Coming Up – Why the Push with Manukau
Quite a bit of feedback and questions have been generated with the push for Manukau to become the Second CBD of Auckland. Most of the questions and feedback follow around a set of general themes.
At the moment I am gathering up all the feedback and questions and “codifying” them around the common themes. Sound familiar? Probably because that is what the Council Planners are doing with the Unitary Plan feedback currently, except on a more massive scale.
Once I have gotten everything into my own themes for Manukau then I will publish an extensive post in reply to the questions and feedback.
An example of such feedback and questions can be found in this comment left by goosoid:
I am not against this idea of a 2nd CBD but I just wonder what you see as currently holding back Manukau? Of course it could be designated a CBD under the Unitary Plan and maybe that is a good idea.
But practically speaking, what would be the difference between that situation and what you have now? So for example, no height limits but there is currently I believe an 18 storey height limit in Manukau and noone is building that high. So what else is holding Manukau back from becoming a major commercial/business centre like a CBD? What practical changes do you think are needed to get that going?
Why for example, did ASB not base their new HQ in Manukau and not in the relatively expensive Wynyard Quarter? I think the answer in agglomeration benefits of a big city but interested to hear your views.
My concern is that it would require either
(a) subsidising Manukau in some way to make it more attractive than the existing CBD, or
(b) somehow making the existing CBD less attractive by penalising businesses from establishing there. I cant see why Auckland would want to do that as a strong CBD is a good thing for the city and makes the city more productive and efficient.
If you think there are factors holding Manukau back that need to be addressed and which will allow it to grow organically (i.e. without artificial stimulus) then by all means let’s address those. If it involves trying to kill the existing CBD, that seems counter productive.
Keen to hear your views.”
I do advise people though that there is a key difference between my own advocating for Manukau becoming the Second CBD of Auckland and mayoral candidate John Palino’s idea on Manukau. My own idea primarily falls around the Geography of Sense of Identity and allowing the private sector to take a lead on developing Manukau. Palino’s idea from what I have seen would be more of a civic lead (so what we are seeing with Mayor Len Brown and the main CBD and Wynyard Quarter right now but diverted to Manukau instead).
At the same time in quickly answering the competition question. Manukau CBD would complement not compete against the main existing CBD. That means no special tax incentives or subsidies. The community and the private sector will do as they feel and what warrants their demand for Manukau (which is there naturally when “identity barriers are removed). We are already seeing such an organic “natural” concept for Manukau’s potential development in my “Manukau Like This” post which includes a You Tube video.
If Council needed to do anything for Manukau it would be this:
- Help promote a better image
- Foster a positive sense of identity for Manukau (and South Auckland)
- Remove regulatory barriers to kick-start development
- Properly fund infrastructure (physical and social)
I will go into this detail more in my extensive post.
Manukau is generating a lot of debate and extensive advocating is occurring to Auckland Council on the Second CBD concept.
The momentum needs to be kept going 😀