Singapore - Urban Design 4 - Little India

Here I am, drinking my Lassi in the Tekka Market of the Little India precinct in Singapore. Time out from the City Development conference. Actually I was escaping a tropical downpour. A fantastic electrical storm outside. Lightning about every 30 seconds and the most violent claps of thunder. The market roof was metal. Every crash the whole place shook, and everyone banged their tables...!

The careful retention of two storey terraces - homes above and shops below - was delightful. Lively and authentic. Little India is a central attraction for Singapore's tourist economy...

And the shops were as you would expect, and hope for. An eye feast. Made me yearn for Auckland to give more attention to the multi-cultural city we have, and make more of it.

Just as the storm struck, everybody looked around for a place to go and sit or stand it out. Was all very quick. Great street scapes. Protected by strong town plans I am sure. This environment is an asset for Singapore, and strongly features in maps for tourists like me. I didn't spend much money, but I took a heap of photos.

There was something about this street corner that I liked. It's the signs, the colour, the wall finishings, and the vibrancy of traffic. Sometimes cars and their movement - provided there are lights and pedestrian crossings to slow it down - add to tne energy of a street.

But there are other corners where there are no cars. Quiet corners to sit and chat. With gods nearby. Stree furniture and window shutters and cinema hoardings to decorate the scene. None of this happens by accident. All by design. There is much attention to detail here.

I liked this little village square. People here are looking at the plasma TV screens hung just inside the cafe fronts. You can just see the screen above the pair in white shirts walking out. And soon the time will come to go to church....

Singapore - Urban Design 3 - Chinatown

I always like to explore the indigenous bits of cities I visit. Maps of Singapore for tourists and from hotels, emphasise the location of Chinatown, Little India, and even a bit of Arabia with souks and the like. Parts of it can be a bit touristy, but the markets are real enough, and it's all lively and thriving. These destinations are very attractive with tourists and visitors, and are a big part of keeping this multicultural place alive and kicking. Well - that's how it seemed to me as an outsider...

And I liked seeing the bikes and the three-wheelers used to move goods. Singpapore does have it's share of big motorways and road congestion charge systems. At the conference I heard from a member of the Transport Council how they want to get the peak am mode share of public transport up to 70% from 63%...

Here, mum buys the kids some Chinese sweets and ice-creams from the local sweet shop. Plenty of other bits and pieces to buy too.

Great places to sit - with the climatic conditions well provided for. Heat of the sun and torrential downpours alternate. Lot of style.

I liked the chinese laundry effect. Boy - a lot of people live out this way. This is Chinatown.

A very people-oriented public space. No cars here - even though this is a very car-oriented city. Cars have their place - but there are also rigorously protected areas for people. Auckland could learn a lot about vehicular delineation from Singapore.

Singapore Waterfront Urban Design 2

The heritage building in the background is the Fullerton Hotel. As you can see, it's located in the foreground of a number of vast new tower buildings. But sufficiently alone that it is not dominated by them. Visitors to the waterfront love it. Most of the photos taken have it in the background. The favorite pose is to appear to be "lifting it".

This is part of the garden on top of one of the waterfront developments described in the previous blog. You can see a fountain. Little garden squares. Paving. Seating. And trees to shelter you from the merciless heat of the tropics. In the mid-background is the top of a light well used to bring natural light to two levels below.

Bronze artworks of all sorts decorate public places. Much loved and photographed. Heritage stonework predominates. Sometimes the wateredge is fenced - as here - sometimes not...

... as here, where people love to sit dangling their legs and feet above the water. In the background is a popular restaurant area. The polished black basalt (I think) blocks make good seats.

The quality of public open space finish is exemplary. Even Baron Haussmann (the destroyer and rebuilder of heritage Paris) would be impressed to see his ideas for tree root planting and protection, public seating, and paving done with so much style and attention to detail.

And what really strikes you, coming to Singapore from the Auckland waterfront, is the total absence of cars. And the piece and quiet and sense of calm that goes with that determination to exclude the motor vehicle from the waterfront.

Singapore Waterfront Urban Design 1

A few weeks ago I was fortunate to be invited to make a couple of presentations to the Annual Marcus Evans City Development Conference. It gave me an opportunity to look around that modern Asian city - especially the waterfront.




This montage is from an outside walkway outside a Mall by the waterfront. I'm not especially keen on malls, but the way the design resolutely provided quality public space - while allowing shops of all sorts to operate within the building - was very interesting. These next three pictures give a flavour of the actual waterfront space and design adjacent to the mall building, and also looking back into the shopping area.












This next montage (below) shows another example of this spatial approach to development adjacent to the waterfront. The circular enclosed space is public space. It is very sheltered from prevailing winds, while providing a sort of market square focus for the retail and cafe activities at ground level. There is considerable public space provision on top of this building, and this space is well planted with small trees, gardens and shrubs. The classic green roof - but actually a park, very useable and with great amenity.



Stepping through the rooftop garden, you can then view the adjacent waterfront spaces and views. The next montage (below) is from the roof. You can see the carefully designed waterfront spaces and planting. The sail shaded area is a a public performance area - bands and informal concerts occur there.



This final montage (below) actually contains 3 shots of the same slice of waterfront space between the built edge, and the water edge. What the photos try to show (!?) is the fact that there is a public pavement directly adjacent to to the buildings (some of which are activated), then there is a planted strip that contains outdoor restaurant seating and cafes (you can make out the StarBucks umbrellas here), and then there is another wide public pavement.



These designs show the kind of approaches that can be adopted to waterfront edges which genuinely respect public space, and provide for successful private business, without getting them all mixed up and in conflict.

Thank you ARTA and Auckland City for India Vs Black Caps!

I was lucky enough to go to the cricket on Saturday with a mate. What a fantastic night. We started with the ferry trip across from Devonport. Then at Britomart we were informed by the smiling asian woman at the ticket office, that of we showed the ticket inspector our tickets, the train to Kingsland Station would be free. Coffee and pastries in hand, we assembled on the platform among a happy and highly prepared bunch of Indian cricket groupies. Faces painted with Indian flags. We were outnumbered.

Quick trip to Kingsland station, out the door, onto the street, highly organised, good humoured and efficient pedestrian management. And we were there. Indian flags and painted faces everywhere. The fans were everywhere.

We took our seats in the stadium which was filling up, and it was like being in a busy, noisy, colourful India street. What a buzz. Everytime a face went up on the big screen, or a blue uniformed cricketer did some training on the group - the roar went up. And then there was the big game, with 6's and 4's for Africa (India and New Zealand). Reminded me a bit of being at Cardiff Arms a long time ago - I was there when the AB's won 13-12. Such a passion for their sport. An unaggressive passion. The newspapers and TV are full of the results. The Black Caps won.

Back on the street - to go home.

The feel of Kingsland Station - with the Taiko takeout so near, and the neon beckoning other attractions up the street nearby, the co-location of heritage buildings, everything close. I had a glimmer of how many other parts of Auckland could be - if we keep working at it. Make that public realm by our rail stations really work for pedestrians, ensure there is a mix of activities. Good access and street amenity.

We got on the train with a group of youthful Auckland Indians. They seemed to be using the train for the first time. Didn't know it would stop at Britomart and we'd all tumble out. Which we did. They were delighted they hadn't had to pay. Felt a bit guilty. Muttered, "thank you" to the guard as they bounced up the platform ready to continue their night in the CBD.

Thank you ARTA. That free train service was great. Appreciated. A present for Auckland. Maybe you should let people know it was deliberate - not a case of not enough ticket collectors! And bits of Auckland are showing we can do really attractive urban design. Thank you Auckland City Council.

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.

How sad is Princes Wharf (Part 1)?

The Princes Wharf disaster is one of my main motivations for trying to get the public planning and public outcomes right for Wynyard Quarter. I don't want to see more Princes Wharf mistakes made again. But I have a bad feeling in my belly. The same people, and the same organisations are still involved. But I get ahead of myself.

To do this story justice it's necessary to start somewhere near the beginning. Based on the simple idea that if we don't learn from history we are sure to repeat it. Here's how Princes Wharf looked in the 1930's....



You can see that the buildings rose about 2 or 3 stories above the wharf. You can also see the classic and attractive architecture that was involved. This next picture is one of the few surviving pictures that I could find that looks down into the heart of Princes Wharf...

There are ships tied up. It was used mostly for cargo. You can see, on the right of the picture that the buildings on Princes Wharf consisted of two blocks with a street running up the centre, and the buildings had frontages to that street. I understand there were a couple of cross streets too. The uses changed a bit with time, and a public car park was established on the wharf at some later date.

I need to jump ahead now and include a few of pictures of how it looks today.

The central street idea is still sort of there - except it's basically a car park. You can see some of the colonades retained at street level. But basically it's a carpark, with its very own setof traffic lights, with a road up the centre. Cars go to and from their carparks, taxis and shuttles go to and from the Hilton hotel at the end. You can also see cars parked between the colonnades on the Eastern side of Princes Wharf - on public space. And any time of day you can see taxis and shuttles intruding on the public open space at the end of Princes Wharf. No penalties for driving all over a public park there!

And at the end there is a tiny remnant of the fine old architecture that was originally at the end of the wharf. That's the part that is emblazoned with the sign: "Hilton". It also frames a public viewing area - quite nice when you find it - one of the best kept public space secrets in Auckland.

Here's another picture of the viewing area - this time with 4 ARC Councillors checking it out.

The councillor on the left is Cllr Walbran. He was one of the ARC councillors who granted the resource consent needed to build the Hilton Hotel and the apartments. He was one of those who granted the consent in March 1998. Not that long ago when you think about it.

Intuitively, you'd think Auckland City Council would have been the one to grant these consents. After all, it's a building. After all, it's pretty in your face down there on Auckland's waterfront. And there's traffic issues and urban design issues.

In fact, the reason ARC granted the consent is that the building is not on land, it's on water. Or above the seabed to be precise. So the Plan the application was tested against was the ARC's Plan Coastal, and - presumably, its Regional Policy Statement. So Auckland City Council's fine-grained isthmus section of its District Plan didn't have jurisdiction.

That is also why ARC Councillors heard the application. When I say "heard" that's somewhat of a misnomer, because the application was not even notified. ARC Councillors made that decision too. That it didn't need to be notified. This was largely possible because an earlier Scheme Change going back to 1990 had been adopted to the Waitemata Horbour Maritime Planning Scheme. ARC councillors could quite easily have decided to notify the application - citing public interest issues and all that good stuff. But they did not.

Time to include another picture....

This one shows a bunch of ARC councillors checking out the East side of Princes Wharf. It's hard to believe, but one of those councillors was heard to opine, "I don't know what all the fuss is about. This is really good...".

When you read the councillor's decision to grant consent, and the conditions attached, you can see the emphasis of the ARC coming through. It's all about sewage, stormwater, sediment, and wind, with some mention of signs. These are classic issues for ARC with its adverse effects to environment regulatory hat on. But as for urban design, streetscape, traffic effects, public space design - all of the things that contribute to public amenity. Almost total silence.

I'm getting grumpy now, so I'll end this post while I'm still cheerful. There will be one or two more coming up, with a few more facts and figures. What I wanted to end with though, is the fact that this ARC consent was granted having complied with a rather unusual requirement. This was that the design and appearance of the building had to be certified by an independent architect. This was presumably so that the ARC councillors - with no experience in such matters - could rely on some independent planning advice.

The certification for this application was carried out by Clinton Bird, who at the time was Director of Clinton Bird Urban Design Ltd, and Associated Professor of Architecture at University of Auckland. His analysis is a revelation. So are some of the other facts behind this project. More to come later....

Auckland Should be afraid, very afraid...

Auckland should be afraid, very afraid, of election promises threatening years of local government work to smarten regional economic development and stop urban sprawl.


With weeks of campaign commitments still to come, National has promised to rewrite the Resource Management Act within hundred days of getting elected, and Labour has promised to build a toll-free Penlink Motorway which will open up the Hibiscus Coast to a new wave of speculative development. And there will be no shortage of development interests lobbying both parties to further loosen planning controls, build more roads, and let greenfield property development rip.

The Metropolitan Urban Limit imposed by the Auckland Regional Council (ARC) almost ten years ago was widely criticised at the time, as was its support in 2005 for shifting $1 billion from motorway investment to public transport. These planning initiatives have slowed the sprawl tsunami that has engulfed so much rural land and led to longer and longer commutes to work and school.

ARC research reveals that transport costs amount to more than 30% of household budgets for an increasing number of low decile families living in South West Auckland. This problem can be expected to worsen as fuel costs escalate.

Already Auckland has one of the least efficient metrocity economies in the western world. Analysis shows that a full 13% of Auckland’s productive revenue is expended on transport when its annual cost of transport is compared to its regional GDP. In modern Asian and European cities the comparative figures are 6% and 8% respectively.

Auckland’s economy runs like a car with the choke out, and this is primarily because of the huge distances everything and everybody has to be transported. This economic drag will worsen with more sprawl, more and longer roads, and fuel scarcity.

It is ironic that adding value to milk through the sort of processing carried out by Fonterra, and adding value to logs before export, is regarded as sensible economic development by central government and political parties, but the same thinking is not applied to the development of land.

This has not always been the case. Between 1925 and 1950 it was government policy to develop urban rail from the proceeds of land development. The 1926 Town Planning Act imposed a 50% capital gains tax on land zoned for intensive development. This funded rail infrastructure and state housing as well. In 1953 this provision was repealed, and developers pocketed all windfall gains from rezoning.

It is obvious that an economic incentive like this turns greenfield development into a goldmine. While the recent Local Government Act (2002) developer levy regime has taken some of the cream from these profits as a contribution to infrastructure costs, developers continue to enjoy huge short-term gains when their land shifts from rural to urban zoning.

Developers tell me they’ll still take their chances by investing in land just over the current metropolitan limit, rather than risking a mixed use urban regeneration project in Auckland, North Shore, Waitakere or Manukau Cities. Yet these are the developments Auckland needs more of, if it genuinely wants to become more economically competitive. But brownfield redevelopment projects need good urban design, and they will only happen if councils recognise and encourage good urban design, and when councils reward developers by supporting such projects and speeding them through consent processes.

According to urban design authorities Jacobs and Appleyard good urban regeneration design means:

• liveable streets and neighbourhoods;
• a minimum density of residential development as well as intensity of land use;
• an integration of activities – living, working, shopping – in reasonable proximity to each other;
• buildings that define public space - as opposed to lonely buildings that alienate the public realm;
• and separate, distinct buildings with complex arrangements and relationships - as opposed to a few, large buildings.

This sort of development is about place-making and people destinations. And it needs careful funding and more planning. Not less planning.

The New Lynn rail station and town centre is the first significant example of this sort of thinking on the ground in Auckland. It needed almost $200 million central government investment. Auckland’s waterfront needs government investment too – not necessarily a stadium – perhaps a gallery, museum (like Te Papa), convention centre, or national Polynesian maritime heritage venue. The economic multiplier effects of this sort of government investment are known to be huge over the long term. Auckland could leave its tinsel-town short-term profit-taking image behind through government investment in cultural and network infrastructure.

This is the sort of government intervention Auckland needs now so all of New Zealand can truly benefit from this special part of the world.