Joel Cayford: Aucklanders robbed of chance for a downtown oasis

Building is to start next year on the 36-level glass tower.

Opinion

A February 2002 New Zealand Herald editorial thundered, "Auckland is a city generally well endowed with parks and reserves with one glaring exception. Its downtown waterfront area is a model of urban utilitarianism."

Last week Auckland Council and Precinct Properties announced a deal to build a new downtown tower and start the City Rail Link (CRL) project, all made possible by selling 2000sq m of prime public space known as Queen Elizabeth Square.

One might have expected the council to replace the square with equivalent downtown space, preferably green space, as called for in the unitary plan. But the council's priority is to compensate Precinct for underground carparks consumed by the CRL tunnel, and only then using whatever cash is left over to buy public access to street and wharf spaces we already own.

This cheap public land swap is especially cheap because any public money that might be paid to Ports of Auckland can immediately be translated into a dividend so the council gets its money back.

The losers in this money-go-round are the people of Auckland, because the public realm will be the poorer for it and citizens of the future will not benefit from enriching influences and experiences.

The remarkable link between intrinsic human qualities such as behaviour, conduct and demeanour and the external built environment has been recognised for years. Cities shape and develop their citizens.

Yet this link has been given little consideration in the design of Auckland's redeveloping waterfront. The plans we see have public spaces shared with buses, cars and a light rail line; spaces that are partly under private control and subject to surveillance instead of locations simply for urban interaction.

Places which are only accessible to citizens rather than controlled by them through use are not truly public places. The laneways pictured in the designs for the redeveloped Downtown precinct are not public streets, just as the public places on Princes Wharf are not really public at all. They exist to serve the needs of private property owners: car parking and consumer access to businesses.

The most successful and honest-hearted public places in central Auckland include Victoria Park and areas of Wynyard Quarter such as Silo Park.

Fifty years ago when Auckland Harbour Board (AHB) decided to redevelop downtown Auckland it commissioned plans showing a 4000sq m Queen Elizabeth Square and low-rise towers that would not dominate and cause winds. But AHB wanted more rentable floor area, taller towers, and a much smaller public square.

Now we have a council that will add insult to injury by flogging off what is left of the square, freeing up investors so they can intensively develop the site.

I am not the only local government observer who believes the council has failed to consult properly with its citizens over this tawdry deal and has not complied with its Local Government Act duties.

Lower Queen St would remain if this deal is implemented, and we should be thankful for that, but the claims that are being made for it as a new public park by the council are disingenuous and, in my opinion, dishonest to say the least.

Auckland has the opportunity to design and create its own particular waterfront city form.

One that is the shaping environment for people who grow and live here.

One which actively addresses urban relationships that are overdue for repair including the city's relationship with the Waitemata Harbour, with Maori and Pacific culture, with shaded and leafy green spaces and the central city's public relationship with its own citizens.

• Joel Cayford is researching a University of Auckland PhD planning study comparing the redevelopment of Wellington and Auckland waterfronts.