Princes Wharf - Public Space Outcomes - Power and Academia

For the past few years I have poured hours and hours comparing the planning processes that delivered different public open space outcomes at Auckland and Wellington waterfronts. This was part of post-graduate research conducted at School of Architecture and Planning at University of Auckland.

Findings from that research were applied to inform my "active research" as part of the public campaign to stop Ports of Auckland (POAL) extending Bledisloe Wharf, and the campaign to stop the sale of Queen Elizabeth Square. One of these campaigns resulted in a victory - POAL plans have at the very least been put on ice. The other did not - though who knows what can happen to the space known as QE Square while it remains unbuilt upon as the CRL project proceeds.....

My key objective in conducting this research through an academic environment was the publication of papers which might be useful to the planning profession, rather than the completion of a thesis. I wanted to find a method that stood up to academic scrutiny which planners in NZ, in our present Resource Management Act environment, could legitimately use to defend the public interest in public space. (You get the picture: the RMA is primarily concerned with the regulation of adverse effects on the environment, rather than the delivery of economic or social outcomes - like public open space.)

Anyway, despite trying 2 journals and 3 rewrites over a couple of years, my first paper has been rejected again. So I think that academic channel is maybe not for me. But the paper's worth sharing - I think. I'll give some thought to publishing the full version of the Princes Wharf research, and the Wellington research. All very interesting. But for now here's the abstract of that Princes Wharf paper which summarises that research and describes the method:

An urban redevelopment project in New Zealand spanning more than two decades has been examined using a novel adaptation of Flyvbjerg’s phronetic research methodology placed within the context of power that enables systematic analysis of past planning practices and their failings, and which suggests practice improvements. The approach reveals the significance of stakeholder influences in plan-making and plan-implementation for a regenerated piece of city waterfront that has delivered economic growth objectives but failed to deliver planned public space and amenity outcomes consistent with literature critical of the performance of neoliberal urban planning
regimes. The present enquiry suggests the use of phronetic planning research methodologies that incorporate the influence of power into planning processes offer opportunities for urban planners to take back ground lost in neoliberal urban planning, to integrate urban public and private good planning, and to lift the planning profession out of its current neoliberal malaise.

Don't be put off by the slightly academic tone. Hint: phronesis is a Greek word for practical wisdom - something that experienced planners have in spades. The paper is entitled:

Locating Public Power and Public Places in Neoliberal Urban Planning: Princes Wharf, Auckland, New Zealand

If you google that title you'll find it in: Academia.Edu