Showing posts with label central planning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label central planning. Show all posts

Monday, February 14, 2011

Hey, city planners, there is no silver bullet

Encarta: Silver bullet – a magical solution to a problem
Malling Queen St
Interesting article in Monday’s NZ Herald by Brian Rudman.  Making Queen Street into a pedestrian friendly mall won’t fix the tired hick town look, he says.  I agree.  And, as he also says, we have just finished spending $43+ million giving it a makeover, of sorts.  What did that achieve?  Are visitor numbers up?  Have landlords spruced up their facades?  Are retailers reporting more sales?  It’s still a canyon, admittedly with some new pavers and trees. 
But really, the idea that we can resuscitate the Golden Mile and create a place for promenading or a 1.5 km boulevard for shopping - or perhaps even both – is a nonsense.  It’s out of touch.  That’s not how we do it nowadays.  We can promenade in parks or on the water’s edge.  And we can shop in malls or the town centres  and villages that are beginning to breathe again, where we can park our cars and get so much more bought in a single visit.
Anyway, the city is no longer just about shopping.  It’s about recreation and entertainment, culture and  people, meeting and eating, looking and being looked at, and maybe a little indulgent retail therapy here and there.
Shooting up Main Street
There is no silver bullet for fixing up Main Street, or for making a gee whiz central city around it (along it?).  It’s nice to have the hired guns ride in to tell us how they cleaned up the last town or two.  Let’s give them a respectful hearing. But they don’t live here, and we don’t live there.  We don’t need to swallow the Next Big Idea lock stock and barrel.
Queen Street is no longer the heart of Auckland, although it’s still an important artery.  It is no longer what defines us or the city, and hasn’t been for a long time now.  It’s had its day, although it still has a useful role to play.
Hot Spotting
What might really make a difference to Auckland are the distinctive bits, the real hot spots.  We have a burgeoning civic and cultural centre stretching from the Art Gallery, through the Library (yes) the Town Hall, to Aotea Square, the Civic Theatre, and the Edge.  We could work on tying that lot together a bit better and pumping new life into it.  Make it easier to traverse.  Some street art and signage perhaps.  More activity.  An artists’ display area.  An ethnic foods precinct.  An artisans’ corner.  Let the people in and go with their ideas so that the centre never sleeps.  After all, this is the heart of our multi-culture.
And Karangahape Rd; there’s a place of character with its own distinctive subculture.  Perhaps it would be more so if we had alternative to the slog up Queens St by connecting our cultural hearth at Aotea Square with our other half via Myers Park and St Kevin’s Arcade.
And Quay St, another place where people could spend a lot more time as we open up the waterfront.  Especially if we don’t ruin it by turning Queens Wharf into an Occasional Event Centre. We have to think a bit more about how to get people across from the Britomart Transport Terminal, though, and take a more expansive view of where the people’s waterfront might begin and end and what we might do to get more of them there more of the time.  
And then there’s the Viaduct Basin.  We seem to have built it to hide it (shame that).  Let’s exploit that now, and keep it that way – Auckland’s little downtown secret and big surprise, a seafarers’ (and party goers’) delight, tucked just around the corner.  A centre of global yachting, and a destination out on its own. 

And we might even end up with something decent in the Beaumont Quarter (if we can keep its character).  And we’ve got Ponsonby Rd, Kelly Tarltons, and Mission Bay.  So Auckland’s already got the hot spots, although presumably could do with more.  (I often think we need to create a place for our kids in the city; where could we do that, and how?  And I don’t just mean movie theatres and internet cafes.
Streets doing what streets are meant to do
All Queen St does is join some of these spots together.  And that’s okay, although maybe it could be done with more panache.
The message is – think in nodes and links.  Because as the hot spots get hotter, more people will wander up and down the old dame, and other streets, between them.  Slick landlords or retailers on the corridors between the hot spots will be doing what they can to capture the passers by – and that is what will jazz the streets up.  
Look at what happened to Willis St, Manners St and even the newly funky Chews Lane in Wellington when the notion of the Golden Mile was finally put to rest in the capital.  And Wellington has plenty of hot spots – the government centre, Lambton Harbour and Queens Wharf, Courtney Place, Cuba Mall – each a hub of attraction and activity, jointly leading to a nice job of sprucing up, if not transforming, the links between them.
Get the hot spots humming 

So if we want to make Auckland something distictive let’s put our planning and design– and public money, if we must – into the hot spots; build on our strengths, and let the links look after themselves.  We don’t have to do it all at once.  We don’t need a Master Plan -- or even a roaming gun for hire -- to tell us what to do.  A series of small projects, a nudge here and there, and a vision of the central city as a series of places rather than as a map might help.  Urban design might say something about our pasts, our presents, and our futures.  That means its good to improvise and build as we go.  Its not a magical solutoin, but it could be fun.
If it means reducing cars in key parts of the city, that’s fine, too.  Just do it subtly.  Longer pedestrian phases on intersections is an easy start.  More shuttle buses would help.  Reducing lanes, increasing parking charges.  There are plenty of ways without throwing our money at more bricks and mortar.
Auckland – a city of hot spots.  And hopefully, in due course, some quirky byways between them.
But don’t pretend that the big ideas, the big hits will deliver.  Marshall your ammunition – pick your targets carefully, and pick them off as time, money, and inspiration allow.  But forget the silver bullet.

Friday, November 5, 2010

Think Big – the Sequel?

Preparing Auckland's Spatial Plan
The New Zealand Herald recently profiled the man who will oversee Auckland’s spatial plan.  Roger Blakeley has had an impressive career.  His new job is the latest in a series of senior career shifts which equip him well to oversee preparation of a thirty year plan for the region. 
However, Reporter Bernard Orsman only picked up on the last twenty years or so of Dr Blakely’s career.  He omitted his presumably formative early years at the Ministry of Works and Development. It’s worth raising what the Ministry stood for then, and what it might teach us now.
New Zealand’s Legacy of Central Development Planning
The Ministry was New Zealand’s super-planning and construction arm of government.  Founded as the Public Works Department in 1886, it operated as the agency of national development until dismantled by the Labour government 110 years later.  During that time it conceived and developed the nation’s transport and electricity infrastructure, designed and built schools, hospitals, and other public buildings.  It operated through seven large regional offices, a legacy of New Zealand’s provincial beginnings.
It was a highly centralised but effective agency, appropriate for a youthful, under-populated country with scarce human resources dispersed across a difficult physical environment.  It set upon developing its emerging urban centres with their ports, airport, growing populations and industry, and opening up provinces through rail and road in a reasonably balanced manner.  It build dams and power houses in remote areas and reticulated electricity throughout the land.  It dominated the planning and construction of public infrastructure for most of the 20th century.
Think Big and National Development - a late experiment in central planning
Like me, Dr Blakely will probably recall that in the late 1970s and early 1980s when the Ministry was the logical arm of government to provide services to the Minister of National Development and “Think Big”.  This was the centrally conceived and designed programme intended to lift New Zealand out of the economic doldrums with a series of substantial capital projects to increase self-sufficiency in liquid fuels, exploit the Maui gas deposit, and lift foreign exchange earnings.
Like Auckland’s proposed spatial plan today, Think Big 20 years ago had a long-term time frame.  It was a programme of what, for the time and place, were massive publicly-sponsored industrial works.  They were born of a narrow and largely political consensus out of an ostensibly conservative government. This consensus was strong enough to over-ride early concerns of the Liquid Fuels Trust Board – the assembly of public and private sector experts appointed to oversee the core projects– regarding the economic efficiency of some of the projects.
Consequently, the Board developed a priority list reflecting instead “strategic” and other non-economic criteria to justify fast tracking the programme under the National Development Act. 
The result was the ill-fated Motunui Synfuels plant, and a host of supplementary projects.  These may have provided a Keynesian-style boost to the economy through construction impacts.  Unfortunately, their economics foundered on (among other things) what proved to be a seriously flawed assumption that oil prices would continue to escalate over the coming decade. 
There has been no real attempt to measure the impact of the Think Big programme, and views remain divided [1].  Commercially the results were poor, and the impact on both the government deficit and the foreign exchange account negative.  There may have been other costs, as well, through such things as inefficient use of the Maui gas resource and under-pricing of electricity generating capacity for expansion of the Bluff aluminium smelter.
So what are the lessons for a 30 Year Spatial Plan?
No doubt there are lessons from the MWD and Think Big that Dr Blakeley with his early experience in the Ministry of Works and Development can reflect on for Auckland’s planning. 
For example, ill conceived plans, centralised plans, and plans prepared in haste, may be more costly than no plans at all.  A decade is a very long time in forecasting project outcomes.  Uncertainty is not something to be assumed away – the consequences of getting it wrong should inform every big decision.  Flexibility and resilience needs to be built into projects.  Fall back positions need to be left open. 
Economic efficiency is over-ridden at a cost: the rationale for projects and plans that do not stack up in terms of economic benefits needs to be both transparent and robust.  Plans and projects should be firmly grounded in analysis and evidence, and not simply emerge from workshops, caucusing, consensus among colleagues, and group think.  
The National Infrastructure Plan and Auckland’s Spatial Plan – Think Big reborn?
The risks of getting the spatial plan wrong in Auckland are high, especially if it shapes infrastructure spending.  We can ill afford over-investment or investment in the wrong projects or wrong places.
The risks are likely to be even more critical in a spatial plan in which infrastructure is seen as playing a formative role.  This may well be the case.  Richard Forgan, executive director of the recently formed National Infrastructure Unit, suggested at a seminar conducted by the Institute of Public Administration (IPANZ) in Auckland recently that spatial plan may be where the National Infrastructure Plan is given expression. [2] 
Based on his diverse experience, and no doubt the experience of the team he has assembled, Dr Blakeley will recognise, though, that infrastructure exists only to serve the reasonably foreseeable needs of communities and their businesses.  Infrastructure cannot be imposed from the top down but should reflect a realistic understanding of development trends, prospects, and possibilities, and their land use consequences.  Poorly conceived, centralised plans can undermine society’s wealth.   Perhaps that is why the Ministry of Works and Development was seen in the 1980s as past its use by date.  Let’s not resurrect it in a different form in Auckland.


[2]          The National Infrastructure Unit is based in Treasury.  It is responsible for preparing a National Infrastructure Plan, with a board of appointed experts from the private and public sectors overseeing it.  Sound familiar?