Jeremy made a good point a few days back when he blogged about us transport advocates being a bit too negative at times. I think we have to be critical when things really are going wrong, but at the same time that needs to be balanced by some good news stories. One particularly excellent development in recent times in Auckland City Council’s “Shared Space” concept. The latest area where this concept, which revolves around the idea of taking away the distinction between the roadway and the footpath, is Darby Street. The council is currently seeking feedback on its proposal to turn Darby Street into a Shared Space.
The map below shows where Darby Street is located in Auckland’s CBD: pretty much as central as it gets.
Despite its very central location, Darby Street is currently in a fairly poor state. There’s parking along it, which takes up a lot of space and creates footpaths that really are far too narrow for an area like that. It’s also used as a shortcut by people trying to get from Queen Street through to Victoria Street – so they can bypass the traffic lights at that major intersection (which do take forever to change).
Below is a photo of what Darby Street currently looks like:
This is not the only street that Auckland City Council have identified for upgrading to a “shared space”. We also have the fairly well advanced Elliott Street and Fort Street proposals. The Darby Street proposal is likely to look something like this:
Interestingly, when all these shared space ideas emerged last year, Darby Street was originally proposed as a link to be fully pedestrianised. For some reason Council stepped back from this, and have gone with the share space idea instead.
As I said above, while I am a huge fan of shared spaces, in some ways they are a more politically viable and pragmatic alternative to full pedestrianisation, in cases where full pedestrianisation would be very difficult (such as requiring irregular access to buildings, for example). However, in the case of Darby Street it would seem as though there isn’t really a need at all for vehicular access, so we could have got away with full pedestrianisation here if council had had a bit more guts. The other issue with having this road as a shared space, rather than a pedestrian mall, is that cars are still likely to use it as a short-cut between Queen Street and Victoria Street – whereas in actual fact you probably want as few vehicles as possible travelling along the space. Â Perhaps a solution there might be to reverse the direction that vehicles travel along Darby Street, so that it’s pretty useless as any short cut?
Speaking more generally again, here’s an excellent video by Auckland City Council on the shared space idea:
And a two-part video on shared spaces from England:
I think there’s an interesting debate to be had about where shared spaces are more appropriate and where full pedestrianisation is more appropriate.
Processing...
“The Darby Street proposal is likely to look something like this”
The after picture isn’t particularly inviting, to be honest. The buildings still have no character and it isn’t a place where I’d want to spend time.
Contrast Cuba St and Manners Mall in Wellington. One is a vibrant urban space with cafes and outdoor seating, buskers, its own biannual festival, and is a great place to hang out in or pass through. The other is kind of grim and the only people who seem to enjoy it are the local emos, possibly because it helps them feel sad. The council has decided to de-mall it and run buses through the middle and that’s a good decision, even if it is opposed by people who can’t grasp the basics of good urban design.
The difference between the two seems to be, at least in part, the scale and type of the buildings on the respective streets. Cuba St has low rise buildings with lots of character while Manners Mall is lined with drab tall buildings or tatty old buildings with little to recommend them.
Darby Street seems to be more like Manners Mall than Cuba St. Pedestrianisation or sharing the street might improve it, but I don’t think it is going to be sufficient to make it a great space.
Interesting point obi. I don’t think the council can do too much about the buildings to either side of Darby Street. One day this street will be the main accessway between Queen Street and the midtown/Aotea railway station – so it should have plenty of pedestrians passing through.
The main reason they went with shared space was local businesses such as they backpackers who claimed they had to have car access due to all the people turning up with bags. Which in a way is funny as backpackers are the sort of people used to carrying their bags, and seeing as a good proprtion of backpackers in NZ are Germans, Swiss etc, they are more than used to large areas of a city being car free. At least we have a shared space and it will be in a form which can easily be converted to completely car free.
@obi: You need to set up the environment – the shared space – before you get the kind of tenants that would make the space more attractive, making it a vibrant shared space.
Darby St may well end up more like Manners Mall, but I reckon it’d still be an improvement on its present state.
Remember that it will link into Elliott St, so I don’t think we should be looking at Darby St in isolation, rather we should see Elliott+Darby as a shared space mini-precinct.
Elliott St is looking better already with the Stables and I reckon it will do really well as a shared space. The owners of the T&G building on the corner of Wellesley and Elliott Sts, including the Stables, have done a good job. I flatted there once, and the building has just got better and better.
Having the Elliott St shared space link all the way to Queen Street, with Darby St being that link, will only make both better. The two streets together will make up one awesome (in relative Auckland terms) shared space.
Andrew – I agree, more business will come once the street is upgraded, not before.
Maybe one day we could make Queen St a shared space….
I think we should jump in boots and all and go with pedestrianising lots of the central city, all the shared streets admin recommended in a (much) earlier post and turn Hobson and Nelson into two way streets with wide sidewalks rather than defacto extensions of the motorway to the waterfront…
Please, no more palm tree abuse in our streets. The experience in Queen Street of the palm trees in Queen Streets warrants the flora equivalent of the SPCA to be called in and the Council prosecuted for abuse!
Business owners whined about parking and access issues and threatened Council which is why Darby became shared space rather than pedestrianised.
That and the fact that Council can’t ticket moving vehicles meaning enforcement will be next to zero makes pedestrian only spaces a faint mirage on the fartherest horizon seen from the top of the sky needle, err, tower.
AFAIK shared spaces are, in practice, pedestrian malls where vehicles are “allowed in” but at a rate of perhaps 10 per hour.
You wouldn’t normally think of South American countries when looking for good urban design but in Santiago (Chile) most of the city centre is pedestrian only but there are still a couple of hotels and many many business that require deliveries and general vehicle access so they went around this by managing the traffic so deliveries and pick up are only allowed at night and only by authorised vehicles that have swipe cards that can lower the barriers (they are posts that slide underground to let vehicles through). During daytime this is much stricter but it still allows for sparse taxi access (specific vehicles) to some business … I’d be willing to share that much of space 🙂
It isn’t the paving or treescape design that will make this place a success, it is what happens once it is opened up to the people. If you took Vulcan Lane (arguably Aucklands best ‘people street’) and took out the cafe tables and the bars and the lunchtime workers it would look just like the render for Darby St above. Simple good quality paving, a couple of benches and bins and some trees.
And hey GOP, having spent a lot of time throughout South America I would say they have amazing urban design as a rule, due to the long history of walkable street grids, central plazas and squares, low focus on car transport (with a few obvious exceptions) and big focus on walking and public transport. The concept of ‘shared spaces’ between pedestrians and vehicle drivers has been the status quo for hundreds of years. The larger ‘modern’ cities of freeways and gridlock certainly exist of course, but they are more the exception to the rule. Latin Americans ‘live’ in their urban spaces, unlike us who tend to design them as places pass through on the way to a private space.
“I think we should jump in boots and all and go with pedestrianising lots of the central city, all the shared streets admin recommended in a (much) earlier post and turn Hobson and Nelson into two way streets with wide sidewalks rather than defacto extensions of the motorway to the waterfront…”
I’m really down with turning Hobson and Nelson into two-way streets again. Multi-lane one-way streets are the death of any sort of human streetscape scale. With two-way roads, you can have medians, maybe even planted or (gasp!) wide enough for trees. With streets like Nelson, all you can do is stick up a sign saying “city motorway”.
is the midtown railway station still going to be placed on the corner of Victoria St and Albert St? where that carpark is located? If so that’d make Darby Street one of the most used pedestrian malls (as an access way from Queen St to the station). I don’t think getting people along there would be a problem if so, it’s keeping them there and making it a nice area. Vulcan lane almost has it’s own little vibe to it, purely because of the bars and cafe’s along there. Darby St would be perfect for that (along with Elliot St and it’s stables, If only the horrible food court below Atrium on Elliot was removed)
Jeremy, the station will most likely be deep under Albert St all the way from Victoria to Wellesley. Therefore access through carpark development would make an ideal main entrance to link the station to Queen St via Darby St, and this has been noted in the various reports.
One of the best things is that it would provide a nearly level walk from Queen St to the station concourse, due to the steepness of the land heading up the Albert St ridge.
In terms of changing Hobson and Nelson into two way boulevards, I am all in favour. It would require a little re-gigging of the motorway ramps though. I think the easiest would be to make Nelson St the southern motorway link and Hobson the western motorway link. For this to work the offramp from the Northwestern would have to be realigned alongside the existing onramp to the northwestern from the top of Hobson, which would be pretty straightforward. The onramp to the southern however would have to underpass these two links, which looks pretty simple as they are already elevated on viaducts.
Maybe like this:
http://maps.google.com.au/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=-36.855493,174.758363&spn=0.004696,0.008154&t=k&z=17&msid=101291069583876254503.000482a8bec87a0d8e4e3
Nick R – I think there’s no reason not to keep the old Hobson Street onramp which you have deleted, if at less lanes, to then do a merge further along.
I think it would be a good idea to separate the two main flows to the two different streets, but keeping the old Hobson on ramp just for those coming down Pitt St and making the free left turn would be handy, cut out some unneccessary cross traffic.
I’ve updated the map.
@Jeremy, the station won’t be in the carpark it will under Albert Street, that carpark was scheduled for a new high rise but financing (from Korea IIRC) fell through…
Exactly like that Nick and then reduce the lanes on Nelson and Albert Sts, two way them, look at introducing bus lanes if suitable, build cycle lanes both directions and add footpath space…
I think the footpath width is actually quite sufficient, it’s just very neglected. The five to six lane one way expressway in the middle of the street is the main issue for pedestrians.
Simply making them two lanes each way with slip lanes where appropriate, a median with trees and a bit of a streetscape upgrade would do wonders. Even for cyclists, cycling on these roads wouldn’t be such a wild idea then.
Not sure about bus lanes, might be better to focus the buses on Albert, Queen and Symonds.
Then we could get rid of the much hated lower Hobson St ramp too!
I don’t really like the idea of a shared space being bordered by a carpark. It seems a bit strange to have a pedestrian friendly area with a huge stack of cars towering above it. It just doesn’t make for a good street feel. I would like whatever they decide to put on that empty block to present a good street front, even if it is just a thin veneer in front of the carpark.
@Nick R. Death to the Hobson Street ramp! That is an abysmal eyesore.
“might be better to focus the buses on Albert, Queen and Symonds.”
No don’t focus buses on Queen, get them and the cars off it!
James B, there is carparking in the empty lot now, but the plan to build a high rise building there would certainly involve commercial or retail uses along the edges adjacent to the street.
Jeremy, Queen St is the spine of the CBD and should therefore have a strong public transport component at street level. Light rail is my preference but I will settle for buses in the mean time. I agree get rid of the cars, I would like to see just two narrow lanes in the centre for public transport. I don’t think full pedestrainisation would be a good idea, Queen Street is probably a bit too wide for that to work. It could end up feeling windswept and barren, like the old QEII square was.
I lived in Brisbane for about 6 months and absoloutly loved how they had their Queen St set up, roads passing through underneath, busways underneath, section of queen st in the center of the city (much like Sydneys Pitt St) is pedestrian only. I know it’d take a whole lot of work, and may in fact not work well with Auckland, but one can dream..
I’d be happy with 1 lane each way through a section of queen St, for busses only, with something in between the two, like a space big enough for a small cafe, there’s probably enough room as you’ve mentioned
Another road, or roads, which would be perfect for this shared spaces idea is the area of Teed St in New Market, along with Osbourne St. There’s plenty of foot traffic, with good cafe’s and designer retail outlets and a small amount of vehicle traffic.
It’s just a shame they’re currently revamping that area into a more pedestrian orientated street but with a area for cars (road) and a footpath
That first part of Teed St is ludicrous, absolutely no reason to have vehicle access except as a through route, no car parks, driveways, loading zones or taxi stands there.
And the southern part of Hurstmere St in Takapuna should be done too. They almost did it in the early nineties, but caved to the demands of local shop owners who thought the whole precinct would collapse without the dozen or so car parks on the street.
I agree with Jeremy and Nick. If done today, these would likely have become shared spaces (the Broadway-side part of Teed Street especially).
HOWEVER you folks need to realise that such things move slowly. Teed Street was revamped years ago and at the time already signalled (for Auckland at least) a relatively radical departure – I mean NO PARKING IN A SHOPPING AREA STREET??? HOW CAN YOU?
Osborne Street again, took years to make its way through concept, planning, funding and now construction – I talked to a Council urban designer on this over a year ago on how the street would look (and before anyone accuses Council of working slowly, I recently had enough opportunities to see private companies do the same).
In short, the only option of getting Osbourne Street into a shared space would have been to hold and redo all the project work. We might have gotten something in 2-4 more years. If the funding hadn’t disappeared by that time for something else. Baby steps. We are getting there.
And at the end of the day, I think Osbourne Street will be great. It will have a narrow single lane, footpaths twice as wide as the roadspace, and speed tables for traffic calming. That’s one of the ways a good street in a civilised part of town should look.
“HOWEVER you folks need to realise that such things move slowly.”
I’m sorry but that is just the wrong attitude… The transformational mayor of Curitiba (sp?) who changed their transport forever for the better with BRT and urban design did it in almost one term, his motto was make change as fast as you can…
I think making both Nelson St and Hobson Street two way roads, with Hobson linking with the southern and Nelson with the Northwestern (or vice versa… whichever is easier) is a Fantastic idea.
Getting back to Darby Street, I guess to go from shared space to full pedestrianisation would be pretty easy. So this is a huge step in the right direction.
It’s as simple as a few metal barriers…
“I’m sorry but that is just the wrong attitude…”
Work with what you got, not with what you wish you had. If you got a Council that is making slow steps in the right directions, we should embrace that. Shared spaces is NOT something I had expected from this Council at all.
And while I have little idea of the governance of Curitiba, I am a bit wary of any sort of “revolution”. Quick change means riding over a lot of concerns too – and some of those concerns may well be valid. And the next revolution to follow may not be what you want.
I think both of you are right. You don’t want to have ideas that are too far “out there” to be taken seriously. But at the same time you don’t want to set your sights too low and not be at all visionary.
It’s a tricky balance to find.
“Getting back to Darby Street, I guess to go from shared space to full pedestrianisation would be pretty easy. So this is a huge step in the right direction.”
Same goes for Teed Street east too. But let’s see whether we even need to on Darby. If the reconfigured Darby/Elliot is being used as a serious rat run, I have confidence that something would be done.
I agree to a certain extent but I do often feel our politcians lack leadership and are quick to do what is easy, wrong and popular instead of the opposite… I guess as a liberal I believe in quick, positive change…
I see myself as a liberal too, but have been infected by a sense of the possible, I guess. Big dreams are very nice, but you crash from them too often. Actually getting change is hard slogging.
Also, we may be idolizing Curitiba too much. How do you know they didn’t have a long, long slog like we had – until they came to a tipping point? Probably their quick changes were based on a long period of “preparation” too, as locals and professionals there became aware of their problems and new ideas to deal with them, timidly tested things etc… – then, when the time was ripe, someone took it and ran with the ideas. Now THAT is a dream I could see happen in Auckland. But it won’t be possible to predict the when or even the exact what.
I think the critical part of making shared spaces more popular and widespread is just getting some in there. They are the kind of places that are a bit counter-intuitive (they’re safer because we take away the safety barriers????) but once people see how they work and how awesome they are, I really do think they’ll be clamouring for more and more.
Having a shared street in, or near, every town centre would be a good way to get them, and how they work, in the public mind…
On Curitiba, the mayor/city asked for urban designers and architects from their university to submit a master plan for the city, a competition basically, he then said the winner can help him implement it if they get elected, he won a again they did and the change was marked, positive and quick…
A bold and charasmatic leader can make such change, it just takes someone with will and integrity…
“he won again they did and the change was marked, positive and quick… ”
And how do you know that this bright plan on its own just switched everything around? Maybe if he had come along three years earlier with exactly the same proposal, he would have failed miserably.
I believe in champions – but even they can’t turn the tide. The good thing in Auckland in my opinion is that the tide seems to shift right now. So maybe in the coming years, some champion like that can come along and do a bold plan. Until then, I take heart in the fact that even many erstwhile opponents of PT and active modes are making some improvements.
“And how do you know that this bright plan on its own just switched everything around?”
Through reading mainly…
I think shared spaces really are Ludo Campbell-Reid’s initiative. He’s done well to get buy-in from a C & R council.
” his motto was make change as fast as you can…”
No offense, but this sounds a hell of a lot like Roger Douglas :p just change the subject to public assets hah, he wrote a book/article once about how if you want to get something done you need to slam it through as fast as possible so the opposition cant react (sorry I can’t find a reference, have 16 hours of work tomorrow and < 5 hours sleep until it comes), and is exactly what he (and act) have done with the supercity
Just a fun fact.
@admin – how will Ludo fit into the new council? I really hope people are making sure to keep him happy, so to speak, it would be a great shame and loss to Auckland if the upcoming shuffle pissed him off and he left.
RTC, at the moment he’s group manager of Urban Design at Auckland City Council. Hopefully he has a new role fairly high up the food chain in the new organisation.
@Jeremy, that is absolutely true but if you look at right wing parties, they say, “I’ve a got a really crappy idea and it’s happening no matter what” and they make changes, left wing parties say, “we agree on a change but lets debate every single detail until nothing happens”, people respond to the first and not the second…
I think thread has been good evidence of that, even the suggestion of being decisive for positive change here and an example of how it can work has been opposed…
I guess the problem will be that at the moment Urban Desgin will include both roads, and wider issues with public space and buildings. However with Auckland Transport things will be split in two. Therefore if Campbell-Reid stays at the Auckland Council he will lose any ability to deal with roads. Will make things difficult for the shared spaces idea. Maybe this will be the first victim of the new silos that Rodney is setting up.
“I think thread has been good evidence of that, even the suggestion of being decisive for positive change here and an example of how it can work has been opposed…”
I find that comment a bit insulting. Apparently I am now a member of, or someone similar to, a weak and vacillating left. While the right is sometimes all wrong, but at least they are manly and stick to their guns – to state my interpretation of your comments above.
If we cannot debate and raise concerns about what you yourself said would be quite substantial change – in the *comments* section of a blog – then what is the point? Respecting (and expecting) dissent is necessary in a democracy. Even dissent against good ideas.
A good politician negotiates his way through that dissent, and makes concessions where he is able to do so without compromising his vision. I would welcome (positive) change. But if it’s done trampling over the voices of those opposed to the change, you get “super cities”.
Sorry if feel insulted but I believe what I said, leaders are elected to lead, they run on a range of policy announcements that people have the choice of voting for or not… What I think gets people annoyed is when they introduce policies they never flagged like National seems to be currently or their term descends into talk fests when nothing gets achieved…