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!