Its easy to forget just how much things have improved over the last few years so here are a couple of videos to remind you just what the shared spaces looked like a couple of years ago.
Fort St:
The whole area around Fort St was really a run down hole and frankly quite embarrassing for a modern city but now it is one of my favourite places in the city. It has really started to come alive since the street was upgraded and has been such a success that it ensured that the next stage will go ahead later this year. Here are some photos of what it looks like now:
You can find a whole lot more before and after shots here.
Elliot St:
I always remember Elliot St as being one of the best streets in the city due to its more pedestrian friendly nature but in hindsight it was really just the best of a bad bunch. Watching this video shows just grotty it had become and I also noticed just how much faster cars used to travel down the street. That is the result of having such a clearly defined street with no parking to slow people down and why it is so critical that O’Connell isn’t given a similar treatment. Also notice just how many cars were parked up on Darby St. Here are some photos of how it looks now:
AT do need to stop cars parking in here though
And you can see more before and afters here.
Both of these streets have had what could be described as live changing makeovers and are so much better for it. I just wish we could roll out similar upgrades to others streets in the city (and in the suburbs) tomorrow. Thanks to Craig for these images.
Processing...
I think Elliot St has some issues in that cars and peds don’t mix, all of a sudden the footpath has become the road and vice versa. Atleast beforehand cars were channelled through a narrow road between bollards, making you think about your driving speed. Now its a wide open road, and there isn’t enough pedestrian infrastructure (trees, tables and seats) on the left hand side for drivers not to think it’s a road/carpark.
I use it quite often and have had no problems with speeding cars, they go nice and slow. There are often people parked up waiting for something, but never cars parked and empty. Big deal, I’ve got no problem with people dropping someone off in the street, there is plenty of space to do a bit of delivery or whatnot and have a heap of pedestrian provision.
To me that is the sign of a street working very well. After all it isn’t pedestrianised, it is shared. Cutting out through traffic and parking is the main thing, that leaves it to work for pedestrians and local vehicle access.
That’s good its working. I just prefer the Fort St layout I think, its got more of a people place feel to it, while Elliot looks a bit service lane-ish. I’m probably also making an unfair comparison of Elliot to Brisbane’s Queen St where there is no way you would see a vehicle in sight!
I think the drain running down the Eastern side of Elliot street becomes a de-facto curb undermining the wall-to-wall paving effect.
I don’t understand why Elliott Street doesnt have bollards. As a lot of people have said on here before, it is possible to have bollards that go up and down or that are open before 11am for deliverie and then close. Every time I walk down Elliott Street I have to stand aside for a car making a completely unnecessary short cut down the street.
I do think that SO much progress has been made but also think the Council must have to put up with so much auto dependent whingeing especially from retailers who are convinced that a street without cars is dead. Once they see that isnt true (eg Fort Street) they will be clammering for it. So I have sympathy with the Council that little incremental chnages are necessary as much as I would love an overnight transformation.
At least we are on the right track and I dont see it changing.
Funny how retailers think that cars buy goods. I have never waited at a teller for a car to complete a purchase or sat next to a car in a restaurant.
I have in the past suggested reversing the vehicle direction of the streets as a way to prevent them from being shortcuts.
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/01/12/tweaking-shared-spaces/
Yes the auto dependent whinging from retailers and engineers is enough to drive you bananas. “Oh but what are the cars going to do” … errrr … slow down?
As a engineer I think reversing directions in a illogical pattern would be the best result. Instead of being used as a through route, they would end up being used as a access. I use illogical in the sense of the driver, cause we only design for the car 😉
I think that to allow the use of the planter boxes/fences by the pub/sushi store and others in fort street to delineate “their” space from the rest is a mistake,
the whole point of shared spaces is to promote alertness of your surroundings, allowing big chunks to be closed off (for cars or pub users) is a direct affront to that aim,
I’m all for more outdoor dining and drinking areas in the city, for too long there’s been no where but indoor areas.
I agree – I think the cafes/restaurants should not be allowed to carve off space like that; it should be open to the street to activate the edge and slow cars down.
Wow what a difference,i vuess that the buildings will get a spruce up eventually
Buildings on Fort Street are looking much tidier since the shared street was installed. Fresh paint, better exteriors, all good!
Good news from Wellington, by the way: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/7725674/Council-considering-20kmh-Golden-Mile-limit
I’ve got an idea. Instead of all of these different speed limits – 20, 30 ,40 ,50 – why don’t we follow the Dutch example and have Shared space – 30 -50 – 80 and 100 (I think they actually have 110)? Less confusing for a start.
Didn’t they install 10 km/h signs recently in some of the shared spaces? They originally didn’t want to sign a speed, but obviously they changed their minds…
Elliot St, in particular outside Smith & Caughey’s, has basically become a car park as far as I can tell. One person parks, then a bunch of other people follow suit; on the weekend the street is consistently lined with cars, at least in my experience. Darby St is the same.
Making these shared spaces will prove to be pointless if AT doesn’t start enforcing the rules.
Yes, They are starting to repaint the Barfoot and Thompson building on Fort street
Good grief, acres of pavers is so 1970s. The same pavers as the Cashel St shared space but none of the people friendly streetscape and furniture.
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=cashel+mall&f=hp#page=9
Presumably the councillors wanted to make sure these Auckland streets would become unattractive to car drivers before they agreed to spend more than a token amount making them attractive to people as well as pedestrians (living streets instead of mere walkways).
http://www.pps.org/reference/grplacefeat/
Can’t agree Kevyn, I love the stone, its a street not a park, and I take great delight in sauntering down the middle of these streets and frustrating drivers. I like to think of it as a little urban education for them.
Great work AC, Auckland is growing up.
Agree with Patrick. Elliott Street is an amazing success – simply a superb urban space now enjoyed by many.
The other shared spaces will become great over time too I think.
And the north end of Elliot Street even catches the sun! Lovely to sit there as spring arrives …
Yeah, I like the paving too. In old european cities there are streets and streets using the same cobblestones or paving – I just see it as a modern version of that. Sure, its a little dull in winter, but it contrasts well in summer, especially when the greenery is out.
I’m all for green spaces, but there are places for that, and its not shared spaces. Small isolated pockets as much as possible, where we can (e.g. Emily Place) are the answer – something the waterfront badly needs. There is not a scrap of green grass (I think)from Silo Park in the west till….Teal Park in the east? Don’t those in charge see how popular flat green grass is in Auckland? And what better spot than with a view of the water?
I’ve always thought that if I stood for council, my policy plank would be the removal of all our ad-hoc heavy awnings that hang off our lovely character buildings, to be replaced by retractable rain covers. Only I’m discovering that no one seems to agree.
But see what I mean?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dave_irving/5592401991/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jinx_1303/2123116903/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zoetnet/6950869601/
Imagine how big our streets would feel, we could appreciate the heritage of streets like Queen St – right now, all I really experience are shady shop windows.
Great post Matt!
Patrick, But is that distinction of public spaces into streets and parks either valid or desirable? The current designs still treat those public spaces as transport corridors. If your sole concern is to remove cars from the city then this design will work admirably. But if you take a broader view that removing cars is the first vital step to remaking central Auckland into desirable living space rather than its current function as a merely a workplace destination then you need to go the next step and regard streets as part of a living city which means you deliberately have to include furniture that provides places to stop and talk or just watch the world go by. (consider the meaning of place and all that waffly sort of landscape architecture conceptual stuff).
It’s a shared space, a pedestrian priority street and public space that vehicle drivers can drive down slowly if they need to for the purposes of accessing local properties. Sounds about perfect to me.
I am just less confident about the need for proscriptive street furniture than you. Get the access privileges to the space right and occupancy will sort itself out. It is important that they remain streets and we don’t try to turn them into out door living rooms or something. Aotea square to me is a big bogus and expensive shrine to grade separation not an authentic place [so great we built it twice!]. It is better now than it was and is starting to work [ie it relates better to it’s buildings, such as they are] but it’s as about as real as shopping mall plaza. I do believe in streets remaining street-y and that means still having movement patterns of some sort including vehicular and relating to the buildings meaningfully. But it is all about getting the hierarchy of the modes right above all else.
Temporary chairs, or just standing around has a great and successful record in good cities all over the world. I love those pubs in England that spill out onto the street on warm evenings with people just milling around. Many great Italian plazas are festooned in tacky placky furniture.
If we insist on spending tens of millions on high cost upgrades just to take the streets back it’s going to take too long to improve the city. Bit of paint and few deck chairs can work too. Don’t get me wrong I really like the new shared spaces with smart paving and trees etc, but what I like best of all is that they are proof of concept. We should now be spreading this sort of love without waiting for the millions to be available.
A case in point is the new street furniture outside the Rob Roy, what’s the point? inflexible and stranded compared to re-opening the pub and letting the customers fill the square as demand ebbs and flows with any old chairs and tables…. or designer Danish, or antique French ones if that’s what the market wants…
And yes getting the traffic privilege reduced IS the key to a better and more successful city, the rest is merely icing on the cake. I’m all for champagne urbanism but also the quicker more flexible cheap and cheerful version!
Patrick is pretty much saying the same thing as Jan Gehl – flexible furniture such as chairs that people can move around to suit themselves often works better to activate spaces than putting in expensive designed street furniture made out of fancy steel and wood.
What is happening with the pub? Surely it would be a good move with the way Victoria Park is going, and it’s really the only way that corner is going to be activiated.
No tenant yet; perhaps NZTA are not a very flexible landlord….? Or perhaps they can’t understand how their vile overpass so negatively affects the value of this tenancy?
Maybe we’de better just agree to disagree on the relative importances of reducing traffic and encouraging lingering. What’s icing on the caketo you is the filling in the pie to me. Perhaps I’m a bit biased from studying this particular aspect of urban form in a flat city where there are no hills to break the monotony of straight lines. I suspect the same thing may be part of NYCs pocket park rules.
I’m a fan of the coloured seats!!! If only the council designs had some colour!
I live on Lower Queen Street and I think Fort St. looks quite bleak after dark. I would like a bit more colour and lighting on the street. Even replacing a random few of the paving stones on the road with coloured ones would I think make a significant difference. I think the space needs to be broken up a bit more; to me it’s too wide and uniform. More textured paving, coloured paving, accent lighting, and public art would not go amiss.. Bollards on the Queen Street intersection would make it safer and more pleasant. I don’t think fixed furniture is appropriate for the western side of Fort St, but perhaps the Beach Rd side and even Fort Ln. Rubbish collection off Fort Ln could do with some improvement..
See http://vimeo.com/6821934 – William H. Whyte, The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Brililant pictures of how people use loose chairs in parks (at about 20 minutes) among other fascinating stuff.
Thanks John, that’s great!… people, people, people
Thanks John, excellent video
I would love to see some of those moveable chairs and tables that are all over the places in American plazas and shared streets, make their way into our public realm.