museum architecture….”

(Boy oh boy. This is why you have design competitions. This is why you involve the public and try out a few ideas. Here all we have is an apologist for a single idea. )

But the Bird opinion that really gets me is this:

“Although the height of the buildings will be greater than those currently existing on the wharf, and greater than those currently on Queens Wharf to the east, the additional height proposed will help to achieve a sense of enclosure and definition to the harbour space in front of the Ferry building. The proposed development will act like a ‘constructed headland’… this will assist in restoring a more visually interesting and spatially attractive city waterfront which, as a result of of successive harbour reclamations since the founding of the city, has been reduced to a relatively flat, straight edge…”.

(Fantastic. In fact the opposite is the case. The best view of Auckland’s waterfront now is the end of Tankfarm. You have an extraordinary sense of space, left to the Harbour Bridge, right to Mt Victoria and Rangitoto. The notion that Auckland city’s waterfront view should somehow be “enclosed” is narrow, and somehow very sad. Like - you are only entitled to a really decent view of Auckland’s harbour if you are employed in a highrise office. Or own an apartment on Princes Wharf.)

But I do owe Mr Bird thanks for a couple of recommendations. He was worried about signs, and he worried about seats and other amenity in the public areas. (NB: I think it totally deficient that there are no public toilets at the end of Princes Wharf. How many public parks and spaces can you think of that don't provide public toilets? )

Mr Bird called for a further stage of design and appearance certification for the design of the urban landscape, and he also reckoned the same sort of process should apply to the design of signage and visual identification.

Not sure what happened there. Eg the “Hilton” sign on public assets. How did that get permitted? And the lack of seats on the wharf deck area (mind you – if the deck edge is a race track for Hilton-bound taxis and shuttles – seats would get in the way, wouldn’t they.)

6. Subsequent events

This brings me to the end. Of this posting anyway. More about Princes Wharf to come later.

I am aware that more than one ARC councillor is embarrassed by Princes Wharf.

There was even a court case over the fence/gate that’s there to prevent public access when a cruise ship might come. That gate was closed even when there was no ship. That's been fixed it seems. Now that side of the wharf gets used as a car park. You often see cars stacked up between the colonades that will be kept “free for pedestrian acceess…”.

And then there are the elevated viewing platforms at the end. Story was that private tenants would come out and scare the public away. Not really public at all. So in a celebrated picnic, Cllr Walbran went there with family, but couldn’t gain access because of padlocks on the gates. It was all reported by Rudman:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10342524
But nothing much has changed since. Sure the padlocks have gone. But it’s still a forbidding place to find some public peace. Hard to untangle public space from all those private hands.

Professional urban design investigation would involve placing a video camera and analysing how people actually use the end of the wharf. It’s all very well to stamp down there as Chair of Regional Strategy and Policy – knowing what the rules are. It’s quite another to hesitantly go down there (why would you anyway?) – confronted by all the signs saying thou shalt not fish, sit, stand…. Hilton branding everywhere - and find that quiet people place.

The one good thing about ARC’s resource consent that permitted the Princes Wharf development is the standard review clause. It’s a review condition. It states that the conditions of consent may be reviewed by the ARC in order to deal with any adverse effect on the environment which may arise from the exercise of this consent.

It also provides for the ARC to carry out a review of the conditions of consent including altering monitoring requirements … in light of results carried out from investigations. Time for some formal investigation I think.

The ARC owes the public a review of the conditions of consent for the Princes Wharf development. We can’t keep our back turned. Not forever. Not for 98 years. It's time to fix this.