If ever you make the mistake of reading the comment stream on the average Herald article about Auckland you will find this kind of thought from people like Rodney of Howick who states:
For some reason [Mayor] Len Brown seems convinced that there will be more businesses started in the CBD and more people wanting to live there. Sorry Len, but cities grow outward and not inward.
Well Rodney is wrong both in general about cities and in particular about Auckland over the last decade or so. Cities grow in all sorts of ways and recently Auckland has been growing inward and upward [a direction that Rodney seems to be ignorant of] and hasn’t it been fantastic. I recently covered the issue of inner city living in Auckland so in this post I want to illustrate some of the great changes that we have seen in Auckland’s public and commercial world in order to both contradict this kind of thinking and to celebrate these changes.
Auckland Art Gallery
But I also want to make an additional claim about Rodney’s opinion. He’s right. Well, he was right. Auckland, like almost every other city in the western world grew outward in the second half of the last century away from its old centre. There was a consistent and unstoppable move away from inner-city areas for both habitation and commerce throughout this period. The very terms urban and inner-city came to freight negative connotations and lower value was given to the existing structures of the old city centres,
‘Clapham? Surely not! I wouldn’t recommend it. It’s terribly urban, so urban,’ with her feelings centred on the word urban. I wondered if I had mistaken the meaning of urban, if it now meant more than ‘of the city’.
-Janet Frame Angel At My Table p282 original emphasis.
Of course some cities suffered from this phase more than others. Auckland’s inner suburbs were bisected for motorways to feed these new suburbs and the city itself very nearly completely expired through flight and separation. This transformation was the result of public policy, especially as expressed in transport decisions, but that in turn did reflect the spirit of the times [although it was not universally supported- see Paul Mees Transport for Suburbia for good coverage of this]. The move to the suburbs was in, and the destruction of the old city was consistent with the brave new world of modernism which had an exhilarating commitment to the bold fresh start on a blank canvas. And why not, after the appalling wars that seemed to be the culmination of the old world order.
Detail of the new Auckland Art Gallery by FMJT + Archimedia
The most affected cities of this phase have become know as ‘doughnut cities’ because they now have a hole instead of a centre. Detroit is the poster child for this, but Christchurch is another good example. A weak centre ringed by low density suburbs with busy shopping malls sitting in a sea of carparking. The surviving examples of its Gothic Revival past made the old centre like a fairly lifeless full size museum. Of course it now has bigger problems and in fact the chance to fix this imbalance, but it is not clear that it will.
Takutai Square above Britomart Station
Auckland’s centre was largely saved by the failure of those that wanted the University to leave town for a poorly connected greenfields site at Tamaki. Unlike the Christchurch CBD which lost its University, it was largely the growth of the University along with AUT through the barren years of the 1980s that just kept the city going until the tide changed.
North Wharf by Fearon Hay Architects
And a tide it is. We are now in a new phase with a complete new set of economic, social, environmental, and spatial imperatives. Which are in the process of transforming our lives in ways that are just as profound as the one that began with the Great Depression and wasn’t really in full flight until the 1950s. [See Richard Florida's The Great Reset for more on this]. Although these changes are not evenly spread nor always obvious in the midst of them happening.
Ironbank by RTA
Central to understanding the postwar revolution is the rise of the car and huge spatial changes that we made to accommodate it. Likewise it seems that we are currently in an age where the penetration of the auto-centric life has reached its limits and a new order with different patterns of movement are beginning to assert themselves. I am not claiming that we will suddenly abandon all driving but rather its centrality to our lives and the dominant role it has in shaping our communities and routines will diminish. This will take time and like the last big shift will require effort and investment in alternatives, and of course will be contested by those who benefit from the old way, or just identify with it.
North Wharf at Wynyard Quarter
An important driver of this change, and also a result of it, is the desire for a more livable and human-centred spatial order, and perhaps ironically, one better connected to its constituent parts, its suburbs. While the centre is crucial to this dynamic change [See Ed Glaeser's The Triumph of the City], it isn’t at the expense of the hinterland but rather it is a transformation and an intensification of everywhere. It should mean the triumph of the local, a rise in difference, as well as in interconnectedness. And a world where the word urban has reverted to its older connotations, more likely to imply sophistication and growth than decline and despair.
The Imperial by Fearon Hay Architects
The Imperial
Except for our friend Rodney, or others like him whose views were formed last century and are stuck there. Or others living eslewhere in the country for whom Auckland is a distant or unwelcome thought. And this is the world view that the current government holds and is determined to force on us all. That they are clearly fighting against the new zeitgeist that is, like the last one, both global and probably irresistible is cause for optimism. But it also underlines how frustrating it is when we at last have a Council that speaks for the whole city and that ‘gets it’ only to have yesterdays world view being clung to by a dominating authority.
from Fort Lane, one of the new shared spaces; until recently only used for parking vehicles and trash
My photographs here are intended to show that the transformation of Auckland is well underway and not just a theory or the dream of some urban designers at the Council. But a real phenomenon being invested in by companies and public bodies and being successfully occupied by a full range of businesses, institutions, and individuals for all of our benefit.
A great example of successful transformation: The Auckland Art Gallery
These are the amenities and pleasures, business and work opportunities, that are the fruits of intensification and improved interconnection. This is the city we can have if we invest in new forms of movement and liberate the city from being so dominated by the demands of the car. Maybe even Rodney may come to town on occasion and see that ‘up and in’ is the 21st century way and for the simple reason that growth in these directions will help make us happier, healthier, and indeed wealthier.
New or improved uses for old building are the best way to be able to keep them. Better than a new car park?
Adding exciting new layers to the city can only be afforded through more intense use
New and old businesses co-existing in new ways: Making the city one big shared space
Great post and photos Patrick.
I think a large part of the problem is that people who argue for sprawl failt to take into account the irrational.
“If everyone lives, works and shops within ten minutes of home we won’t have traffic.” Nice idea but people don’t pick where they live, work or shop by entirely rational means. Take me I usually go to Victoria Park New World (20 minute journey there and back) because the queues are shorter and move faster than the Countdown 5 minutes down the road. This actually costs me time. But due to my irrational hatred of queuing I would rather drive out of my way by 10 minutes than wait in a 5 minute queue.
A friend of mine lives in Howick and commutes to Albany because he likes Howick, his family are settled there, it’s where his children go to school and his wife works. He continues with the job because he likes the company and the work. Mostly irrational reasons but they are perfectly valid. A pro sprawl advocate would argue that he should either move his family to Albany or find a new job near where he lives.
Humans are not entirely rational actors so stop treating us like Vulcans and let us be irrational.
That’s not irrational James, quite the opposite. You and your Howickian friend are making very rational choices, it’s just that you’re including factors like comfort/stress, happiness, enjoyment and fulfillment in your decision making. These human factors are incredibly influential on our travel behavior and how we chose to spend our time, money and energies, but they are completely lost in any orthodox economic evaluation that focuses only on time and money.
This is one of the hardest things for the likes of Mr Rodney above. Firstly realizing that other people can have very different values and expectations of sub/urban life than yourself, but also quantifying the impact of these somewhat ethereal human factors.
How can we speak in dollar terms of the impact of a nice shared space environment, how much does one person lingering in the street for a few minutes earn the economy? How much does 50,000 workers loving their city earn? How do we plan for environments that are more New World and less Countown, such that people are willing to go out of their way for something that’s a little bit nicer? How can we justify the experiental quality of light rail on Queen St when a bus route can move the same amount of people in the same time…(but would it?)
Transport for all!
Seriously. If we had a city link, we could build an Eastern and Northern line, like most developed cities of this size. Alternately, we could improve East-North ferry services, much like Sydney does, and link them properly with Northern and Eastern busways. Again, better rail connections would improve this alternative, and would allow him to relax and rest, read or use a mobile device while he commutes, at lower cost, similar or better speed (especially in rush hour), lower emissions, and while reducing congestion for other road users. And finally, better public transport such as trams in the inner city would reduce the pressure on those who have to remain on the road while commuting through.
Mmm Trams…
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Auckland-deserves-a-Tram-System/217282094980382
I dream of the Council doing something about air quality in this town.
They seem happy with diesel buses everywhere, idling and idling all day (in front of the “no idling” signs). Couriers, taxis etc
They show no interest in a “No idling” bylaw.
Or the return of the ARCs “0800 Smokey” campaign.
Or making Ports of Auckland provide electrical power to berthed ships, causing them to stop blowing sulphurous smoke in the middle of town 24/7.
But according to the Auckland Plan we’re going to cut emissions by 40% by 2031.
Magically. Somehow…
Indeed. Huge clouds of toxic carcinogens, spewed into our lungs. This instructive article about how the mining, trucking, and shipping industries have tried and succeeded in suppressing research on diesel’s carcinogenic properties, for over two decades is worth a read. There are more than a few parallels with the tobacco industry. In a new urbanism, centred around the human, we need modes of transport and production that maintain our health rather than harm it.
I did mean to write Northern and Western busways above, but the east certainly deserves them.
George, Actually like the tobacco and the woodsmoke pollution industry (in New Zealand – the NZHHA – the New Zealand Home Heating Association).
If something is promised more than 5 years out then that is political speak for “No Way, Get Effed, Eff off, you ain’t going to have it.” The National government in the last term said smoking would be banned by 2025. Yeah right. And Nick Smith pushed out the cleaner (but still filthy as) air laws til 2016, where if we are stupid enough to have them in power again they’ll push they date out yet again.
40% emission cut by 2031 means they aren’t doing anything now, and there are plenty of things they could do now. The shipside electricity idea could be implemented now. All new woodburner installs could be banned today (and phased out completely by 2013). A ban on smoking on Queen Street could be implemented today (and the rest of the CBD tomorrow). 0800 Smokey should be nationwide by this time next week. Idling laws (with enforcement) for buses, and everyone else, could be brought in today too. Even Alaska has a no idling law, with its little cities and its open space.
We should not let vested interests liassez-faire pollute the atmosphere when there are human beings needing to breathe that air. George you are completely correct when you say “In a new urbanism, centred around the human, we need modes of transport and production that maintain our health rather than harm it” but it’s just not transport, it is all activities.
I’m with you James- both Countdowns in the Hood are useless.
Vic Park New World has a better range, I mean where else sells Whittakers Cashew?
The Imperial redevelopment – very sexy.
It is a great development, but I wish the desingers had thought to bring in chairs and tables that compensated for the slope in the cafe… as it is, all the chairs and tables are on a lean… which makes it uncomfortable to have a FW and a delish pastry.
Thanks for the post Patrick. I really like your writing style and the accompanying images today. The change in Auckland is happening and some people just havent opened their eyes to it yet. Being informed by last centuries thinking is unfortunately a hobby enjoyed by a large proportion of the population.
Correct, its very rational. Put differently James, the ‘cost’ of moving his family closer to work outweighs the benefits living close to work.
What the council are doing through poor land use policies and the government through transport infrastructure is subsidising the costs hugely. Therefore, when residents of Auckland weigh up the location of where they live they only factor in these subsidised costs.
Great post again Patrick. Visually you are painting a picture that inner city living can be awesome! People need to see this alternative vision because the current one, as you say, is one of pollution, heat, traffic, noise. Ironically, all these issues they perceive with the ‘CBD’ are largely facilitated by automobiles…
Thank you for a beautiful post. It’s worth noting that most of what exists in these images has been altered and adjusted for modern work and living. What was built in 1880 or 1930 no longer fits with current use, and like an old dress with changed hemlines, can benefit from a little refreshment. I like that there’s been sufficient leeway to allow this to happen.
Let’s weave in the old and the new, add layers and cut delicately into the living fabric of the city.
Anti-urbanists confuse 2 separate arguments: the need for highrise, and the need for sprawl.
They synthesise it into one argument but shoot themselves in the foot doing so.
Read the following article:
http://smh.domain.com.au/real-estate-news/crowds-snap-up-inner-suburbs-20120215-1t5lt.html
It is clear that there is, and always has been, demand for established inner suburban housing. Most people would like it. The number who genuinely WANT to live on bush blocks is low.
It is only then, when you realise there can never be enough established houses that the argument forks into: more highrise; and more sprawl.
CBDs aren’t dying. Not here. The US death of CBDs was about racial politics and that was never acute in Aust or NZ to the US extent. Poor, racial minorities have ended up in the outer burbs and that leaves you with either ‘horizontal separation’ ie you take the south, I’ll take the north; or leapfrogging.
Melbourne had a little bit of concentrated inner urban poverty in the 60s and 70s, around the decline of low value manufacturing. I’m struggling to think of anywhere not yet gentrified now, and the middle ring is now what is under scrutiny for gentrification as higher value manufacturing dies off.
So no, it is not right that cities grow outwards. Growth is an economic thing; new opportunities and if these are white collar and benefit from agglomeration then they may be ‘inner’. If OTOH it is welfare and poor people, it might be on the outskirts. Is that what our right wing anti-urbanists aspire to? We know they don’t. We know the extra lengths of motorway to reach the holiday destinations are nothing to do with the poor and marginalised.
“That they are clearly fighting against the new zeitgeist that is, like the last one, both global and probably irresistible is cause for optimism” I think this is true, the change is happening and they can only delay it for a while not stop it because I think most people believe this is the way to go. Dosn’t stop it being bloody frustrating though!
One likely explanation for Rodney of Howicks view is that he is a builder or developer and only knows how to build oh-so-affordable $600K 5 bedroom homes in FlatBush. Your killing his livelyhood with all your compact city talk. How will he know what a quality apartment building was or how to build one.
Yes great post.
There seems to be a growing appreciation that urban areas are having a huge renaissance. Various people on here have linked to the New York Times article from a few months back discussing the death of the fringe suburb. It’s interesting though to look at what’s driving the change:
- Higher petrol prices and people being fed up with congestion make the proximity of being close to where you need to go (for work, friends & family or for amenities) perhaps more important than it was in previous decades.
- Changing demographics. Ethnically this is bringing in a wider variety of people, many of whom are very much used to living in apartments. Some want the McMansion, but many don’t (or can’t afford it). Age-wise, an ageing population and also a population that’s increasingly living in smaller households doesn’t need the quarter-acre paradise for the mum, dad and two-and-a-half kids. The stereotype is dying a long and slow death.
- Investment in public transport and in urban amenities (as shown off by Patrick’s superb photography) is making the city a nicer places to be.
It’s hard to see too many of these trends changing. Which makes it all the more puzzling why we apparently need to provide more urban sprawl.
Yes the short version of this post is simply that the government’s position is really cultural not rational. They are provincial minded. They don’t get what a city is, their heads are still in last century (like Rodney above). Their vision doesn’t include change much less transformation. And that there is a constituency for that view.
With the economy after moving the few succesful bits around for the benefit of their people (asset sales), the only other big idea is to try to persuade us that NZ is really Australia and if only we dug more of it up we could have a minerals export economy like they do over there. And as that clearly isn’t happening Joyce has to invent a boggey-man in the form of Greenies and others who all say ‘can’t’ to the minister of everything instead of facing the reality of the country’s actually geology and actual resources.
They really do have an enormous reality problem, they only see what they want to see, and it is a very unimaginative, dreary, and regressive vision that they hold for this really very blessed nation.
What it ain’t, is leadership.
Found this gem:
“Jeannie (Waitakere City)
10:31 AM Tuesday, 14 Feb 2012
I really fail to see how an inner city train loop is going to solve the never ending dilemma of Auckland’s traffic woes. From what I see, Auckland’s congestion is mainly people traveling to & from West to South, East to South & North to South. Pouring millions into building a inner city loop will help this how exactly? It is the cross country traveling that is the issue for Auckland Len, not the city. ”
This is a great example of the people that are opposed to this. Completely shocking lack of understanding of how even basic principles work
Yes because the Council hasn’t exactly explained the project’s benefits particularly well – at least not until recent times. Heck Len was still calling it a loop until a few months ago.
And you add in the ‘from what I see’ perspective. I’m guessing that Jeannie has not done a detailed traffic survey to get to this conclusion. She talks to her mates they tell her that’s how they drive and of course none of them ever catch the train so don’t understand the constraints that the CRL would resolve.
Rodney’s the same. From where he is the city is a distant semi mythical place he hasn’t been to in years. There is growth ‘out there’ so as far as he is concerned that is where the growth is happening. He can’t see it happening anywhere else.
To be fair, Jeannie doesn’t understand what the project entails, or the benefits it provides. Look at it without the benefit of this blog – does a 1.5k rail link going nowhere new, simply linking two points within a small section of the CBD sound, on the face of it, particularly crucial to easing congestion outside of the CBD?
I have said it before and I will say it again, the PR on this appears to be non-existent. Len needs to put a full page ad in the Herald showing the link, the new stations and why it will benefit the wider PT network (e.g. no new lines can be added until the link is built, western services to go direct to Britomart, doubling capacity etc etc) complete with renders of the new stations, and development in sites around the new stations.
What it needs is someone good with animation to demonstrate the difference in a sped up animation, to show just how much of a difference it would make across the lines
Great idea James. Show Auckland something ‘physical’ (well virtually physical) as a way to promote it.
Second the great idea. It wouldn’t be that hard an animation surely… some cute little blobs moving around the network diagram lines, then zoomed in to show trains stopped waiting at Britomart to demonstrate the bottleneck. A nice caption could illustrate the reasons for the wait time (offloading everyone, timing waits…) Animated trains attempt to speed up but have to queue up and wait at the Britomart entrance. (comic voiceover opportunity?)
Second animation with the CRL, and the blobs moving smoothly and quickly through Britomart and out into the suburbs. Caption explains why much lower wait times, how more capacity etc are now possible. Animated trains attempt to speed up and have no problem, caption details how many more trains are now going to suburbs.
Third animation shows the network with CRL, airport rail, North Shore rail etc, with lots more cute blobs running around, illustrating why greater capacity downtown makes all these new lines possible.
BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY… Len Brown goes on Close Up and Bill Ralston’s show, showing the animation and explaining how the CRL unlocks the potential of the network. IMHO that would bring many, many people, most all reasonable people, onside with the CRL project once they understand the value of it.
Any animators out there want to take up the challenge? (sorry I can’t help, I can’t draw a stick figure properly
) How about an open-source collaborative project?
Any budding animation students out there requiring a ‘project’ for their studies?
Contact the universities?
Have suggested it to an animation school, waiting to hear back.
Why AT hasn’t done this already is completely beyond me?
Sorry folks, I meant John Campbell, not Bill Ralston (hangs head)!
Nice idea for those that are interested in the technical details but that rules out just about everyone. They just don’t care about train frequencies and what that means as they are unlikely to ever catch the train. You need to listen to maestros of PR like SJ to learn how to sell something. Don’t focus on details- use snappy keywords that could mean anything but sound positive.
So we should be talking in sound bites about unlocking the rail network, proving massive extra capacity, reducing peak time motorway congestion. The later, to most people, is what they want to hear so when other people catch the train their motorway journey will be quicker. While NZTA occasionally do snappy fly-buys of new motorways you won’t catch them showing before and after computer modeling of traffic flows.
The change is coming! Even for Paul Henry… according to the
He’s the proud owner of a two-bedroom, two-bathroom historic house in Sydney’s Balmain, but for petrol-head Paul Henry, the new property comes at a cost.
“I don’t have a car space and I’m not buying a car. It’s a 30-minute walk to work and there’s lots to see on the way.”
Got my hyperlinks awfully confused sorry.
The person to ask is probably Chris McDowall, who has already created a more complex version of the same (including buses). It would probably be quite easy to simplify it to only trains.
One thing that might help is of they could decide on a post-tunnel network routing, then produce an authentic rapid transit map and timetable showing what it would be like.
Yes Nick, why doesn’t this happen? Does AT actually have a communications team? Any budget? I would love to get in there and be promoting the CRL. It’s such a great story but only a few part time bloggers are pushing it. I’ve tried with Ak print media but it’s too hard for them to bother. Come on AC and AT, a little work here and the excitement will be unstoppable….
There is a much easier way to sell the CRL against the holiday highway. Just keep repeating over and over again “The CRL will save the average Aucklander more time in one than the holiday highway will save them in their whole lifetime.”
Because the statement isn’t strictly correct any objection to it must be met with the rejoinder “Can you prove that?”
Since there are currently no studies of the relative time savings from the two projects for “the average Aucklander” the veiwers/listeners will always be left with the impression that your opponents are making things up. That was the tactic used by the government a decade ago to blame Auckland’s failure to get its fair share of land transport funding on other regions when the reality was the government was taking half of Auckland’s petrol taxes and putting it into th consolidated account. (Admittedly on that occassion the pollies trotted out dodgy stats knowing that most journalists hate checking numbers and will just repeat easy numbers and ignore hard numbers). For that reason you must never argue using numbers unless they are real simple like “CRL will save the average Aucklander ten times as much as th holiday highway ever will.”
Arguing that the benefits will happen “years” sooner from CRL than from the holiday highway is also a good button to push.
Great read Patrick, Im wondering whether you have a reference regarding the assertion that the university helped save the inner city area? I am quite interested to hear more about that time in the process.
Tides changing, Auckland may end up dragging central govt along in its wake.
Sorry Alastair, just observation. I have lived in Ak for most of my life and can remember how empty the city got in the late 80s and early 90s, it certainly seemed like there was a phase where the only foot traffic was students and certainly the only inhabitants were in hostels and the few remaining rentals. Arts students like me scoured old buildings for empty caretakers pads or habitable ex-commercials for living and studios. No convenience stores, we know that PT trips bottomed out in 1994, at about half the current level.
The comparison of both AK/WGTN/DUN retaining their city universities versus CHCH is pretty plain. What would Dunedin be like without its? Students are so important for rental market esp for sub optimal buildings. But also entertainment and hospo.
And check out Ed Glaeser’s data on uni towns and economic life in N America. Contrast Ann Arbor Michigan with Detroit Michigan. U of Mich moved from D to AA in 1873; guess which city is the poster child for decline and the other enjoying gentrification and rising land values in the same rustbelt state. And this in the context of Glaeser’s argument that winter temperatures are best indicators of urban growth. AA is landlocked and cold. Interesting NZ’s urban development in light of this theory from the days of Dunedin’s prominence to AK now…!
Hey and not just the Unis, also the language schools, their boom years should be fairly easy to document… let me know if you dig up any numbers.
Wiki says: “The University of Michigan shapes Ann Arbor’s economy significantly.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Arbor,_Michigan
Ann Arbour is much smaller than AK: Fair to say that the Universities shape Ak’s CBD economy significantly…. The Tamaki campus move would have been a disaster for the city and for the University. AUT would have done well out of it.
I think there is an interesting case to argue that if Detroit had kept the U of M it would not have declined as dramatically as it did. 1950 1.8million->2010 0.7 million!
I remember coming into the city to go to uni in 2000 as a fresh faced youngster from the Shore. I was actually quite excited by it. But with the benefit of hindsight I realise how quiet it actually was. It was basically one street with a mall at one end and the cinema at the other. Then it all started to change. Britomart opening was the catalyst I think. Since then we have had street upgrades, new quarters opened (Wynyard), quarters revamped (Fort Street, Britomart), new public buildings (Q Theatre), Aotea Square renovated, Art Gallery extension, shared spaces, Vector Arena. All in under 10 years. It’s an amazing turnaround. It will be really exciting to see what happens in the next 10 years. St James will be renovated for sure. Wynard Quarter will be expanded. Britomart finished. Fort Street will continue it’s rise from red light district. All up we should be really positive about it.
Yes James, it has just started. And the CRL is the key….along with improving the bus structure and especially Integrated Ticketing….. then sorting transit to and from the Shore. But the Britomart of this decade is the CRL.