8.1. The environment, using that word in its broadest sense, is a crucial determinant of the attractiveness of the city as a place in which to live, work, or to visit. Richard Florida, Professor of Business and Creativity at the University of Toronto, says that what matters is quality of place. He says in relation to that phrase
I define it as the intersection of three key elements of our cities: what’s there (the natural and built environments); who’s there (the people); and what’s going on (what people are doing, our relationship with the natural and built environments).1
He says, and the Commission agrees, that the aesthetic dimension – the beauty of a place – is critical to having the deepest hold on people. This “hold” is important because it makes cities liveable, healthy, attractive places and has a positive effect on economic and social well-being.
8.2. Richard Florida’s broad “socio-physical” system definition embracing the natural, built, and social environments is entirely consistent with the Resource Management Act’s definition of the “environment”2 and ’’sustainable management of natural resources”, as well as the 2002 Local Government Act’s notions of “well-being”,3 and sustainable development of communities. Such a systemic approach requires a city to understand the connections between its people, the environment, and desired social outcomes. It requires government to address the quality of the urban environment and the quality of life in an integrated way.
8.3. Auckland is uniquely placed to capitalise on this planning ethos. Placed fifth out of 215 cities in the Mercer’s quality of living survey,4 Auckland undoubtedly has an enviable quality of life and environment. The challenge is for Auckland and its communities to achieve planning outcomes that support Auckland’s future liveability and sustainability.
8.4. This chapter addresses the natural and built environments of Auckland. Thus it addresses just one of the four important components of a sustainable city. The other components – economic development, social well-being, and culture and diversity – are addressed in separate chapters, but it is important to appreciate that none of these aspects stands on its own. They are all interrelated and work together to produce the city that this Commission sees as its vision for Auckland. These components can be in tension with each other. Economic growth can threaten environmental values. Concern for the environment can lead to limits on economic growth that reduce the creation of jobs. These tensions must be managed.
8.5. Historically, Auckland’s harbours with their fisheries, and its land form with volcanoes providing pa5 sites which could be protected against attack, made the Auckland isthmus an attractive place for Māori, an attraction reflected in the name Tāmaki-makau-rau – a place desired by many because of its rich resources and accessibility. Another traditional name for the Auckland isthmus is Tāmaki Herenga Waka – Tāmaki the resting place of many waka6 – reflecting the fact that many waka when arriving at this country, passed or stayed for a time on the Auckland isthmus. The richness of the land and its accessibility from the sea provided attractions as well to the early Pākehā7 settlers, with the consequence that Auckland became for a short time New Zealand’s capital, and has certainly been its largest city for the past 100 years or so. The physical beauty and form of the land and its harbours have always been a major attraction to settlers. Unfortunately the built form has not always reflected the beauty of the natural environment, an issue that has attracted attention from a number of submitters to the Commission. The natural beauty and the quality of the water has been compromised by development. The realisation that this is so is increasingly the subject of programmes directed to protect and restore the natural heritage.
8.6. Throughout the Commission’s hearings, and even though the subject was not specifically referred to in the questions posed in the Call for Submissions document, many submitters reinforced the importance of environmental, urban, and heritage values in developing a leading city. The love of Aucklanders for their physical environment came as no surprise to the Commission. Its physical environment is what makes Auckland unique and is the feature that results in Auckland being near the top of lists of cities with high “liveability”. The harbour and its islands, with their opportunities for recreation of many different kinds, the wild west coast beaches, and the pohutukawa-fringed east coast beaches, together with the Waitakere Ranges and Auckland’s volcanic cones, are much valued both by residents and visitors.
8.7. What the Commission was told by submitters is mirrored in survey results over the years that have gauged the attitudes of Aucklanders to the environment and what it is they value about their city. Comprehensive research undertaken in the late 1990s by the Auckland Regional Growth Forum found that employment opportunities, and the buzz of the big city and its surrounding environment – beaches, parks, trees, the weather, and open spaces – were Auckland’s most popular assets.8
8.8. In a 2003 National Research Bureau poll carried out for the Auckland University of Technology covering 400 respondents in Auckland, several questions were asked concerning the environment. The majority of respondents (75%) considered Auckland’s natural environment to be good or very good, although there was widespread concern about specific environmental issues in Auckland. Of respondents, 45% saw water pollution in harbours and 40% water pollution in rivers as problems, with smaller groupings (of 20–25%) seeing air pollution or noise pollution, or the loss of wetlands or natural areas, as problems.9 A very large majority of some 70% had no difficulty in agreeing with the proposition that preserving farmland will improve the quality of life of future generations. In submissions to the Commission, a number of people expressed concern about the fragmentation of farmland in the Auckland region.
8.9. The Auckland Regional Council (“ARC”) undertook a further survey in 2006–07.10 It showed that little had changed. Of Aucklanders surveyed, 71% said that the region was a good or great place to live. High proportions of people were satisfied with access to parks and open spaces and the look and feel of their neighbourhood. Reflecting the priority placed on Auckland’s environment, 73% were either concerned or very concerned about the general environment, specifically air pollution from traffic and water pollution.11
8.10. The following conclusions can be drawn. First, Aucklanders are very positive about their natural environment. As noted above, it is what gives Auckland its distinct identity and makes it a great place to live. This is tempered, however, with a considerable degree of concern about specific environmental issues. The Commission’s task has been to consider how well current governance arrangements are enabling Auckland to protect, and at the same time make the most of, our physical environment. The Commission also addresses the built environment in this chapter, under the headings of “Urban design and architecture” and “Heritage”.
8.11. In considering governance, the Commission has focused primarily in this chapter on local government arrangements. It acknowledges the important work done by the numerous groups of volunteers – Auckland Volcanic Cones Society, Friends of Maungawhau, Supporters of Tiritiri Matangi, the many restoration groups concerned with places such as Motutapu, Tawharanui, Little Barrier Island, Project Twin Streams in Waitakere, and others – and also professional groups such as the New Zealand Institute of Architects, which work so hard and so tirelessly to care for and improve the environment we enjoy. Groups such as those mentioned above, not only work on physical projects but also undertake fundraising events. The Tawharanui Open Sanctuary Society, for example, played a major part in raising funds for the pest control fence, which has enabled a substantial part of the Tawharanui Regional Park to become a mainland island. Governance is about engaging a broad range of actors in a collective endeavour, in this case by encouraging local initiatives and involvement by the community in the protection and enhancement of the environment. The Commission’s recommendation that the local councils in the second tier of the proposed governance structures should have as their focus making their areas more liveable should enable community needs to be identified. Community groups are encouraged to assist with the resolution of those needs.
8.12. Some of the concerns expressed by Aucklanders and recorded above, are reflected in comments by the Ministry for the Environment in discussions with the Commission. The ministry noted that the main pollution problem in Auckland comes from vehicles – both as air pollution and from contaminants getting into waterways. Runoff of land-based sediment is another concern, but industrial pollution is not a major issue. The ministry considers that Watercare Services is doing a good job in relation to wastewater treatment. Traditionally Auckland city has had a problem with pollution of the harbours from overflow of pipes carrying both stormwater and sewage. This problem is well recognised and is being fixed. It is the ministry’s view, however, that treatment of the runoff from roads will be needed in the future.
8.13. The Ministry for the Environment points to a lack of alignment between governance and responsibilities in some respects. Most air pollution comes from vehicles, but the ARC has no jurisdiction to address that issue directly as only the Government currently has control over vehicle emissions and fuel quality.
8.14. In this report, the Commission calls for a much stronger partnership between regional and central government. The ability to control pollution from vehicles is obviously one issue that such a partnership will need to address.
8.15. The fragmentation of farmland has also been the subject of comment. In the “Environmental Quality” theme paper prepared as part of the “Sustaining the Auckland Region Together” project, it is noted that natural areas within the Auckland region are becoming increasingly fragmented, reducing the resilience of many ecosystems and species. Urban development has slowly eroded landscape values and reduced the amount of productive land with a subsequent loss of elite soils, and associated degradation of the region’s freshwater ecology by sedimentation, agricultural, and stormwater pollution.12
8.16. It is not possible to obtain information as to the amount of productive arable land that has been lost through urban development, but some statistics give an indication. In information obtained from the ARC, it is apparent that between 1987 and 2001 the urban area of Auckland increased by over 5,500 hectares.13 In recent evidence given on behalf of the ARC to a Resource Management Act hearing committee, it was stated that there are some 40,000 titles of 8 hectares or less in rural areas throughout the Auckland region, and a potential – through present zoning provisions – for a further 17,500 titles of 8 hectares or less.14 These figures exclude titles or potential titles in rural towns. Not all of these titles will be on productive land, and there may be some, particularly the larger ones, that are still being used for productive purposes. The figures give some indication of present and potential fragmentation, however.
8.17. The strengthened regional governance arrangements proposed in this report should enable these issues to be addressed much more effectively than has previously been the case. More positively, the same report notes that 16.9% of the region’s land area is protected as public open space and that because of predator control, native bird counts in the Waitakere Ranges are increasing, possum numbers are the lowest on mainland New Zealand, and forest ecosystems have generally recovered over the past 50 years. Again, the governance arrangements suggested by the Commission should ensure a continuation of these trends.
8.18. It is important not to lose sight of the fact noted earlier in this report that despite the above criticisms, Aucklanders generally are very satisfied with the quality of their environment. One of the great qualities of Auckland, and indeed New Zealand, is the easy access that people have to world-class passive and active recreational facilities. The west coast and east coast beaches, and the Hauraki Gulf and its islands, are readily accessible to Aucklanders.
8.19. The ARC periodically prepares a “State of the Auckland Region” report, which addresses a wide range of issues but with particular emphasis on the environment. The last such report was dated 2004. The council is currently preparing a new report. Monitoring progress being made in addressing environmental issues is of central importance. The Commission recommends that the proposed new Auckland Council should be required to undertake regular environmental monitoring and should publish the results of that monitoring. The Ministry for the Environment has an interest and involvement in the monitoring of the state of the environment throughout New Zealand. The monitoring of the state of the environment in the Auckland region could be a joint enterprise of the Auckland Council and the ministry. Later in this report (refer Chapter 19, “Leadership”), the Commission proposes that the Mayor of Auckland should deliver an annual “State of the Region” address. The Commission envisages that this address should include a section on the environment.
8.20. Some aspects of the physical environment need more detailed consideration. Environmental issues of climate change, air and water quality, and protection of harbour, coastal, volcanic, and rural areas, as well as other open spaces, are discussed below.
8.21. The effects of human activities, particularly the discharge of greenhouse gases, are widely recognised as constituting a major component of global warming. It is predicted that this will result in a sea level rise and in New Zealand, and in particular in the Auckland region, more frequent storm events and damage from coastal surges. This will have continuing implications for coastal properties. The combination of more frequent storm events and coastal erosion will heighten the problems associated with Auckland’s cliff-top coastal suburbs, which are built on erosion-prone sandstone. The predicted rise in sea levels and extreme weather events will result in residents in hazard-prone areas calling for seawalls and coastal protection works which have the potential to seriously impact on the natural character and public access to the coast. There have been some calls for action to safeguard properties and infrastructure at risk, and also to avoid the possibility of new investment being located in areas likely to be at risk in the future.
8.22. The Commission considers that these impacts of climate change on the coastal edge, and the effects they will have on many very valuable properties, call for strong and consistent control and management. The Commission also believes that a consistent region-wide approach is needed. The governance changes that this Commission recommends will enable this to occur. The Commission acknowledges that territorial authorities currently recognise the threats arising from coastal erosion, but the Commission is satisfied that a consistent region-wide approach is needed.
8.23. In 2004 the Ministry for the Environment introduced national environmental standards for air quality.15 Driven primarily by a need to reduce levels of fine particulates (PM10) in urban areas of the country, the regulation set a deadline of 2013 by which time an ambient standard for PM10 must be met. After 2013 if the ambient standards are not met, no resource consents can be granted to any industry that discharges PM10. The ARC is the primary agency responsible for air quality in the Auckland region. It has prepared a “Proposed Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water” (“ALW Plan”), which is presently the subject of submissions and appeals.16 The council has set reduction targets of 58% for both transport and the domestic emissions of PM10 by 2013. The ALW Plan notes that the greatest single contributor to degraded air quality in the Auckland region is emissions from motor vehicles.17 It has been estimated elsewhere that the adverse health impacts of vehicle emissions result in over 250 premature deaths in the region per year.18 It has already been noted that regional authorities have limited jurisdiction in relation to pollution from motor vehicles and that this is an area that calls for a collaborative approach between central and regional government.
8.24. Some lessons can be learned from European cities, which have lived with air pollution and strict emission standards longer than we have. Steps taken by those cities, such as the encouragement of the cleanest vehicles available, the promotion of public transport and good cycling and walking facilities, and the smoothing of traffic flows, will require a combined approach by central and regional government.
8.25. Reference has already been made to problems associated with water quality in Auckland. It is worth noting some initiatives that need to be carried forward and encouraged.
8.26. The 2008 three waters strategic plan prepared by Watercare Services has identified the need for an integrated approach to planning and managing polluted stormwater, particularly from main roads and highway runoff.19 Among the coordinated management solutions suggested is the further implementation of the regional stormwater action plan. A recommendation to this effect is contained in Chapter 26, “The Three Waters”.
8.27. The State of the Auckland Region Report 2004 addresses water quality in relation to both fresh and coastal waters.20 In relation to fresh water, it deals with ground water, streams, and lakes. (The ALW Plan also addresses fresh water in all its aspects.)
8.28. On the positive side, the report concluded that pollution from dairy farm discharges had reduced and ammonia in the Manukau Harbour waters had decreased since the commissioning of the new Mangere Wastewater Treatment Plant. Matters providing cause for concern at the time that the report on the state of the region was written were the degradation of some of the lakes and the signs of ill health appearing in marine ecosystems in the Mahurangi Harbour.
8.29. Mention needs to be made of a programme being undertaken by the Waitakere City Council. It is called Project Twin Streams.21 The focus of the project is on restoring 56 kilometres of stream banks, but the vision is much wider. The council works with the local communities that live alongside the streams. Most of the planting and maintenance is carried out by the local community. The project looks at land within the catchment, how households can become more sustainable, and how cycles and walkways along streams can reconnect communities while providing opportunities for recreation. The stream-bank plantings will improve stormwater by creating buffer zones along the stream banks and will also create the environment and habitat that encourages an increase in the number of native fish, birds, bats, lizards, geckos, and insects in and around the streams. The Commission sees a need for programmes of this nature to be encouraged in local areas. The programme is an excellent example of the way in which community-focused councils can work in partnership with local communities to improve the environment and the liveability of the areas for which they are responsible. The Commission’s proposal to establish local councils should provide greater scope for local government to encourage and cooperate with community groups in the improvement of the city’s environment.
8.30. The Commission is satisfied from submissions it has heard, and the information it received as a result of visiting cities such as Vancouver, Seattle, and Toronto, that much more can and needs to be done to increase the public enjoyment of the extensive waterfront areas of Auckland.
8.31. The Commission was impressed with what it saw in the cities mentioned above and also in Brisbane, and of the way in which those cities either have, or are planning to, make their waterfront more accessible and more pleasant. In Brisbane, Vancouver, and Toronto, there is a conscious policy to facilitate enjoyment of the waterfront by the provision of planting, promenades, pathways, and small reserves incorporating sitting areas. A start has been made in the Auckland central city area with the Viaduct Basin, and there are walkways either developed or under construction on the North Shore and in the vicinity of Onehunga on the Manukau Harbour.
8.32. The Commission has recommended that there should be special governance arrangements for the central city and the waterfront, recognising the close relationship that exists between them. (See Chapter 17, “City Centre and Waterfront”). This recommendation acknowledges the crucial importance that the waterfront area has to the urban design of Auckland and to the impression made on visitors arriving here by sea.
8.33. The Hauraki Gulf is the subject of a special governance arrangement through the Hauraki Gulf Forum. Some submitters recommended that the Hauraki Gulf should be given special heritage status and that special planning for sustainability, heritage, infrastructure, and marine protection, as well as tourism, was required for the gulf. The Commission considers that the governance arrangements recommended by it, together with the provisions of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000, provide an ongoing structure for the further protection of this jewel in Auckland’s crown.
8.34. The Commission notes that the purpose of the Act includes to integrate the management of the natural, historic, and physical resources of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, and to recognise the historic, traditional, cultural, and spiritual relationship of the tangata whenua22 with the Hauraki Gulf and its islands. The Commission considers that the structural reforms proposed in its report will assist in the achievement of these purposes by reducing the number of entities involved in management.
8.35. The Manukau Harbour has suffered considerably as a result of past policies in the Auckland region, as a number of submitters noted. There is no doubt that despite recent improvements such as the major changes in sewage treatment and discharge, there is still much that can be done. One submitter noted that incoming visitors to Auckland, by air in particular, had as their first view of Auckland, the “hideous power pylons and industrial sites” in, and adjoining, the Manukau Harbour.23 The Commission acknowledges the importance of the Manukau Harbour to mana whenua,24 and their concern over issues of the harbour’s use and protection. Again, the governance arrangements that this Commission recommends should enable issues concerning this harbour to be better addressed, particularly through the representation of Māori on the Auckland Council.
8.36. With respect to the Kaipara Harbour, the Guardians of the Kaipara make the point that different planning authorities with conflicting planning requirements and standards governing a single catchment is not ideal.25 Some submitters suggested that the area under the authority of the ARC should be extended to include the whole of the Kaipara Harbour. The Commission concluded that this is impractical because the catchment of the Kaipara Harbour extends many kilometres north of Dargaville and Whangarei. The Commission believes, however, that a formalised co-management regime between the Auckland Council and Northland Regional Council, together with other relevant territorial authorities and mana whenua representatives, would enable the development of an integrated catchment management plan with shared and common policies.
8.37. As noted above, the Commission is concerned with the fragmentation of the rural areas adjoining the urban areas of Auckland. The greatest proportion of the region’s land area consists of rural, semi-rural, and coastal areas. These areas, mainly pasture and bush, are used for a range of activities including industry, farming of animals, horticulture, recreation, and household purposes. These activities all contribute to the social and cultural identity of Auckland and are important for its economy. However, there are important landscape implications. The reduction in pastoral farming has led to the emergence of more intensive and enclosed landscapes associated with horticulture, viticulture, lifestyle blocks, or commercial exotic forestry. As the State of the Auckland Region Report 2004 notes, “the scale and intensity of housing development in the coastal areas means that many of the unique coastal and estuarine landscapes that contribute significantly to the identity of the Auckland region are being modified or are disappearing.”26
8.38. There is a need for a balance to be struck between identifying and protecting remaining outstanding landscape areas from development, while at the same time avoiding inappropriate and visually insensitive development in other areas. The Commission is conscious as well of the concern expressed by rural submitters that their needs will be overlooked by a strengthened regional body having an increasing focus on the urban areas, and urban problems and development. The governance structures and planning arrangements described later in this report are intended both to strengthen regional control over the way in which the rural areas are developed, and to provide for rural representation and input into regional decisions.
8.39. The ARC manages 25 regional parks covering approximately 40,000 hectares and 150 kilometres of coastline, ranging from sandy beaches, farmland, and remote bush wilderness areas to the Auckland Botanic Gardens. The volcanic cones are subject to a variety of forms of management. In at least one case, Maungakiekie, management and control is shared between the Cornwall Park Trust Board and the Auckland City Council, each of which administers a part of the total area.
8.40. Nearly 400 submitters made submissions about governance of parks and reserves.27 The majority favoured continuation of regional parks under the control of a regional agency, with local parks under territorial authority management. Small numbers of submitters favoured all parks being managed by either the regional or the territorial authorities.
8.41. Volcanic cones are prized as iconic natural assets of the region. Submitters on this topic said that there is currently no uniform level of protection for volcanic cones across all territorial authorities, and recommended that they might be better managed by larger units of local government. It was proposed that the volcanic field be managed under one agency and that tourism and other users on that land should be carefully monitored. It was noted that the cones are in the process of consideration for nomination as a World Heritage site under the Unesco convention on world cultural and natural heritage sites. Several submitters saw a role for iwi in co-management of volcanic cones such as Maungawhau. The Friends of Maungawhau group suggested establishing a region-wide park ranger or kaitiaki28 service along with citizens and volunteers to manage Maungawhau, other volcanic cones, regional parks, and other significant parks.29
8.42. In the case of Cornwall Park, the ownership and management of that area by the Cornwall Park Trust Board will of course continue, but subject as it is now to district planning provisions.
8.43. The Commission has concluded that a regional policy in relation to parks should be developed and that there should be identification by the regional body of those parks that serve more than a local function. Such parks should be under the control of the regional body, as should the volcanic cones. Auckland’s regional parks have rangers appointed to supervise activities in the parks and to ensure the tidiness of the parks. The Commission considers that this concept should be extended to the volcanic cones so that there is a ranger appointed with responsibility for the cones.
8.44. Mana whenua have a kaitiaki role in relation to the environment. The importance of this role, and the difficulties that Māori face in exercising it, were the subject of a number of submissions to the Commission at hui30 the Commission attended. This is a matter which needs to be addressed for the future. A Mana Whenua Forum has been set up by the ARC and it will appoint a representative of mana whenua to serve as a councillor on the Auckland council as outlined Chapter 22, “Māori”. That forum should be continued and, through its representative on the Auckland Council, should advise the Auckland Council on kaitiaki issues relating to the environment. There will be instances where it is seen to be desirable to institute joint management responsibilities involving Māori in their kaitiaki role. This could include, for example, the management of volcanic cones and areas such as the Manukau and Kaipara Harbours.
8.45. Some submitters called for a monitoring agency and an environmental ombudsman to be appointed to safeguard the environment. They pointed to the conflict between the roles that an enhanced regional government would have as a developer, and infrastructure owner and regulator, and its role as the regional regulatory agency charged with the obligation to oversee compliance monitoring. These are valid concerns but it should be noted that to some extent this conflict already exists in the role undertaken by the ARC, and it is a problem faced to a greater or lesser extent by other councils in New Zealand and in particular unitary authorities.
8.46. The Commission would be loath to see a further layer of governance set up. The Commission believes that a division of the regional level of governance charged with compliance monitoring and pollution management should be sufficient. The ombudsman has a role in ensuring, if complaints are made, that local government fulfils its obligations. Furthermore, the Commission’s recommendation that local councils should be focused on the well-being of the communities under their jurisdiction, should assist in ensuring that checks and balances exist in relation to the performance by the regional body of its functions and responsibilities. There needs to be a transparent and regular system of benchmarking progress in relation to environmental issues as part of the environmental oversight of the region.
8.47. It will be important that the enforcement functions of the Auckland Council are separated from delivery functions and from interference by elected representatives. A recent paper records that enforcement officers report that in many local authorities, councillors are permitted direct access to compliance staff.31 This is not appropriate. The Auckland Council should prepare an internal code of conduct and related procedures to manage political interest in enforcement decisions.
8.49. Urban design refers to the physical arrangement, appearance, and functioning of towns and cities, in other words, how a place works and how it looks and feels. It is more than just style or taste, streets, footpaths, or buildings, but rather how all these elements work together. Quality urban design creates places that work, and that people use, value, and feel good in. It respects the history and special character of a city, is environmentally sustainable, and is sensitive to the social, recreational, and physical needs of people. It considers matters such as safety, accessibility, quality of life, the protection of heritage, and the environment.
8.50. The New Zealand Institute of Architects Auckland Branch and Urban Issues Group stressed the importance of quality urban design:
If Auckland is to prosper, and become one of the world’s most desirable places to live and work, any structure for Auckland’s governance must encourage and make possible quality urban design.32
8.51. The Commission agrees both with this view and with the criticisms of many submitters as to the poor quality of urban design in Auckland. The Commission has had the opportunity of visiting cities with a high quality of urban design. Of particular note is Vancouver. Many elements of urban design in Brisbane, Melbourne, Seattle, and Toronto are also of high quality. Vancouver has taken a proactive approach to making its city centre more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists. It has identified streets where pedestrians and cyclists will be given priority. It has required developers to provide small parks, seating areas, and water features immediately adjoining footpaths in its downtown area. The steps that Vancouver has taken have contributed to that city having the lowest obesity rates in Canada.33 The Commission commends this approach to Auckland. Vancouver takes a strong line in relation to the design of new high-rise buildings. It has an Urban Design Committee, which has the power to prevent a development if it is not satisfied with the design. The Commission’s understanding is that local authorities in England have a similar power. Many cities, including Brisbane, Sydney, and Melbourne, have pedestrianised streets in their central city areas restricting private motor vehicles during at least part of the day and in some cases prohibiting vehicular traffic altogether.
8.52. The Commission heard descriptions from overseas experts of Auckland’s central business district as “shabby”. The Commission has to agree. The quality of the design of many recent buildings in Auckland is poor. With notable exceptions, the streetscape is bland and dingy, and there is a lack of green spaces and seating areas away from pavements and roads. Developments such as the motorway in Grafton Gully have cut off the Domain from the rest of Auckland. The opportunity must be taken when development occurs to address these issues.
8.53. The quality of urban design is one of the features of a city that immediately impacts upon visitors. The city centre often creates the first impression that a visitor has of a city. Failures in urban design have allowed Auckland’s waterfront to be cut off visually from pedestrians. A particularly bad example is the apartments that destroyed a beautiful harbour vista for pedestrians in Princes Street, which is where Auckland’s University is situated. Failings in urban design in the past have allowed tall buildings close to the waterfront, thus obstructing views of those built behind them. Planning for the interface between the city centre and the waterfront remains fragmented and incomplete.
8.54. It should be said that past failures of Auckland in this respect are being recognised, and the focus in Auckland is changing. In the past three or four years the Auckland City Council has set up an urban design panel to review building proposals. Auckland City has appointed an urban design champion with an international reputation. Recent work on Queen Street has improved the quality of that street from the point of view of pedestrians. The architects who designed Stages 1–3 of the Queen Street upgrade received a design award for that project and another one for the urban design framework for the Wynyard Quarter. The master plan designs for Monte Cecilia Park and the new Beaumont Quarter have both won design awards. The Viaduct Basin is a successful illustration of the integration of mixed uses with the waterfront.
8.55. The present Auckland City Council is developing two policy documents that will help the city achieve its vision for the city centre as a high-quality urban environment. They are an urban design framework and a public open space plan. The six urban design goals for Auckland City are
8.56. The Commission endorses these goals as both necessary and desirable to ensure that the urban area of Auckland realises its potential.
8.57. The need for good-quality urban design is not confined to the Auckland city centre. It is needed city-wide. Some of the important urban design decisions the region needs to face and that will shape its urban form for the future are
8.58. To this, the Commission would add the important value of connectivity. The Ministry for the Environment has identified good transport connections as a feature of competitive cities. Connectivity is the degree to which networks – streets, railways, walking and cycling routes, services, and infrastructure – interconnect. Good connections encourage access within a region, city, town, or neighbourhood.
8.59. Earlier in this chapter examples have been given of poor urban design in the city centre, but urban design is not confined to that area. Onehunga residents complain that the lack of good-quality urban design has resulted in Onehunga being separated from its waterfront by motorway and bridge construction. There are many new subdivision developments throughout the Auckland region that are characterised by the sameness of the houses and the inadequate provision of community facilities. What this demonstrates is a lack, not only of urban design, but also of master planning. The Commission considers that master planning should be adopted for all significant new residential and public development and redevelopment. A master plan precedes such development and shows street layout and design, built form and uses for all land areas, heritage zones, public space designs, public transport services, walking and cycling linkages, community facilities, reserves, and other elements that go towards creating a sustainable community. Potential candidates for land use master planning and development could include
8.60. Danish urban designer Jan Gehl says that while people will do only what they need to in poor-quality public spaces, an additional “wide range of optional activities” will occur in high-quality spaces “because place and situation now invite people to stop, sit, eat, play and so on”.35 He says that “only architecture that considers human scale and interaction is successful architecture” and “first life, then spaces, then buildings – the other way around never works”.36 He points out that the 5-kilometre-per-hour scale is different from the 60-kilometre-per-hour scale. Designers constantly confuse the scales and expect pedestrians to walk in areas designed for 60 kilometres per hour. Humans need something new to look at every 4–5 seconds. This is why the 5-kilometre-per-hour scale is so important. Gehl’s vision is
The Commission believes that these considerations need to inform Auckland’s urban design.
8.61. Jan Gehl and his team have prepared a City to Waterfront Study for Wellington city.38 In the Commission’s view, it provides many lessons for Auckland. Amongst the issues it addresses are public spaces and public life, including the importance of creating a pedestrian network in the city centre. It addresses places for recreation and the visual environment. The report places a strong emphasis on urban quality and improved conditions for walking, cycling, and public transport.
8.62. Perhaps the greatest failure in the Auckland city centre is the disconnect between the city centre and the harbour. Some attempts have been made to remedy this, but the need for “big picture” thinking, leadership, and staged master planned thinking on urban design form was exemplified to the Commission in a case study on the history of the development of the waterfront. Currently there is a recognised need to upgrade all the harbour frontages, not just the Wynyard Precinct and the central business district quarter. The upgrade should be undertaken in a staged planned manner so that consistent urban design themes are achieved and the economic value added is maximised. Indeed, the Commission believes that it is not going too far to say that a successful, integrated, master plan approach to the waterfront and its linkages with the city centre is crucial to the success of the Government’s objectives for Auckland and to the success of the city itself. The waterfront is part of New Zealand’s international shop window as it stands. The poor quality of much of the built environment significantly reduces the amenity value of what could be the region’s, and one of New Zealand’s, most important areas. There must be improvements to the connections for pedestrians between the waterfront and the central city, and along the waterfront. Proposals already made that the Commission considers to be essential include an iconic building or feature in the new Wynyard Quarter and a multi-use cruise ship terminal at Queens Wharf. Additionally there must be high-quality and visually stunning pedestrian connections between the waterfront and the downtown area. A submitter noted that in addition to the failure to conclude negotiations in respect of central government’s offer of a national stadium for the waterfront, a lack of leadership has slowed progress and this has led to
8.63. The relationship between the city centre and the waterfront is one of the most important issues for Auckland. Auckland is coming to appreciate what many harbour cities around the world have recognised, that the waterfront is a strategic asset that is at the core of shaping and demonstrating quality urban design. The redevelopment of the waterfront in Toronto has been recognised as so important that a joint venture company consisting of the Government of Canada, the Province of Ontario, and the City of Toronto have joined forces to fund and manage an integrated master plan approach for the renewal of that city’s waterfront. In the Commission’s view, the importance of Auckland as a gateway would justify a similar joint government/city approach in Auckland. Further reference to the importance of Auckland’s waterfront and the Commission’s recommendations appear in Chapter 17.
8.64. The Commission has already referred to the submission from the New Zealand Institute of Architects Auckland Branch and Urban Issues Group. This submission recommended the establishment of vision groups that would sit at the table in any structure the Commission might propose. It suggested there should be one group that looked at regional issues and others that looked at local issues.
8.65. To achieve more integrated planning solutions, Auckland must have a connected and systemic approach to thinking about urban design for the city. That requires improved coordination and cooperation between central and local government and the private sector, and it requires good design that considers how to get the best social, environmental, and economic benefits from future development.
8.66. Business has a strong interest in quality urban design. The attractiveness of the central business district leads directly to increased business activity. To that end there should be an opportunity for joint ventures and a joint funding approach between business and local government. One proposal suggested involves the city council matching business-provided funding for urban improvements. Joint ventures of this nature will be facilitated through the City Centre Committee of the Auckland Council as included in the recommendations.
8.67. There are other steps that can be taken to encourage good urban design. Systems can be developed to ensure that proposals that meet good urban design standards are fast tracked through the consenting process to minimise the holding costs, which present problems for developers.
8.68. As noted earlier, the Commission was impressed at the emphasis placed upon urban design in most of the cities it visited. In Vancouver, all major new development is reviewed by an urban design panel. If that panel considers that the standard of design is inadequate or not appropriate, it has the power to refuse to allow the development. There is no right of appeal from such a decision. Such a model would not be acceptable in New Zealand, at least insofar as the lack of appeal rights is concerned, but the Commission is satisfied that there should be an Urban Design Panel, which should review all major development throughout the Auckland region and have the power of sign-off for major developments. The starting point is resource management planning documents. Those documents must incorporate urban design policies that will apply to all or particular parts of the region. Urban design is about more than architecture, so the panel needs to include in its membership not just architects and urban designers but also representatives of business, education institutions, and the not-for-profit social sector. The panel should have the funding and power to call for reports and designs for specific projects. It should include representatives with expertise and an interest in urban design, architecture, heritage, and cultural matters.
8.69. Cultural and built heritage forms an integral part of personal and local identity. It is important to Aucklanders’ sense of place. The interest in heritage is part of the desire to understand more about our cultural origins. The loss of heritage in Auckland has been an issue for many in the region for a number of years. Aucklanders still mourn the loss of His Majesty’s Theatre, a building that would never have been lost had proper heritage controls been in place. The fate of the St James Theatre, another important part of Auckland’s heritage, remains in the balance. Other quality buildings have been demolished and replaced with bland, architecturally nondescript buildings. In some cases, important buildings have been demolished except for their facades, which have remained fronting a new office tower. In the suburbs, the importance of retaining the best of the older housing stock is recognised, and controls are being introduced to ensure that in such locations new buildings respect the design of the old.
8.70. Heritage is important to the visitor economy. It is one of those aspects that makes a city unique. In the case of Auckland, our heritage includes not just the built form but also our harbours and volcanic cones, and places such as the Waitakere and Hunua Ranges. This section of the report is concerned particularly with the built heritage. It is the mixture of the best of the old with the best of the new that makes cities distinctive. Jane Jacobs has said “New ideas must use old buildings”.40
8.71. Submitters proposed a regional heritage strategy or an executive and independent heritage board. The Archaeological Association noted that there was some overlap between the roles of local government and central government in managing historic heritage, particularly through the Historic Places Trust. Despite this duplication, the association considered the role of the Historic Places Trust to be vital.41 The Commission was impressed by the passion of submitters such as Allan Matson, who devotes his time to fighting for the preservation of Auckland’s heritage. His view is that there should be one consistent system across the region and the nation for evaluating heritage. Matson says that although in need of refinement, Auckland City Council’s quantitative system using a scoring matrix may well be suited to standardisation. He calls for a system for heritage recognition that is transparent and robust, and submits that responsibility for heritage recognition should be centralised in Auckland.42
8.72. The Commission accepts that both the built and the natural heritage of Auckland are of crucial importance to Auckland’s identity. The new regional and district plans prepared for Auckland must ensure that heritage issues are fully addressed. The Commission recommends the formation of a Heritage Advisory Panel to assist the Auckland Council with the identification of heritage buildings and places and the formulation of rules to ensure their preservation.
8.73. Reference has been made in Chapter 24, “Planning for Auckland” to the need for an Auckland regional spatial plan. The Commission is of the view that this plan is the starting point for the protection of Auckland’s environment and its heritage and the development of good urban design. In this context, the spatial plan would identify the areas for urban growth and redevelopment and the areas that should remain rural. It will identify the parks network and the areas where further parks are required; it will describe the environmental goals and the urban design goals for the region; it will record notable heritage features and buildings. The issues the Commission has noted concerning the environment, urban design, and heritage require a two-pronged approach. There must be strong regional governance and policy making to ensure that the present state of the environment is identified and that Auckland’s goals for the future are expressed. There must also be a plan formulated to achieve these goals.
8.74. The Commission believes that its structural recommendations will provide the best framework to achieve these objectives at the regional level and to encourage greater community participation. The unitary authority proposed will provide the strong regional focus. The requirement for the local councils to have as their focus making their areas more liveable will place emphasis on identifying community needs and the encouragement of community groups to assist with the resolution of those needs.
Auckland needs governance arrangements for the region’s built and natural environments to ensure Auckland’s quality of place is maintained and enhanced.
8A The Auckland Council should establish an Urban Design Panel to review all major developments throughout the Auckland region, with sign-off power for major projects.
8B The Auckland Council should establish a Heritage Advisory Panel to assist it with the identification of heritage buildings and places, and the formulation of rules to ensure their preservation.
8C The Auckland Council and the Northland Regional Council should develop a co-management regime in respect of the Kaipara Harbour, involving relevant territorial authorities and mana whenua representatives from local iwi. The final structure and responsibilities should be determined by the Auckland Council and the Northland Regional Council.li
8D The Auckland Council should
1. Florida, Richard, “Thinking Cities – The world: How cities renew”, Monocle, Vol. 2, Issue 15, July/August 2008, p. 059. (Richard Florida is Director of the Martin Prosperity Institute and Professor of Business and Creativity at the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.)
2. Resource Management Act 1991, Part 1, section 2.
3. Local Government Act 2002, section 10(b).
4. Mercer’s 2008 Quality of Living Survey highlights (available at www.mercer.com/, accessed 29 January 2009).
5. Pa – stockade, fortified place.
6. Waka – traditional Māori canoe.
7. Pākehā – of European descent.
8. Regional Growth Forum, Summary of Consultation Processes: The View of Stakeholders and the Public, June 1998, pp. 8–9.
9. Crothers, Charles, “Aucklanders Attitudes to Auckland Study”, School of Social Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, October 2003, p. 4.
10. Auckland Regional Council, “Environmental Awareness Survey, 2006/07, Final Report”, August 2007.
11. Ibid., p. 2.
12. “Environmental Quality”, Sustainability Themes: Expert Group Papers, Sustaining the Auckland Region Together project, August 2006, p. 47 (available at www.arc.govt.nz).
13. Data supplied to the Commission by the ARC, 8 December 2008.
14. Statement of evidence of David Geoffrey Lindsey before the Joint Hearing Committee in the matter of the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004, section 34A of the Resource Management Act 1991, plan changes to various district plans regarding countrywide living data, and submissions made by the Auckland Regional Council.
15. Available at www.mfe.govt.nz.
16. Auckland Regional Council, “Proposed Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water”, updated to May 2008 (available at www.arc.govt.nz).
17. Ibid., section 4.2.5.
18. It is further estimated that a total of over 400 premature deaths each year is owing to air pollution (which includes the statistic of 250 deaths from motor vehicle emissions). Auckland Regional Council, www.arc.govt.nz/environment/air-quality/aucklands-air-quality/aucklands-air-quality_home.cfm, accessed February 2009.
19. Auckland Three Waters Strategic Planning Programme, Final 2008 Strategic Plan, Watercare Services, Auckland, 2008, pp. 67–70 (available at www.watercare.co.nz).
20. ARC, State of the Auckland Region Report 2004, Auckland Regional Council, Auckland, 2004, pp. 101–136 (available at www.arc.govt.nz).
21. Waitakere City Council, www.waitakere.govt.nz/abtcit/ne/twinstreams.asp, accessed February 2009.
22. Tangata whenua – local indigenous people, people of the land, Māori people.
23. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Mark and Carol Stevenson, p. 1. (All submissions are available at www.royalcommission.govt.nz.)
24. Mana whenua – local Māori with ancestral ties to the land.
25. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Guardians of the Kaipara.
26. ARC, State of the Auckland Region Report 2004, p. 78.
27. See Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 3: Summary of Submissions, Chapter 13, “Environment”.
28. Kaitiaki – guardian, caretaker.
29. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Friends of Maungawhau.
30. Hui – conferences, meeting(s).
31. Adler, Warren, “The state of the compliance and enforcement regime under the Resource Management Act 1991”, Strategik Group, June 2008 (a “think piece” prepared for the Ministry for the Environment).
32. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from New Zealand Institute of Architects Auckland Branch and Urban Issues Group, p. 1.
33. See www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2008HLS0013-001472.htm, accessed February 2009.
34. Auckland City Council, Designing great places for our people: a framework for achieving high quality urban design in Auckland, 2007, p. 13 (available at www.aucklandcity.govt.nz).
35. Ministry for the Environment, Summary of The Value of Urban Design, Wellington, 2005, p. 17 (available at www.mfe.govt.nz).
36. Project for Public Spaces, www.pps.org/info/placemakingtools/placemakers/jgehl, accessed February 2009.
37. Auckland Regional Council, www.arc.govt.nz /auckland/aucklands-growth/speakers-and-events/jan-gehl.cfm, accessed February 2009.
38. Wellington City Council, City to Waterfront Study, 2004 (available at www.wellington.govt.nz, accessed February 2009).
39. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Committee for Auckland, Waterfront Case Study submission.
40. Project for Public Spaces, www.pps.org/info/placemakingtools/placemakers/jjacobs, accessed February 2009.
41. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Archaeological Association, p. 3.
42. Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Allan Matson.
| Home | Help | Disclaimer & Copyright | Contact us | newzealand.govt.nz |