63: Look Up Wellington!
What if Wellington recognised it isn’t the only show in town?
For too long, Wellingtonians have been smug in the knowledge that they have some kind of monopoly on good city life in NZ.
Well those days are over. It isn’t the 1990s anymore. Everyday Auckland is making progress towards becoming a more attractive and enjoyable city to live. Aucklanders can see and feel that. People that come with fresh eyes can see that too. The occasional open-eyed and open-minded Wellingtonian travelling north might have quietly clocked that too.
So it would be good for the national conversation around cities and urban issues to get past these out-moded stereotypes. Likewise it would be good if Auckland recognised where it shares urban issues in common with Wellington, Christchurch, and other urban areas in New Zealand. Auckland trying to go it alone and provincial attitudes elsewhere aren’t helping anyone.
Stuart Houghton 2014
The Architectural Centre’s Auction for the Anti- Basin Flyover Fund takes place tonight at 7:30pm St Joseph’s Church, 42 Ellice St, Mt Victoria, Wellington.
The auction is happening because NZTA are still trying to force this pointless and expensively hideous structure on little Wellington despite losing the case for it at the Board of Inquriry. More millions of our tax dollars on QCs…
Here is the catalogue of donated works.
There is a great range and something for all tastes, I have donated a print of my 1988 portrait of Ralph Hotere [selenium toned silver gelatine print], because I know which side he would be on:
Here’s a short description of my experience of meeting Ralph for the first time on the visit that I made the portrait:
In winter 1988 I had the opportunity to visit Ralph Hotere at Careys Bay near Port Chalmers for a few days and make this portrait of him. It was an extremely rich experience, he had a way of offering things in a simultaneously casual and formal way; looking back I can see now how lucky I was, although at the time I was principally concerned about whether I was ever going to get a chance to take the portrait.
I got to hang out at his house; major works by his own hand and others, including McCahon, stacked deep against the walls, and down at the pub, which back then was a seriously quotidian operation, focussed on serving the fishermen from the boats that tied up across the road. Ralph cleaned up all-comers on the pool table. The pub seemed to never close. Both buildings were freezing.
We drove around in one of his lovingly maintained old Jaguars, up to the cemetery on he hill where he said there was a headstone McCahon had painted I should see, and, where he suddenly turned to me and asked, almost accusingly; ‘got your camera?’ He clearly had decided this was where he wanted to be photographed, he then arranged himself apparently casually but in fact quite deliberately. He gave me the shot.
He also took me to a studio he kept in the stables of a Victorian estate up on Observation Point, overlooking the port. He spoke of the great sculptural qualities of the straddle cranes working below. He was at that time fighting to save the headland from the port company’s land eating expansion plans.
Thinking of an appropriate image to donate to this auction I immediately thought of Ralph: he often found himself at odds with the plans of powerful public institutions. And not because of a resistance to change or progress, but because so often those plans resulted in brutally clumsy outcomes developed through poor processes. In particular those that discount long lasting negative effects on people and place. So it is with this proposal.
There are a number of consultations which end soon that if you haven’t already, you may want to put a few minutes aside this weekend to have your say on
Auckland Transport are consulting on the new network for West Auckland which will streamline the current spaghetti like group of bus routes into a more streamlined and legible network. The new proposed network is below.
The main issue with the proposal is the lack of interchanges at Lincoln Rd and Te Atatu like was initially planned. It turns out they had to be dropped off due to a lack of funding with AT saying:
AT is redesigning the bus network across all of Auckland. Within each area, there are opportunities to improve public transport. However, the reality is that all changes will take time to implement, especially where major new infrastructure needs to be built, or where the cost of operating services will increase substantially. Both will require more ratepayer (Auckland Council) and taxpayer (New Zealand Transport Agency) funding than is currently budgeted.
For West Auckland, AT has taken the view that it is better to make as many improvements as we can afford to make in the next 2 years, to take advantage of the benefits electric trains will bring, rather than wait until all of the desirable infrastructure is in place.
The current proposal which is out for consultation is shown on the left-hand diagram below. On the right-hand diagram is the network we want to implement as soon as we have the necessary funding and consents to build interchanges at Te Atatu and Lincoln Rd, in anticipation of the long-term proposal to build a Northwestern Busway. We hope this clearly illustrates the benefits of the more frequent and better connected network that will be possible once the required infrastructure is funded and built.
If you make a submission I would suggest you comment on the urgent need for these interchanges to be built (and in advance of the NW Busway) so a more legible and useful network can be put in place.
The NZTA are consulting on a number of potential options for super sizing the motorway from Upper Harbour to Greville Rd. The NZTA say consultation is only open till the end of November so get your submissions as some of the options are horrific looking – although I’m not sure if that is a ploy to get people to accept the lesser options. Option 3 is perhaps the worst creating a mini spaghetti junction on the North Shore.
The NZTA is also working out where a future busway extension will go. It seems that busway Concept 2 would only happen if motorway Concept 2 or 3 was chosen. The presence of the busway in the consultation plans seems to have had some thinking that the busway is once again going ahead after the government cut it from the funding package. However my understanding is the NZTA are just working out where they will put it and that it will remain unfunded.
In my submission I’ll be saying that regardless of what option is chosen the NZTA should build the busway first to see what impact that has and to give people a proper alternative.
We’ve talked before about the Downtown Framework which is a document that is meant to bridge the various higher level plans and strategies the council have dreamed up and looks at what projects are needed to enable those along with how they could actually be implemented. The Downtown area covers the map below which has been divided up into 8 areas of opportunity.
The framework would see a number of new public spaces created or redeveloped and the council are wanting feedback on how that may happen and what features the spaces should provide.
You are invited to have your say on what you want from public spaces in Auckland’s downtown.
Lower Queen Street, outside the Britomart building, is earmarked for a new civic space, which will be created as part of early work on the City Rail Link. New downtown bus interchanges will make it possible to remove traffic from most of this area.
Two public spaces will also be developed on the waterfront near the ferry building. They will be funded by the sale of Queen Elizabeth Square, which means they will not draw on ratepayer funding.
Although these public spaces are still some years away, this is your chance to shape planning and tell Auckland Council what you want to see in them and what services you want them to provide.
“Aucklanders want and deserve world-class design, with places designed for people,” says Auckland Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse.
“Quality space is essential for residents, businesses, employees, visitors, shoppers and students.”
Feedback closes December 12
Ports of Auckland did a press release back in September that didn’t really get picked up on:
Working with KiwiRail, Ports of Auckland has doubled the rail services between its Waitematā seaport and Wiri Intermodal Freight Hub.
The increased service starts this week and will bring the port to the doorstep of importers and exporters in South Auckland, potentially reducing the number of trucks coming into the seaport and opening up more space to handle growing volumes.
Ports of Auckland General Manager Commercial Relationships Craig Sain said, “This is just the beginning. With our developments in Palmerston North and Wiri, we’re on our way to make more effective and increased use of rail to improve our service offering.”
“Containers moved by rail was up by 64% in 2013/14, but it is still a small percentage of the total containers coming through the port. We’d like to see this number grow over the coming years,” he said.
In 2010, with the opening of the Wiri Intermodal Freight Hub, KiwiRail ran four services of 23 wagons a week in each direction. Over time, this number increased to eight services and starting today there will be sixteen services a week.
“There is ample capacity on the line to the Port to increase services further and we will continue to work with KiwiRail to get the most out of the line,” Mr Sain said.
KiwiRail General Manager Sales – Freight Alan Piper said, “Ports of Auckland’s drive to increasingly move freight by rail to its Wiri inland port has seen a rapid increase in growth of daily services this year. This is a great example of KiwiRail working closely with its customers and provide flexible growth capacity to enable more use of rail to transport goods around the country.”
Now sixteen services a week may still not sound significant, but each train can haul about 70 twenty foot equivalent containers. Each train is at least 35 trucks off the road. Take a look at this video – it’s been sped up 4x, since the train is so long:
With freight volumes increasing though, the need for a third track on the Eastern Line (in particular between Wiri and Southdown, with an estimated capital cost of between $50m – $70m) becomes more apparent as passenger services are increasing too. Kiwirail might argue that Auckland Transport should contribute to the cost, but I’ve heard that Kiwirail charge Auckland Transport a track access fee in excess of $18m annually .
As the owner and landlord of the Auckland rail network, it would be fit the current charging model for Kiwirail to invest more in the network, and recover the costs through an increased charge in exchange for higher passenger rail frequencies. This needs to happen before the opening of the CRL if Kiwirail wants to continue to grow its freight operations. Would it be too much to ask that the Goverrnment’s contribution to the CRL be in the form of a capital injection to Kiwirail, so that not only the CRL track could be built, but the third main as well?
On the other hand, $50m – $70m is at the bottom end of NZTA’s project expenditure, so perhaps it could be included as a line item in the freight focussed East-West connection project.
The current Metro Magazine has has an article by me on Auckland, its new urban nature, and surprise!: Why we need a change in transport infrastructure investment to unlock its true value.
Most here won’t be unfamiliar with the arguments but the discipline of writing for print and the general reader called for a rethink of the arguments and evidence. Also the photos aren’t bad either:
Coincidentally I came across this brilliantly accessible piece by NSW transport academic Michelle Zeibots on the relationship between different urban transport systems and their outcomes for city efficiency:
Most people will take whichever transport option is fastest. They don’t care about the mode. If public transport is quicker they’ll catch a train or a bus, freeing up road space. If driving is quicker, they’ll jump in their car, adding to road congestion. In this way, public transport speeds determine road speeds. The upshot is that increasing public transport speeds is one of the best options available to governments and communities wanting to reduce road traffic congestion.
Emphasis added. This supports my assertion that the biggest winners from the new uptake in ridership on Auckland’s Rapid Transit Network are truck and car users.
This relationship is one of the key mechanisms that make city systems tick. It is basic microeconomics, people shifting between two different options until there is no advantage in shifting and equilibrium is found. We can see this relationship in data sets that make comparisons between international cities. Cities with faster public transport speeds generally have faster road speeds.
Yet parts of the highway complex in NSW are now talking about ‘solving congestion’ by building a third road crossing instead: required because of the traffic to be generated by the massive $11billion and more WestConnex project, proving, if ever proof were needed, that all motorways lead to are more motorways. And missed opportunities to invest in higher speeds on all modes through the spatial efficiency of Rapid Transit systems.
This paradoxical phenomenon is understood under various names as this Wiki page shows [Hat Tip to Nick], but perhaps this is as helpful for the average citizen as the Duckworth Lewis system is to the average cricket fan. Which is why I so like the way Zeibots has simplified it in the Sydney Morning Herald article above.
Anyway go out and grab a copy of the new Metro with the Jafa flavoured cover to see my version:
55: Broadening the place-making dialogue
What if the place-making could take care of itself?
Place-making as a term has become not only a ubiquitous mots du jour amongst those responsible for planning, designing and managing our cities but also an increasingly sophisticated and highly organised, controlled and managed city activity. It is increasingly being enacted by a broad collective of paid professionals that may include planners, designers, artists and other creatives, event and project managers, publicists, risk advisors, traffic management, planners and various local government officials amongst many, many others.
Here in Auckland efforts have been led largely by the efforts of Council-controlled organisation Waterfront Auckland at the Wynyard Quarter and elsewhere across the waterfront, by Cooper and Co (private developers and long term landlords of the Britomart Precinct), as well as the Heart of the City business association through their Big Little City campaign and wider events portfolio. The physical infrastructure of place-making is being supported by significant resources and outreach to Aucklanders through both mainstream and social media. Those Aucklanders who work, live or regularly visit the city centre will have noticed the difference, and have become accustomed to an ever growing range of events and offerings that seek to activate the public spaces of the waterfront and city.
These efforts are without doubt commendable and have been instrumental in forging new connections between Aucklanders and their city centre and waterfront, highlighting the transformational change and new dynamic that is occurring in public life and urban renewal more generally. Aucklanders are learning to love their central city; to want to be there, even though they may have no reason to.
This approach to the development and management of the public realm has become so successful that place making and, more generally, the need for ‘activation’, are starting to become not only the leading catch cries but the major driving force in public space development in this city.
Where is all this leading us?
Already within the design professions it often seems we are heading towards a dumbed-down understanding and dialogue around the role of public space that appears to regard it as merely a blank canvas or empty stage that must be activated. The consensus view is that if a space isn’t activated, it cannot be successful. And, increasingly, if you don’t have a comprehensive place-making programme in place, how can you be sure that this activation will occur? Even people themselves start to be regarded as something to be managed, programmed and activated to ensure a successful public place.
We need to be comfortable with the idea that a healthy city is a diverse, dynamic, messy and unpredictable place. It should be capable of supporting public life that is organic and unscripted, spontaneous, inclusive and fundamentally democratic. The city must be a place for all; a place that allows for difference, tolerates messiness and imperfection and encompasses the widest range of possible uses and users.
Whatever happened to designing spaces that can simply become just great places to be? Places to just inhabit, to dwell and spend time not money; that provide respite from activity even. What about public spaces that are unprogrammed places of encounter, exploration, wander and wonderment? Surely we should be interested in providing public places that can support spontaneity, unscripted and unstructured play and activity as much as that of the organised kind?
Our understanding of what makes successful public places can’t be limited to cappuccino urbanism or the city as a recreational playground. The real place-making project for Auckland needs to go further than keeping people occupied of a sunny Sunday afternoon. It needs to be about transforming our public spaces of all kinds and right across this city into lived-in places that are loved and cared for by Aucklanders of all persuasions as they go about their everyday lives in this increasingly diverse big little city.
City life is fundamentally a shared collective existence. Provide public places that take care of this, and the place making takes care of itself.
This post is an abridged version of an essay I wrote in 2013 for X-Section Magazine, published by the Unitec School of Landscape Architecture (http://x-sectionmagazine.blogspot.co.nz/p/2013-placemaking.html). The 2014 edition of X-Section is forthcoming.
Stuart Houghton 2014
In several recent posts I’ve taken a look at people’s revealed preferences for roads (nobody’s willing to pay directly for them) and public transport, walking, and cycling (people are queuing up to get on the train). In those posts, I’ve argued that observing how people vote with their feet (or their wallets) can teach us a lot about demand for different travel modes.
Rail is now growing too fast to be un-fit for survival.
But as any economist knows, markets have two sides to them: demand and supply. As transport infrastructure has a lot of “public good” characteristics, it tends to be provided by government agencies such as Auckland Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency. (These agencies wouldn’t say no if a private company turned up and offered to build a new motorway at no cost to them… but that’s not going to happen any time soon due to the fact that most recent private toll roads have failed financially.)
As a result, we have to consider how transport agencies make decisions about what to supply to the market. I’ve written a few posts on the basics of cost-benefit analysis, which is one of the tools that they use to decide which projects to build.
But is cost-benefit analysis robust, or are the results systematically biased in a certain direction? Thinking about this question led me to re-read one of my favourite papers on infrastructure costings (don’t laugh!): Bent Flyvbjerg’s “Survival of the Un-fittest: Why the Worst Infrastructure Gets Built – and What We Can do About It” (fulltext pdf). Flyvbjerg takes an empirical look at hundreds of major infrastructure projects around the world, finding that cost overruns are all-pervasive:
- 9 out of 10 projects have cost overrun.
- Overrun is found across the 20 nations and 5 continents covered by the study.
- Overrun is constant for the 70-year period covered by the study, cost estimates have not improved over time.
In addition, benefits are systematically overestimated in ex-ante evaluations. The result is that a number of bad projects get built on the back of over-optimistic business cases. Flyvbjerg attributes this to “cognitive and political biases such as optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation”. (This is a polite way of saying “lying about the project to ensure that it gets built.”)
So how do New Zealand’s transport agencies stack up against Flyvbjerg’s analysis? Fortunately, we’ve got some empirical data to investigate this question with. Between 2009 and 2012, NZTA conducted and published a number of post-implementation reviews of (mainly) road projects that it funded in part or fully. Matt did an excellent job summarising the data in a post last year.
While the projects aren’t necessarily representative of all road projects, they do run the gamut from small pavement upgrades to multimillion state highway expansions. NZTA provided data comparing ex-ante and ex-post evaluations of costs and benefits for 69 projects in total. I subjected the data to some basic statistical analysis, finding that:
- The average project had a cost overrun of 34% – a difference that was found to be highly statistically significant, meaning that there is a less than 1% probability that the observed difference happened by chance.
- The average project had actual benefits that were 28% lower than expected – although as this difference was not statistically significant we can’t determine whether it simply reflects random chance.
In other words, NZTA and regional transport agencies seem to have had some issues accurately costing road projects. And the errors they are making are not random – they have systematically underestimated costs. This can be seen really clearly if we graph the data in histogram format.
Here’s the data on construction cost overruns, in percentage terms. The size of the bars represents the number of projects. Bars to the right of the black line indicate projects where costs were higher than expected. As you can see, costs were higher than expected for the vast majority of projects – sometimes to a quite significant degree (i.e. over 100% more expensive than planned).
And here’s a similar chart for benefit overruns/underruns. This shows that although estimates of benefits have in some cases been wrong by a quite large amount, most of the errors are clustered closer to the zero line. This shows that while NZTA or transport agencies often miss the mark on their estimates of benefits, the errors are sometimes positive and sometimes negative. In other words, optimism bias seems to be less pervasive when estimating benefits than when estimating costs.
This data has (or should have) important implications for the way we plan and fund transport projects. It suggests that it’s necessary to be much more conservative when estimating the costs and benefits of road projects. This is especially important in light of the fact that NZTA’s funding is being devoted in large part to major motorway projects – the kind of “megaprojects” that Flybjerg identifies as posing the greatest risks for good project evaluation.
Unfortunately, NZTA stopped publishing post-implementation reviews in 2012, so it’s impossible to say whether agencies have used this data to refine their cost estimates. I hope they have, but there are indications that optimism bias is still running rampant. Take, for example, NZTA’s long-term forecasts of road traffic and public transport patronage, which blithely disregard the market realities. Or, more concretely, there’s the strange case of the Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing traffic forecasts, which Matt picked up on a few years ago.
A 2010 business case for the AWHC, which would be New Zealand’s most expensive infrastructure project of all time, found that the project’s benefit-cost ratio was a mere 0.4 to 0.6. (Indicating that it costs about twice as much as it returns in benefits.) But, as it turns out, this figure was based on traffic modelling that overestimated actual traffic across the bridge in 2008 by almost 10% – in spite of the fact that the actual data was available at that point. That’s some serious optimism bias right there…
Auckland Harbour Bridge Traffic volumes (actual and forecast)
Finally, it’s also worth noting that Flyvbjerg finds that cost overruns (and benefit underruns) tend to be a more serious issue for rail projects than for road projects, especially in the United States. Unfortunately, we simply haven’t completed enough rail projects to robustly evaluate whether the same holds true in New Zealand. However, there are some signs that recent public transport infrastructure projects have outperformed their business cases – as seen in NZTA’s post-implementation review of the Northern Busway and booming ridership at Britomart.
In this recent post John explored some of the links between transport and economic growth.
In this post I wanted to expand on some interesting macroeconomic issues related to transport investment. These issues have been rolling around in my head for some time and John’s post prompted me to stay up late writing a blog post. But before I begin I want to openly acknowledge that 1) these issues are complex and 2) like always, I pretend to have all the answers.
Nevertheless I think the issues are worth raising and debating.
First, let’s carefully define some terms so we can create a shared sense of understanding, rather than having to slash and stumble our way through a jungle of jargon and prejudice.
When I say “economics” I am referring to the social science which concerns itself with understanding people’s values based on how they allocate their scarce means, such as time. Some people simply refer to economics as “the science of scarcity”. Others prefer the “dismal science”, either way I think you get it. If you don’t, then the cartoon below should help (source).
Now, what is the difference between micro and macro economics?
Wikipedia describes microeconomics thusly (source):
“Microeconomics … is a branch of economics that studies the behavior of individuals and small impacting organizations in making decisions on the allocation of limited resources (see scarcity). Typically, it applies to markets where goods or services are bought and sold. Microeconomics examines how these decisions and behaviors affect the supply and demand for goods and services, which determines prices, and how prices, in turn, determine the quantity supplied and quantity demanded of goods and services.“
Generally, we evaluate transport projects on a microeconomic basis.
That is, we analyse the impacts of transport investment by considering how it affects individuals, or in some instances firms. The only “trick” is that in many cases the impacts of transport investment are “non-monetary”, in the sense that we are analysing things that are not openly traded in a market in response to supply/demand. Travel-time is an example of a non-monetary good. When faced with non-monetary goods, transport economists must impute values from other data, e.g. wage rates and/or surveys. Where the microeconomic benefits of a transport investment exceeds its costs, then we typically consider it to be economically worthwhile (source).
In contrast, Wikipedia defines macroeconomics in the following terms (source):
Macroeconomics … is a branch of economics dealing with the performance, structure, behavior, and decision-making of an economy as a whole, rather than individual markets. This includes national, regional, and global economies. With microeconomics, macroeconomics is one of the two most general fields in economics. Macroeconomists study aggregated indicators such as GDP, unemployment rates, and price indexes to understand how the whole economy functions. Macroeconomists develop models that explain the relationship between such factors as national income, output, consumption, unemployment, inflation, savings, investment, international trade and international finance.
Personally, I’m an avid microeconomist. As regular commentator mwfic astutely noted in John’s post:
One of the weaknesses of GDP is that it misses out any measure of quality of the items we buy or the utility we get from those items. I could sell two cars and walk everywhere and even at a pinch ride on a bus and it might lift GDP ever so slightly. But GDP wouldn’t include how annoyed I would be walking in the rain and standing wondering if the bus will actually turn up and then having to stand up and get thrown around, or sit squashed against a stranger while the driver does his best to give me motion sickness. Yes cars cost me money and so does the petrol but I spend that money happily because I get back a benefit that outweighs the cost.
Notwithstanding my personal preference for analysing people rather than arbitrary aggregations of people (“economies”), I do consider that macroeconomics makes an important and useful contribution to public policy decisions. Indeed, “it’s the economy stupid”.
More specifically, macroeconomic indicators can tell us a lot of useful things about microeconomic decisions. High inflation, for example, will tend to cause interest rates to be higher than they would be otherwise. This in turn will tend to skew individual decisions to those investments that deliver short-term returns. As an aside, this is one reason why I believe that people who are “Green” should strongly support monetary policy settings that are likely to contribute to lower long-run inflation (and lower interest rates). Environmentalists and monetarists unite!
The links between macro and micro economics don’t end with interest rates and inflation; there are a number of other aggregate economic indicators, such as exchange rates, unemployment rates, and tax levels which impact on the decisions that individuals make on a day-to-day basis.
So microeconomics and macroeconomics are ultimately linked; they differ primarily in the level of aggregation. My theory of aggregation is illustrated below (source).
But how is all this relevant to transport investment?
The reason it matters is because there seems to be two (inter-related) macroeconomic channels that are plausibly affected by transport investment: 1) the size of the domestic economy and 2) the demand for labour.
First, in terms of the size domestic economy, John’s post shows that all other (microeconomic) factors being equal, New Zealand would be better off with greater uptake of non-car transport modes, because this would reduce the need to import fuel and vehicles. In turn our GDP per capita would likely be higher, simply because more of what we spent on the latter is likely to be spent locally.
Second, in terms of the demand for labour, different types of transport investment have different levels of labour input. Generally most studies I have read (such as this one) find that investment in local roads, walking/cycling, and public transport requires greater labour input than the same investment in highways. It’s fairly easy to understand why: The former require more workers, whereas the latter require more machinery. Hence, shifts in our transport investment towards local roads, walking/cycling, and public transport is likely to increase the demand for labour, reduce under-employment, and ultimately strengthen the government’s fiscal position.
The key caveat on all this is “all other factors being equal”, especially in this case the microeconomic value of transport investment. That is, we are not arbitrarily interested in a so-called “make work” scheme. What we are observing, however, is that different transport investments do have different impacts on the labour market and indeed the size of the domestic economy.
So where does this leave us? Well in my mind, we should continue to evaluate the merits of transport investment primarily within a microeconomic framework. However, where two different transport investments have the same microeconomic value, i.e. they have identical benefit-cost ratios, then why would we not consider their macroeconomic effects as a way of breaking the tie?
This would likely mean that investment in local roads, walking/cycling, and public transport was prioritised ahead of investment in highways, especially during times of underemployment. At times of low underemployment and/or high inflation, we could similarly favour transport investments that don’t employ many people and thereby don’t divert our human resources away from more productive endeavours. Or we could spend less on transport overall, and instead bank the money for times when interest rates are lower. This is less about “stimulus spending” and more about saving money when prices are high (e.g. cost of capital, wage inflation), and spending it when prices are low. In some ways this is simply matching investment levels to prices, in much the same way as anyone in the private sector would.
But these are all just half-baked ideas; I’d be keen to hear other people’s ideas. Assuming someone read past the first few sentences? Time is, after all, the scarcest resource of them all … ;).
From the Architectural Centre in Wellington:
The NZTA flyover and recent appeal
The NZTA have proposed building a flyover adjacent to New Zealand’s historic Basin Reserve. There are several complex aspects to the issue, but the basic chronology is:
- The Minister for the Environment established a Board of Inquiry in mid-2013 to decide if a flyover should be built by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) adjacent to the Basin Reserve cricket ground. The flyover is part of the government’s planned country-wide Roads of National Significance.
- The Board decided that the flyover should not be built. This was the result of a 72 day long hearing. The Final Decision is at: http://www.epa.govt.nz/Resource-management/Basin_Bridge/Final_Report_and_Decision/Pages/default.aspx(and there is a brief summary of issues attached). There were a number of non-profit community groups who opposed the flyover, and we worked together collaboratively to ensure alternative views were presented at the hearing.
- NZTA have appealed to the High Court asking for the decision to be overturned. The agency has also questioned a number of matters of law including issues to do with the evalution of urban design, heritage, and alternative options to the flyover.
Wellington is not a city of flyovers, and this proposal would place a flyover within a sensitive heritage site in our city, which includes an area of small nineteenth and early twentieth-century houses which would be dwarfed by the size of the 320m long concrete flyover, and become the dominant view for people living in Ellice St. The flyover would also block the view down the Kent/Cambridge Terrace boulevard, as well as obscuring views of the historic Basin Reserve cricket ground. We believe that a concrete structure of this large size, in this position, is not appropriate for this part of the city, which includes Government House, and the National War Memorial Park.
In addition to opposing the flyover, we believe that it is important that the alternative view to that of the NZTA is properly represented at the appeal hearing.
This means that we are off to the High Court.
It is no secret that the parties opposing the flyover have limited financial resources, and that the lack of an opposing voice in these proceedings will mean that not all of the relevant arguments will be put before the High Court. We consider it to be important for this to be a properly democratic process, which means that views from both sides of the argument need to be heard. It is for all of these reasons that the Architectural Centre will be a party to the appeal, and for these reasons we are asking for your support.
If you are supportive and would like to help there are a number of things that you can do.
- Spread the word. Circulate this email to anyone who you think would be keen to help.
- We’re holding a charity auction at 5.30-7.30pm Wed 3 December at Regional Wines and Spirits (15 Ellice St, by the Basin Reserve, Wellington)and are asking architects/artists/authors/designers/film-makers/poets etc. to donate drawings/paintings/designs/sculpture/poems/manuscripts/autographed books/film/anything – so if you can donate something that would be fabulous, and if you can encourage others to donate something that would be grand too. An auction poster is attached.
If you can donate something to be auctioned, please email us at firstname.lastname@example.org and/or post it to the Architectural Centre, P.O. Box 24-178, Manners St, Wellington, or deliver it to Cranko Architects, 81 Harbour View Rd (M-F 8am-6pm), and include your name, email etc. Additional information is at: http://architecture.org.nz/2014/11/01/architects-draw-charity-auction/
- Join the Architectural Centre. Information is at: http://architecture.org.nz/memberships/. More information about us is at: http://architecture.org.nz/
- Donate any amount you can. Our bank account details for internet banking are included on the membership form at: http://architecture.org.nz/memberships/
- Come to the charity auction… it would be lovely to see you there.
We really appreciate that there are many, many worthy causes that are likely to be taking up your time, energy and money, so we completely understand if you are too stretched to support this one with your time and/or money too. But if this is the case, your moral support and circulating this email to others, will be hugely appreciated by us.
nga mihi nui
Christine McCarthy, Victoria Willocks and Duncan Harding
on behalf of the Architectural Centre
The Architectural Centre is the most venerable advocacy group for better urban form in New Zealand. Formed in Wellington in 1946 by idealistic young architects and planners [including my parents] with aims of improving our built environment. The Manifesto includes clauses such as “Architecture must facilitate better living” and “Good architecture is elegant environmentalism.” A very good history of the Centre, Vertical Living, has just been published by AUP. Here is the full manifesto:
53: Concentrating on Corridors
What if we got serious about intensifying corridors like Melbourne does?
One of the things we hear all the time in Auckland is ‘Unlike – insert City X – we can’t do that here because – insert excuse Y’. Now, sometimes these differences are real and we need to work harder to translate good ideas into a New Zealand context. But more often than not we exaggerate the differences between city life in this small corner of the world and that elsewhere. Fundamentally we have much in common with cities elsewhere, especially the New World cities of Australia and North America, even when they are much bigger than ours.
So what if we got serious about intensifying corridors like Melbourne does? We tried this once before; the former Auckland Regional Council’s growth strategy put a lot of emphasis on intensifying centres and corridors. But not a lot of development happened. We often hear that the problem is our original grain of subdivision and street patterns that doesn’t lend itself well to this type of development. Is that the case, or do we just need to go about it differently or work a little harder to change that?
To really go to town on corridors, we would need to accept greater change in character of the say 7.5% of land area that fronts these arterial corridors, to offset less intensive change elsewhere across most suburban streets. This seems to be the basic premise of recent strategic planning in Melbourne. We can debate how successfully that strategy is being realised over there, but it is hard to argue against the fact that Melbourne already has far more examples of good mid-rise mixed use development on its major roads than Auckland. Why is that?
Here in Auckland, have we forgone such an opportunity with the Proposed Unitary Plan? Imagine if the Council had put more effort into zoning for these outcomes along corridors like Dominion, Mt Eden and Remuera Roads on the isthmus, the former highways of Great North and Great South Roads or the likes of Onewa Road or Lake Road over on the Shore. Such an approach could have adopted a strategy of greater protection of historic commercial buildings balanced with more aggressive up-zoning across the balance of sites including much deeper back from the main street to create viable sites for more intensive mid-rise development.
In acknowledging this as a great planning and urban design outcome, we would also need to acknowledge that it is pretty tough for developers to assemble sites and make it work. Council would need to look to use as many carrots as it can muster across its regulatory, revenue-gathering and investment toolboxes to provide far greater incentives for this to happen.
An Auckland where more people could afford to live amongst the great amenities and character of the long-established suburbs we already have? Wouldn’t that be a better Auckland?
Stuart Houghton 2014