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.

CHRISTCHURCH SHOULD NOT BE A BLAME GAME

It is said that a Royal Commission is never appointed unless the outcome is known.  Whether that's true or not, to expect the Christchurch Earthquake Commission to apportion blame for building failures is both unfair to them and dangerous to the recovery.
1.  It will be virtually impossible to determine the cause of a failure.  It could be any one or a combination of:  design, regulations, consent checking, construction, supervision. 
New Zealand, along with Japan, California and other jurisdictions, has very effective earthquake regulations.  We also have a very active Earthquake Engineering Society that brings the best skills together.   I have confidence in them - and would be sory to see their initiatives and commitment submerged by overlayed regulatory systems.
2.  Trying to lay blame will inevitably result in litigation.  And given the problematic nature of any attempted decision, this will do little more than feed the lawyers.
3.  It will also delay the recovery process as particpants avoid any action that might incurr similar responses.  In our punitive system of joint and several liabilty, industry participants are becoming extremely 'gun shy' of anything that might expose them to claims.
The Commission could contribute valuable oversights resulting from 'new eyes' surveying a situation that many countries have faced.   The danger is that their deliberations will result in an increased prescriptive regulatory regime that Local Government does not have the skills to administer.  So once again (like the Leaky Homes crisis),  we will have bureaucratic delays that will frustrate the important recovery process.