I did some basic work using the Council's GIS system to analyse the crowd carrying capacity of central Auckland waterfront spaces around Queens Wharf that did get crowded. You can see the area I looked at in these five graphics. Separate area calculations can easily be done using Council GIS tools. For example the total area of Queens Wharf - excluding the ferry terminal - is 25,500 square metres. I know not all of that area can be used to hold people, but the lion's share of it can, some in Shed 10, the Cloud and other open areas. And it's fenced to the waterfront edge so you can cram them in a bit - without worrying about someone falling into the water. |
That Friday, the biggest squeeze as far as I understand was on Quay Street. People on Queens Wharf were restricted, but they were not on Quay Street. On this map here's a big chunk of Quay Street that was set aside for pedestrians. The total area of this chunk is 16,600 square metres. On that Friday it was more crowded than Queens Wharf. Sure. But not over the whole area, and it's quite a lot smaller in size, and it didn't have fences to stop people falling into the water... |
I also added in the whole of QE II Square outside Britomart. Not really fair - because that part outside the shops wasn't that popular with people. But I've added it all in. That adds a further 6,600 square metres of crowd handling capacity. |
|
Ok. Back to Friday. If you add up these waterfront areas - excluding Captain Cook - you get a total of 62,400 square metres of public waterfront space. If you assume that the 12,000 maximum figure used for Queens Wharf is a "safe waterfront crowd" density, then assuming that was applied across all of the available waterfront space that Friday night, you would actually be able to accommodate a maximum of 29,400 people on Auckland's waterfront. Less than 30,000. A bit different from the figures being bandied about. But I know that parts of Quay Street got a lot more crowded than Queens Wharf. So I did a bit more reading. There's all sorts of interesting stuff on the Internet about crowd safety. ...At occupancies of about 7 persons per square meter the crowd becomes almost a fluid mass. Shock waves can be propagated through the mass sufficient to lift people off of their feet and propel them distances of 3 m (10 ft) or more. People may be literally lifted out of their shoes, and have clothing torn off. Intense crowd pressures, exacerbated by anxiety, make it difficult to breathe. The heat and thermal insulation of surrounding bodies cause some to be weakened and faint. Access to those who fall is impossible. Removal of those in distress can only be accomplished by lifting them up and passing them overhead to the exterior of the crowd.... Don't think we had anything like that - though at various pinch points - and we are quite good at pinch points - like at the ends of the big screen in Quay Street - there was a pretty tight squeeze. And particularly within 100 metres of the entrance to Queens Wharf. It was the crowd density around the Queens Wharf entrance that forced the closures of Britomart Station and the Ferry Terminal because people couldn't get in or out effectively because of the Queens Wharf/Fireworks queue. Reading on: "In the Guides the safety limit for crowd density is defined as 40 people in 10 square metres for a moving crowd and 47 for standing areas...." and "...Between 3 and 5 people per square metre are typical of the normal ingress density...." So let's look at that Friday again. My obervation of Friday was that Queens Wharf wasn't full. I was on it and I don't think it was full. The people counters didn't know what they were doing and they shut the gates early. I reckon there was 9,000 on Queens Wharf, but let's say - for the argument - there were 12,000 there. Princes Wharf was almost empty - but let's say it was equal to the allowable crowd density of Queens Wharf on average, and let's say the average crowd density of QE II Square and the Viaduct Wharf extension was that as well - basically because that's where people didn't really want to be. They were pushing into Quay Street to get to Queens Wharf, or to a place they could see the fireworks, or to where they could see a big screen that was working. That gives a total of 21,500 people everywhere on the Waterfront (the places I'm talking about here: Queens Wharf, Princes Wharf, Viaduct wharf extension, QE II Square) but excluding Quay Street. Assuming the whole of Quay Street was crowded on average at 4 people/square metre - which is the safety limit for a standing crowd - according to "the guidelines". At 4 people/square metre (maximum safe crowd), the whole of the Quay Street section shown in the maps above would have held 66,400 people. These numbers suggest the crowd on the waterfront spaces shown in these maps was 87,900 on Friday. However I think that is an over-estimate - because it wasn't that crowded over the whole length of Quay Street. The scrums were by the big screen and at the Queens Wharf entrance. More like 50,000 to 75,000 I would assess at the outside. Makes you think - doesn't it. Shows how little public space Auckland has in Auckland's CBD waterfront. Shows how valuable public space on the waterfront Queens Wharf really is. Puts it into proportion and into perspective. |
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Crowd = 200,000! Who's counting?
Monday, March 15, 2010
Auckland Waterfront Big Picture - Quay Street Boulevard
 A little while ago, in the midst of the design competition around Queens Wharf and talk of "whole of waterfront" approaches, Coopers & Co put forward a suggestion which revolves around transforming Quay Street into a waterfront boulevarde. |
 This is a closeup of a section of that image showing the Queen Street end of Queens Wharf, and Quay Street between Queens Wharf and Captain Cook wharf.The little structure between could be pontoons, and holds three big screens... |
 Here's how it might look with the big screens fired up. People on three sides: Captain Cook Wharf, Quay Street and Queens Wharf. You can see how this treatment of the waterfront opens it up to the urban core of Britomart especially, but also Queen Street. |
 You can see in all of these images that the fence sections of the Red Fence have been removed - or partly removed - so that there is much more public access and permeability from the urban core, across Quay Street, and onto the pedestrianised waterfront.In times of an event there would be planned reduction in traffic flows along Quay Street. Maybe only 1 lane each way. When Britomart Station was under construction Quay Street was sometimes closed entirely and all traffic flowed along Custom House Quay. I think - in fact - that a lot of traffic (big trucks etc) travel along Quay Street now because they can. This sort of traffic should not be encouraged to go through the CBD. This traffic should flow around the CBD. That's why Grafton Gully was built, connecting with SH1, and the huge one-ways of Hobson and Nelson also. Ideally, we should be trying to minimise traffic along Quay Street - and making pedestrian traffic the priority. |
 It is more appropriate to plan for public transport access to this part of time, and to open up Quay Street - all the way to the water's edge for pedestrian activity.The Rugby World Cup is a pretext to give it a try - associated with Queens Wharf - but in the long term, something like this is what Auckland's waterfront needs. |
 ...and we need to think of Quay Street all the way along to the Viaduct - so that it is a pedestrian boulevard all the way. Not blocked by the red fence. Leave the heritage posts in place - and maybe some sections of fence. This approach needs to become a major plank in Auckland's waterfront planning. |
Friday, January 15, 2010
Coopers & Co dull Waterfront with more Carpark Buildings
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.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Crowd = 200,000! Who's counting?
I did some basic work using the Council's GIS system to analyse the crowd carrying capacity of central Auckland waterfront spaces around Queens Wharf that did get crowded. You can see the area I looked at in these five graphics. Separate area calculations can easily be done using Council GIS tools. For example the total area of Queens Wharf - excluding the ferry terminal - is 25,500 square metres. I know not all of that area can be used to hold people, but the lion's share of it can, some in Shed 10, the Cloud and other open areas. And it's fenced to the waterfront edge so you can cram them in a bit - without worrying about someone falling into the water. |
That Friday, the biggest squeeze as far as I understand was on Quay Street. People on Queens Wharf were restricted, but they were not on Quay Street. On this map here's a big chunk of Quay Street that was set aside for pedestrians. The total area of this chunk is 16,600 square metres. On that Friday it was more crowded than Queens Wharf. Sure. But not over the whole area, and it's quite a lot smaller in size, and it didn't have fences to stop people falling into the water... |
I also added in the whole of QE II Square outside Britomart. Not really fair - because that part outside the shops wasn't that popular with people. But I've added it all in. That adds a further 6,600 square metres of crowd handling capacity. |
|
Ok. Back to Friday. If you add up these waterfront areas - excluding Captain Cook - you get a total of 62,400 square metres of public waterfront space. If you assume that the 12,000 maximum figure used for Queens Wharf is a "safe waterfront crowd" density, then assuming that was applied across all of the available waterfront space that Friday night, you would actually be able to accommodate a maximum of 29,400 people on Auckland's waterfront. Less than 30,000. A bit different from the figures being bandied about. But I know that parts of Quay Street got a lot more crowded than Queens Wharf. So I did a bit more reading. There's all sorts of interesting stuff on the Internet about crowd safety. ...At occupancies of about 7 persons per square meter the crowd becomes almost a fluid mass. Shock waves can be propagated through the mass sufficient to lift people off of their feet and propel them distances of 3 m (10 ft) or more. People may be literally lifted out of their shoes, and have clothing torn off. Intense crowd pressures, exacerbated by anxiety, make it difficult to breathe. The heat and thermal insulation of surrounding bodies cause some to be weakened and faint. Access to those who fall is impossible. Removal of those in distress can only be accomplished by lifting them up and passing them overhead to the exterior of the crowd.... Don't think we had anything like that - though at various pinch points - and we are quite good at pinch points - like at the ends of the big screen in Quay Street - there was a pretty tight squeeze. And particularly within 100 metres of the entrance to Queens Wharf. It was the crowd density around the Queens Wharf entrance that forced the closures of Britomart Station and the Ferry Terminal because people couldn't get in or out effectively because of the Queens Wharf/Fireworks queue. Reading on: "In the Guides the safety limit for crowd density is defined as 40 people in 10 square metres for a moving crowd and 47 for standing areas...." and "...Between 3 and 5 people per square metre are typical of the normal ingress density...." So let's look at that Friday again. My obervation of Friday was that Queens Wharf wasn't full. I was on it and I don't think it was full. The people counters didn't know what they were doing and they shut the gates early. I reckon there was 9,000 on Queens Wharf, but let's say - for the argument - there were 12,000 there. Princes Wharf was almost empty - but let's say it was equal to the allowable crowd density of Queens Wharf on average, and let's say the average crowd density of QE II Square and the Viaduct Wharf extension was that as well - basically because that's where people didn't really want to be. They were pushing into Quay Street to get to Queens Wharf, or to a place they could see the fireworks, or to where they could see a big screen that was working. That gives a total of 21,500 people everywhere on the Waterfront (the places I'm talking about here: Queens Wharf, Princes Wharf, Viaduct wharf extension, QE II Square) but excluding Quay Street. Assuming the whole of Quay Street was crowded on average at 4 people/square metre - which is the safety limit for a standing crowd - according to "the guidelines". At 4 people/square metre (maximum safe crowd), the whole of the Quay Street section shown in the maps above would have held 66,400 people. These numbers suggest the crowd on the waterfront spaces shown in these maps was 87,900 on Friday. However I think that is an over-estimate - because it wasn't that crowded over the whole length of Quay Street. The scrums were by the big screen and at the Queens Wharf entrance. More like 50,000 to 75,000 I would assess at the outside. Makes you think - doesn't it. Shows how little public space Auckland has in Auckland's CBD waterfront. Shows how valuable public space on the waterfront Queens Wharf really is. Puts it into proportion and into perspective. |
Monday, March 15, 2010
Auckland Waterfront Big Picture - Quay Street Boulevard
| A little while ago, in the midst of the design competition around Queens Wharf and talk of "whole of waterfront" approaches, Coopers & Co put forward a suggestion which revolves around transforming Quay Street into a waterfront boulevarde. |
| This is a closeup of a section of that image showing the Queen Street end of Queens Wharf, and Quay Street between Queens Wharf and Captain Cook wharf.The little structure between could be pontoons, and holds three big screens... |
| Here's how it might look with the big screens fired up. People on three sides: Captain Cook Wharf, Quay Street and Queens Wharf. You can see how this treatment of the waterfront opens it up to the urban core of Britomart especially, but also Queen Street. |
| You can see in all of these images that the fence sections of the Red Fence have been removed - or partly removed - so that there is much more public access and permeability from the urban core, across Quay Street, and onto the pedestrianised waterfront. In times of an event there would be planned reduction in traffic flows along Quay Street. Maybe only 1 lane each way. When Britomart Station was under construction Quay Street was sometimes closed entirely and all traffic flowed along Custom House Quay. I think - in fact - that a lot of traffic (big trucks etc) travel along Quay Street now because they can. This sort of traffic should not be encouraged to go through the CBD. This traffic should flow around the CBD. That's why Grafton Gully was built, connecting with SH1, and the huge one-ways of Hobson and Nelson also. Ideally, we should be trying to minimise traffic along Quay Street - and making pedestrian traffic the priority. |
| It is more appropriate to plan for public transport access to this part of time, and to open up Quay Street - all the way to the water's edge for pedestrian activity. The Rugby World Cup is a pretext to give it a try - associated with Queens Wharf - but in the long term, something like this is what Auckland's waterfront needs. |
| ...and we need to think of Quay Street all the way along to the Viaduct - so that it is a pedestrian boulevard all the way. Not blocked by the red fence. Leave the heritage posts in place - and maybe some sections of fence. This approach needs to become a major plank in Auckland's waterfront planning. |
Friday, January 15, 2010
Coopers & Co dull Waterfront with more Carpark Buildings
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.
