Leaky bus shelters have been a common complaint over the years and in some fantastic news Auckland Transport is looking to fix that situation.
Gimme Shelter
Watch this space – Auckland Transport wants you to have your say on three stunning new bus shelter designs about to be unveiled in the central city (diagram attached).
The three shelters being built on Symonds St are prototypes which Auckland Transport will use to gather feedback from the public.
The new designs will then be adapted for most bus stop locations and gradually be rolled out across the region.
Auckland Transport’s Group Manager Public Transport, Mark Lambert says there are currently more than 20 different bus shelter designs across the region, varying in quality and usability. “One of the greatest frustrations for our customers is shelters that don’t provide adequate weather protection. We also need to offer improved information and comfort.
“Before we choose a final design or designs we want to make sure that the shelter is enjoyable and functional from a customer perspective. It also needs to look good and be cost effective.
“We want to improve our customers’ experience when using public transport. Improving facilities for passengers waiting for, or transferring onto buses, is an important step in doing that.”
Auckland Transport is also looking at how cycle parking, retail kiosks, and technology might be incorporated into new shelter designs.
The three Symonds St shelters will be completed by the end of May. From 3 June 2014 the public will be able to input into the final design by going to http://www.at.govt.nz/busshelter
There will also be “ambassadors” on site during the consultation period answering questions and handing out information and feedback forms. Feedback closes on 18 July 2014.
And here’s what the three look like.
Providing high quality bus stops with good uniformity across the region is a much needed improvement and I really like this approach rather than AT arbitrarily deciding on the outcome. I also like how the bus stops are more substantial than just some basic shelter like what is so commonly seen and include a front panel to help protect from the elements.
In the more detailed information about the project AT say that it is likely the winning design will start appearing first in locations where the age and condition of the existing shelter warrants and on routes that will form part of the frequent transport network.
We’ll obviously have to wait to see the final outcomes but at this stage I like the first option which is more than just a glass box and would provide quite a unique statement that bus users are valued. But what do you think? vote in the poll below.
Loading ...
Processing...
Shelter A – I can never understand what are the benefits, if any, of having corner posts acutely angled as shown on the left hand size of the illustration?
The angled corner posts on “A” are entirely a stylistic feature. If the shelter is intended to be modular I would question how this and the sloped roof affects this as all components would be a custom length.
why isn’t shelter A in the symonds st renderings?? seems like AT is trying to encourage a particular answer. I would note it has the potential to be dark and does obscure the surroundings
It looks like they’ve been designed by different teams which is why the renderings are against different backgrounds. I don’t think it will matter much to the outcome as it’s obvious that feedback from users is more important than from the internet.
The shelters have been designed by different design companies. Renders integrated into backgrounds are difficult to do well and it’s likely that the team that did “A” could not produce them. Also a ‘white card model’ such as they did is clearer and is probably an advantage on in this case. You can see that as this is leading the votes. People shoudl really look at it in real life as well before they judge.
The timber is great – really softens the environment. More glass might be needed where the footpath is narrow (to avoid making them feel dark). All concepts lack advertising – is that realistic? At least I’d prefer a small TV screen to a large poster blocking the ends of the bus stop (makes it feel uninviting).
The vertical signage is consistent, but I don’t think it works. I’d like to see a prominent bus stop number fixe d to the top of the shelter, readable from 80m away across the street. Interesting how some benches appear to be deisgn to avoid creating a surface for sleeping on.
The larger shelters would provide a great opportunity to incorporate extra urban stuff like traffic cameras/sensors, dynamic lighting, maybe a solar panel, water fountain or vending machine, recycling bin, wifi/cellular, interactive signage/smart message boards and all that cool urban stuff. Oh – and a ticket machine or HOP reader!
AdShel currently has the contract for advertising and it’s likely that AT would not want to be seen to be disrupting that. I note option “C” has large graphic panels which could be used for advertising or Art. Possibly option “A” has end panels whcih do the same.
Having been a long time bus user before switching to cycle commuting I am well acquainted with bus shelters in Auckland. My knowledge also comes from my political career in the previous Auckland City Council and now the current Auckland Council.
Adshel won the contract to install bus shelters for Auckland City Council, and paid Auckland City Council something like 5% of ad revenue for the privilege. On the other hand, Adshel pays a UK local council (can’t remember which one from memory) 50% of revenue + they must hand over from memory 25% of the spots to Council to allocate to non-profit groups and the like so they can use the space.
Secondly, the Adshel bus shelters are functional in one respect only; they keep the advertisement dry. Nothing else matters. Which is why you can never use an Adshel bus shelter in wintertime – the ceiling is wet, the walls are wet, the floor is wet and the seat is wet, But the important thing is dry – the advertisement.
I have consistently over time complained to officers about this situation (inappropriately designed shelters), and my last question was in 2011 when I asked officers to update me on contract negotiations between Adshel and the new Council. No answer was given.
I am pleased to see new designs coming through, and I will be paying close attention to the finer details. After all, a bus shelter MUST be a shelter for bus patrons first and foremost, not for the advertisements.
Agree 100% with your comments and furthermore when does the Adshel contract expire? I thought it ran for something like 20 or so years from about 1996, so won’t expire until 2016.
Ideally I’d like to see AdShel sent packing and AT own and manage the bus shelters which looks like they are doing.
The current designs Adshel use are not very vandal proof, but Adshel don’t much care – all they want is prime positions for their ads and nothing else.
This deal reminds me of the awful Sharp sign stuck on the Auckland Hospital in the early 90’s – both bad examples of ’90s type PPPs – with all the profits privatised but with the costs and risks socialised.
What we want is the other way – all benefits and profits socialised, and risks/costs of maintaining the shelters carried by advertisers who choose to use them as billboards.
I don’t know when the Adshel contract expires. Must do some digging.
And aluminium seating slats. So f’n cold in winter. Give me good ol’ sustainable wood every time.
Wood is used in ‘premier’ locations i.e. along Queen St, but aluminium in lesser locations. Agreed, need to use wood for all locations.
Why do they need to trial any of these? Surely bus shelters are a well understood technology by now. Just pick one and start building them.
Asking for feedback from the public sounds like a perfect example of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law_of_triviality . The public don’t understand bus routing and timetabling, the economics of public transport funding, or the possibilities of a link tunnel. But they sure as hell have an opinion on what bus shelter they like best.
Yeah but they do understand that experts often deal with incomplete inputs. One input often missing is: What do people actually want? Good work AT.
I’m impressed with their commitment to getting an important part of the whole right. Shelters remain for decades (I’d imagine they average about 15-20 years), and with thousands it’s a big investment. Symonds is the perfect location to test these in.
I’m most concerned about their ability to withstand vandalism. The taggers, smashers, and glass scratchers are an awful and expensive nuisance.
So what is wrong with finding out which one people like the best? AT can easily work out the operational parameters, presumably all three options are identical in that regard.
@obi – I must say I’ve read a few comment threads and you seem to just set yourself up in opposition to most things like some contrarian but I’ll bite.
What exactly is your point?
Jo(e) Public walks down to their local bus stop and yes doesn’t understand / care about the system as a whole, i.e. they don’t understand (care about) bus routing, timetabling, funding and future infrastructure planning.
What they do understand is that they will have a daily wait at a stop and travel on a very narrow and repetitive part of their transport system. Not necessarily because they COULDN’T think of those higher order concerns but more because they are NOT what a busy life allows our Jo(e) Public to think a lot about.
So why is it a bad thing for them to have a democratic say in a ‘superficial’ aspect that directly impacts their daily journey..? (bus shelter design, controlled to just 3 options).
Why are AT evoking this (cynical governance) “law”?
They are letting the public discuss something they actually know about (their “coffee”), not taking up (wasting) valuable governance time on their behalf…
Oh, I guess it would be far better for AT to just make a decision so that we can all rile against the experts / governance that didn’t consult at some later date?
A hillarious concept is Parkinsons Law of Triviality and very true, however there is not harm in canvasing opinion the trick is to be critical about what feed back to listen to. Prototyping concepts like this is important to ironing out bugs as everything is essentially bespoke first time out. There’s also a sales pitch whcih AT wants to make about how they are delivering the vision for public transport. Not that everyone will necessarily react favourably you can see their appraoch.
A hillarious concept is Parkinsons Law of Triviality and very true, however there is not harm in canvasing opinion the trick is to be critical about what feed back to listen to. Prototyping concepts like this is important to ironing out bugs as everything is essentially bespoke first time out. There’s also a sales pitch which AT wants to make about how they are delivering the vision for public transport. Not that everyone will necessarily react favourably you can see their appraoch.
There is a lot less glass in Shelter A for some moron to smash – gets my vote.
More glass is better from a crime prevention (and perception of safety) standpoint.
Yes, definitely Kent. Shelter C is my pick for that reason plus the info area in the middle is more easily accessible.
I don’t agree. I would not like to be in a glass shelter in the summer – absolutely no where to have any protection from the sun. They are just the same shelters over again. Shelter A definitely gets my vote.
Glass is very important for security, you can’t provide oportunity for concealment. Also glass is actually the most robust material, Pretty much everything else will get damaged or tatty more quickly…. Yes it smashes but it still requires less maintenance over it’s life span. Perf metak is about the only option in areas wher glass is constantly smashed and it is not nearly as nice. Wood, metal acrylic, acm all taake a pounding. I suggest you go look at the shelters to see how they fear in real life.
While Option A looks good, it is not practical in all sitations as being solid, blocks light and creates dangerous areas (wait for the first assault behind a bus shelter).
I think the prototypes should include advertising so people can assess them as they will be operated in real life (even if it just an AT ad) – you dont want a nice glass wall become a solid panel when in full production.
They have also called the 3 options modular – they should therefore also have mock up pictures of the different sizes (maybe they could be in the ad slots) as not every bus stop is going to be that big.
A big step forward for bus travel, well done AT 🙂
I like the wooden one so long as the detailing is worked out so that it is easy to repair/keep clean, and/or is easy to replace. I think that if these shelters are in very public spaces, and ideally also watched over by a CCTV, the security and vandalism issues will be less than what people perceive.
In particular, the arrival of CCTV will dramatically enhance people’s sense of security.
The horizontal wooden slats provide a “translucent” screen, you will be able to see if anyone is hiding behind the bus shelter.
One last aspect to detail up nicely will be the lighting – a real game changer in creating the right sort of environment in the early morning and evenings, along with such techy stuff as the LED timetabling and information screens, and yes there will still be a place for back-lit advertising.
“A” actually has a lot of solid panels and is notably darker inside. I would have thought that amending the translucently of roof panels can be done with ACM or films and is not a shop stopper. I see “C” has a graphic on the roof panels and some solid and back panels but is generally lighter. “B” also appears to have some shading created by the roof. It’s an awkward art deco throwback but it does have that…
The wooden shelter (shelter A) would be great – although a little tricksy architecturally – if you wanted a bus shelter for your back yard. The timber will be tagged before you can say Noddy and, as others have pointed out, it’s a bit dark and their would appear to be security/safety concerns. Shelter B does the trick: Simple, clean, transparent, functional and not intrusive. It’s basically a development of the train station shelters with the added benefit of a protective panel in front, a modification that should be applied retrospectively on the train shelters.
Shelter B is functional yes, but its dreadfully boring. Shelter C is the best out of the 3 I think and is the one with the best mix of form and functionality.
An essential in bus shelter design is a good view of the oncoming buses and their often quite obscure destination signs. I regularly use the bus stop at the bottom of Albert St where there is no shelter at all and it is possibly the most permanently windy spot in the city. What is needed there is a little glass cubby house. The design can be as boring as hell. When you are trying to keep body & soul together in a driving gale who cares about design.
Agree – even some vertical sheets of glass, perpendicular to the sidewalk with a lower roof would be beneficial at stopping the wind whipping up Albert street.
I think that is the issue with this proposal. They need to show mock up drawings of other formats of the same design so people can think how they will fit into other situations.
It’s a very Kiwi attitude to not care about how things look. I believe we should want our urban spaces to be beautiful as well as functional. ther is no rason both can’t be achieved.
O
One thing with bus shelters here in Henderson is that you are unable to view electronic timetable from within shelter- the shelter itself in effect blocks the screen unless you are directly below it and outside the shelter. Hope these designs consider this.
Doesn’t look like option ‘A’ is totally covered at the back – not sure if I’d be keen on that with a cold southerly whistling between the slats.
It’s got open slats in the first section and the other 2 modules have metal panels behind the slats.
I like C, predominately glass/see through design encourages safety where A could obscure view a little making it feel less safe during the night. B just looks boring plain colourless. Although really need to see them.
But sometimes you would want boring and colourless so that it integrates into its environment.
I wouldn’t want an installation being opposed by local businesses/building owners because the interesting design didn’t fit with the surrounding (eg. On Ponsonby road or other town centres.
So everything should be boring to fit in with everyone else? I don’t want to live in that world.
One thought was A and C look like they better cater for pushchairs, wheelchairs etc, where as B appears to have a bench seat its entire length.
The only thing that matters with shelters is shelter. fully covered back, sides and roof. Add some protection from the front. it rains sideways in Auckland for 6 months a year.
However while its great that they now design good busshelters, how about actually putting up shelters in many more places for riders?
Around my area few stops have any shelter, how much fun is it then to walk to the busstop?
Not only do they need front protection, but a roof that extends to the curb, to reduce how wet you get boarding the bus. If they cost more money, I think many would prefer more cheaper shelters than a few expensive ones.
Agree – cheap simple shelters that work so they can be installed in more locations. Need more in the ‘burbs so people catch the bus to work even when it rains because if someone drives to work, they won’t be bussing home!
The roof can’t go right to the curb or the buses will hit them – they have big overhangs front and rear. – but agree to a point
Good information displays on these bus stops will be key!!!!!
Shelter C but with Shelter A’s roof and accenture.
Yes all very nice. But as an aside, why are those Symonds St bus stops even there? Oh yeah – cos they’re out of the way of the cars. Dear God surely they are the worst-located bus stops on earth. Unless you’re visiting the cemetery.
+1
Symonds Street bus stops also service western links to the Auckland City Hospital for all those times that the rail network is shutdown and for all those parts of the ADHB catchment that aren’t served by rail. They’re quite useful, particularly if you don’t want to accede to the DHB’s chosen mode of transportation to and from the hospital: the revenue-generating, single occupant motor vehicle.
But Chris access from the hospital would be the same with the stops further down Symonds St…. Where there are buildings and people. Basically the other side of Grafton Bridge.
what was the procurement process ? could have got some good profile as well as innovation to the project by running a design competition. maybe the solution to bus shelters is more buses and more reliability regards timetable, if the need to wait was disappeared wouldn’t need a shelter now would we.
The procurement was via a competition. This is the short listed 3.
CCTV at most bus stops is a stupid waste of money. Installing the infrastructure is extremely costly. It isnt really going to prevent crime, does nothing when the crime is being committed and may be of only marginal use afterwards in court.
I live in South Auckland and see these fully enclosed glass bus stops with all 4 panels being smashed, all the time, even when replaced several times. Stupid designers who come up with these stupid designs. Stupid AT for building these designs and wasting all our rates money in maintenance costs. And the poor (literally) bus users are left with useless shelters. Lose-lose for everyone.
The problem is, if you change the South Auckland bus shelters from glass to steel mesh, it makes it harder for users to see their arriving bus and harder to prevent violent crime from happening. Better use of steel mesh and glass combined would help and I believe the Symonds Street Shelter Design Number 3 has the most potential to be adapted for ‘practical use’ in South Auckland.
I think all 3 have made some good input but Shelter A definitely is the one for me without a doubt. It has both wheelchair and pram access as well as somewhere to sit without being in the way. Also plenty of light and vision to see buses and other people. As a young single female I would feel comfortable using this shelter and I would think that if as they have made a modern shelter there would be plenty of lighting. As I mentioned earlier in the summer you can cook in the sun with too much glass. Thumbs up from me.
None of these three shelter is as good as the shelter structures erected at the Panmure Railway Station
Surely other countries have solved this already? Cant we find a country and piggyback on their orders to get lots of them made cheaply so every stop can have a shelter? Who cares if they’re imported?
The problem with asking people what they want is you will end up with inevitable feature creep – the price goes up, budget is the same, so fewer shelters in the future. 🙁
This has been done by competition so was open to all comers. No-one from overseas must have entered…
I like them all, they all look great! each could be appropriate in the area in which it was going to be placed, therefore my suggestion would be to give the city a bit of variety and use all three designs as required.
Shelter A please. It looks amazing and I could see the seating working well for everyone. Awesome that there is less glass, as the most damage I see to bus stops is smashed glass.
I would urge people to view the shelters in real life. There are a number of things you will just not see from a tiny web image such as these. Having seen the shelters I can tell that a number of the comments are not relivant in real life. The build quailty is a big one that needs to be seen. People should look at whether they think the shelters are robust, whether they are solid welded items or clip and bolt together. Whether they look like they would survive being abused or run into by a vehicle (it happens usually with occupants in them). Are the seats comfortable? I see one of the designs has very narrow seats. Does the shelter keep you dry? Walking past the other day I noted one shelter provided much less weather protection becasue it has a much narrower roof. Do they feel light open and secure in reality? Lastly as I understand it these shelters are just one option of a number of different shelter types for different locations. People should have a look at the entire suite of shelter solutions before passing judgement. I also see comments on here on things which are easily changed. All the shelters coudl incorporate advertisin or have solid rooves as oposed to glass aso while it is relivant to note solid rooves may be preferable it’s not really relivant to which shelter is best.
https://www.facebook.com/efm.lk/photos/a.132867908531.105751.75172638531/10153175839788532/?type=1 Why not incorperate bing fit and healthy at the stops?
Great that AT can be progressing some sense of place identity, form and function. Hate the thought of more advertising but support LED solar lighting and CCTV features. And the old bus stock can be reused till new ones can be installed. There are many bus stops with no shelters in West Auckland…and many users, all ages…waiting in the dam rain, hale and winds to catch a bus. Perhaps cycles can also be parked up at b/shelters?
Lav Blue
Having used the bus stops now I still want Shelter A the rain does not get you wet when seating down. Shelter C the rain pours in! Cant call that a shelter. It looks much better than the other one, C which looks shabby in finish. I expect it wont last too long. What else I like is that A is lit by solar and the other one is on mains. By the way, what has happened to shelter B???
Shelter A is the best one
Having stood in ‘A’ in the rain i would beg to differ. At the open end the seats get saturated and the other modules you need to hunker back to be sure to stay dry on the very narrow seats. I have not been in ‘C’ in a deluge but in the same conditions as ‘A’ it was considerably drier as the over hangs are clearly bigger. I noticed the drip line was outside the shelter rather than at the edge. I also note the add panel in ‘A’ leaks like a sieve and the poster inside was soggy. As for looks I kinda felt A was like a Meccanno set rather than a bespoke object. It just had no finesse, but I accept that what looks best will be the subject of debate, even though i don’t subscribe to the notion of taste being subjective. I’m not sure about the shabby finish on ‘C’ it wasn’t damaged when i last saw it except for some scratched glass which is evident in all from the lovely artistically minded commuters. I noticed the other day some contractor water-blasting the graphics right off ‘C’ but walking past today they have now been replaced. I suspect that may be over zealous from the contractor but something which would need to be resolved.
Solar could be added to any of the shelters really so i wouldn’t base a preference on this. All three designs have space for it to be added. I don’t know why you would use solar in the CBD with mains supply right there? It wouldn’t have a viable payback period for the outlay and the batteries would be a maintenance issue. On suburban stops with lesser lighting requirements and no mains near by sure it’s the way to go.
Shelter ‘B’ is I see now in place and on the basis of the shelter alone it provides is a good offering mostly because it is a big structure. Gee that seat’s not comfortable though and the leaner wobbles. I can’t say I understand the Art Deco style and its very paired back design as a icon for AT but i’d love to hear the designer explain it.
I agree re: the waterblasting! I doubt these shelters were designed for upside down raining, shelter C had water dripping out the lights! That can’t be good for them. AT needs to have a word with the contractor
Ideally folks…can also have a brollie with them…the bus shelters are not a silver bullet. Surely there is no bus shelter that provides everything design and functional feature within a finite budget?
Dear Outdoor Research,
My name is xyz. I am resident in New Zealand, and like the cut of your hats.
I have both the waterproof and sun versions. I bought the sun version twice because I left one in the UK and loved the hat so much I gave it to someone else.
I am writing to your correspondance address for sponsorship because Auckland, New Zealand, Southern Ocean, has a transit problem that I would very much like to see a solution to.
The problem is bus shelters, and the fact the council seem capable of building only “shelters which provide no shelter”, instead of the reverse.
Personally, except for fixed coverage attached to apartment blocks and shops etc, shelters in the variable weather you expect to get in The Southern Ocean, are pointless in the sense that you still need to get to the shelter in the first place.
What I am looking for, Google has been unable to find for me. This is a surprise and in fairness to Google it may be my search terms which are at fault.
In any case, I am looking for a personal , mobile ( as in walking) , weather shelter. I am not expecting the average Auckland commuter to try reaching Antarctica, so we can rule that kind of requirement out.
New Zealand being where it is, we experience heavy rain, high winds and deadly sun. If a hurricane strikes, head for a proper shelter otherwise this should provide enjoyment of the elements for young and those with experience of ventilation.
I am absolutely serious about this, and envisage something like a hat, and perhaps some kind of waist fitting which allows a kind of transparent cover to be attached to provide protection and coverage.
The concept is something similar to a poncho, but more robust. Attaching a cover also allows for various fashion statements to be made, as well as flexible coverings for variable weather conditions.
Ideally there would need to be some consideration given to the feet area, which is always tricky, but I need to give this some more thought, as although gumboots would allow the cover to be attached with a degree of flexibility but they may not prove popular. Ideas?
Appropriate ventilation ( see Gortex ) also needs thought. I would imagine relatively short distances, but flexibility is always good, some kind of padding for when you want to sit would be practical.
Hassle free, ease of use, and storage is key. The idea is you may wear a suit underneath, and end up at your meeting dry, that kind of thing. Some people enjoy walking a long way.
Anyway, ideas on the back of a postcard. Please invent this, it may seem slightly left field but shelters are largely a waste of money. Seats are something altogether different and even Auckland council “should” be able to manage one’s that work.
Yours sincerely,
xyz
ps. I enjoy humour and have a theory it does not require laughter.
Although the above is absolutely serious, I include a link to an article I am writing about “Saying No” to bus shelters. As with everything I write, it is a work in progress.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Gimme-No-Shelter-Why-we-should-Just-Say-No-To-Bus-Shelters-In-Auckland/315286438624494?ref=hl&sk=info
Keep up the fantastic work. When I sort out my retail operation here, I intend to sell your hats.
My motto “The best I can get, at a price worth paying”
Getting wet is part of being alive. Sure bus stops should provide the convenience of shelter once you. Get to one but this is the outdoors and people aren’t water soluble so chances are it won’t actually kill you. I suggest a blunt brand umbrella and a cup of concrete to harden you up. NZ isn’t for sooks, but we can direct you to a nearby country that is if you require…
Funny.
This… Got to get me one of these
http://www.designboom.com/art/mobile-shelter-pops-out-of-a-pair-of-sneakers/
Don’t mind me asking Harry Connick Jr Guy but who are you? You have quite a lot to say, nearly to everyone s comments. Are you actually pushing a particular shelter ?
Jackie, I’m a designer by profession so I have some insight into quality design. I think anonymity is important for the avoidance of hate mail :). I’ve deliberately not stated a preference for a particular shelter as I feel that answering technical issues and prompting people to think critically and query their assumptions is of more value. That you don’t feel I’m supporting one in particular probably means that’s working. I thought the idea of this was to debate the designs? I know my opinion has changed through reading these. When the judging starts I will certainly state a preference to AT in a submission.
Jackie, I’m a designer by profession so I have some insight into quality design. I think anonymity is important for the avoidance of hate mail :). I’ve deliberately not stated a preference for a particular shelter as I feel that answering technical issues and prompting people to think critically and query their assumptions is of more value. That you don’t feel I’m supporting one in particular probably means that’s working. I thought the idea of this was to debate the designs? I know my opinion has changed through reading these. When the judging starts I will certainly state a preference to AT in a submission
I actually do think you are in favour of one shelter. Everyone has the right to choose their favourite. I have made my choice as mentioned. I too was in a shelter in the ‘deluge’ and do not agree with your comments. I did not get wet and the seats in another shelter were completely wet. I think it is quite rude of you to say that A looks like Meccanno. I believe that all these companies would have put a lot of time thought and effort into their work and as a designer you should appreciate that. As you should appreciate workmanship across the three shelters. Another point is maybe they can all use solar but they haven’t! I think you have been very picky and insulting to peoples work which is unnecessary. Your comments are not constructive nor are you answering technical issues. Why didn’t you have the chance to put a shelter forward?
Jackie, so we disagree on the weather protection based on our experiences with the shelters such is life.
I loved meccano as child, I don’t see the analogy as rude. I perhaps don’t think a bis shelter should adopt this tectonic language but that doesn’t make the comment offensive. It is a critique. As a designer you have to be robust enough to accept this and separate your sense of self worth from your work and learn from the commentary. If you can’t then you will limit yourself as a designer.
A fallacy in debate is too attack the personality rather than the argument; by labelling my comments offensive rather than engaging in what might describe a meccano aesthetic you make this mistake. I made the comment because the system is made up of a series of generic rectangular extrusions with poket inserts. These components haven lengths and seems which do not align with the bay module. This combined with the sand cast feet and bolt and pin joints reminded me of a proprietary type construction system I could have said like a slick unistrut system, but you wouldn’t have known what that is probably.
Of course I recognise the effort which has been invested. I don’t see that my having an opinion which differs from yours or finds fault with certain aspects of all the schemes diminishes my respect for the designers in the design process. You are proporting a false dichotomy wher you imply there are only two possible positions, that I agree with you or else have no respect. There are of course many other options.
As I recall you accused one shelter of not being a shelter at all. Is this not also rude by your own rationale?
Jackie, so we disagree on the weather protection based on our experiences with the shelters such is life.
I loved meccano as child, I don’t see the analogy as rude. I perhaps don’t think a bis shelter should adopt this tectonic language but that doesn’t make the comment offensive. It is a critique. As a designer you have to be robust enough to accept this and separate your sense of self worth from your work and learn from the commentary. If you can’t then you will limit yourself as a designer.
A fallacy in debate is too attack the personality rather than the argument; by labelling my comments offensive rather than engaging in what might describe a meccano aesthetic you make this mistake. I made the comment because the system is made up of a series of generic rectangular extrusions with poket inserts. These components haven lengths and seems which do not align with the bay module. This combined with the sand cast feet and bolt and pin joints reminded me of a proprietary type construction system I could have said like a slick unistrut system, but you wouldn’t have known what that is probably.
Of course I recognise the effort which has been invested. I don’t see that my having an opinion which differs from yours or finds fault with certain aspects of all the schemes diminishes my respect for the designers in the design process. You are proporting a false dichotomy wher you imply there are only two possible positions, that I agree with you or else have no respect. There are of course many other options.
As I recall you accused one shelter of not being a shelter at all. Is this not also rude by your own rationale?
Yes I understand your point is one company used solar. I am simply debating whether this is a reasonable criteria to select a shelter as best or if in this installation it is actually an advantage? If you believe it is then that’s fine but how do you support that? To draw analogy: if a shelter was red and ypu liked the colour would this be reasonable criteria to say it’s best? I would say no as any of the shelters could be coloured red. I bet any description of the shelters will all espouse environmental choices, energy efficiency and solar and wifi options.
As for me putting a shelter forward… being a designer is not enough you have to be a fabricator as well.
I’m going to assume you are affiliated with the company that designed A. Not the actual designer but part of the entourage so you comments are driven by passion that’s cool but my
Jackie, I’m a designer by profession so I have some insight into quality design. I think anonymity is important for the avoidance of hate mail :). I’ve deliberately not stated a preference for a particular shelter as I feel that answering technical issues and prompting people to think critically and query their assumptions is of more value. That you don’t feel I’m supporting one in particular probably means that’s working. I thought the idea of this was to debate the designs? I know my opinion has changed through reading these. When the judging starts I will certainly state a preference to AT in a submission
Harry Connick Jr Guy I am a bus and therefore a shelter user and I am simply saying what I like, what I see and what I see to be good and tasteful Your assumption is re affiliation is wrong.
who ever had the idea of putting these up in Papakura should be shot…waste of rate payers money..vandals break the glass every day , typical of what occurs when you can just tax the ratepayer
Hi Wayne, this happens across Auckland, west, the Shore, east, all over the place. Its not specific to Papakura. Unfortunately there is no way of making our shelters, parks, trains, buses or anything else vandal-proof. It needs an overall change to the status quo, we need more severe punishments for vandalism and better education that they are only hurting themselves and other taxpayers by damaging public property.
Better shelters are getting installed all over the place, mostly in South at the moment due to the new bus routes. I welcome the shelters.
Although perhaps they should be using see-through plastic though instead of glass.