QE-II Square and What It Means for the Metropolitan Centres

Written by Ben Ross - Talking Auckland

Put it this way, if QE-II Square redevelopment is “muddled,” it has consequences on redeveloping the Metropolitan Centres

 

Place making planning is important to get right. This is my own place making alternative ideas for the Manukau Super Metropolitan Centre
Place making planning is important to get right. This is my own place making alternative ideas for the Manukau Super Metropolitan Centre

 

I have had this particular post on ice since the Auckland Development Committee met last week over the future of Queen Elizabeth Square – opposite Britomart.

Since then an article from Bernard Orsman and an opinion piece from Brian Rudman (both of the NZ Herald) have had their two cents worth on the issue. Transport Blog has also given their take in their More detail on Queen Elizabeth Square plans which gives an extensive outline of the situation.

You can see the two Herald pieces here:

  1. Private interests jostling for slice of city

  2. Brian Rudman: Developers’ dreams our nightmare

More importantly these were the resolutions from the Auckland Development Committee in regards to Queen Elizabeth Square and the potential of it being sold to Prescient Properties:

 

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) approve in principle the disposal of land on which Queen Elizabeth Square stands as part of the wider redevelopment of the Downtown Shopping Centre block subject to the outcome of associated statutory public processes (road stopping and rezoning of the land).

b) agree to the sale only if the proceeds from the potential disposal of Queen Elizabeth Square are reinvested in new or enhanced public civic space/s that :

i. is of at least the same quantum and higher quality to the existing space
ii. is located either within or in reasonable proximity to the Downtown Shopping Centre block
iii. is capable of being delivered broadly at the same time as the permanent loss of the existing space.

c) direct staff to work with the Waitemata Local Board and Iwi on evaluating ‘offsite’ public civic space options with the findings to be considered by the Parks, Recreation and Sports Committee prior to being presented back to the Auckland Development Committee for approval in August.

d) agree to the sale of Queen Elizabeth Square being considered as part of the preparation of a Development Agreement between Auckland Transport, Auckland Council Property Limited and Precinct Properties New Zealand Limited on the basis that:

i. its final inclusion remains subject to statutory public processes (road stopping and rezoning of the land).
ii. the Development Agreement include conditions relating to the built form outcomes sought by council.

e) agree that any disposal of Queen Elizabeth Square is done so in the context of the overall master plan and its vision for the city centre and achieving world class outcomes befitting this unique space in the context of Auckland.

……

The Vote Split

For
Cr AJ Anae
Cr CE Brewer
Mayor LCM Brown
Cr WB Cashmore
Cr RI Clow
Cr LA Cooper
Cr CE Fletcher
Chairperson PA Hulse
Cr DA Krum
Cr CM Penrose
Cr D Quax
Cr SL Stewart
Cr JG Walker
Cr MP Webster

Against
Deputy Chairperson C Darby
Cr ME Lee
Member Ngamane
Member Smith
Cr WD Walker
Cr J Watson
Cr GS Wood

—————

At the moment via the Resolutions there is enough safeguards in place for me to be satisfied thus be in the “For” camp around Queen Elizabeth Square. HOWEVER, that satisfaction is only there because of Resolution “E” that Councillor Chris Darby got inserted into the original resolutions after he raised the point and kicked off a wider debate. Thus while I am in the “For” camp it does not stop me from displaying concerns along the lines Councillor Darby had.

Concerns that not only that Queen Elizabeth Square be done in the wider context of a Master Plan, but also the wider consequences that spread to our ten Metropolitan Centres as well.

QE2 Square above
QE2 Square. Source: http://transportblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/QE2-Square-above.jpg

 

Why that concern with the Metropolitan Centres?

Because (currently per the Proposed Unitary Plan) our Metropolitan Centres are meant be our second tier centres right behind the tier one City Centre itself. Even if and when Manukau City Centre becomes a Super Metropolitan Centre (so itself second tier and the rest of the Metro Centres as third tier) the similar level of master planning done in the main CBD now would also be done in our Super and normal Metropolitan Centres. To not do so would neglect and lower the “standing” of the Metropolitan Centres otherwise.

From the Proposed Unitary Plan text on the policies and objectives of the Metropolitan Centres

PART 2 – REGIONAL AND DISTRICT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES» Chapter D: Zone objectives and policies» 3 Business zones» 3.3 Metropolitan Centre zone

Zone description

This zone applies to centres located in different sub-regional catchments of Auckland. The centres are second only to the city centre in overall scale and intensity and act as hubs for high frequency transport within their catchments. The zone provides for a wide range of activities including commercial, leisure, high-density residential, tourist, cultural, community and civic services. Zone provisions, in conjunction with rules in the other business zones, reinforce metropolitan centres as locations for all scales of commercial activity.Precincts and overlays that modify the underlying zone or have additional provisions apply to some of the metropolitan centres. Generally, however, to support an intense level of development, the zone allows for high-rise buildings.Some street frontages within the zone are subject to a Key Retail Frontage or General Commercial Frontage overlay. Key retail streets are the focal point of pedestrian activity within the centre. General commercial streets play a supporting role. Development fronting these streets is expected to reinforce this function. Rules for the overlay are incorporated in the zone rules.Buildings within the zone require resource consent to ensure that they are designed to a high standard, which enhance the quality of the centre’s streets and public open spaces.

 

——–

Now seeming it is a live topic at the moment I will also add some extracts in the Super Metropolitan Centre definition I wrote in my Unitary Plan submission. The definition is a blend between the original Unitary Plan City Centre Zone, and Metropolitan Centre Zone definitions:

D.3.3 Super Metropolitan Centre zone; Zone Description

The Super Metropolitan Centre is the second highest in the centres hierarchy after the City Centre zone. While the City Centre zone recognises the pivotal role in Auckland’s present and future successes, the Super Metropolitan Centre can also play such a future pivotal role.

More intensive than a Metropolitan Centre in development and catchment but less so than the City Centre Zone, the Super Metropolitan Centre will act as smaller scale complementary regional hub and international centre in: business, learning, innovation, industry, entertainment, retail and hospitality, culture and urban living.

…

The Super Metropolitan Centre makes an important contribution to our sense of identity whether it is international, national, regional or sub-regional in sense identity construction.

A Super Metropolitan Centre does have comparisons also with the lower order Metropolitan Centres in acting as hubs for a wide range of activities including commercial, leisure, high density residential, cultural, community and civic services – but also including tourism activities. Super Metropolitan Centres development and activities are more intense level than an existing Metropolitan Centre but not as intense as a City Centre Zone as mentioned above.

…

Source:http://www.scribd.com/doc/207846633/Unitary-Plan-Submission-PDF-Mode#page=38

 

What is the Concern then with both QE-II Square, and the Metropolitan Centres?

 

The Tweet below is one concern:

 

Auckland Development Committee Chair and Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse did say that the resolutions signal to the developer that Council is willing to work with them on a “solution” to QE-II Square. In the same regard with Resolution “E” present, the Committee in August (when a decision is made on the Square) must consider how QE-II Square (whether it stays Council owned or is sold off) fits into the wider context of CBD master planning. So if Resolution E can not be met adequately then the Committee will be in no position to make a decision around the Square.

The dual concerns from Councillor Darby were the following (and on his Facebook page):

Chris Darby
15 May near Auckland · Edited
There were cavalier attitudes aplenty at today’s Auckland Development Committee meeting where council moved to dispose of Queen Elizabeth Square – 2000m2 of prime public open space in Auckland’s downtown – to Precinct Properties New Zealand Ltd.While QE2 Square may not currently be the most successful public space it certainly offers huge potential to Auckland’s future. Some would see it as a soulless environment punctuated with clutter and they are mostly right. But let’s look beyond what we’ve got, just as we looked beyond a once disparate waterfront.This morning at 7.45am I sat in the sunonQE2’s southern edge and enjoyed a coffee at a recently discovered café. To my surprise there are nowthreecafes abutting the square where just four years ago there were none. I sipped, sat and watched hundreds spill through the eastern doors of the Downtown Shopping Centre and make their way across the square. Thousands of others intersected on journeys to work after disembarking from ferries and trains.My watching revealed an area much busier than previously assumed and I began to wonder of the possibility of a grand square. After several minutes long striding around the perimeter, from historic former chief post office to the shopping centre face andZurich House to theHSBC building, a quadrant of 80m x 70m was measured. I reminisced of times in Sienna’sPiaza Del Campo, Copenhagen’s City Hall Square and Melbourne’s Federation Square and imagined vibrant street life, numerouscafes and stores spilling out from the edges, daily entertainment, the change of light and season and Aucklanders revelling in their half hectare public paradise.A grand square at the bottom of the valley buddied to Aotea Square at the top is something we must explore before succumbing to commercial colonisation. Mature cities covet their city squares. There’s nothing quite like the massing of people, markets, performance or protest occurring within the anchor of a vast square. Imagine an immense unifying square of great quality at the confluence of the Queen St valley and waterfront, our memorable forecourt to the world.

At todays’ council meeting every effort was made to discount the intrinsic value of this premium public land, every effort made to resist any temptation to vision something better until finally debate was stifled by the vision-impaired.

Today councillors got served a sweetened commercial deal with little understanding of macro planning issues. It would be a great shame if we find ourselves reflecting on lost opportunity, just as a former council did after swapping the now SkyCity block for a forgotten hole in the ground on upper Symonds St.

The public will now have their say and I’m picking there’s a lot more like me who are not prepared to give premium open space and opportunity the quick flick.

 

……

And

Chris Darby shared a link.
20 May near Auckland
There’s a lot of noise and activity happening around Queens Wharf, QE2 Square, Ferry Basin, Quay St, bus interchanges and Customs St but still little to no oversight by elected members.This Weekend Herald article provides introduction into behind the scenes goings on.My take is council should be treating with the lower city centre and central waterfront as a whole and not in bite sized chunks responding to commercial proposals. I’m calling for the coherent master planning of the entire area before we sign up to flogging off public open space.

 

…..

So the main concern fleshed out from Councillor Darby is the danger of ad-hoc piecemeal planning and decision-making around the CBD. The Councillor would rather have (and I agree with him) that coherent master planning of the entire area in position first before proceeding.

 

This led me to the question of (with the answer from Councillor Darby below) what about the City Centre Master Plan:

  • Ben Ross I thought the City Centre Master Plan which even I submitted on was meant to cover all this in the lower CBD. Or am I missing something here
    • Chris Darby If we followed the CCMP we would definitely be retaining and enhancing QE2 Square. The CCMP’s Central Waterfront section does not provide adequate interrelationship information.

 

My reaction was then this:

1) Do we (that is the Councillors, Local Board and the citizens) need to bring the CCMP back to the Auckland Development Committee for a full review. I know this might go down like a bucket of cold water with a few but if the CCMP is that deficient in not addressing inter-relationship issues then we run the very high risk of as you said piece meal planning/development

2) For me (admittedly more importantly right now) how does this potential CCMP deficiency and QEII Square debate pan out to the Metropolitan Centres ESPECIALLY our sole Super Metropolitan Centre (the term I give Manukau City Centre which has the City Transformational Unit overseeing any redevelopment there – the same CTU overseeing the CCMP). If Council can’t get the CCMP and the lower CBD done right then how will this pan out when the Metropolitan Centres and Manukau begin their own master plans and renewal. The Southern Initiative is already causing issues down here and we don’t need a deficient CCMP harming a future Manukau City Centre Master Plan

 

Let me be very clear from here on in. I am not levelling blame nor “slagging off” any one as a result of Queen Elizabeth Square. What I do have as you can see is me displaying legitimate concerns as both a ratepayer of Auckland as well as an advocate for a 21st Century Auckland. I have no problems with Council working with the Private Sector to achieve place making aims. Heavens the bulk of the premise around the Manukau Super Metropolitan Centre relies on some pretty extensive partnerships with the wider private, public, and educational sectors to achieve the physical and social place making aims of the Manukau SMC. But again I do have concerns if Master Plans are deficient in interrelationships (something that is bogging The Southern Initiative down at the moment as well) that has the potential to cause this piecemeal planning Councillor Darby is so rightfully (as am I) afraid of.

 

Now the planners and urban designers are working through the Queen Elizabeth Square situation so that their recommendations are ready for the Auckland Development Committee’s own decision-making in August.

I await (as does the rest of Auckland) await to see what comes about in August. Again and in my eyes whatever does come about in August will have those potential consequences and effects on not just the CBD but our Super Metropolitan Centre and Metropolitan Centres as well.

 

Manukau Mall Station and the Manukau Metro Town Centre Reference for the Sketch Up Pocket Park: http://land8.com/photo/athens-urban-park-exparking/next?context=user
Manukau Transport Interchange Development Alternative
Looking from AT Ronwood Ave Parking Building back towards Manukau Civic Building
Ronwood Avenue heading towards Lambie Drive
From Hayman Park to Manukau City Centre Could this be a cafe/bar/hospitality corridor for Manukau City Centre?

Some visuals on Manukau City Centre and some of my own work as part of the social and physical place making for the area. The debate our QE-2 Square is also about social and physical place making. So if we get QE-2 Square wrong we can get places like Manukau wrong as well.

 

Some further material from me that implies place making initiatives or ideas: