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.

Governance Changes - Keep the Good Bits

The following blog was submitted to NZ Herald a couple of weeks ago, and they ran it:

“Governance arrangements for the Auckland Regional have been a cause of concern for at least the past 50 years”, begins the policy statement introducing Government’s Bill to abolish Auckland’s existing Councils next year, and establish the merged Auckland Council.

There is no mention in that policy statement of successes banked in recent years thanks to accelerating implementation of the Auckland’s Regional Growth and Land Transport Strategies.

No governance system is perfect. There are always winners and losers. While there is widely acknowledged room to strengthen regional governance, it is important that Auckland does not lose momentum through governance changes that risk derailing good city building work in progress.

Exemplary projects in recent years include: Britomart Station, Newmarket Station and Central Transport Connector arterial upgrade projects run by Auckland City Council; the New Lynn station and town centre project managed by Waitakere City Council’s development agency; Manukau Station and FlatBush development managed by Manukau Council’s land development Council Controlled Organisation; and the North Shore Busway project where that Council oversaw station and local arterial busway lanes delivered by a joint steering group.

Projects like these were envisioned by the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy when it was adopted by the region in 1998 to manage Auckland’s growing pains of wasteful sprawl, damaging infill development and congestion. The strategy called for a Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL) to protect rural land, and areas of higher density development at existing urban centres and along public transport corridors.

Little happened on the ground initially because land development patterns envisioned by the strategy required changes to Auckland, Manukau, Waitakere and North Shore District Plans, and because public transport services in Auckland were poor.

None of the urban regeneration projects mentioned above could have proceeded without District Plan and funding changes that enabled them, and which also enable and incentivise adjacent private property development projects.

Changing District Plan provisions for part of a city to enable higher density development is a non-trivial task. A city’s District Plan has legislative status. People and communities manage their interest in land and buildings accordingly because the District Plan provides the framework for assessing resource consent applications.

Plan Changes are intensely political activities. Again, there are winners and losers. Private property rights are affected. Public realm amenity is affected also.

According to Ministry of Environment data, about thirty District and Regional plan changes – some privately initiated – are handled each year by Auckland authorities. From start to finish the more controversial of these take several years to become operative. Processing time is in direct proportion to the level of public interest and concern. Plan changes relating to Milford Shopping Centre and St Lukes Shopping Centre are amongst the more challenging District Plan changes in process today.

Plan Change hearings are typically heard by elected Councillors, who are accountable for any supporting policy decisions. Plan Changes are not the same as resource consent decisions that are often delegated to officers or independent commissioners.

Under current governance proposals Auckland will be served by just twenty councillors. They risk being overwhelmed by the policy and hearings workload of District Plan changes, particularly if these follow the exemplary charrette process adopted by Waitakere City Council in achieving public buy-in for its New Lynn regeneration Project.

The 1998 Growth Strategy aimed for 80% of Auckland’s increase in population being accommodated within Auckland’s existing urban area, and the remaining 20% in greenfield development. Initially, as Auckland’s councils developed implementation plans, the opposite occurred. Most of the increase in population was absorbed by greenfield development.

But by 2006, 88% of Auckland’s growth occurred within the MUL, with some spillover development accommodated in lifestyle blocks. By 2008 Auckland CBD had been transformed from a sleepy commercial centre to a mixed use city-that-never-sleeps full of apartments and city dwellers. Similar changes for Takapuna, Henderson, New Lynn, Newmarket and Manukau CBD are envisaged. Detailed local planning will be essential.

Community Boards lack the scale and resources for this work.

Auckland has been wasteful of energy as well as land, with 56% of that energy being used in the region for transport alone. The Regional Energy Database administered by Auckland Regional Council estimates that people and businesses in the region spend $3.4 billion per year on energy for transportation. That is a huge economic burden.

When transport energy was cheap and roads were relatively uncongested, Auckland’s sprawling land use patterns barely affected the region’s economic performance. But that is not the case today, and the situation will worsen as fossil fuels become scarce.

Auckland’s Land Transport Strategy was adopted in 2005 after being supported by all the region’s Councils. It called for a significant shift in investment from motorways to passenger transport systems. Part of that strategy was to free up motorway space for freight transport. This year showed the highest number of passenger transport trips since 1985, and the highest number of rail trips since 1955.

Recent years have seen significant progress in delivering the Growth Strategy on the ground and the Transport Strategy on road and rail. The benefits of that progress will be felt for decades to come. But there is a long way to go. It is essential that changes to governance do not send Auckland back to a future dominated again by low density sprawl and motorways.

And you can see - as a matter of interest - how NZ Herald ran it:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10577017
Their edits are always interesting, and usually helpful. For students of journalism...

The Aucklander Vs NZ Herald Vs Royal Commission

Not long to wait now. But thankfully the NZ Herald has given up trying to influence the Royal Commission. The best media place to look these days for a good feel for where the Royal Commission might be going is The Aucklander. It is to be congratulated in running some useful backgrounders containing useful and insightful discussion with Peter Salmond - the Chair of the Royal Commission.

Part of any change strategy must include some sharing of information and ideas with the public in advance of formal hard decisions. Within reason of course. Better to have prepared the ground a little so people are not too surprised and so there is s better chance of having the ideas received thoughtfully rather than dismissively.

A few weeks ago, the Aucklander ran a very thoughtful story about Vancouver, and about the Royal Commission's reactions to their visit there. You can see it at:

http://www.theaucklander.co.nz/news/story.cfm?storyID=3792088

This week's issue (yesterday I think it was circulated), contained an insight into the transition process that will be needed to give effect to the Royal Commission's recommendations. It considered the possibility of Peter Salmond acting as the commissioner in charge of oversee-ing the transition between now, and the elections in October 2010. When it's on the Aucklander website I will include a link to it here:


But for now, the article is a useful steer. Thank about it. Any change will likely require legislation. This will need to be in place well before the 2010 elections. It will need to go through Parliament and its Select Ctte processes. Other changes - such as amalgamation of certain local council institutions, or their breakup - will be profoundly destabilising for current operations and for staff. Strong regional plans will need to be put in place. A transitionary commission maybe the best way of ensuring the development of that plan.

In the meantime - read the Aucklander. It has its finger on the pulse of the Royal Commission. The NZ Herald seems to want to force feed it.

Royal Commissioning Vs Fishing

Just thought you should know that while I might worry from time to time about what the Royal Commission has in store for Auckland local government (and by the way, you can download an excellent summary of submissions document from their website by clicking this link), I have managed to find time to escape to Mangawhai and do a bit of hunter gathering.....

But I am still grumpy that the NZ Herald seems to be desperately trying to influence the outcome. So I sent them a little "brevity", which they'll probably not publish, so thought I'd share it with the world:

Noisy NZ Herald - let the Royal Commission do its job in peace. You had your say. So did we. Auckland does not need your third rate, fourth estate, fifth column attitude to due process now.

Puketutu Landfill Proposal against Public Interest

I sent this letter to NZ Herald last week, knowing that Watercare had publicly notified its consent application to discharge sewage biosolids into Puketutu, on the Monday after the General Election. Sure - this complies with the letter of the law - but the public now have just a few days before Christmas to lodge an appeal....

"...The public interest is poorly served when expediency and cost minimisation drive major public infrastructure decisions.

In newspaper notices published the Monday after an exciting election, Watercare notified its intention to dump sewage sludge from the Mangere Wastewater Treatment Plant onto Puketutu Island in Manukau Harbour. Submissions will close a few days before Christmas.

Modern cities around the world keep trade waste chemicals out of sewage pipes, and apply treated sewage back to land where the nutrients can be reused. Landfilling of biosolids is mostly not permitted.

There’s a whiff of wishful thinking in Watercare’s claim that its proposed Puketutu Sewage Landfill is a land rehabilitation project that will eventually become a park promised to Auckland Regional Council. Auckland’s City Councils own Watercare and presumably supported this proposal at a confidential meeting.

But it’s actually a cheap dump that will belch methane for decades, just as Watercare’s sewage landfills do today on the edge of the Manukau.

We would not allow a private operator to do this. Auckland's public services can do better...."

Again, this letter was not published.

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.