Brent Toderian - Design for Auckland

Design for Auckland
Brent Toderian - Vancouver, Canada
International Development and Urban Design Consultant

"...Brent will explain how best practice design and building projects fit into the bigger picture for developing liveable cities. No matter what the scale, every project undertaken will shape the community as a whole.

In Vancouver, known internationally as a 'city by design', Brent oversaw all development and design, implementing new approaches for neighborhood development, place-making, green design and architectural diversity...."

So read the spiel for Brent's Auckland Conversations talk - attended by 650 I understand - in the NZI room of Aotea Centre 30th October. Brent had been in Auckland for 4 days and had been immersed in Auckland, walking, talking, learning about the Unitary Plan. I found his talk useful because of his practical experience in Vancouver and Calgary, and extremely insightful about Auckland (probably because I agreed with a lot of it).

Because a lot of his insight was expressed in what he said (when he spoke to his slides), and because I think what he said should not be lost (or only available on the webinar clips of his presentation), I have gone through his talk to transcribe the sections that I think Auckland, Auckland planners, and Auckland councillors and politicians need to take to heart.

"....People always want me to be controversial. Tell us the bad things about our city. They get a morbid pleasure. But I’m a big fan of Auckland. I'm impressed with what I’ve seen.

But I have been constructively critical.

Good design is not skin deep, it’s not about aesthetics, it’s about deep foundational value, creation and issues….

Do we do good design or do we create jobs?
That debate is going on around the world. But it's a false choice. It's a poor debate. Good design = business friendly. Don’t lower your design standards. But I have been hearing this in Auckland…

Like: "we could make housing more affordable by building in the green zone...". That's another false choice…

We (Vancouver) are up there on many lists … along with Auckland … what we did is the bedrock for this. It’s not what we trade away.

And don’t say the worst words: “we could not do that in our city”. 

I worked in Calgary before. Conservative place. Still made big changes.

The only reason that a big change can’t be made is because you don’t want it enough. Consequences of not doing the right things have never been more clear.

People are changing.

It’s the smart phone that is freedom. Not the car.

The boomers and the millenials are choosing better urbanism. Families are in the middle. We design our downtowns now for kids and families, and that’s why they come and live there. We use density bonuses and other incentives to provide daycare centres and new schools in our downtowns. And so families come and live there.

By the way I was blown away by the kids playground that I saw down on your waterfront. Cities around the world are struggling with the same issues as you are. We can learn from other cities. But sometimes we say: “we can’t learn from you because you are different…” That’s silly. We can learn from other cities.

It’s great that your Mayor wants Auckland to be the most liveable city. But that’s only one thing. You can aspire to be many things….and be complete...

And it’s important that the neighbourhoods across the city are also part of this. And that includes your suburbs.

And I have to say I’m not really impressed by what you’re doing, or planning to do in your suburbs …

I know it’s early days.

Car-oriented vertical sprawl is what happens when you only deliver intensity and density, but not community.

That involves fixing the three issues of scale, mix and place together.

The scale is wrong when you have to take the car to do anything – where uses are separated and far apart.

Mix is wrong when you have single uses.

You come down the elevator and the school is far away. Or all you see when you come down is the freeway and you have to get on it. Nothing’s walkable.

You have some rare successes in your suburbs.

But are they scaleable?

Can you translate or replicate that elsewhere…?

When we went out to talk with the Vancouver community – to have a conversation with the community - about density, we were always talking about why we were having this conversation.

And this is one of the things that was missing (here) in the context of the Unitary Plan work. You don’t just ask people: ‘do you want to densify?’ You have to tell a compelling and true story about why we are even having the conversation about density.

We never have a conversation in Vancouver that just asks the question: ‘well, what do you want to do?’ We spend a lot of time educating the public before the public educates us with their wisdom, but if they don’t understand the challenges that we have, and the issues that we have, and the goals and objectives that we have set for ourselves, then they just say what they want….

So there is a lot of obligation on the community to learn - and then they teach us… It’s not just about density. It’s about density done well. There’s good density and there’s dumb density…. If you do density poorly, why would the public ever support it? We create NIMBY’s for ourselves by allowing density to be done badly…

There are three main elements to completeness and density done well. And the primary one is that land use and movement is aligned. Mobility and land use planning has to be integrated and aligned.

Too many cities separate these discussions.

This is where our freeway would have gone. It would have lobotomised our waterfront, devastated low income neighbourhoods…. Just like it lobotomised so many waterfronts across the United States and internationally…

It was the moms that shut it down.

It wasn’t the professional urbanists.

It was the citizens… that shut it down.

That was the catalyst that took us to where land use and transport planning was done together.

(This slide portrays the "war" that previously went on in Vancouver between the traffic engineers and the land use planners....  recognise Auckland here...?)

The 1997 Plan changed everything for Vancouver. It said that we were not going to build any new road capacity for cars in Vancouver. None.

And actually we are going to be taking capacity away because we are going to be widening sidewalks for walking, creating cycle lanes and buslanes.

And the second thing we did was we were not going to perpetuate the myth then you can balance modes. Because that’s just saying: ‘business as usual’.

We don’t balance modes, we prioritise: walking, then cycling, then transit, then freight, then the private motorcar…

...you can justify just about any car related transport investment you like under the rubric: ‘balancing modes’. That’s why we don’t do it…

The counter-intuitive thing that happens when you do that is that it gets better for every mode for getting around town.

 The worst thing you can do for drivers is build more roads. There’s not a city in the world that has made driving better by building more roads. Every traffic expert in the world should know that yet many of them are still recommending building more roads.

We have the proof in Vancouver of this. These are the stats since 1997. Lower congestion. Lower commuting times. Lower vehicle kilometres travelled. We are the only city in North America that has reduced those things. And we’ve done it by taking away roads.

And this is where the trips have gone in our multi-modal city. It’s not magic.

The best transport plan is a GREAT LAND USE PLAN. If you get your mix of uses right, your densities right, then the transport problem is much easier to solve. Our traffic engineers say that all the time.

However in other parts of North America it’s the transport tail that wags the land use dog. We have transportation models that are used to bring down density and separate uses. It’s crazy. Done well density brings the power of nearness – everything is close

Walking infrastructure is at vertical and horizontal levels. It’s the street wall the city at eye level the buildings at eye level that have more impact on the walking experience for pedestrians.

But here (in Auckland) I discover you design a lot of eye candy for cars, but less eye candy for walkers is my experience walking around your city for the last four days. You have beautiful landscaping for cars, which tells me you care a lot about cars and their drivers. But walking around the city I see very little evidence that you care about walking.
 

Cycling is our second choice, and round here I see very little evidence that you care about urban cycling at this point, but I understand you have aspirations and you are moving in the right direction. That’s good to hear. But right now there’s no evidence that I’ve seen that you are a biking friendly city. (applause).

There’s absolutely no way you’ll increase your cycling mode share without separated bike lanes.

Paint will not do it.

You need to physically protect your cyclists from automobiles. Low traffic volume streets are the ones where you put separated cycle lanes. We are tied with Portland with the highest proportion of trips made by bike at 4.5%. We are on track to double it and triple it because we are being very aggressive with our program of urban cycling infrastructure. Kilometre for kilometre cycle lanes are the cheapest transport infrastructure.

The Mayor of Vienna said, “we are building cycle lanes because we can’t afford Metro…”

If you want a 50/50 gender split using your cycle infrastructure – like they do in Europe – then you have to make it safe. (Men are stupid and will still bike even when it's not safe.)

If you think it’s easy building cycle infrastructure in Vancouver look at this survey:

"best use of tax payers money that year: bike lanes",
"worst use of taxpayers money that year: bike lanes".

It is highly polarising but we’re going ahead with it in our city because our politicians know that it’s the right thing to do....

We don’t use the term “Transit Oriented Development” anymore. Because we’re next generation now.

We don’t think of them as transit corridors. We think of them as mixed use or mobility corridors.

Linear urban communities. We look at them from a walk, bike – and then transit – perspective. We’d rather you not have to get on transit.

We’d rather you were able to walk to the grocery store.

Cars take up a lot space.

No matter how green a car is, or what comes out of its tail pipe, fundamentally cars are a space challenge. You can’t solve this by building a greener car. We can design cities where the car is present – but isn’t necessary.

True freedom is not about designing cities for cars (North American mythology for many many years) – it’s designing in mobility choice…..

(Brent spoke at length about the experience of hosting the Olympics, how the city coped with the crowds, and how the city’s streets were used…) All of the streets that we closed during the games - we began to think of them as public realm. As places, not just spaces to move pedestrians and vehicles through, but places just to be in. We were not particularly good at thinking of streets as public places. Our new Viva Vancouver plan is about rethinking the use of streets as real activity places – not just for moving pedestrians and cars.

You guys are good at this and this is what proved it. (See slide of Te Whero on Auckland's waterfront) Brilliant. Paint and BIG TEXT. And you differentiated a parking lot into a public space. So you guys do understand this, at least you do on the waterfront, but based on what I’ve seen I’m not sure you understand it across the rest of the city, but you do on the waterfront…

The second principle in implementing Completeness and Density Done Well. Important that a consistently high standard of design is maintained.

Particularly public places and parks.

And it starts from the waterfront. The principle is that the whole waterfront should be accessible.

Designing for height is about designing what happens at street level.

This is about the podium structure that supports tall buildings. It’s the podium that fronts the street.

It’s the podiums that define the street rather than the tall buildings above which are largely set back from the street.

The third principle in implementing Completeness and Density Done...

Well. I understand that you guys might be undermining your previous successes in terms of providing amenities, I understand that under this Unitary Plan this might be under threat. It is one of the bedrocks of our system of city-making, liveable city-making. Density bonussing systems, value capture – which you folks looked at and rejected – I think you should look at it again....

...because all of this is critical to providing the amenities, the day care facilities, and parks, and civic spaces, and heritage preservation and protection, and rental and social housing for social diversity… 

And all of it through density, and by the way it changes the public’s perception of density because they know they are getting amenities as densities increase. It changes the political discussion.

So how did we do it? In 2006 for two years we put it on the front page. It was about what density is, and what it does. I worry that your Unitary Plan had that opportunity and didn’t go far enough. Because if you haven’t had this discussion at a macro scale about densification, if you’re only having this conversation on a project by project basis, you’re pulling off the band aid really slowly and painfully, you’re not getting to that level of sophistication about what density really means. 


This event was filmed and a copy of Brent’s presentation can be located in the AUCKLAND CONVERSATIONS Media Vault  along with resources from past events.

Why Ratepayers Elect not to Vote

In the run up to Auckland Council elections, and immediately afterward there has been significant media commentary on the low turnout, suggestions that postal voting is over and that internet voting will make a difference and so on.

With few exceptions this commentary has ignored the elephant that looms ever larger in the room of New Zealand Local Government. And that is that Local Government has made itself less and less responsive to the needs of local communities, and is less and less responsive to their concerns.

Almost without exception reforms to Local Government legislation over the past couple of decades have been to increase its role and function as a smooth lubricator and enabler and funder of economic growth - sustainable or not, and to increase the efficiency of delivery of local services deemed necessary to support economic growth. Sure Councils manage to fit in parks, libraries, swimming pools, and community halls - but this and other aspects of the community development side of traditional Local Government activity is static at best and in decline at worst.

The emphasis of and for Local Government has been steadily and systematically shifted to supporting the delivery of economic growth objectives, and we are seeing the consequences of this.

Origins

I saw the political origins for these changes when I lived in London from 1976 to 1991. Two experiences standout in my memory. The first of these was in the early 1980's toward the beginning of my experience as a campaign video maker for a company I set up there with two partners (Team Video Productions). We applied for and got a grant from the Greater London Enterprise Board (GLEB for short) to make a video for trade unions about the effect of new technology in the workplace and how to organise for appropriate conditions. It was a documentary drama. GLEB was the economic development wing of the Greater London Council (GLC).

Now some might say - what the hell was Council doing that for? Well - there's an argument to be had about that. At the time the GLC had developed what amounted to "The London Plan". It was an economic development strategy for a changing city. The strategy was about more than economic growth.

However it was an economic development strategy that was not acceptable to Maggie Thatcher's Government. And she set about abolishing the GLC. The GLC under Red Ken Livingstone didn't take this lying down of course and ran a memorable billboard campaign. One of the signs I remember well, read "SAY NO TO NO SAY" - I blogged about this a few years ago......

When Team Video signed the production contract with the GLC/GLEB one of its conditions read: 'The words: "SAY NO TO NO SAY" shall not appear anywhere in any material produced under this contract.' Interesting that.

The other experience happened when I made a couple of videos for the Church Urban Fund - which was a sort of liberation theology wing of the Church of England as it slowly decided it had role to play in resisting the most socially damaging impacts of Thatcherism. I'm not a church-goer. We got chosen to make their videos because they wanted a campaigning style. Anyway. I digress.

We investigated case studies of churches working in North Eastern communities where unemployment following restructuring was up round 50%. And we referred to "Social Workers" who were helping. Our editorial committee advised that we should drop that wording in video captions. And we were reminded of Thatcher's statement: "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SOCIETY..."

My point here is that there is no point in improving the voting system without improving what people actually vote for. If people believe that don't really have a say with their vote in how their community develops (their local society), then why would you expect them to take the vote seriously?

How Local Government Used to Be

I was first elected to North Shore City Council (NSCC) in 1998. After a while I learned that NSCC was itself a new organisation - having arisen from local government amalgamation and reforms in the late 1980's. Living in Devonport I was very aware of the Independent Devonport campaign that ran long and hard for years. (There are still Independent Devonport banners visible in windows around the village).

At the time I didn't really appreciate what had been lost in that restructuring.

A certain amount of local power and autonomy was retained in that re-structuring. I sat on the Devonport Community Board for six years. We had power. Among other things I recall the establishment of a controversial skate ramp in the middle of the closed Ngataringa landfill; there was the decision to stop medium density housing on the Bayswater reclamation; the Community Board drove through the cycle lanes on Lake Road; and it stood up when it mattered over Navy base developments.

And it had other planning powers that were more below the radar. Board Members had roles as planning commissioners on resource consent applications which included delicate projects like house extensions, decks, garages, tree removals - the sorts of renovations that rock the local boat.

Many of these decisions were controversial. They mattered to local people. They were important to local people, and communities, and so they had an interest in them. The local newspapers were aware of this - the best of the local reporters were anyway - and they followed these developing stories - attended meetings of importance and reported what was said. And local people read the local newspapers because matters that interested them were reported there, and the letters pages were vigorous.

So What Has Changed?

The Devonport and Takapuna Local Board has been one of the more effective Local Boards established by the SuperCity reforms. The Devonport Flagstaff has faithfully followed the meetings that were held locally - though many were held in Takapuna and other parts of the board's jurisdiction. There's been the Library, the land at 27 Lake Road, the Ngati Whatua land claim, and the crumbling wharves.

The North Shore Times struggled to find stories. Though there's always the Takapuna Camping Ground and the NOWSC proposal that refuses to go away.

Probably the biggest sign of change though - and one which has yet to really bite - is what is happening with Auckland's land use planning system. The Unitary Plan and the Spatial Plan.

Together, these plans embody a fundamental shift in planning power from local to central. These are not really even Auckland regional plans - though they purport to be.

The Auckland Spatial Plan is fundamentally driven by the Central Government Infrastructure Plan. Central Government holds the purse strings - as we have seen - for transport projects. These are an essential component of the Central Government plan for Economic Growth.

The Unitary Plan - particularly its implementation - is being driven now by Central Government imposed Special Housing Areas - which are mostly in greenfield areas. Again. These development areas are an essential component of the Central Government plan for Economic Growth.

While the local newspapers and local boards across Auckland have reported and attended public meetings until the cows come home - they have no actual, legitimate power to influence local outcomes.

Not any more.

What Does This Mean?

Because people are not stupid. and because they sense what is going on around them, they are continuing to act entirely rationally, even if the systems and institutions that they previously tolerated and generally relied upon have been undermined and taken away in the interests of economic growth.

Grassroots campaigns like Vision 2040 and other so-called "knee-jerk" or nimby reactions to intensification (for which read opening up the land market and removing red tape to economic growth) are rational and predictable community responses to the threat of property value loss and uncertainty.

It has always been thus.

What Turkey has ever voted for an early Christmas?

Those who advocate changing the voting system, making it by internet, whatever are not seeing what is happening. People are losing confidence in the planning system because it recognises their interests less and less, and those of economic growth more and more. And if Local Government is about anything it is - or should be - about local planning.

What Could be Different?

This is a big question. A couple of things. I spent some time in the US recently, wondering around some cities. And the thing that struck me was how many physical polling stations there were sign-posted. Pretty much every public building had a permanent polling station sigh on a lamp-post outside. They vote regularly about local issues in US cities. It's part of life.

And they vote about the things that matter. What projects are undertaken. What money is borrowed.
Councils can't undertake a project without a public mandate. Called a proposition. Proposition 12 for example. And the City Council can't spend money it doesn't have without a bond issue or loan facility, which has to be supported by a popular vote at a polling station.

The local newspapers there are full of stories, articles, letters, public opinion pieces, about local propositions and borrowing proposals that are to be voted on by the public.

When I tried to market a few Team Video educational videos about Human Rights into Californian Schools I was forced to learn a bit about their curriculum. About 25% of it was civics. They teach civics at school in a big way. Students expect to be able to vote locally about projects and budgets that will affect their communities. And they are not voting once every three years. They vote on each issue.

New Zealand is at risk of losing local democracy in its institutions, but it will never lose the desire for local self-determination among its people.

Civilised society recognises this. So does civilised Government.

Waka on Wellington Waterfront

The wharewaka (canoe house) is on Wellington's waterfront.... fulfilment of a vision....

Open to view. Proudly on display two waka. Tools of the trade at hand for any maintenance...

Ready to be launched...

Paddles and life jackets racked and ready...

Centrally located on Wellington's waterfront

Part of a special building...

Outside visitors have their lattes and muffins...

The waka are on wheels...

These are their launch ramps....

Quite something to see. Now I wonder where Auckland could do this with Ngati Whatua? I can see a reinstated Shed 11, cut a launch slot into Queens Wharf maybe, so waka can be launched in relative calm.

Bound to be a place at Wynyard Quarter. But is that suitably central? Captain Cook Wharf - now that's a name to conjure with for a waka storage and launch facility....

Who Steers Auckland Transport?

The Auckland Council election is over and it's the start of a new term. Nobody had the chance to vote for Auckland Transport. That's to be expected as it is a "Council Controlled Organisation" - CCO for short. That is a bit of a misnomer because a lot of what Auckland Transport can do is effectively controlled by Government Ministries that fund much of what happens in Auckland, and by Government institutions that decide New Zealand and Auckland transport priorities.

But that "control" issue doesn't apply to many Auckland transport problems.

Take Auckland's waterfront for example.

Auckland Council - in its vision for Auckland - as set out in the Auckland Plan, the Waterfront Development Plan, and the Auckland CBD Plan - has been clear that there is a need to stitch together the various parts of downtown Auckland. Nowhere is this more evident than the need to join up the public waterfront with Auckland's downtown CBD.

There are so many barriers. The famous Auckland Harbour Board Red fence, the traffic and heavy truck friendly Quay Street, the huge amounts of car-parking on Princes Wharf, the water between Wynyard Quarter and CBD, and the traffic-filled spaces of Fanshawe Street.

Thankfully Auckland hasn't built a motorway standard road between downtown and the waterfront, but there is work to be done, and it is recognised, by the three Council organisations that are immediately affected and responsible. Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and Waterfront Auckland. It is critical to the success of any changes that these three organisations work together effectively. That is why an informal coordinating Harbour Edge entity has been established.

Yesterday it was my pleasure to observe the "Auckland Waterfront Planning Intervention" presentations of the University of Auckland Masters in Urban Planning students. Their projects were based upon a careful morphological analysis of the urban form of their study area, an examination of the problems there, an exploration of possibilities, and then a carefully articulated design solution or partial solution. I was struck by how many of these presentations focussed on the need to establish pedestrian connectivity and to open up public spaces. Students showed a keen awareness of the need to connect Victoria Park with Daldy Street up through to the proposed parks and headland park on Wynyard Quarter. An approach to the public mistakes made on Princes Wharf and the Auckland Harbour Board HQ building, and their poor relationship with Quay Street was far-reaching. And designs that opened up captain Cook and Marsden Wharves for development, linking across Quay Street to Britomart were sensible and attractive.

Students also addressed what's happening on Queens Wharf. Concerns were expressed that it might be heading the same way as Princes Wharf. Another public failure perhaps. (A few days ago this post about Queens Wharf appeared on Auckland Transport blog.)

A number of matters have come to my attention that suggest that Auckland Transport is a significant roadblock to transforming downtown Auckland, and an obstacle to implementing the vision.

1)   Jellicoe Street on Wynyard Quarter has been widely praised for its urban design, character, and pedestrian emphasis. It is not like any other street in Auckland. In fact I understand that Auckland Transport has pretty much dis-owned this street. Says it won't have anything to do with it, and that it's Waterfront Auckland's responsibility. For the past few months Waterfront Auckland has been consulting and designing streets that intersect with Jellicoe - including Daldy and Halsey Streets. The relationship with Auckland Transport has been a challenge - but Waterfront Auckland - as significant land owner and lead developer - has persisted with designs that will deliver the vision. But the nearer these designs get to Fanshawe Street, the less happy Auckland Transport appears to become.

Where to draw the line?

A little bit of Viaduct Harbour Holdings (VHHL) gossip has leaked out. These guys own the land between Pakenham Street and Fanshawe Street, while Waterfront Development Agency (WDA) owns the land North of Pakenham Street. Gossip is that VHHL is grumpy "because WDA is only building its streets halfway..." So VHHL is blaming WDA for what's happening. Daldy and Halsey will be beautiful, landscaped and pedestrian friendly to Pakenham Street, and then BANG back to Auckland's normal car friendly design the rest of the way to Fanshawe Street.

The problem here is that Auckland Transport is unwilling or reluctant to embrace the new world of transport planning that is about more than cars. And like Faulty Towers, "don't mention zee pedestrian connexion wiz Victoria Park..."  Come on Auckland Transport get engaged.

2)   The Queens Wharf progression toward being another carpark and dedicated passenger terminal has been tracked for a while. I wrote about this a year and a half ago. Without evident effect. Transport blog's interest in the matter bears more than a passing relationship with the fact the Sustainability Expo was held in the cloud last week, and so was Generation Zero's Micro Conference. A lot of new visitors to Queens Wharf will have been unpleasantly surprised by what they see there.

Again. This is squarely in the in-tray of Auckland Transport. Nothing is being done.

3)  This list is a long one, but my real beef is with the lack of creative engagement and output from Auckland Transport in how to change Quay Street. Sure there is modelling for Africa about traffic movements and bus movements and public transport patronage. But the more I see of this - and the more I recall what Auckland's Traffic Modelling was good at modelling (from my years at Auckland Regional Council where the model was developed) - is that it is useless at modelling the future that is at the heart of Auckland's pedestrian friendly waterfront plan.

We need to use the right tools for this job.

I am aware that the transport plan for Wynyard Quarter requires 70% of the trips made there to be walking, cycling or by public transport, leaving the balance - 30% - to be by motorised vehicle. This is the opposite of urban Auckland where - on a good day - only 70% of the trips are by motorised vehicle. To use the planning tool that is based on a 70/30 split - to model how streets would work with a 30/70 split is too much of a stretch. This is a classic garbage in=garbage out scenario.

Auckland Transport needs the political steer and the design tools to think itself out of the traffic-centred box that Auckland has been stuck in for decades.

No time like the present. Get on with being part of the solution to the waterfront stitch.

Standard & Poor's Likes Council Debt

In the NZ Herald today there is a report of a mayoral campaign debate last night. Part of the debate related to the Auckland Council debt - which apparently has increased from $3.9 billion at the start of Auckland council's first term in operation - to $6.7 billion now.

If the NZ Herald's report of what Mayor Len Brown said about Council debt is accurate, and that it reflects Mayor Brown's view of the world of bank loans, then Auckland has a serious problem....

"He maintained it was within a low debt-to-equity ratio of about 12-13 per cent, a high AA credit rating from Standard & Poor's and a case of using a strong balance sheet to build appropriate infrastructure...."

This sort of language may be useful when talking about a commercial business, but it's not appropriate when talking about a local council, which is reliant upon property rates (property taxes) for revenue. Sure there's a lot of rhetoric along the lines that "council services should be run like a business" - Watercare has proudly retained in its Statement of Corporate Intent a performance target that reads something like: "To be a successful business" - and we can all agree that Council should be run efficiently.

But is going into debt on a huge scale businesslike behaviour - let alone being in the best interests of Auckland ratepayers?

As individuals we are all advised that our top financial priority should be to pay off debt. Especially the mortgage on the house. And if push comes to shove we can sell the house - and pay back any mortgage.

But could Auckland Council sell its Mangere Waste Water Treatment Plant to pay off a billion in debt? Could it flog off Queens Wharf? Or some of its arterial roads. Or a couple of Regional Parks?

Not unless it wanted a riot. That is why talking of a "low debt-to-equity" ratio is meaningless. Council's equity is public equity - assets that have been built up over generations. Talk of "low debt-to-equity" ratios is the same as saying: "my policy is to sell off Council assets". Really? Don't think so.  

Then there are the words: "case of using a strong balance sheet to build appropriate infrastructure...". This is another way of saying: "low debt-to-equity".  Auckland Council's "strong" balance sheet is strong because of the fair value of public assets: parks, road networks, stormwater networks, sewer networks, water networks and supply and treatment infrastructure, buildings, land, wharves, the Port, and so on.

But would we sell them? Would we sell any of them? To pay off the odd billion dollar bank loan? Don't think so. Well - I don't think we would plan to sell them off.

And this brings me to the heart of my concern with Mayor Brown's statement and point of view. These are the words: "a high AA credit rating from Standard & Poor's..."

And here I quote selectively from Jason Hackworth, The Neoliberal City:

"bond-rating firms, such as Moody's Investors Services and Standard & Poor's (S&P), are perhaps the single most influential institutional forces in determining the quality, quantity, and geography of local investment in the developed world..... Cities... depend on the bond market for the provision of basic infrastructure, services and economic development. Their ability to enter this market is determined almost entirely by bond-rating agencies that draft credit reports for investors..."

In plain language: for Auckland Council to stand a decent chance of getting a loan at a reasonable interest rate, potential investors need to get a good report from Standard & Poors.

So how does S&P go about preparing their report? Back to Jason Hackworth, The Neoliberal City:

"Bond-rating agencies evaluate the creditworthiness of municipalities and other public authorities trying to issue long-term debt. The bond-issuing authority (in this case Auckland Council) hires an agency (eg S&P) as soon as a decision to issue debt is made.... the agency will request an internal financial statement from the issuing city and combine this information with its own databases to arrive at a rating. The ratings are based on the municipality's financial history (past and present debt), its economic outlook (whether growth is going to occur), and its administrative structure and history (whether there is a history of mismanagement). The final rating is meant to be a reflection of how likely as given municipality is to repay its debt in a timely manner...."

Two or three decades ago, Council loans came from local banks which tended to benefit from positive political and economic conditions in the local council and within the geographical area it serviced. But after some of those municipalities defaulted on their loans (eg in the USA), the Council loans business has shifted to other institutional creditors, keen to invest, Keen to benefit from the "safe as houses" interest revenues from "businesslike Councils",  but reliant upon the reports from the likes of Moody's and S&P.

Another change in the last two decades is the pressure on Councils to become entrepreneurial, and generate growth related revenues to supplement rates revenues. This pressure is partly due to increasing costs of Council services, inability of ratepayers to pay ahead of inflation increases, and desire of investors to put their money where the return is greatest. Hence the rating reports.

The Mangawhai fiasco is a case in point. Kaipara District Council required a loan to develop sewage infrastructure. It took an entrepreneurial risk, assumed a high rate of development growth in Mangawhai with associated revenue streams, went to market, got a good rating report(the rating agency "liked" the plan), found an institutional investor, and took out the loan.

In that case, both the rating agency and the bank assumed that the rating revenue base for Kaipara District Council was in effect the collateral or security on the loan. Hence the "safe as houses" assessment.

The reason Auckland Council has got an AA credit rating from S&P is because Auckland Council has adopted a high growth strategy (like Kaipara District Council did), and is spending money (bank loans) like there is no tomorrow. And of course the investors love it, as does Standard & Poors. They "like" Auckland Council. They "like" that investors can make a good return out of Auckland.

Is it fair to commit Auckland Council and ratepayers to a high risk entrepreneurial growth path and the debt that goes with that?  By all means borrow money for essential infrastructure projects that are demonstrably supported by ratepayers - and maintain a good credit rating by keeping the level of borrowing low. But don't turn Auckland into someone else's business opportunity, their profit centre, so they can milk ratepayers.

People's Waterfront of Baltimore

This is a public performance space in Baltimore's Inner Harbour waterfront on a Sunday afternoon in late September.

The purpose of this posting is to illustrate how the Inner Harbour part of Baltimore's waterfront project works. This map shows most of the Baltimore Harbour. Its scale is about the same size as Waitemata Harbour.

You can see the Inner Harbour area on the map. This is the downtown area which I show in this posting. You can see that pretty much the whole harbour has been developed with dock areas, wharves, and it was the site of heavy industry, manufacturing, power stations, and gas works.

For two centuries this harbor has seen a lot of industrial development. Much of the harbor was the site of polluting activities. That has been changing over the past 50 years. Now - much of the industry has been shut down - and slowly, area by area, the city is changing its waterfront, and redeveloping it. The city has also embarked on an ambitious program to make the harbour environment clean, healthy and alive.

The Inner Harbor area is home to a fleet of classic boats. When it was initially developed major tourist destination facilities were built including museums, aquariums, and other large scale entertainment facilities.

I met with two waterfront planners while I was there, and they described the changing policy approach to the inner harbour waterfront area. They explained that the high-end destinations - costing maybe $5 to $10 per person to visit - and around $50 for a family visit - were not affordable for many Baltimore families. So the Council and other institutions set out to make visiting the Inner Harbour a popular experience that would draw the population of all of Baltimore. Not just tourists.

The waterfront public spaces are wide and free of private activities costing serious money. You can get an ice-cream and a Subway for very little. But you don't need to buy anything, or pay anything, to enjoy it (there are free buses and the Light Rail costs $1.60 no matter how long your trip...).

Young families come down....

Individuals for a walk and a look around and to enjoy the sun...

This small Inner Harbour wharf is about the size of Marsden. Holds that classic clipper. Paved in brick. Lots of open space and places to sit.

And talking about the brick paving, look at this. Families can have their very own brick - along with thousands of other families and donating groups...

This wharf was where you could go and spend serious money. To visit an aquarium, the Tursk submarine, and various other facilities. On the day I was there, this wharf was pretty empty...

There are some wonderful old buildings around the Inner Harbour. Like the Power Station. And bridges inter-connect wharves....

There are plenty of flash restuarants too - so it's not only catering for those on low incomes.

The branding and signage is vigorous and noisy - and so was the music coming from this place...

Save the Planet reads the sign. The Council and Maryland State are right behind heritage conservation and adaptive reuse of buildings.

That Sunday there had been a big game in the Baltimore Stadium. It was easy to see when the game ended. They all came down to enjoy the waterfront. Came by Light Rail some of them.

Safe place for everybody. No hassles.

A picture at every corner, street lights were cool. The glass building encases a forest and is like an enclosed ecosphere. An ambitious project, fun if you like that sort of experience. Something for everyone...

All shapes and sizes...

Just chilling and walking around...

And loving it....

Mixed use development, housing, and other forms of waterfront regeneration are targeted for other areas of the Baltimore Harbour area. But downtown, the Inner Harbour, is a people place, and is public and expansive.

Auckland's equivalent includes Queens Wharf, Queen Elizabeth Square, Quay Street, Princes Wharf, and the Viaduct.

How this integrates with Wynyard Quarter needs careful thought, and how it interconnects with Marsden and Captain Cook and across a pedestrianised Quay Street into Britomart. This is Auckland's downtown "Inner Harbour".