AMANDA REYNOLDS* says the controversy over AMP's tower on Auckland's waterfront points to the need for an urban design panel.
The Herald did an informal vox pop survey of Aucklanders' least favourite buildings. Not surprisingly, for every person who hates each building there is somebody else who loves it.
What does this prove? Perhaps that beauty is largely in the eye of the beholder and that design and aesthetics are as much a product of opinion, education, culture and age among, other things, and that visual delight would be difficult to legislate for.
Controversy about the proposed new AMP tower on Quay St has sparked debate about design and planning issues, including calls for local authority legislation, and it is timely to clarify the distinction between aesthetic design and urban design.
The first is concerned with the appearance of a building, its shape, style and materials; the second with the impact of a building on the people and spaces around it and its place in the wider city.
The Institute of Architects has objected to the proposed Quay St building on the grounds of bad urban design, not unattractive looks.
Simply put, urban design deals with the issues of context and public interaction; the ways in which any building in a city supports or encourages human activity around or through it; the way in which a building enhances its immediate environment; and the way in which the public aspects of city life are added to by its existence.
Most urban design issues are to do with the experience of a building at ground or other pedestrian levels, though the height of a building should be considered if it is in a sensitive location (like the waterfront), likely to cast long shadows or cause wind problems for nearby streets, squares or other public spaces. Urban design is not about whether a building is considered to be attractive, elegant, stylish, boring, lumpy or just plain ugly. Those are personal judgments.
We all want Auckland City's buildings to look better but this is more likely to be achieved by better client and public knowledge and expectation than by regulation. It is far easier to create good urban design, but there has so far been inconsistent engagement with this issue by the Auckland City Council (among other local authorities). The process of obtaining projects which deliver good urban design is too complex for simple hands-off, market-driven solutions and it is timely for this and other councils to take steps to ensure major input from urban design professionals.
Rather than a rigid urban design code trying to focus on the appearance of buildings, the best way to control the public impact of large and small urban projects is to develop design guidelines (for example, no building should have carparks at the street edge or no building should have a blank wall at the street edge). An independent urban design panel should also be appointed. Consisting of experienced urban design personnel, it would be involved in the approval of large projects.
This panel would assess projects at an early, pre-resource consent stage before the developers and designers become wedded to their designs. At this stage it is possible to identify potential problems and evolve complying solutions which enhance the project for both developer and the public without having to go through adversarial processes.
This would not replace the resource consent process, nor would it take away the need to notify a non-complying scheme and allow members of the public to participate in the process. It would, however, ensure that the public interest was represented at an early stage by a panel of independent experts whose focus is on improving the city for all - landowner, developer and citizen alike.
Mention has been made of overseas cities, particularly in Australia and Canada, and how much better they manage to do these things. In both countries, urban design panels are a major part of their strategies for improving the environments of their cities.
Vancouver, Adelaide and Melbourne all have panels responsible for assessing buildings in the central city over a certain size, value or placement on sensitive sites (such as waterfront or riverfront areas). These panels could be investigated for local application potential.
The three cities have benefited enormously from the involvement of urban design panels in the design and approval of buildings in the central city and are now delivering richer, more exciting and more attractive urban environments, while meeting the expectations of both developers and the public.
If Auckland is to consistently develop its inner city positively, it is essential that a system similar to these panels is put in place and that it becomes an important part of the approvals process.
* Amanda Reynolds chairs the Institute of Architects' urban issues group.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
Latest from New Zealand
Should ratepayers foot the bill to ensure freedom campers stick to the rules?
Whangarei District Council reviews need for monitoring of freedom camping.