SHARED SPACE AND CYCLISTS - DANGER!

I am a real fan for 'shared space' and have every confidence it will go a long way to reclaiming the city for people.  It relies on the ability of vehicular and pedestrian traffic to co-exist. As I have said, we have been doing this by default - jaywalking - and gotten pretty good at it. 
But a parallel official enthusiasm for cycling means there is another party to the sharing - people on bikes.   I am not so confident on the compatibility.  They have little or no audible or sensory presence to a pedestrian, and the new ones travel fast!  Cyclists tend to assume the right to ignore traffic signals and rules - especially at intersections and crowded streets.  I suspect they are an accident waiting to happen.
We need to see and establish cycleways a a part of the 'integrated transport system' talked about.  Sydney and Melbourne are setting examples on this - recognising the incompatibility of cycles and walkers.

SHARED SPACE HAS A HISTORY

I am a strong supporter of shared space – the new fashion in Urban renewal.  What an improvement the initial ones in Fort and Elliott Streets have made to Auckland’s inner city!      While motorists still need to learn how to use them, pedestrians have been ‘sharing’ road space for years. We called it ‘jay walking’ and it was illegal.  So ‘shared space’ is accepting the inevitable – and doing it well.

SHAME ON YOU ROD ORAM AND SUNDAY STAR TIMES

The way our cities grow over the next ten years is too important to be the subject of cheap journalism.  The Rod Oram article on September 4 is counter-productive tabloid journalism.

Auckland, Wellington, and of course Christchurch have recently produced plans for their cities that aspire to quality outcomes.  Finally,Local Government is putting urban quality at the top of the agenda.   Worldwide, governments are accepting the simple equation:

Good environments = Dynamic communities= Dynamic economies
Few will believe everything proposed in the schemes will happen as published.

First – these are discussion documents – and commendably, seek to engage with community attitudes.  Happily, in the current climate, people realise that good urban environments are critical to successful cities.

Second – effected parties will lobby to protect their economic position. This has always happened – and in the current scene presents a governance challenge to accommodate them without compromising qualitative aspects.

Thirdly – successful plans must be dynamic – every action achieved changes the criteria against which future plans need to be considered. 

What the process does not need is  polarizing statements in the Oram article like “battle lines are drawn” (they aren’t) “the government is ignoring the bold plans” (what arrant nonsense), and “in stark contrast the government is pushing for….” (misleading to say the least).

No doubt Ministry for the Environment initiatives like The Urban Protocol and Tool Kit, or Urban Design Advisory Committees, and Urban Champions are not in Mr Oram’s references – urban growth is not like his financial commentaries - almost everyone is involved and most are interested.  The issues are the focus of continuous dialogue with government by organisations representing Architects, Landscape Architects, Urban Designers etc.

So I say “stick to your knitting Mr Oram – or if you want to write about urban aspirations, at least engage with process.  The issues are too important for tabloid journalism.