A rather sad article in today’s NZ Herald about the loss of an important chunk of Auckland’s waterfront to a large carparking building:
Parking building adds to crowding on waterfront
Auckland’s precious waterfront, which just got a huge cement storage plant, is now getting a six-storey parking building.
A 1250-park block is rising on the Quay St/Britomart Place/Scene Lane corner as the latest addition to the $1 billion Britomart heritage precinct.
Alex Swney, Heart of the City chief executive, says there is little that can be done to avoid the situation.
“This is an imperfect outcome but we understand how we ended up in this place. It takes cars off the streets.”
I must say I completely disagree with Mr Swney here. Building more parking buildings just encourages people to drive into the city rather than catch public transport. So it puts cars onto the road rather than taking them off it. Let’s have a look at the area we are talking about:
As you can see, the site just about sits on top of Britomart railway station. So it doesn’t exactly lack options for public transport. Most of Auckland’s bus routes pass through this area as well. So I think it’s really disappointing to see a parking building that’s completely unnecessary, will simply put another 1200 vehicles on the already congested roads of Auckland’s CBD and wastes a hugely critical site on Auckland’s waterfront.
Maybe we really need to introduce a parking levy on off-street parking spaces in the CBD to discourage this?
Processing...
I saw this this in the herald this morning and was disgusted, what a great site next to the water wasted. Sadly I don’t know if Auckland will ever learn.
Good point 1: It is slightly less ugly than the usual car parking building. Good point 2: The car parking spaces are to some degree for new britomart office development (intensification), rather than for existing motorists.
Bad point 1: Another car park in the CBD. Bad point 2: Another car park in the CBD. Bad point 3: Another car park in the CBD (continue until you reach 1250…)
Didn’t someone (maybe Sweeny?) say that the CBD public car parks had only a 40% occupancy rate?
Ingolfson I like the way you think. Bad carpark BADDDD! The video City of Cars about Auckland is totally true!
Like many building sites around town this one seems to have completely taken over the footpath by it. Surely this is public land and shouldn’t be available every time someone can’t be bothered providing an alternative covered replacement?
It does seem to have taken over the footpath. What should be a nice part of Auckland to walk around is actually pretty horrible.
Ingolfson, yes I agree the design is better than most carparks. However, it’s still a carpark.
Councils generally allow construction to take over footpaths if they feel there are alternatives and there’s not much walking going on. Whether that applies here, I am conflicted.
I think it would be disgraceful to lose footpath space along Quay Street. It should be our prime boulevard.
“I think it would be disgraceful to lose footpath space along Quay Street. It should be our prime boulevard.”
I was talking about taking over footpath space during construction. They don’t just give it away. Though you will never be asked whether you will have a problem with that happening after all, once it is called Auckland Transport. They might just decide that for Auckland / Auckland’s transport system, losing a bit of space here and there on an “underused footpath” is worth it if the developer then does some unspecified other thing to buy them off.
Okay, I am engaging in conspiracy theories. The problem is that WE WOULD NEVER KNOW, because BOTH the Auckland waterfront AND Auckland’s transport are to be managed secretive, unelected and undemocratic CCO’s!
Secrecy breeds conspiracy theories (and real conspiracies too, because it is so much easier to just act, rather than interact).
Max, the herald editorial today is absolutely damning of Auckland Transport and its unaccountability. Surely changes will be made????
I saw construction beginning at this site a few weeks ago and remember thinking “good, a new building close to Britomart” and seeing this article really pissed me off…
Can someone please tell the idiots in the Scene apartments that the did not purchase the view, there is no right to a view…
The Scene apartment owners should be very familiar with that concept already, seeing as their building blocked the view of half the CBD behind it!
Seems like Auckland needs congestion charging. It works overseas.
You can have a lower-rate for residents.
Introduce a free electric shuttle service like Christchurch.
Carparks for the most part should be under-ground.
Surely ground floor and first floor is prime retail?
I don’t know if congestion charging is the right solution. Auckland’s CBD already struggles to attract employment, with only 12% of Auckland’s jobs in the CBD. I wouldn’t want to see that number go even lower, which could result from congestion charging.
Auckland needs pricing of all congested routes… which means pretty much any motorway or highway during peak times region wide!
We have congestion charging of sorts already. Sitting on the motorway when we could be at work costs plenty.
“Max, the herald editorial today is absolutely damning of Auckland Transport and its unaccountability. Surely changes will be made????”
Cosmetic, or real changes?
Well that is the $650 million (annual budget of Auckland Transport) question Max.
In terms of shifting people to non-road options congestion (i.e. wasted time and money) would be useful if they bothered to provide much of an alternative, but in terms of making the roads work better congestion does the opposite.
A price on using congested roads would shift people to a non-congested option (i.e. non road travel or other times or routes) as well as making the existing road work efficiently.
“I don’t know if congestion charging is the right solution. Auckland’s CBD already struggles to attract employment, with only 12% of Auckland’s jobs in the CBD. I wouldn’t want to see that number go even lower, which could result from congestion charging.”
Eh, Jarbury, don’t miss the point – of course you would want to hypothecate (or whatever it is spelled) the money to PT improvements. Watch the money roll in, and the busways, rail lines and trams take off with all the funding. Of course it will never happen quite that way, but with the right government, the right direction can be taken without egrets like the one you raise.
Depends how one wants to do “congestion pricing”. I think that banning the provision of any more parking spaces in the city and not upgrading any roads into the CBD except for public transport purposes would act like a congestion charge without much of the controversy and social equity issues that congestion charging would bring.
Not that I’m necessarily against congestion charging in the longer term, I just think that there are other steps we should take first.
I’m a fan of congestion charging in the longer term. However at the moment the PT into the city isnt good enough to avoid a major public backlash against any plan. Maybe in a decade when we have our fast-frequent electric trains running well, and our Paul Mees network effect starting to work really well.
I guess that’s a bit of a “chicken and egg” issue though. Congestion charging would raise a lot of money to improve public transport, but better public transport is needed before you introduce congestion charging…..
“I guess that’s a bit of a “chicken and egg” issue though. Congestion charging would raise a lot of money to improve public transport, but better public transport is needed before you introduce congestion charging…..”
You can introduce “soft” congestion charging, i.e. only charge a little to start off.
These are all things I try before congestion charging:
– Redraw district plan to greatly reduce parking in the CBD and allow no NEW parking…
– Meter on ALL curb side parking in the shopping areas of the WHOLE region…
– Change minimum parking requirements into maximum parking requirements…
– Get serious about PT funding…