AMETI Traffic Sewer Still On Track

I was asked to give a lecture on the AMETI project to Masters in Planning students at Auckland University, who are investigating urban design aspects of the Tamaki Transformation project. I wanted to give a bit of the planning history and put what's happening there in a political planning context....

As far back as 1946 the then Ministry of Works had designs on the corridor for a new highway. The goal was to connect the suburbs of Tamaki with Auckland CBD. There were also plans for suburban rail improvements at the time. This graphic I have borrowed from www.transportblog.co.nz.

And the De Leuw Cather work in the 1960's continued the idea of an Eastern Highway - which was clearly marked on their planning maps.

This image taken from Auckland Council's GIS system shows the lay of the land today - and highlights the fact that a transport designation has been in force along most of the proposed highway route for a long time. Much of it is green space. The Eastern Rail line occupies some of the corridor.

From 2002 to 2004 Mayor John Banks floated the idea again of the Eastern Motorway. He even had designs on Ngataringa Point (where I live) for a tunnel. But the main point of this slide is to show the alignment of the proposed Eastern Motorway - connecting Tamaki suburbs with Auckland CBD. Regardless of what happens along the way - how many houses might be removed and so on.

Various resident groups rose up in opposition. Particularly the residents around Hobson Bay who did not want to see that little bit of paradise damaged by such a huge corridor. They made up this computer image of how the whole thing might look running through Hobson Bay. This was the start of strong opposition to Mayor Bank's project. In fact it directly led to his downfall, and to the election of a number of new councillors to Auckland Council in 2004. They reversed the Eastern Motorway Project, and out of this emerged AMETI.

Considerable planning efforts were made to change the emphasis of the project, to promote public transport, cycling and pedestrian amenity. I sat on the South Western/Eastern Corridor Steering Group for 3 years (as ARC's representative) from 2004 to 2007, and advocated for the need to integrate land use planning with changes to transport. This approach was generally supported and appreciated at the time. However Auckland City Council did not handle related plan changes at all well, and the Panmure community in particular became angry, organised, public meetings occurred, and eventually Auckland City Council backed off significant aspects of a residential and commercial intensification project (Plan Change 59 and Plan Change 142). The AMETI project went into recess for a time. It had become very expensive too. What was clear to me throughout, was that traffic engineers from Auckland City and Manukau City had long ago prepared engineering drawings for road widening projects through and around Panmure and Glen Innes. They were keen to get them built. It was always a case of "we need to widen the road to decongest the traffic - and then we'll fix public transport..."

Last year Auckland had local government amalgamation, and the whole AMETI project got tipped into the Auckland Transport CCO. Auckland Transport has been working hard on the project and in April had an open day down at Panmure where various transport designs were shown. I was amazed to see that we now have an "AMETI ROAD". A new road is proposed to decongest traffic. A number of huge "Manukau City" type interchanges are proposed. As shown here. Concern is being expressed about how the public transport dimension will work - for example there is an existing rail service: how will it be interconnected with a proposed busway? Or will it compete? Will a new bypass road draw custom away from public transport infrastructure...?

Around Panmure the design is interesting as shown in these images. A box section is proposed - local arterial road above local arterial bypass below. It is unclear how long this elevated corridor runs but it seems to be 500 metres or so. You can see the cross section proposed. It looks like a creative option, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that "AMETI ROAD" will act as an Eastern Highway. High traffic volumes, and massive severing effects on local communities of Panmure and Glen Innes. Politically what seems to have happened is this: The Eastern Highway idea has never gone away. It keeps getting reborn in different guises. Auckland City Council had a serious attempt at integrating land use planning with transport planning in the mid 2000's, but mis-managed it, not helped by leaky building crisis played out in the headlines. Reaction by community against crappy medium density housing. Then we had amalgamation, and the silo of Auckland Transport created. It has picked up AMETI - but along the way the need to integrate the project with land use changes risks being overlooked. I understand there is a forum of some kind where Auckland Council officials sit down with Auckland Transport officials - but this has all the hallmarks of a project where the road builders have all the money and all the cards. It will be the residents of Panmure and Glen Innes who risk losing out in the long term. They are quiet now because no-one is trying to push medium/high density plan changes on them. These projects do take time. It is essential to bring the community along - not for the ride - but to ensure the best overall outcomes are delivered. AMETI needs to be about integrated outcomes. Auckland does not need another traffic sewer.

And of course no presentation about transport planning at University is complete without a few words from Mumford.

Queens Wharf: ARC and Government JV Meeting on Thursday

A little bit of pre-amble first, to get to the point of this blog....

Auckland Regional Council met yesterday to consider its Draft Annual Plan for the first 4 months of the 2010-2011 year. It's only 4 months, because that's all the time left to ARC (from end of June) to abolition at the end of October 2010.

The public meeting of ARC's full Council considered the ARC's activities, and provided budget and activity reviews for each ARC department. In particular, the activities listed for the ARC's Transport and urban Development Department to 31 october 2010 included the item:

In terms of Queens Wharf, work will progress on the agreed option for the redevelopment of wharf for the Rugby World Cup.

One councillor (not me) queried this item. In fact I was curious as to what "the agreed option" was, and who had agreed it.

The CEO (Peter Winder) gave a one sentence response, and then stated to the effect: "... there will be a meeting of the Unincorporated Joint Venture this Thursday, between Government and ARC, given the alignment between the parties..."

This was an interesting revelation. I was not aware such a JV was in existence.

The ARC has not considered the matter of Queens Wharf, or re-considered its position, since it last considered it at a confidential meeting that was held on the 22nd December 2009, which was attended by just 7 councillors. That meeting was the subject of my last December blog: http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/12/queens-wharf-another-ad-hoc-auckland.html. At that meeting the ARC learned of proposals for a $100 million Cruise Ship terminal, which it voted to support (though I voted against).

In the last few months this project has been opposed by all Auckland's Councils and their Mayors. There have been statements from the Prime Minister and also the Hon Murray McCully (Minister of for Rugby World Cup and supporter of Cruise Ship Terminal).

The ARC's position has not been revisited in the light of these events.

Later in yesterday's ARC Council meeting I asked two further questions about Queens Wharf: "What is the agenda for the Thursday meeting? and "When will the item be reported back?"

The CEO responded. He stated that the Queens Wharf JV meeting would be conducted: "within the framework agreed at the December 22nd meeting" and that "the numbers will be within that...". He also noted that the item would be reported back after that meeting, and that it would be either to a meeting of full Council or of the Transport & Urban Development Committee.

The mention of "the numbers" rang alarm-bells with me. There has been considerable discussion behind the scenes following the Mayoral Forum meeting which decided against the proposed $100 million Cruise Ship Terminal. The option still exists - in theory at least - of Government and ARC proceeding independently to develop the Cruise Ship Terminal - despite the opposition of all of Auckland's Councils.

This option exists because the ARC and Government co-own Queens Wharf. In addition ARC would be the consent authority because Queens Wharf is a structure over water. Queens Wharf is not on land, so is not subject to the planning jurisdiction of Auckland City Council.

A problem would be the funding. Who would pay for the Cruise Ship Terminal? Government has indicated it was prepared to invest in the Cruise Ship Terminal - but I understand this would be in the form of a loan. This loan would become a charge on the incoming Auckland Council. So ratepayers would still be expected to pay for the Terminal. It would not be a gift.

There are other options. Chairman Mike Lee has made no secret of his desire to demolish the sheds that are on Queens Wharf. I am advised that the Hon Murray McCully shares this scorched wharf enthusiasm. Neither see any value in retaining these character buildings.

I - and many other don't agree with immediate demolition. I think Auckland should have the opportunity of using these buildings - as part of Party Central -and as part of reclaiming and rediscovering how we might use this new public waterfront asset and its amenity.

At the Confidential December 22nd meeting of Council, ARC made a number of key decisions, none of which I am freely able to disclose. However, I choose here to disclose some details, because of the public interest matters this issue raises, and because I don't believe due process is being followed.

In particular, at the Confidential December 22nd meeting of Council, ARC decided that:

In the absence of an agreement by Auckland City Council to progress and finance the development, the Chief Executive investigate an exclusive partnership between the Auckland Regional Council and Government and report back to Council in January 2010.

This motion refers to the development of Queens Wharf including the $100 million Cruise Ship Terminal. Auckland City Council has clearly not supported that project. Now it appears the ARC and Government have set up an Unincorporated Joint Venture. However there was no report to Council in January - as decided in the resolution. Nor one in February. Now we hear informally about a meeting of this JV happening this week. Without the ARC receiving a formal report as agreed. Not good process.

Secondly, at that meeting, the ARC also "endorsed the CEO to negotiate a contribution by the ARC ..... towards the 2009-10 cost of redeveloping Queens Wharf..." I cannot reveal the precise details of the amount voted on (somewhere between $5 million and $10 million), but it seems entirely appropriate to reveal some of the works and their costs that the ARC considered would be part of the Queens Wharf Redevelopment.

ARC estimates in the report circulated for the meeting provide a figure of $1.1 million for: "Site Preparation", including: "demolish sheds, remove redundant services"....

So. Without any reports or further consideration it was assumed that the sheds would be demolished. ARC hasn't actually voted on that issue. But you can see how intriguing this is. The ARC would be the regulatory body considering any application its JV might make to demolish the sheds to make way for anything else - be it Party Central or a Cruise Ship Terminal.

So where are we now?

So far, Auckland's Councils don't support a Cruise Ship Terminal. But Government and ARC - according to its December 22nd decision - both do.

And we have learned there's a meeting of The ARC and Government Queens Wharf JV on Thursday, where ARC's position will not have been clarified and established in advance by the meeting it resolved to have.

Not good process.

Endangered Species: Auckland Waterfront Character Buildings

This blog is about the protection of the maritime character of the Wynyard Quarter, aka the Western Reclamation, on Auckland's waterfront. Specifically it is about the protection of character buildings down there - all of which have a connection with Auckland's maritime past - all of which ARC (Auckland Regional Council) is seeking to protect in the area's planning controls. However, ARC's commitment to the protection of built characters and heritage is not shared. Various parties, notably Viaduct Harbour Holdings, are resisting ARC's protection efforts in the Environment Court. Sadly, Auckland City Council is also not supporting ARC, in respect of many of the buildings. It is supporting ARC in regard to some buildings - what I would describe as the obvious ones. But unfortunately Auckland City's support does not extend to some of the more workmanlike buildings which give the area so much of its character. The map shown here - and I know it's a bit hard to read in this blog, but I've enlarged a bit of it below - is of the Wynyard Quarter....

The map show shows the location of the 17 buildings ARC believes need some protection from demolition, and some planning regard for their character and heritage qualities. You can see that the buildings are numbered, colour-coded, and three of them have red rings around them. The legend explaining these codes is next...

Ok, so here's the legend. The eight green buildings (Nos 1-8) were in the Plan Change for Wynyard Quarter that was notified by Auckland City Council a couple of years ago. Following submissions etc three further buildings (Nos 9-11) were added at the decision stage - presumably through commissioner's decision. After the decision on the Plan Change was released it was appealed by various parties, including VHHL and ARC. The VHHL appeals sought the deletion of buildings 8, 10 and 11 from the Plan Change. The ARC's appeal seeks the inclusion of additional buildings 12-17. Mediation is presently occurring under the Environment Court's direction.

Building/Structure 1: 65-75 Jellicoe StGolden Bay Cement building and silos Buildings 1-7 are protected by consensus at this stage. No party has appealed these buildings being protected. Protected so far. Building 2: 1-17 Jellicoe StShed (referred to variously and AHB Shed and Fisherman’s shed) Protected so far.

Building 3: 22-32 Jellicoe StBrick building used by Sanford Protected so far.

Building 4: 22-32 Jellicoe StSanford Building Protected so far.

I include here a couple of images I prepared for submissions I made to the Plan Change a couple of years ago. You can see Building 4, the Sanford's Building on the right, in the context of the adjacent building envelopes that will be permitted as of right by the Plan Change. (The building across Jellicoe Street approximately shows the Red Shed - Building 2 - which is protected so far).... The reason this image is here is to give some impression as to the dominating effect of new development on the skyline, and on character buildings, and on the general feel of the area. That is why I believe it is critical that all of the buildings which ARC seeks protection for - and you can see them distributed thoughout the area on the map - remain protected. Not just for themselves, but because of the way their presence will balance the modernising presence of new buildings as the land is developed.

Take the ASB building proposal for example. The two ASB buildings occupy the footprints to the left of the protected Sanford Building, and are across Jellicoe Street from the protected Red Shed (which you can see in this image). Note how invisible the Sanford's Building has become. And that's without the building that can be built to its right. In fact the ASB proposal (apart from the volcanic roof form), broadly follows the plan change, and shows a stepping down in heights toward the Sanfords Build. So it does not disappear altogether. The point I'm trying to make here is that the retention of character buildings can and should have an important defining role in determining and affecting the development of new buildings.

Building 5: 8-14 Madden St Sail Connections (formerly Selwyn Timber Company then N. Cole Building) Protected so far.

Building 6: 120-126 Halsey St:Halsey Street Flower Traders (Formerly Neuchatel Offices) Protected so far.

Building 7: 118-120 Beaumont St Sailors’ Corner (Former British Imperial Oil Company) Protected so far.

Building 8: 101-107 Beaumont St Dive HQ/ Burnsco Marine/ Teleflex Morse At risk! Auckland City Council has gone cold on this one, because they have decided that Beaumont Street needs to be widened to provide for three lanes of traffic heading West out of Wynyard Quarter. So they believe the frontage will need to be demolished. This is a bit tragic for an area whose traffic patterns are planned to be the very antithesis of the rest of Auckland. ie pedestrian and cycling centred, with only a small fraction of the traffic movements in and out to be by means of single occupancy vehicles. It would be a travesty of traffic over place - if this widening and character building demolition ever occurs. Come on Auckland City!

Building 9: Packenham St West and Halsey St (120-126 Halsey St): J. Lysacht Building Protected so far.

Building 10: 121-127 Beaumont StTrans-Pacific Marine At risk! VHHL are opposing.

Building 11: Corner Gaunt & Daldy Sts (125-127 Beaumont St)Marine Electronics Warehouse At risk! VHHL are opposing.

Building 12: 38 Hamer StSanford boat slipway P.Voss slipway At risk! Though ARC seeks some character building protection. The rest of these buildings 12-17 have been added in for consideration by ARC after a very careful look at characters and heritage buildings on Wynyard Quarter. At this late stage it appears there is little support from other parties to include these buildings among those accorded some protection. I ran a detailed blog entry about this particular one - the Vos Building - last week. This is the sort of result we can aim for on this site. You can see it at: http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2010/02/vos-building-maritime-heritage-at.html

Building 13: 139 Packenham St West: Southern Spars At risk! Though ARC seeks some character building protection.

Building 14: Packenham St West: North Sails At risk! Though ARC seeks some character building protection.

Building 15: 136 Beaumont St Gloss Boats (Former Bailey’s Shipyard and Devonport Ferry Co. Building, Segar Bros/Mason Bros. Boiler Shop Slip) At risk! Though ARC seeks some character building protection.

Building 16: 132-136 Beaumont StHQ (Former Chas Bailey Shipyards, Old North Shore Ferries Building) At risk! Though ARC seeks some character building protection.

Building 17: 129-135 Beaumont St Smart Marine At risk! Though ARC seeks some character building protection. I think it is time that Auckland City Council (not just officers) had a second look at this.

Coopers & Co dull Waterfront with more Carpark Buildings

Wednesday’s Herald, 16th December, reports changes to a major Bluewater (Cooper and Company) development adjacent to Britomart. The Property Section (Pg B8) subheadline notes: “developer drops accommodation, cinema plan as recession kills demand….”

It goes on to note: “…Cooper will now build only a gym and carpark on the site…”

The 7464 sq metre site is located in front of the three Scene apartment blocks, and was once home to Oriental Markets. I understand the site is 140 metres long, and 40 metres deep. It is on the corner of Britomart Place and Quay Street. The longest frontage is along Quay Street – across the road from the waterfront. The location and the sheer number of carparks tweaked my interest and concern. How can it be so easy to get consent to build a five story high carparking building, 140 metres long, fronting Auckland’s downtown waterfront, and pretty much in your face from Queens Wharf?

Some Planning History

It appears the original consent for a building on this site – granted in early 2008 - included 1208 carparks (a lot), within the shell of a building containing apartments and other mixed uses – plus the cinema. Activated at the ground floor. I understand that about 3 levels of carparks were to be underground (basement), and 10 split levels above ground, to a total height of 17 metres. The above ground carparks would be behind the outer layer of apartments and other uses (these being 5 storys). From the street (Britomart Place and Quay Street) you would see apartments, shops, and other active uses.

Before that, in 2004, Bluewater applied for a carparking building on the site. This got totally knocked back by Auckland City Council.

In 2006 Bluewater sought, and got, consent for an at-grade carpark on the site. This included some landscaping and shade cloth mitigation for those viewing the carpark from the Scene buildings. It hasn’t been built yet. Currently, the site is used informally for a carpark. Cars on gravel.

Building plans for the site show between 1208 and 1263 carparks being provided. I understand Bluewater has an obligation to provide carparking for users of Britomart site. The total obligation – over time – is 500 car parks. Some of these will be needed for the Westpac building – presently nearing completion. I further understand that Auckland City Council has rights to some 400 of the carparks in the site – it has rights to charge for their use by visitors and suchlike. And that leaves around 300 bonus carparks which will be owned by Bluewater, which appears to consider each carpark to be worth around $50,000!


Recent Planning

As the Herald Newspaper article notes, Bluewater decided the market had changed, so decided to seek some changes to its consent. Apparently it successfully persuaded Auckland City Council that its s.127 application to change the conditions of consent for the proposed building, could be non-notified. It appears that evidence from Clinton Bird was instrumental. This was to the effect that the effects of a parking building on the site (with activation only at ground level), were much the same as the consented development.

I have obtained a copy of the commissioners decision in regard to the change sought in conditions, and of the planners report. Para 16 of the commissioners decision states: “….this is not to say that these commissioners favour a parking building on this prime waterfront site: we do not. Given our conclusion on this particular issue, we believe the ‘horse has bolted’ on that point….” Commissioners were: Mr G Hill (Chair), Miss L McGregor, Mr L Simmons, Ms R Skidmore. I believe independents were used because of Auckland City Council’s interest in the 400 car parks.

Broadly, it appears that commissioners granted consent to the changed conditions which means that no longer will there be 3 basement levels of carparking, and no longer will there be activated edges to the building in levels 2 to 5. Instead carparking will start at ground level, and go up to the top, and out to edge of the building shell from levels 2 to 5. A small amount of activation will occur at ground level – presumably to accommodate the proposed gym.

The application was at pains to mention that this was a temporary activity. That the proposed carparking all the way to the edge of the building was temporary. And that the intention is to deliver the spirit of the original consent. But not today.

Interestingly, information that accompanied the application mentioned “sacrificial floors”. These are floors that can be taken out later – to enable the subsequent construction of apartments or other uses which need higher ceiling levels than carparks. Doubt has been cast on the truthfulness of some of these assertions because of the apparent absence of plans for the provision of infrastructure that would be needed subsequently for apartments (like sewers and other services).

Conclusion

This all seems to be a bit of a con.

Auckland will get “…a parking building on this prime waterfront site…” despite the protestations and hand-wringing of the commissioners.

Auckland’s public realm will be the loser in this. When you look up at this building from the pavement outside on Quay Street, you will see the grills and lights etc of layers of carparks going up 5 stories high. And this along a 140 metre frontage.

Because the matter was not notified, the only legal challenge would be a judicial review of Auckland City Council’s decision not to notify.

In my view Auckland City Council should be shamed.

BTW: I have only recently caught up with the discussion running on skyscrapercity about this (and other stuff), you can see it at:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=461940&page=41

PS: Now we see Coopers and Co advocating a public promenade on Port land, inside the red fence. I am a little cynical about this move - even though I support opening up much more of the Port to public use. This proposal ignores the fact that Quay Street needs to be changed. Its use as a traffic artery (feeding carparks like Cooper's 300 bonus carparks) has to be cut back. One lane each way, prioritise buses, redirect car traffic away from the waterfront. Open up more and more to public pedestrian and cycling, and generally hanging out by the CBD waterfront.