A story in the NZ Herald yesterday has scratched the surface on of the key problems that do exist with shared spaces.
Everyone knows the Maori language has taken a battering, but in downtown Auckland, a seat in the form of the word “reo” has been put near the middle of the road outside the central library and is now scraped and bent out of shape because of vehicles banging into it.
The Auckland Council spent $95,000 buying the seat and $10,000 installing it.
And now it is likely to have to pay even more to move it.
The three letters, about 0.5m high, and are set well out on Lorne St, a thoroughfare that has been converted into a “shared space” – a paved zone used by cars and pedestrians.
The letters have cast bronze tops and sides supported by a galvanised steel frame. The bronze is a close colour match to the paving that surrounds it.
Council spokesman Glyn Walters said two cars were known to have hit the structure, in August last year and September this year.
But judging by the shape it was in, and considering reports from onlookers, there have been more crashes.
From what I’ve seen of the seat I would say there have been a lot more than two crashes and this seat isn’t alone. Many of the seats in other shared spaces have equally taken a battering from careless drivers and it really does concern me that some drivers aren’t able to see what’s on the road ahead of them – how would they react to a kid standing on a road wearing dark clothing? It’s not like the seat is right at the start of the street and unsuspecting drivers come around the corner and aren’t able to see it, it’s 75m from the entrance of Lorne St which can only be reached by turning off the narrowed Rutland St.
I’ve highlighted the location in red in the image below, also note that vehicles are only allowed to travel north on the street as opposed to the other section of Lorne St on the other side of Wellesley which is South only.
I would suggest that there are two key reasons for the seat being hit
- Drivers are travelling too fast – as noted by one comment in the herald article about a delivery person on a scooter who crashed into it and who was also travelling the wrong way down the street.
- Drivers are being impatient by trying to get around a pedestrian or illegally parked car.
In both situations the problem is not that the seat is there but that drivers aren’t paying enough attention. Here is another image showing the location of the seat in relation to the rest of the street thanks to Craig and as you can see it is a long way down the street (vehicles have to drive towards the camera).
And this is what it looked like shortly after installation
And here is what it looks like now after being battered by cars (as well as skateboards). You can see the R has been bent out of shape and broken. Again thanks to Craig for these photos.
The herald article ends with
Walters said the seat was installed in 2011 just before the Rugby World Cup. The council was now assessing the cost of repairing or moving it.
“Shared spaces are a new part of Auckland’s city centre public space experience and have so far been well received by the public and local businesses.”
Meanwhile, next month the Auckland City Council plans to install coloured planter pots in Lorne St outside the abandoned St James Theatre.
It’s clear the council need to do something but to me moving it seems to be the worst option. The coloured planter pots sound good so how about using some of those further down on the same side of the street in front of where the seat is or even perhaps some artistic bollards, just something to further alert drivers that they are in a different environment and need to drive more carefully. To me moving the seat would only serve to make the road appear wider for drivers encouraging them to speed even more and making the area less attractive to pedestrians.
I think it would also help immensely if the St James could be reopened and that side of the street activated drawing more people to the area because as the saying goes, there’s safety in numbers.
Processing...
Maybe the solution isn’t to remove the obstacles, but to add more so as to help change the mind set of drivers. A planted chicane would look quite good outside the library because the area is seriously lacking some greenery.
Maybe if they hadn’t spent a 100 thousand dollars on a seat they could have afforded some greenery.
It is a pretty dumb place to put a $105,000 sculpture though. Didn’t ANYONE have the common sense to say “hey… wait a minute… I reckon that’s going to be REAL easy to crash into, maybe a tall pot plant would be a good idea?”.
100% the driver’s fault. I’ve driven that section of Lorne St dozens of times, and the only time that seat is a problem if someone is sitting on it and someone is standing in the street talking to them. It may look like it blends into the pavement, but at night the bronze reflects your headlights entirely differently. The only way you can hit it is driving too fast, too far to the right, with your lights off and your eyes closed.
They shouldn’t move it. Just stick in a solid rubbish bin. It would be higher than the seats and be more conspicuous.
I agree, add more visually, perhaps a solid concrete bin or planter.
My guess is its people parking illegally then reversing or heading off with the thing in the kind spot. You couldn’t miss it driving down the lane, but you might if you had stopped.
I would say it’s mostly people parking around it that are the issue. They park, forget it’s there and reverse/drive into it. Seen one driver demolish a seat on Elliot street just the other day by reversing out the wrong way after parking there illegally.
Ok well the obvious issue there is that the seat is too low to be seen by drivers once they are close to it.
This is a common issue for objects that height when drivers are reversing or avoiding another hazard.
Well they shouldn’t be reversing as the only reason to do that was if they had parked and you are not meant to park in a shared space to begin with.
Here in the transport design world your not meant to blame people for falling victum to poor design.
As you would know most people dont frequent transport blogs to find out how shared spaces are meant to operate and so when you get places like this where its completly ambiguous as to whats going on you cant really blame the folk.
On a similar note. I found out the other day that one of the main reasons why shared spaces get reduced traffic from that before is because drivers feel they are in the wrong just being there and are worried about getting a fine for driving where they shouldnt.
“On a similar note. I found out the other day that one of the main reasons why shared spaces get reduced traffic from that before is because drivers feel they are in the wrong just being there and are worried about getting a fine for driving where they shouldnt.”
So they’re working correctly then.
Exacttly
You’re not expected to read ATB to find out what the parking rules are, you’re expected to read the parking signs, just like every other street you might try to park on:
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/SiteCollectionImages/aboutcouncil/councilprojects/sharedspacebegin.jpg
Thanks steve, a sign located on a website does a fantastic job at letting people know what they can do on this street. Based on the location photos above that sign may exist down the far end at the entrance but going to the street itself there appear to be no signs at all.
Yes it is there at the entrance to the street and there shouldn’t be a need for a sign saying the same thing every 10m to remind people.
Well again that depends on if you want it to be efective or not. Generally its pretty clear however when people turn into streets they are more looking at the road and hazards on the street than a sign 3m up in the air.
Unfortunately Internet technology has not yet extended to the point where I could steal the actual Shared Street sign posted at the start of Lorne Street and somehow post it in the comments section, so you’ll have to make do with that image unless you want to hike down to the CBD and have a look at the real thing (hint: it looks exactly the same).
Steve, I think you will find that the picture you posted is not a site photograph. You also ignore the point however in the the sign isnt located where someone who is wondering if the can park on that street would be able to see it.
Sign is at every entrance to each zone. Exactly the same with speed limit signs and now parking signs in the CBD.
If people need a sign in sight at all times to know what to do they probably shouldn’t be behind the wheel in the first place.
SF: no, it’s not only not the sign but also not a photograph of the sign. It’s a graphic that looks like the sign. I’d hope that someone whose job involves dealing with engineering plans would have a slightly better grasp on the connection between things and visual representations of those things.
The image I posted is not the sign itself, but it is what the real sign looks like.
As for the other issue, maybe the sign isn’t in a particularly convenient location for some people who may want to park in the shared street, and that leads to them parking when they shouldn’t. It’s a tradeoff between effectively communicating and totally covering your whole city in ugly signs (as they do in America). That might get you some sympathy if you get a parking ticket or towed, but it doesn’t have anything to do with you driving into a bench. That’s what you might call a Problem Between Chair And Steering Wheel, to paraphrase a famous IT saying.
Steve- nice. +1
“As you would know most people dont frequent transport blogs to find out how shared spaces are meant to operate”
No, you are quite right, they are meant to have a drivers licence and to get one they are meant to understand the road code which clearly describes how shared spaces are to be used.
During the day drivers SHOULD feel as though they aren’t meant to be there because they AREN’T meant to be there, unless they are using the road to access a building/carpark there is no reason for them to be there.
The main problem with road design in New Zealand is that as soon as a driver hits something even if they are completely at fault, we deem it to be a design error. If a pedestrian gets hit, or crosses the road illegally, or never goes there in the first place because the design marginalises them then it is the pedestrian’s fault.
The solution to this problem is not to remove the artwork, but to place 15 more, similarly sized objects on the street so that drivers are constantly aware that there are lots of them, and probably one straight behind them to discourage illegal parking.
Sailor boy, you may or may not know this but when people got their drivers licenses they were not implanted with a chip to make them all knowing beings who know the particularities and parking times of every road in the country. If this was the case we would not need signs or markings on any road for their safe and efficent operation.
I guess you will say the same thing when people start reversing up the motorway right? Because there aren’t signs there to remind people of the law. Honestly if you can’t remember basic rules of the road you shouldn’t be driving.
If you call driving into seats part of the plan.
They probably won’t drive there again in a hurry, so yeah!
I thought the point of shared spaces was to provide 24/7 access for all users. I think you guys are getting confused with pedestrian plazas with limited sercive access.
All users are allowed but they are primarily pedestrian zones.
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/en/planspoliciesprojects/councilprojects/sharedspaces/Pages/home.aspx
Thanks matt. Can you highlight the part where it says they are meant to make vehicle operators feel as if the are breaking the law as you claimed was the intention above. I assume either nick or patrick should be able to answer this as they agreed with that claim as well.
The point is to make drivers to engage with the environment more, if that makes people feel like they shouldn’t be there then that is fine as it makes it safer for pedestrians who are the priority.
Better parking enforcement could be the solution.
Yes agree it shouldn’t be moved but other improvements made to its visibility and slowing down drivers. Better parking enforcement too.
More greenery placed along that entire length of the shared space would fix not only the REO Speedwagon problem but also further slow down cars and anything else moving through there in general …will give the place more ‘life’. In its current state, its too empty and cold for my liking. Try a Janette Sadik-Khan temporary street change approach.
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to come up with an REO Speedwagon reference.
Drivers need to do more to Roll With The Changes.
The problem with this particular sculpture seems to be that its the only obstacle in an otherwise uninterrupted driving lane. If there were more obstacles, drivers might take a little more care in navigating through the space. Although to be fair I’ve noticed some of the street furniture in the Fort St shared space area get a bit of a beating, and the various seats and bike racks are much less isolated than the Te Reo sign.
Yes that’s the problem, this piece is an outlier in an otherwise clear route; this space needs more complication not less.
Nice work, by the way.
Newmarket’s station square has received a bit of a patch up with a series of planter boxes, presumably at the cost of no more than a couple of thousand bucks.http://www.robthomas.co.nz/newmarket-station-square/
Can we do the same here, four or five large planters could be a very cheap and easy fix.
Apart from the obvious whack on the R from a car, it’s Skateboaders damaging the Art work, seen it myself down there with my kids at the library.
If it had been hit multiple times by vehicles it would be in much worse condition than that.
The council is actively encouraging Skateboarding in that area and have reinforced some areas so they’re not damaged by the boarders then plonked the artwork in the middle of it.
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/newseventsculture/OurAuckland/News/Pages/skateambassadorsonpatrol.aspx
Really? Those pink scrapes along the side of it are from skateboards? What amazing new trick are they doing to put those there?
From my (albeit limited) work on shared spaces I think that the issue with driver behaviour on this particular street is fundamentally due to the inactivated St James theatre. Placing any sort of obstacles in the street to enforce a change in vehicle behaviour is just placing a band-aid over the real problem – a lack of pedestrian activity in the street.
Slowing the vehicles down in the carriageway won’t make it a pedestrian environment, because you’re still not giving the pedestrians any reason to walk there. They’d be much more inclined to walk on the library side, which is shaded, safely separated from vehicle traffic, and activated.
I want to open a hot dog stand under the St James canopy.
Awesome. Mexican next to it? A small bar even?
Mexican is so last year… cronuts maybe?
There is an excellent if dishevelled bar in the St James foyer, all marble and hardwood. I know there are health and safety issues with the theatre but I wonder if they could secure the foyer alone and open it as a bar/cafe, and open it to Lorne and Queen?
Hey, I love Mexican, and hotdogs. Great idea for a bar.
The other problem I see is the still traffic infested High St and Lorne St on the other side of Wellesley St. There is no natural path. Close Lorne and High St to all but service vehicles and we would have an amazing place.
I agree with the concept of making streets more pedestrian friendly, however one must be careful not to foam too much at the mouth with indignance at the concept of sharing the space with motor vehicles. There are apartments in High St, some with parking provided.
If I lived there, I’d be pretty upset at somebody making me pay to park in a low security building instead of the building in which I live. In the interest of continuing to play devils advocate, not everybody who reads this blog (or lives in the central city) has the luxury of “standard” work hours and some do need to use private transport for some aspects of their job.
The street (any street really) isn’t the issue, it is how the street works in relation to its surroundings. As we’re living in a society that historically favoured the “freedom of the automobile”, we need to look at the big picture in order to change driver behavior – Which is the key point really. It’s not the cars that are the issue, rather, it is the drivers.
For what it’s worth, I also dislike how the cars use High St. I think that they do so because there are good feeder roads to High and it’s often faster than navigating Queen. To convert Queen into a space shared by buses and pedestrians would only exacerbate the issue until the feeders are reconfigured. I mention buses because, whilst I dislike the loud stinking behemoths, they move people and to where the people want to be.
There are only three areas on High St which currently have vehicle access and all are at the southern end of the street.
1. a loading dock for the Metropolis (normal vehicle access is off Kitchener St)
2. the small lane just south of Durham St
3. the exit to the Victoria St carpark
Of those the third one can be dealt with pretty easily by changing access to exit on to Kitchener St. That means the only vehicles that really need to be on High St are those delivering things and that can be dealt with just as what happens with shared spaces today.
And as a walkable link between the top and bottom of the cbd, Lorne-High is way more attractively pedestrian-scaled than Queen St ever will be.
Hi Matt L – Good point. As I don’t live in that area, I wasn’t aware of the alternate vehicle access. Still, we do need to look at the inner city network as a whole.
As a “born again JAFA” I’m damn excited about the potential for the inner city, particularly if we can reduce the number of private vehicles in the inner city… So long as we’re not negatively impacting businesses by making it difficult or onerous for people to shop in the inner city. Remember, we’re still historically vehicle dependant, which is why malls do so very well. Mobility impaired (and just plain-unfit) people need to still have relatively easy access… 🙂
Seriously…$100,000 on a bench! I think that money could have been much better spent, perhaps cleaning up that disgusting building opposite the library!
That ‘disgusting building’ is a theatre that a lot of people would love to have cleaned up and opened. Perhaps you could add your voice to the calls for the restoration of the St James?
The traffic engineering of shared spaces is terrible. No road markings, no reflective strips, dark objects placed stupidly in the way. Either ban cars completely, or clearly mark where they are supposed to go. Cars and pedestrians have never, and will never, mix. Keep them separate.
Geoff that is exactly the point, by not having markings drivers have to pay more attention and as a result slow down and share the space. Cars and pedestrians can mix and the shared spaces we currently have prove that. Sure there can be some tweaking here and there but overall they work well and have been incredibly successful across all metrics.
Cars and pedestrians mix just fine in the shared spaces, it works very well. Cars and street furniture on the other hand…
The traffic engineering of shared spaces is just right. No road markings etc mean that drivers tend to appreciate that it’s primarily a pedestrian space. As already noted, the problem with Lorne St is that there’s not enough clutter.
Our versions lack the meandering nature of the overseas examples. Nice clear racetracks down the centre.
Exactly *Traffic Engineering* is precisely what is not desired. No, it’s place making for all users.
Emmerson Street in Napier got the concept right more than 20 years ago, and it has worked well there all that time. It’s more obvious where the cars should go, and they don’t put objects in the way. The Auckland method is just bizzare, with very poor traffic design that just asks for problems.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2PWwOHnzeP4/S9tqLVz6KiI/AAAAAAAAA_Q/jqTX1Q6Q4tc/s1600/Emerson+Street.JPG
What that appalling forrest of bollards? You’re kidding right? That’s no shared space that’s a pedestrian prison and boy racer enrichment programme.
Yes, it is a shared space, and has been for over 20 years. It’s much nicer than the paved grey blandness and stupid engineering of Auckland’s. It has trees, flowers, and untold people enjoying drinks and food at tables and chairs, where once it was a two lane road. Auckland Council should send a group down there to learn how to do it properly, then come back here and get it right.
Legally it is a shared space, but ask pedestrians and drivers who has right of way between the bollards. You aren’t achieving the desired effect.
http://cecilimages.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/New-Zealand-Napier-Scenics-Wellington/G0000Q5HCP9ltU_g/I0000gMr3vgfUaKE
The desired effect in Napier is clear and with purpose – direct traffic through a particular route, to create space for outdoor eating areas, gardens etc. In Auckland it’s just a bland open area, where nobody can really settle down and eat because some car might come along. It’s a terrible use of space. Where’s the trees? Where’s the gardens? Where are the tables and chairs? Where is the colour? Bland, grey and directionless – Auckland can and should do better.
Have you never been to Fort or Elliot Streets? I actually remember walking down that road the last time I was in Napier, never even occured to me that I may be allowed to walk in the middle of the bollards, or that motorists should yeild to me so no, it isn’t working as a pedestrian space, there is just segregation. Effectively all that is is a very narrow lane with wide footpaths.
That’s a highway engineers version of a shared space. Terrible.
The poor dear just doesn’t get it: Yes grade separation is necessary at higher speeds but becomes counter-productive at low speeds; because the provision of a grade separate space encourages higher speed.
The Holy Trinity of flow, control, and separation can be too hard for TE fanboys to let go of.
Patrick, grade separation? There’s no grade separation in Emerson Street. If you mean separation of people and cars, then you are incorrect that it’s counter-productive. The cars move at 10km/h, and there are usually many more people in the lane than there are cars. The street is a vibrant people place. Auckland’s concept fails on every level. There’s no value in having cars and people use the same space over the bulk of the street width. All it creates is a space you can’t do anything with, because you have to keep it free for cars, even though they don’t need nearly so much space.
“Keep them separate” Your entire argument is that vehicles and people should be kept seperate and you just said that your poster child is not seperated, which is it?
Also, looking at the three main shared spaces in Auckland, this is the onl;y one without greenery, without pedestrians sprawling all over the street and without street furniture starting to appear. So realistically the issue isn’t seperation, it is that there are too few trees and not enough businesses in THIS ONE SHARED SPACE. Not that shared spaces fail.
It’s hard not to like Napier with the architectural gorgeousness all around you. In my experience, little traffic comes along Emmerson and it’ll be moving at a crawl. On a sunny day there are people all over the street and (as you’ve noted) there are plenty of places for people to sit.
By contrast, the Auckland shared space shown is just grim. Partly that is due to the deteriorating state of the building, but I can’t imagine ANY time that I would sit on the sculpture. The sculpture itself looks great, but it has been dropped in to an unfriendly exposed spot surrounded by a sea of grey pavers. I’m not surprised that all the pedestrians in photo 2 are walking on the upside of the steps, and that is where I would chose to sit if I had no alternative other than to park myself opposite a crumbling theater. At the moment this just fails on every level.
The St James is a fantastic asset and it is a great crime that it’s restoration hasn’t already happened…. what peculiar stasis is holding this urgent task up? And that event is what this space is waiting for- the activation of its western side.
That and of course this little plan: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/11/29/300-queen-st-the-perfect-future-transit-station/
Oh, and this one: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2011/08/30/guest-post-why-are-there-cars-on-queen-st/
Fifty million dollars of restoration and structural works is what’s holding it up.
The property owner obviously doesn’t have fifty million bucks spare, but neither does the council have fifty large of taxpayer money to drop into yet another theatre project.
Well they don’t have $50m to drop into the restoration of a theatre that is privately owned. From memory the building owner is happy for it to be restored but doesn’t want to pay for it himself and instead wants to develop the site above the theatre. The council don’t want to put money into a restoration project where they don’t even own the building. They could buy the building but that would require a lot more money as the value of it reflects the development potential which is quite large.
Couldn’t agree more obi. Well said. If the goal is to create a vibrant people space, then Napier’s concept works, and Auckland’s doesn’t. It’s just a bland and confused muddle, with no practicality whatsoever. AC needs to go back to the drawing board.
The one shown is grim but that’s because it doesn’t have links or things to do there yet. It needs activation.
“The one shown is grim but that’s because it doesn’t have links or things to do there yet.”
But if you built things to do in the street then you’d need to arrange them so there was an unobstructed linear area for cars to drive along. And that would irreparably damage the ideological purity of the shared space. You might think you’re creating a good looking space that people enjoy hanging out in. But you’re stripping away the rights of transport blog commenters to stretch out and take a nap on the ground while cars are legally forced to navigate around them. Monster!
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2013/11/11/stopping-cars-from-damaging-shared-streets/#comment-89151
I’ll let you decide whether you like it or not.
“I’ll let you decide whether you like it or not.”
Wiesbaden? Are you pointing out that the Germans have the good sense to organise seats, trees, and racks of discount clothes on either side of the street and not right in the middle where they’re at risk of collision with vehicles?
I suspect if you told a German that you’d just spent $100k on a seat, he or she would assume it was attached to a Porsche. If you told them that you intended to leave a seat that cost about two years worth of an average person’s income in a spot where vehicles would ruin it within a few months then he or she would assume you were mad.
Germans wouldn’t drive into a large metallic sculpture. For a start they are very civic minded and obey the law, so no one would be parking there or driving faster than the ten km/h speed limit. And do you know how hard it is to get a licence in Germany? You need to do twelve theory classes and fourteen practicals with a certified instructor just to get a provisional permit. Here any muppet can get one.
And please it is hardly right in the middle, you could drive a combine harvester through there.
“Germans wouldn’t drive into a large metallic sculpture.”
That’s strange, because I was stuck in stationary traffic on a Dutch motorway many years ago. Hadn’t moved for about five minutes. I was on a slight slope. The car in front had German plates, and for no reason at all it started rolling back towards me. I tooted. The driver didn’t notice. He hit me. It was only when I got out to check to see if there was any damage (there wasn’t) that the driver woke up and accelerated forward to his original spot.
All that training wasted. All that civic mindedness and respect for the law ignored. I suspect that if he could nod off and roll back in to a stationary vehicle, he could also nod off and roll back on to the world’s most expensive seat.
Well, myself from Central Europe i would not per se say that Germans are good drivers. You find good ones and bad ones everywhere, however law enforcement is somewhat different. However i think due to being a paradise for drivers (as they have almost everywhere the right of way) the shared spaces work only to a certain extend well. I use them frequently, and have to say, Elliot Street works pretty well. Fort Street, however, very mixed. I was i.e. walking today there, and just crossed it, a driver put down the window and yelled at me to get of the road. The library space could truly more used, i was actually wondering, why they do not do some of the smaller events which are used to be on Aotea Sq. there. And I largely doubt that the Federal Shared space will work, there will be always a lot of traffic as the taxis still will be there, and the entrances to all the mega parking there.
I don’t like that at all, seems overly cluttered and the design says that pedestrians have to wait behind the bollards for cars to go through first if they want to get across the street, it is just an extension of a typical street. That is just what we used to have on Elliot St too yet since its upgrade there are far more people in the street. I can’t remember the figure off the top of my head but there has definitely been an increase of usage and spending in High St as a result.
Yes precisely, exactly the failure they removed from Elliot St. I can confirm that the ‘not a shit place dominated by cars’ factor has increased 400%.
The 400% is just the hospo segment in Fort St, increases in Elliot St were more modest.
Nope, Elliot street is definitely 400% less shit that before ;).
try 4000% less shit.
While I agree that Emerson street in Napier isn’t ideal, it does work well there – i.e. the traffic is slow (it’s forced through a series of chicanes, so is necessarily slow at somewhere in the vicinity of 15km/hr) but the key point is that it’s a place that people like to be in. That’s the key to shared spaces – increase the number of people around (place making) and drivers will slow down as it’s obviously a people place, not a car place.
i.e. the real reason Emerson street works is they’ve revitalised it by providing a place where (lots of) people like to congregate. Emerson street before this change was dire. Within a year of it changing it was packed with people. They could probably just close the road off to traffic now as there’s not really a need for it down there anymore, but as a way to get the street towards a shared place it’s worked wonders.
Real cities are post bollard.
Precisely – Emerson St is just an ordinary street, traffic calmed and with bollards instead of kerbs. It’s not at all bad for an ordinary street – but it’s not a shared space.
And for how definitely not to do what is legally shared space, see lower Cuba St in Wellington. Yuk!
yes whoever was in charge of Lower Cuba does not know what shared space means.
Of course we have our own failure in Auckland. Alfred St in Auckland Uni is notionally a shared space, but totally fails on every method of evaluation. Clear area for cars to go down, with different paving and everything. The only thing different is the small signs at the entrance!
Real cities create usable space filled with people environments, like Napier with its bollards. The Auckland shared spaces concept doesn’t create usable space, it’s just a windswept grey area that nobody can do anything practical with.
You may not like bollards Patrick, but they enable creation of a far supieriot product. Your “real cities are post bollard” line is just pure BS.
Geoff, I already know that you cannot stand the thought of pedestrians having right of way over cars. I’ll take Auckland’s shared spaces any day.
Yet international experts in planning and place-making who have visited Auckland recently have found that our shared spaces superb and examples for other cities to follow. They will undoubtedly have seen streets like that one in Napier before.
If you honestly think that Emmerson is better than Elliot, or Fort Sts, you are genuinely mad.
Not mad. Unwilling to accept that pedestrians can have priority over motorists on what he views to be a road.
It is fairly obvious that the reason it is getting hit is because some fool put it in the middle of a road.
It isn’t a road though?
At least the $105,000 they spent putting seats in the middle of a road or street or whatever you want to call it wasn’t real money. It was “other people’s money”. Within the public sector that has an exchange rate of about 10 to 1. Has anyone ever wanted to sit in the middle of a street?
I take it you have never actually been there then? It’s frequently full of people sitting in front of the library, including in the art installation.
Well perhaps its not a smart place to sit – given the number of dents and marks on it. I love the comments here blaming drivers for crashing into an obstacle in the road. It is like blaming water for running down hill.
Look all outrage aside surely no one thinks $105000 for some seats located where they would get destroyed and cause damage to cars was in any way a smart use of money?
I do think there is a good point there but rather than removing it, making the street work as a shared space, with more than an art piece, is required.
“Geoff, I already know that you cannot stand the thought of pedestrians having right of way over cars. I’ll take Auckland’s shared spaces any day.”
Then you prefer windswept open space to enable widespread car use, over a vibrant people-friendly cafe scene where cars are restricted to one area. I didn’t think pro-car people hung out here?
Shared spaces are pointless – they prevent “people places”.
No. We’ve just been so brainwashed into believing that streets are just for cars that it will take a little while to change the behaviour. Fort St is getting there, as is Elliot. Once there are tables, chairs, activities, shop fronts (especially true in the subject of this post) people will hang around.
How do you put tables, chairs and activities into an area that needs to be available for cars? That’s the flaw in shared spaces – you can’t use them for anything. Would be great if they do find a way to put such things in – then it will be like Napier.
I’m not going to agree. I like this: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8051/8124378049_21141731fe_z.jpg
I was going to post a link to a woonerf. But it’s even better that you can show the idea working in Auckland.
(The only proviso I’d add is Auckland shared spaces are a little too straight to drive through; one element that seems to be used in Dutch designs is informal curvature for the vehicle path.)
Wiesbaden, Germany. Notice the similarities. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Wiesbaden_Pedestrian.jpg
A car is is less than two metres wide. Plenty of space when you only need a two metre gap for the occasional sloe moving vehicle to pass through.
If you’re having trouble with the idea of tables, chairs and activity in a shared spaces then you need only visit Fort St east, it’s full of them.
Perhaps you should visit Fort St or Elliot St. There’s plenty of space for everything.
Even when it hadn’t been completed some of the businesses in the eastern part of Fort St started to take advantage of the space.
A row of trading stalls along the St James side would activate the space in the meantime.
Cheap and cheerful. Container based perhaps?
Relax, everyone. Auckland Transport are on the case: https://twitter.com/ByTheMotorway/status/399817789243793408 (seen evening of Nov 11)
Genius. Ironic interactive street art.
Funny.
One significant source of car traffic on Lorne Street is the northern exit. Yes, it’s already signposted as having no right turn onto Wellesley (only left allowed), but just pause at the corner and watch the rats run. Plug that hole and maybe it’ll help the condition on the shared space itself.
And the conversion of three floors of the 1965 ex-ASB headquarters into parking for 58 cars. Which is vandalism and appalling low value landuse, and the only actual destination for any vehicle other than a delivery or emergency one on this whole stretch. Cars here are unnecessary and undesirable, to blame the shared space for its abuse is not unlike blaming the rape victim for hers.
I can see your reasoning, but can we please avoid the rape analogies? Let’s keep this blog a safe space.
A hilarious and very accurate rant here from David Mitchell dealing, among other issues, with the disproportinate harm caused to roads by trucking:
Exactly, $100,000 on a seat is absurd, somebody is making out like an arse bandit here. What was the cost of materials, probably $10k at the most.
Looks like skateboard damage to me, who would have guessed.