Auckland Council to publish overview of city centre and waterfront developments
Auckland Council today confirmed that it will publish an overview of key city centre and waterfront developments, to give the public and decision-makers a clear picture of the programme of work under-way to transform Auckland’s CBD.
Councillors received an update today on planning and project implementation for the city centre and waterfront.
Deputy Mayor and Development Committee Chair Penny Hulse said: “As part of delivery of the Auckland Plan, there is significant work under-way to transform Auckland’s city centre and waterfront. This includes work to improve our public spaces, enhance pedestrian access and transform the retail experience.
“Auckland Council is guiding the overall work programme through the Auckland Development Committee. Over the past six months in particular, we have worked closely with the agencies to bring together a clear overview and guide progress as we move into the delivery phase.
“As we move through this work we will be seeking input from Aucklanders on any key decisions or developments.”
Penny Hulse also confirmed that the future vision for Queens Wharf will include public consultation. “The Wharf is jointly owned by the Government and Waterfront Auckland and will remain in public ownership.”
The overview of projects will be published in August.
Something I have called on before with projects especially around large scale like The Southern Initiative.
Now to get the next phase going with other “City Building Plans and Developments” – once they have been drawn up firs 😉
Build Cycle Lane, then spend US$740,000 to rip it back out thanks to NIMBY’s
I caught this over at Streetblog USA earlier this morning in regards to what happens when NIMBY’s win. Pretty much a heart wrench to anyone who believes in a progressive city with progressive type infrastructure being built after near exhaustive studies were in support for the cycle lane.
An extract from Streetblog USA:
San Antonio to Tear Out the “Best Thing” City Has Done for Cycling
by Angie Schmitt Monday, June 9, 2014
Score one for the NIMBY crowd in San Antonio.
City Council representatives have voted 10-1 to remove 2.3 miles of bike lanes on South Flores Street, which the local blog Bike San Antonio says is one of the few cases where the city put a bike lane “where one needs to be.” Council members apparently caved to nearby residents who claimed the bike lane caused traffic delays and complained about receiving insufficient notice of the changes.
The restriping of the two-way road, done during a resurfacing project, changed the configuration from four general traffic lanes to two, plus a center turn lane and bike lanes. City traffic studies found that the bike lanes caused no impediment to motor vehicle traffic, while crashes declined somewhat. But that apparently wasn’t good enough for the majority of council, including Rebecca Viagran, who represents most of the area with the bike lanes.
The San Antonio Express-News editorial board said the decision was shortsighted and disappointing:
What we’re looking at is a failure of leadership from council, particularly from Viagran.
Not only is it a monumental waste of money to appease a small group of overreactive residents, but it also flies in the face of stated city goals to improve bike infrastructure, the urban core and promote better health.
The Auckland Development Committee for June 12 is up and should prove to be a cracker of a meeting. The Committee is looking at discussing (or reviewing) the following:
Progress with the Housing Accord
Hobsonville Point 20ha Block: Future Residential Use
Submission to the Ministry for the Environment on the “Setting a direct referral threshold and related matters” discussion document
And behind closed doors: Takapuna Beachfront Precinct
No doubt the parking issue will be a lively debate. I can already take a good guess on which way the debate will fall and which of our more “vocal” Councillors will be at the “forefront” of any discussion around parking.
The Auckland Development Committee – June 2014 Agenda
I have noticed quite strong and often knee-jerk reaction to what has become the “Ashes” debate here in Auckland. The debate has been in response to the “Proposed Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw” processes being currently working its way through Auckland Council.
A typical some-what knee-jerk response can be seen here (and the last place I expect it too):
Plans to make grieving families seek permission before scattering the ashes of loved ones and charge them for the privilege need to be reconsidered, Labour’s Ethnic Affairs spokesperson Phil Goff says.
“Auckland Council’s proposals seem heavy handed, unnecessary and bureaucratic.
“There has been insufficient consultation with the public and in particular with ethnic communities before proposing the restrictions. Nor has the council made a solid case for why the restrictions are necessary.
“There are no health considerations because cremations are carried out at 800 degree temperatures and families almost always conduct the scattering of their loved ones ashes with care and consideration.
“The last thing we want to impose on grieving families are bureaucratic procedures, long time delays and additional expenses.
“I understand that in former Council areas like Waitakere, Papakura and Frankton there were no restrictions imposed for the scattering of ashes and I have yet to see any evidence of this causing any widespread problem.
“The Council also seems unaware of Hindu customs about the importance of scattering ashes within a time period after cremation and the impact such restrictions would have on their community.
“I have also been made aware of another important and unnecessary restriction of preventing more than two people attending the placing of the casket in the cremator. This cuts across Indian Hindu cultural tradition where all the deceased’s male children are normally involved.
“I have written to the Mayor asking for the Council to think again. At the very least the Council should consult widely with the public, ethnic organisations and religious and cultural groups before they make any final decision. The present Council decision is more likely to create problems than resolve any,” Phil Goff says.
I would like to remind Phil Goff on the following comment below I picked up from Councillor Cathy Casey’s thread about the ashes debate:
Might want to read what was put in Councillor Cathy Casey’s comments before knee jerk reacting in here. Here I’ll copy paste the actual problem here: Qiane Matata-Sipu: We have a problem with people scattering ashes in the sea by Ihumatao. It is mostly Hindu ceremonies when this occurs, not only is this an area for Kai gathering and so is an innapropriate place to scatter the ashes of a dead person where we would gather food, but there is also a significant amount of mess left behind, streamers, flowers, other foods (citrus foods) etc… That just causes extra problems. A non-resident of ihumatao once visited me after cleaning and filling 4 rubbish bags of ceremony “left-overs” from an area of the beach he often visits and takes overseas visitors. I was disgusted by the mess – not to mention the tapu nature/effect on our Moana and awa. I support the notion we must treat the deceased with respect an dignity but we also need to remember that we must treat the living with respect too, and the particular cases that happen in our area are very disrespectful to us.
Your “rights” do not extend to trashing and disrespecting an already culturally sensitive area – especially one that is used for food..
Especially those rights and culturally sensitive areas of an indigenous population – which for our international readers is the Maori people.
A reminder that yes you can commit the ashes of your loved ones back to the Earth (and what your particular belief system is around committing those ashes) but let’s be fair and respective towards others – especially the indigenous people who live here. You would ask the same respect back in your ancestral lands so what was quoted above is fair and a very important reminder.
I will go back over the Council processes and see where this might have gone wrong. That said while Wellington already has a similar policy to what Auckland is proposing in place (which causes minimal fuss in Wellington) I hope Council is not causing extra grief from unnecessary bureaucracy and “fees.” It is the last thing anyone needs when saying their final good byes to a loved one or loved ones.
Note: Comments will be closely monitored and moderated as required
Campbell Live following Metro Magazine and Radio NZ in Decent Auckland Planning Reporting
It was flagged in advance last week on Twitter last night’s Auckland planning piece on Campbell Live. And so the piece or rather three pieces showed on Campbell Live last night to positive acclaim by progressive Aucklanders and the Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse.
Earlier last week there was an Auckland Conversations presentation (that I had to pass over) by Janette Sadik-Khan on how Auckland could use ideas from New York City to turn Auckland into a more pro-people rather than a auto-centric city.
Update: Below is the 30 minute interview with Janette Sadik-khan on her time in New York City with their transport and how their ideas could be translated to Auckland:
Having watch the Auckland Conversation piece on the net and the Campbell Live pieces yesterday I could feel mood swelling for wanting and building a 21st Century Auckland. However, I am cautious as well with the feeling we have a very high risk of stumbling at the first hurdle once out of the starting blocks. That stumbling at the first hurdle could either be from the wider Council itself (a watered down Unitary Plan for example) or the NIMBY’s not quite realising Auckland is a world City not some village in the south-west Pacific.
As for the Main Stream Media showing a more balanced view of Auckland planning such as that shown on Campbell Live last night, it has been a rather long time coming.
Metro Magazine, and Media3 (when it was showing) by Russell Brown as part of the Main Stream Media outlets have been pretty much on the ball with Auckland planning coverage since the first round of Unitary Plan feedback last year. Whether positive or a critique one could rely on these two MSM outlets to broadcast the news as Auckland works its way through getting its master planning manual sorted. TV’s One and Three were a bit absent until TV3 showed a concerted push with them through Campbell Live showcasing the Congestion Free Network earlier this year. The NBR I’ll give credit to as well with their coverage on Auckland Planning issues although the NBR is not as far-reaching as other MSM outlets. Stuff is there with the suburban reporters like former Papakura Courier journalist Dubby Henry being at public meetings and gauging the reactions to the Draft and Proposed Unitary Plans. Radio NZ with Todd Nial has been there since dot when the Unitary Plan was first released March 15 last year and I often find Todd next to myself and Bob Dey at the media table when Council committees meet. The Herald and our more conservative talk back shows are much to be desired in their Auckland Planning reporting with them often making the news rather than broadcasting the news. That said Duncan Garner is always an interesting one to watch of recent when he reports on what Auckland is up to.
The three individual pieces on Auckland’s planning by Campbell Live last night led to this Tweet by Deputy Mayor and Auckland Development Committee Chair (formerly the Auckland Plan Committee).
@CampbellLiveNZ. NY and Seattle are great! Where were you guys as I fronted Unitary plan public meeting to make this future for Auckland?
Essentially when the Unitary Plan was first released March 15 last year (when I was in Australia at the time) it was the bloggers and social media being at the forefront of the commentary and debate. Arguably I was the quickest off the blocks with this blog and my Twitter feed when the Unitary Plan first came out. Other social media outlets (both balanced, and shall we say tending more unhinged) took a little while longer to get off the blocks. I remember feeling a bit lonely covering the Unitary Plan debate in the beginning until the others came to the party. After that then some battles came along especially with one particular group from the North Shore.
But as the course drew on I became quite comfortable taking a leading edge in the commentary despite the limitation of resources others had at their disposal. In the end it was pointed out I was the most prolific Tweeter on the Unitary Plan last year.
Now as we work our way through mid 2014 and in preparation for the next round of submissions for the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan the larger MSM outlets are finally giving more balanced reporting. As Penny Hulse did Tweet a shame they were not there in the beginning with the Unitary Plan. No matter the bloggers stepped up and we carried the can – in fact we still do 😉
That said good to see the Campbell Live pieces last night. I wonder if we can get John in to sit through one of the longer Auckland Development Committees when a more substantial item is on the agenda, say like QE-II Square 😉
