The unintended consequences of new regulations

On March 1 the Licensed Building Practitioner regime comes into effect.  This began as a response to the Leaky Homes issue, and was generally supported by architects as recognising professional competence and responsibilities.

The danger is that the complexity of the system will create a costly process that will frustrate and add unnecessary costs to building procurement.  

The NZ building industry is not alone in this dilemma.  The proliferation of rules that have good intentions but impose huge cost burdens collectively is becoming a major concern everywhere.  Like most countries, NZ needs a smarter approach to regulations. First, all important rules should be subject to cost-benefit analyses by an independent watchdog.

Second, all big regulations (like the LBP regime) should come with sunset clauses so they expire say in 10 years unless Government reviews and renews them. 

But most important of all - regulations need to be simpler.  All-purpose regulations submerge the important issues in a sea of verbiage.  Far better to lay down broad goals and prescribe only what is necessary to achieve them.  And the danger of handing too much power to unelected bureaucrats must be addressed by making them more accountable. 

Measuring Local Authority performance

The  obsession with rates as the measure of Local Government performance, however sensational, focusses on the wrong issue.  No one is happy with rises – that’s a given.  But the Shand report rightly points out how Local Authorities provide services people expect, have acceptable levels of debt, and in their widening functions do not significantly contribute to rates rises. But Shand also ignores the measure that people understand  - the perceived efficiencies where their functions interface with the public.

I doubt you can find a Local politician or senior officer not concerned at rising costs. And we all expect them to continue deliver an increasing range of services and environmental outcomes.

The real challenge is at the mid level of Local Government administration. This is where job role protection, team expansion, process complication and process time extensions provide job insurance. Anyone dealing with Planning or Building consents will have seen it.

Therein lies the real challenge! Talk to any of them and they will persuade you of the importance of their function - but the sum of the parts exceeds the outputs and creates the sad reality of non-performing Councils.

Is there a politician who will take up this challenge?

High density housing in Auckland and misleading journalism.

I,m all for investigative journalism- interrogating official positions and the like. But the privilege of newspaper space brings with it a responsibility to not mislead.   The Jan 15 HERALD ON SUNDAY article Slums to replace decent housing was an abuse of that privilege. 

The subject is worth debating – but not sensationalizing!  The Damien Grant article was journalism at its worst – presenting propositions as if they were indisputable facts.

To imply that the housing in The Strand, Parnell is an ‘upmarket version of what is proposed’ is at best disingenuous.

Claims like “high-storey housing is inhabited by sex workers, and urban poor” is speculative – and no doubt news to those who live in the upmarket high rise apartments in Auckland. What evidence is there that “Most people do not want to live in high-density housing”?  Do they all want to live on life style blocks?  Has such a statement been peer reviewed for accuracy?

The economic analysis, such as it is, of Greenfield costs and relativities is deficient, cursory, inaccurate and mis- leading.

This is a topic worth debating – referencing Auckland conditions with unbiased accurate data. This article reads like an argument supporting one point of view – Auckland deserves better.

AUCKLAND’S SPATIAL PLAN DESERVES BETTER

In reporting on Auckland’s “Spatial Plan” the media seems to strive for controversy.  And in so doing, it does a disservice to the plan’s potential.  Polarized views define the parameters of an issue, but not its substance.  That may sell news, but it doesn’t help the outcome.

Typical is the debate over the cost of housing and the shape of urban growth.

In places, the plan is misleading – like setting “the compact city” as a goal.   This is disingenuous and to many, confrontational.   It flies in the face of reality.  “Compact” is a relative term – what suits one may be an anathema to another.  More accurate is the term used in the plan “avoiding growth at the expense of the attributes that make Auckland appealing”.  This sets incontestable qualitative goals worth pursuing. 

But rather than seeking real responses, the media debate is defined by articles like:

1. The Productivity Commission, as reported, perpetuates the myopic approach illustrated by the group that criticized the Puhoi and Victoria Park tunnels as too expensive options - but fails to take into account the wider less quantifiable issues.   Who agrees with them now on the tunnels?
2. The pronouncements of politicians like Mike Lee in the Herald 17 December use extremes to achieve their goal of getting media attention. 
3. The self serving land development/house building industry presents new subdivisions as the only solution.  There are many other elements to the problem.
4. The architects don’t help by promoting ‘design lead’ solutions as the panacea to all problems.  Important yes, but there are other issues.

They are all right – and wrong – to an extent.    There is no single silver bullet.  What should be debated is the balance - but not in the absolute terms the plan sets out.  City growth is a dynamic, ever changing pattern.  Council needs to establish an interactive process that encourages innovative solutions responsive to Auckland’s changing needs.   That would be good government – and possibly achieve the Mayor’s goal of ‘the most livable city”.  But if the media choose controversy over substance, is there any hope?

SHAME ON YOU ANGLICAN CHURCH AND CHRISTCHURCH COUNCIL

For agreeing to demolish the Anglican Cathedral Christchurch City Council and the Anglican Church should hang their heads in shame.  Despite the devastation wrought by the earthquakes, there were a number of buildings critical to what Christchurch is – the Anglican Cathedral was one of them.  Cities throughout history have shown how these valued parts of our past, destroyed by tragedy,  must, and can be re-built – even if it takes years to achieve.    Rather than rush in and demolish, or replace in a compromised way, they fenced off the treasures until they were able to rebuild them – as they were.

It can be done – and it is disingenuous to label it as Disney Land.  It has much more integrity, reflecting deeply held feelings for built heritage and human values.

I fear that the Church and Council have been hijacked by bureaucratic box tickers given authority they exercise within narrow definitions.  History, culture, heritage – don’t seem to rate compared with narrow code compliance, OSH and economics. 

The Church, the Council and committed individuals must stand up for the historic values of Christchurch – or stand condemned by the future.

AN UNUSAL FASCINATION WITH TOILETS

In addition to natural features and public spaces, most towns and cities are identified by their iconic buildings.  This is usually a cathedral, concert hall, art gallery or museum.    Some have their seat of government and some like Dubai rely on the unusual size or design of major buildings.            

I suspect we are the only nation that identifies towns with their public toilets.  The most recent is the Hobsonville lot – then we have the Hundertwasser ones in Kawakawa and those that have become the focus of the Matakana town centre. 

Town dunnies continue to receive awards from the Institute of Architects – no doubt warranted for individual excellence.   But surely there are more significant architecturally significant buildings, monuments or icons in each place!   What does this tell people about a town and its leadership?

SUPPORT A CAUSE – RENT A JOURNO.

I usually defend Brian Rudman, not because I agree with him (I seldom do), but because he is true to his ‘leftist’ bias in reporting on issues he considers important.  But his article “Queens Head horror too awful to destroy” illustrates the danger of his leanings – that he becomes the ‘hand maiden’ (his term) of any protest cause, regardless of its merits.

“Facadism” is worth debating – but we are entitled to expect some investigative journalism if it is to feature in our major daily.  From being a “cause” (not without validity), heritage issues are now hopefully receiving more balanced treatment.  Age is not the only value to be considered – not everything from the past is that much better than what we do today. 

The Queens Head was, in 1986, a façade with a dilapidated timber building behind that had been constantly, and badly, renovated.  Perhaps the only thing of historic value was the 1950’s Formica sheet lining to bathrooms – but even that was delaminating through neglect.  And while criticizing this and the Jean Batten Building, Rudman ignores such acclaimed buildings a Lloyds Insurance in London which does exactly the same with the old façade.

Facadism has its place in an urban environment where the spaces around buildings are as important as the interiors.  And the notion of “palimpsest” with parts or all of existing buildings is an important way of ensuring the dynamism of urban growth is not frozen by blind ideology triumphing over reason.

AUCKLAND, RWC AND BIG EVENTS

The RWC illustrated the potential of a city in the current age.                                                                                                                  

Firstly it demonstrated the appeal of ‘people focused spaces like The Wynyard Quarter, Party Central, Fort St shared space and Queen St.  The learned lawyer who proposed tickets to limit attendance (less than 1% were disadvantaged!!), was an unfortunate aberration which I hope will be ignored.                                                                         

Second, it showed how important ‘big’ events are.   Having lots on is good, but a city needs a calendar of international attractions – like Arts Festivals, Biennales, International sports events etc.  That’s a challenge for the politicians.                                                             

Third, it shows how people behave appropriately in these special event times.  Fan zones, Fan Trails, Towns adopting teams, flags on cars and buildings – all event specific and contributing to its specialness.                                                                                             

 And finally, it provided a reason and time frame to get things done – like the shared space, Wynyard Quarter, Queens Wharf and many others.                                                              

So take note politicians!!!  Build on this lesson of success – and do it again. 

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.  

CHRISTCHURCH PLAN - FIRST IMPRESSIONS - POSITIVE

The Christchurch plan is a big document. I have only scanned it and accept  it is the first cut - and will be subject to change.   But I believe the authors are to be congratulated for producing such a persuasive document, with so much input, in such a short time.  I await the next stage with interest.
The points that particularly impressed me included:
1.  The way the process engaged with the community. The circumstances clearly contributed to the level of interest, but it feels like there were some valuable inputs that have influenced the plan.
2.  The height limit in the central area - provided it is based on urban quality, not concern for safety (because that would be accepting kneejerk responses as valid).   This will come under a lot of pressure - but I believe it would be worth using compensating methods if the imposition creates a demonstrable loss.  Think of the great cities of the world - Paris, Berlin, most of old London - the buildings are generally no more than 6 or 7 levels.  It provides a 'human urban scale'. High rise can be confined to specific areas (like the Le Defence area of Paris).   
3.  The sensible commitment to light rail to create a link to Ilam - and the uban consequences.  Christchurch lost a lot when the planners shifted the University - this is a very sensible way of re establishing the link.
There's lots more - but for now - all power to Christchurch!

IS LOCAL GOVERNMENT OUT OF CONTROL?

The increased rumblings on compliance costs, delays and process frustrations hilight the impact local Government bureaucracy is having on NZ.   The stories are hair raising and according to some, are making a lot of small scale building unachievable.
Council reactions to the lunacy created by NZ's insistence on retaining Joint and Several Liability, which has left them carrying the costs in an increasing litigious society, has multiplied the compliance documents they require tenfold!  To avoid possible legal suits they have submerged the process in a sea of demands and imposed a process that is often breathtakingly arrogant.  Has it improved the situation?  Unlikely! 
Central Government seems averse to providing effective leadership - and is tip toeing around the issue, throwing out crumbs of reform that do not address the substantive issues.
But architects don't help!  On the one hand they claim the right to be the arbiters of design and construction standards, On the other they seldom agree within themselves on design issues.  And they often become advocates for vested interests which compromise the bigger picture.
What's the answer?  I suspect a reduction in the 'policemen' role of Local Government, the acceptance of other's skills, and an equitable allocation of responsibility will help.  A little humility by the vocal members of the architectural profession will also help.

PLEASE TAKE CARE DR SMITH - BIO- DIVERSITY'S TOO IMPORTANT TO PLAY POLITICS

Few will disagree with the goal of protecting New Zealand's unique bio-diversity.  And the debate will always be articulated by extreme positions.   The reality for most Kiwis will lie somewhere in the middle. 
Bio-diversity is too important to be dictated by extreme views, or subjected to political ideology.
So the challenge for Dr Smith and the government, is to achieve a strategy that can accommodate most positions within acceptable goals.  It needs real national leadership - not profile posturing!
Here is an opportunity for the government to implement policy that recognises locality differences and respects local knowledge and history.  It should accommodate site specific demands and imperatives.    It is an opportunity to show a new kind of governance - one that can realistically engage with informed stakeholders.
One size will not fit all - but the goals will be the constant.   The differences between farmers and conservationists can be bridged by a flexible and responsive government.  Such an approach can illustrate a process desperately needed in the RMA, Building Act to name but two.

AUCKLAND'S NEW PLAN - THE NEED FOR BALANCE

There's no doubt - the argument for a better urban environment, not totally dominated by traffic planning  is winning!  What's happening in Shortland/Fort Sts, Darby St and Aotea Square is great.  But then so too is the new Northern Motorway to Puhoi.
Reading the lastest Discussion Document on a City Centre Masterplan, you could be forgiven for thinking people in cars have no place in it!  But to treat the private car as a 'pariah' is to fly in the face of history and Auckland's culture.
I suggest city spaces (roads etc) need to be graded into:

• Spaces like Aotea Square - pedestrians only except for service and civic needs.
• Shared space - like Darby St etc - a managed equality.
• Pedestrian predominant road - like Queen St.
• Vehicle predominant road - like Symonds St.
• A motorway - vehicles only except for emergencies and service.

Then urban design, landscape, architectural and traffic engineering skills can be applied in the right balance.
The goal of better urban space is indisputably right - what's needed is the balance that comes from wisdom rather than wholesale embracing popular trends.

Christchurch re- building - the dangers in the system

Current Building Consent requirements will almost certainly be a challenge in rebuilding Christchurch.   While earthquake damage may not be a durability failure, the compromising of structural, fire safety or plumbing/draiange issues will generate the requirement for a Building Consent. In the current bureauracratic climate, the demands for detailed information, Producer Statements etc combined with the shortage of skilled staff in Territorial Authorities will inevitably lead to costly delays. 
Beware the potential parasites who will feed off this - promoting their (add on) services by raising the fears of non-compliant, leaky buildings.   To avoid this of course, will require their services - and, with 'leaky homes' hysteria still prevalent, Councils could embrace them as an additional line of checking security.   To hell with the cost to the poor building owner!
The answer is to use the skills that exist and will be required anyway.  Make sure the architects and engineers are properly registered, and require them to confirm the design is Code Compliant.  Make sure competent builders do the work and it is comprehensively supervised.
The challenge to Councils should be seen as an opportunityto make the best of what we have - not create cost blow-outs and barriers.

AUCKLAND UNLEASHED - let's get it right!

The ‘Big Picture’ is great!  I will be submitting comments - these relate to the first part:

1.     The report AUCKLAND UNLEASHED is about 30-40% bigger than it need be to communicate the concept.  It would benefit from a pragmatic editing.        Some would say that the verbosity is counter- productive.  I suggest the dangers include:  

(i)   The format is typical of reports that are far too big for their purpose - the report and consultation seem more important than the outcome.    

(ii)  The aspirations are so extensive and detailed, many of them are unlikely to happen.             

(iii) The report format signals a continuation of officer attitudes that delay, complicate and frustrate progress on proposals.   

(iv) The report has a Social Agenda that reads like a Labout Party election manifesto - and which focusses on lower socio-economic groups.   Others are just as important, and necessary, in achieving City goals.   

2.     The elements that make Auckland unique and the need to nurture them is not given sufficient emphasis as a driver of development.  This transcends economic overlays.

3.     Cultural engagement, awareness and City commitment is a critical component of successful cities.  Auckland has it in abundance – it should be acknowledged and prioritised.

4.     A real ‘Big Picture’ need is a City administration that shares the goals and commitments of the Mayor and Council.                                                                                                                                                            .                    

What's our deputy-Mayor playing at?

Is deputy-Mayor Hulse trying to white-ant the new Super City?  Or is she just a local politician chasing media exposure?
First she hit out at the use of consultants, then she criticized the governance structure.  
No-one believes the new order is 100% perfect - Mayor Brown rightly describes it as 'a work in progress.'
Deputy-Mayor Hulse should not delude herself - no-one believes we should have retained the old system of warring Councils, function duplication and rampant bureaucracy - other than self serving Councilors and employees in 'the trough'.    Most of us had to endure the frustrating processes and pay the growing costs.
The new structure could work - if we get the right balance of responsibilities, efficiencies and outcomes.  But to do so so requires elected leaders committed to making it work - not grabbing headlines by knocking it!
Sure there will be things to criticize - but there's always 2 sides to the argument - and bigger agendas.  So please Council, rise above the old petty squabbling and questionable reporting in media with questionable objectives.  Aucklanders want, and need, enlightened governance - and exciting outcomes.

AUCKLAND UNLEASHED Vs DEMOCRACY: THE CHALLENGE!

AUCKLAND UNLEASHED, despite being at least 30% longer than it need be, is an excellent discussion document that anticipates a "PLAN" for Auckland (they call it the Spatial Plan).
But the real issue is whether this 'PLAN' becomes an aspirational concept or a bureaucratic straight jacket.  No 'PLAN' can anticipate all outcomes. No 'PLAN" can satisfy all democratic inputs.   
The successful cities we all love have resulted from a single agency or dictator - democracy seldom had much say!    This enabled outcomes to be continually assessed, and if so decreed, changed (like the origin of the Spanish Steps in Rome).   For the true manifestation of democracy - look at our suburbs. 
The CHALLENGE to the politicians, is to satisfy democratic demands while still achieving the kind of outcomes AUCKLAND UNLEASHED aspires to.  The danger of adopting a 'PLAN' is to empower legions of objectors, vested interests and 'box ticking' bureaucrats - and lose any chance of achieving it.  The danger of asserting authority is to stand accused of negating the democratic process.
Therein lies the CHALLENGE!

Planing for people and vehicles - Auckland's Challenge

Good things are happening in Auckland!  Finally, the concept of 'SHARED SPACE' is being given a chnace.  This tecnique of inner city spatial treatment has proven itself in other countries and is now happening in Darby St, part of Lorne  St, Fort St, Fort Lane, Jean Batten Place and Shortland St.
In removing signage, carriageway/pedestrian separation and kerbing it must be an anathema to Traffic Planners.  But then the dominance of planning for traffic has dominated (and compromised) the planning of our cities for years!   And it has not produced the kind of city we all want.
Traffic Planners are not my most admired profession - but then we must be pragmatic in asessing traffic and pedestrian needs.  
People move in 3 broad categories - pedestrian, private vehicle and public transport.  Our movement spaces will then range from:

• a multi lane freeway where vehicle requirements are paramount and pedestrians access only in emergencies or to service it, to-
• an inner city square where pedestrian requiremens are paramount and vehicles access only in emergencies or to service it.

The challenge is to ballance the needs and position each space between these extremes. 'Shared Space' offers a new option.
As people see how it works, I believe there will be an increasing demand to develop options that prioperly respond to the needs ballance.  So Urban Designers and Traffic Planners have a lot of challenges in front of them.