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.

Who Is Auckland For?

Gold Card carrying pensioners are the new wave of tourists in town. On fine summer days you see them arrive at Britomart after rush hour, coming in happy groups by ferry, bus and train, relishing free public transport, ready to rediscover their city. These are people who have paid rates and taxes for years, good Auckland citizens living in suburbia who feel alienated from downtown because driving there is a challenge and parking is worse, now delivered safely and without financial pain into its heart. Some pick up brochures, unsure of what is there, hungry to experience all that is on offer. Ready for an enriching and interesting day.

Good coffee, food and drink is close at hand, along with a diversity of retail offerings, a couple of cinemas and the Civic Theatre. But unlike other harbour cities of scale – even Wellington - there is no generous public waterfront access to seaviews, few leafy city squares, limited places to sit without having to buy something, little in the way of museums or heritage displays, and few churches.

Auckland is not a godless city, although it exhibits unchristian disregard for the needs of its impoverished citizens and the cultural aspirations of its indigenous population, and it lacks the tolerant public and civic community spirit evident in many cities without Auckland’s natural beauty.

Unless this attitude changes along with land development patterns typical of the last few decades, Auckland’s potential as a destination for its citizens and for visitors, and as a social wealth generator for New Zealand will be frustrated.

The poverty of public spirit in Auckland planning began in 1840 when Hobson ripped off local Maori buying 3500 acres of prime waterfront land for 273 pounds to build Auckland. In six months Hobson’s agents had auctioned 44 acres to property developers raising 24,000 pounds to build roads for New Zealand’s first capital city.

Only twenty five years later, the capital shifted from Auckland to Wellington to be nearer to the gold rich South Island which might otherwise have formed a separate colony. This left Auckland to its few thousand citizens, many of whom had made good their escape from the open prison of Australia, who busied themselves buying more cheap land from maori and expanding the colonial city.

While Gabriel’s Gully ran out of gold over a century ago, Auckland’s goldmine - property speculation – continues to the present day. Auckland’s development track-record is written in its streets and urban fabric. Private wealth and relative public squalor is embedded in the way Auckland has been planned and funded. The value Auckland accords its history and heritage is reflected in the few buildings, structures and streetscapes remaining that are more than a few decades old.

Wellington’s public realm benefited from decisions of the 1920’s Coates Government which passed Value Uplift legislation requiring that land value capital gains realised after rezoning and urbanisation would be taken by Government and invested in public infrastructure including rail and state housing stock. It was argued that to receive a capital gain from land, owners should demonstrate that the profits only existed because of their actions – not those of the Government.

The 1950’s saw this law repealed because the market-led American Dream of motorways and suburban development appealed more. By then Wellington had largely built its suburban rail network and its compact city centre, but Auckland’s rail plan was still on the drawing board where it lies today, and Auckland sprawled creating joyless suburbs a motorway drive away from an impoverished city centre. That is the legacy of the American Dream in Auckland.

Little wonder there is little opportunity now to meet the needs and interests of our retired citizens wanting to enjoy downtown Auckland.

While the Metropolitan Urban Limit imposed a decade ago slowed the pace of sprawl, more motorways are being built and planned through the limit, puncturing the Auckland Growth Strategy which promotes containment. The Development Levy regime requires new developments to pay for the cost of public infrastructure they need, but that does not include regional public transport infrastructure.

These limited measures are heavily criticised by the development industry, made lazy by easy profits from greenfield development and un-motivated by more challenging inner city redevelopment opportunities. Perhaps they can be encouraged now that both Labour and National support electrification and use of commuter rail in Auckland.

But it doesn’t matter how good the railway is, or any downtown cruise ship terminal for that matter, if there is nowhere to go, and nothing to do, that is truly in the public domain on the waterfront. As Auckland’s Grey Power visitors are now discovering.

A popular public waterfront development is essential.

The Princes Wharf Hilton development is a fantastic example of what not to do.

Those who criticise Planning Commissioner decisions regarding the Wynyard Quarter high rise proposals miss the target. Proposals to optimise revenue from waterfront developments originate in Auckland Regional Council railway infrastructure planning. The ARC is leading this particular public-private-partnership initiative which will alienate the public from that part of the waterfront, just as surely as Hobson alienated Maori from Auckland land to fund the city’s roads.

And taking Queens Wharf away from the Ports Company to build another cruise ship terminal will further destroy Auckland’s capacity to develop its waterfront as a public destination for citizens and tourists alike.

Auckland’s future success now depends on a new deal with Government, a partnership to deliver a city centre public realm and waterfront we all love to visit.

ARC fails the public with feeble Queens Wharf proposal

Letter sent to Herald after ARC consideration of what to do with Queens Wharf. ARC voted to support a Cruise Terminal and general cargo, and limited public access.... I argued for a mixed use development there, integrated with opened up ferry terminal infrastructure, and significant public open spaces at the end. I also presented images showing how ARC had failed the public in consenting the monstrosity on Princes Wharf....

"...I am very dissappointed by Auckland Regional Council’s limited approach to the Queens Wharf opportunity. At the confidential meeting I advocated for the broader public interest and an urban design led approach. But to little avail.

ARC’s involvement in the redevelopment of other Auckland waterfront opportunities has been a public disaster.

It was ARC’s responsibility to balance public and private interests on Princes Wharf. It is a disgrace that this opportunity has such impoverished public spaces.

ARC’s poor appreciation of urban design and the qualities of good waterfront open space is exemplified by the plans it agreed for Wynyard Quarter which are being considered now. Those plans shoehorn public waterfront amenity between maritime industry and highrise private developments. And this to optimise revenue for ARC.

ARC's ability to provide for public interest values is compromised by its need for cash to fund public transport, and its limited understanding of good urban design.

Auckland’s CBD and its waterfront must be optimised for the enjoyment of the people of Auckland, and for visitors. Queen Street and Britomart urban design approaches show the way. This thinking needs to cross the street and illuminate plans for Queens Wharf and the whole Auckland waterfront...."

This letter was unpublished.

Root Cause of Waterfront Civic Vandalism

Letter sent to NZ Herald, early October this year, after an editorial piece critical of proposals to run public transport across the proposed Te Whero Bridge, from Wynyard Quarter to Auckland....

"...Methinks your editorial misses the point by focussing on buses as the cause of civic vandalism on Auckland’s waterfront.

Public transport is just one symptom of Auckland Regional Council’s directive that “revenue should be optimised” from development on its Wynyard Quarter land holdings.

The Royal Commission were advised that “this large area of land is to be redeveloped into a world-class waterfront suburb” by Auckland Regional Holdings - the entity required to implement ARC’s directive.

Revenue optimisation means this “suburb” has to be crammed with apartments and high rise offices, with good public transport services of course.

Auckland’s waterfront public realm will suffer far more from over-development, than it will from buses. A little was learned from Princes Wharf when the Viaduct was redeveloped. But it caters for sunset drinkers and offers little to the broad Auckland demographic.

Auckland’s waterfront vandalism will only stop when redevelopment decisions put public amenity ahead of revenue optimisation...."

It was unpublished.

This is Auckland - Queens Wharf

Parking is no problem in downtown Auckland. The very best of places have been reserved for cars - they have a magnificent view of one of the loveliest harbours in the world. And of course this view is absolutely uncluttered by people...