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.

AUCKLAND (SUPER) CITY - DANGERS

DANGER NO 1:
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ELECTED AND EMPLOYED - WHO MAKES THE DECISIONS?

Two things reported today illustrate one of the big challenges to the new administration:
1.  The treatment of a small cafe owner in seeking a license to provide wine with his tapas.
2.  Councilors' expressed concerns at not being given the costs of additional WRC hosting.

It has been said that ' if Jimmy Hoffa (former head of the American Teamsters Union in the 1950 -60s) was reincarnated as a modern trade unionist he would probably represent civil servants'.  Public sector employees in many 'rich' countries of the world enjoy higher wages, better job practices and security than in the private sector.  Reform that threatens jobs is resisted.  
So the trumpeted claims of job cuts for efficiency will ring hollow as job roles are created under different headings or consultancy contracts.

How many have been told 'My Minister will say this - but I will tell you what will really happen?'  So when the new Auckland Council tries to excecise some authority that cuts across the 'expert' determinations already made by key staff - they are on a 'hiding to nothing'.  There will be 'sound and fury' - but when the dust settles, the beauracrats will have their way.  The politicians will be left to justify the actions.

Maybe that's not a bad thing - given the complexity of some of the issues, and the ability of many politicians to make decisions on other than parochial or limited positions. 

That's the challenge - to find a way of ballancing the qualified inputs with political wisdom.   But the kind of outcomes Auckland needs depends on them doing that - today's Herald reports don't auger well.

Finding something positive from the Christchurch earthquake.

It's dificult to find some ray of light rom the tragedy of Christchurch - but I believe there is one.  I was reading  Chudleigh's account of visiting Christchurch from the Chantham Islands around 1868.  He desribes a beautiful city of flowing fountains, parks and boulevardes.  
But like most cities in the western world, Christchurch's rapid growth through the 19 and 20th centuries was dictated by:  1.  A statutory, land-use based planning system whose planners' main task was to enforce compliance with highly prescriptive rules.
                 2.  A committment to maximising the capital return on any site - and doing nothing that might be seen to dimninish its profit potential.
                 3.  The supremacy of the car - traffic planners and roading engineers reigned supreme over people's needs.
Happily that is changing.  People are realising that the 'people qualities' of a city are the main catalyst to economic and social success.  The city is arguably man's greatest creation - but from the time of the industrial revolution, we screwed up.  Cities grew with little or no regard for the well being of their citizens - equating it with economic efficiency.  Succesful cities are now realising the essential value of good urban design, of parks and squares, boulevardes, galleries, public art, civic events - and heritage.
Chrischurch has them all - or it had until man's greed compromised a lot of them, and the earthquake finished it off.  But there's enough left to reclaim the qualities Chudleigh wrote of.  There's the iconic buildings, the parks, the opportunity for great spaces and connections. 
But to achieve it will need a strong, empowered directorate with the ability and authority to:
                  1.  Ensure the process is design lead - but have the ability to discern innovative, enduring design from the 'current fashion' and 'kneejerk' resposnes that will abound, and
                  2.  Use the traffic, civil and utility engineers as valuable input but not the dictaters of physical outcomes.
                  3.  Ensure the city is able to accommodate and benefit from technical innovations.
                  4. Navigate public engagement without becoming parlysed by the process.
Sounds simple!  But in our PC environment it is a real challenge - but here's hoping!  The 'Positive" is the potential for Christchurch to become the most desirable city in the world.