tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post3180530506921640730..comments2024-01-14T06:16:50.475+13:00Comments on Cities Matter: What’s happening to central city services?Phil McDermotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06869744647213369964noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-30482376048389097672012-01-25T10:28:22.469+13:002012-01-25T10:28:22.469+13:00A couple quick points
- on older b/c/d buildings ...A couple quick points<br /><br />- on older b/c/d buildings - Council really need to understand the economics before finalising the plan - probably down to site by site. eg they will get almost no redevlopment around a CRL station in Albert St/Wellesley. due either to heritage constraints, and existing buildings such as ASB HO one.<br /><br />there and elsewhere in the CBD, I think the issue is more of "recycling" rather than refurbishment. When first CBD strategy was done, the market was already indicating back in 2003 the shift to modern large floor plate offices. Since then this has been proven correct eg Telecom/Vodafone/Air New Zealand and now ASB. This was due to modern open plan /flat management structures. these corporates along with more traditional law and accounting firms are the "high value" uses. They are now all down at the waterfront. <br /><br />So uptown, they will either be very cheap offices, or recycled to education or apartments. In my view that is the CBD's biggest risk - with 20%+ vacancies, with new apartment sites to the west that don't require expensive building refurb, will these remain very low value use or stay vacant. The risk to the CRL is that this high risk area is where 2 stations will be.<br /><br />So I think your point re the risk of "high value" destinations is very true, and it's hard to see a fix.... <br /><br />The other element is the justification for public spend - if you can't achieve the benefits, then you can't justify the expenditure.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-17459743411102194152012-01-24T16:24:32.672+13:002012-01-24T16:24:32.672+13:00Thanks for this Mark.
I had cause to look at Ha...Thanks for this Mark. <br /><br />I had cause to look at Hamilton office stock in response to council policy limiting office development in Te Rapa to protect the CBD (similar to retail planning policies there and elsewhere). <br />Again, the high vacancies were in older, lower quality and less well-appointed buildings. Unfortunately restricting land use elsewhere in a misguided attempt to preserve the CBD risks simply subsidising landlords who cannot or will not do the necessary refurbishing. <br /><br />Lifting the profile and traffic (pedestrian and vehicle) in the CBD might galvanise them, or at least see them sell, so the standard of investment improves eventually. Hence council investment might usefully be geared to promoting better private investment. <br /><br />But that is a long-term process given intrusion of low rent uses into ageing commercial facilities in the meantime. That's not altogether a bad thing if low rent uses breathe new life and colour into the CBD - that's how the market works. Look at the revitalisation of our more successful strip shopping centres despite their earlier mauling by malls.<br /><br />You identify a shift in values and activities within the CBD in response to public investment in places like the Wynyard Quarter. This looks like encompassing the entire Western Reclamation. But it’s got to be well-informed public investment, sensitive to the quality of area and activity and how the private sector might respond. We seem to be doing okay in Auckland on that score at present - but risk dissipating it if we spread the public investment too thinly or simply take a lead from overseas cities.<br /><br />Your other point is important. The CBD's (and Auckland's) so-called productivity premium in large part reflects distinctive forms of employment - in terms of sectors, vocations, and institutional categories (head offices, management functions, etc). One challenge we face is keeping the CBD a viable destination for high value activities and high value individuals. Your comments on the quality of inner city suburbs relate to this. I'm not sure that medium density housing (of indifferent quality), high density high rise offices, or even the CRL will help meet this critical challenge, though.Phil McDermotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06869744647213369964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-12489983709679392862012-01-21T18:01:40.748+13:002012-01-21T18:01:40.748+13:00good post as always.
there is another element to ...good post as always.<br /><br />there is another element to this - and that is salary levels. I suspect the fall in admin/support in your graph is related to this ie that CBD has higher "value" employees, and can afford the higher renatl costs. ie the call centre / clerical processing is still moving out of the CBD. <br /><br />This may also relate to proximity of "wealthy/desirable" suburbs to the CBD. I'm in Mt Eden, and we have a higher proportion working in the CBD (maybe 20%) - and a lot seem to be Lawyers/Accounatnts and Finance/Banking.<br /><br />the question is - is this higher salary level likely to expand at teh same rate as the sectors? My view is that these areas are we see productivity / higher remuneration and not really numbers ie the deals just get bigger...<br /><br />The other issue is the CBD definition. Over the last 10 years we've seen a big switch to waterfront west and Shortland St. ASB is a good example - 30yrs ago was Queen/Wellesley - then Albert and now Wynyard. Call centre off down Dominion Rd. <br /><br />I think it pays to look at the CBD via the office classes ie Premium / A / B / C - current vacancies:<br />Premium 12% (13,160m²) A 7.7% (35,413m²) B 20.5% (59,900m²), C 15.6% (68,175m²), D 17.2% (20,304m²)<br /><br />I suspect the job growth will only be in Premium/A and B. And in fact our CBD is now very small. The B/C/D buildings have been used as cheap foreign education factories :) - and converted to apartments. It's hard to see businesses with modern needs eg computer infrastructure ging into old C and D buildings with high fit out costs, rather than design/builf further out or fringe locations.<br /><br />I guess the concern is that Council doesn't seem to have a robust review process, and is built around justifying the decision. I'm not against CRL, but the Symonds St / Newton area will not provide any real growth or economic basis to justiofy and higher development contributions to fund CRL.Marknoreply@blogger.com