The Auckland Development Committee meets on Thursday and one of the items on the agenda (19mb) is an evaluation of Downtown Public Space which is related to the potential sale of Queen Elizabeth Square. Council officers have recommended that approval should be given to sell the square based on the outcome of an options evaluation study has been completed which looks at alternative options. It also references a report from Jan Gehl’s company which has assessed the square and made suggestions what could be done to improve it.
The report from Gehl and Associates say that the square has some good things about it – like its size – but also has some significant issues. These include
- It has poor climatic conditions, in particular that it’s windswept due to tall buildings in immediate vicinity which also cause it to be overshadowed for most of the day.
- That there’s a lack of activation by the surrounding frontages.
- That it’s unintegrated from Queen St due to the bus shelters that exist.
The note that to fix the space we would need to
- Demolish the HSBC building
- Redevelop the buildings and provide active frontages
- Reconfigure the bus interchange
The Council have said buying and demolishing the HSBC building would cost approximately $100 million. Gehl and Associates also made the comment “if other open space options exist within the area it would be worthwhile exploring how they could offer something that is more valuable and attractive than the current QE Square.”
The options evaluation report which was by Reset Urban Design starts by looking at the history of the square along its attributes. One of the ones that stands out most for me is that the space is sunny at lunchtime for only 25% of the year. Overall when looking at the existing square it notes the following pros and cons of it.
The positive attributes include:
- It is next to a major pedestrian route – adjacent to Lower Queen Street
- At approximately 2000 sq metres, it is a sizable space
- It is opposite the CPO (Britomart Transport Centre) building
The negative attributes include:
- It does not support objectives of connectivity and permeability in relation to the public open space network in the downtown area
- It creates a gap in the building edge on the western side of Queen Street – the main city to harbour link
- It is subdivided from the adjacent space of Lower Queen Street and does little to support this space
- It is a residual space that has become the forecourt to a private shopping mall development with poor building edges – it is not a destination
- Its original reason for being is usurped; it has become a ‘side show’ to the nearby waterfront and does little to enhance the link with the waterfront
- There is minimal mana whenua or heritage value
- It has a poor environment – being both windy and in shade for the majority of the day
- It doesn’t meet the open space/recreation needs of residents, workers or visitors
It then looks at some potential options which are shown below
They’ve then compared each of these options against the criteria set out in the Auckland Design Manual.
It’s pretty clear the options that perform the best are numbers 2, 6, 7 & 8 which are looked at in more detail.
The options looked at hint at the direction council and it’s agencies are heading towards and represent some big changes that could come to this area of the city in the future.
Lower Queen St
The bus interchange would be moved to Albert St and linked to Britomart by 24/7 lane. There would still be some buses accessing the area although they would be restricted to just accessing or exiting from Galway and Tyler St. That would leave the area out the front of Britomart as well as half of the existing street to be turned into a pedestrian area that would be bigger than QE2 square is now. The new development which Precinct would build would then have active street frontages and it notes the section on QE2 square space would be a maximum of three storeys. I personally think it would be fantastic to have the area directly outside of Britomart as an open space.
Admiralty Steps
This is the section of waterfront to the east of Queens Wharf (C above). It would need to be brought of the Ports of Auckland and the intention would be to create an urban beach including access to the water.
Lower Albert St
Creating a wide promenade and people space between Queens Wharf and Princes Wharf. It would mean the ferries currently in the area would have to move more to Queens Wharf (more on that below).
Base of Queens Wharf
The existing ferry terminal (not the Ferry Building) would be removed. A wide promenade would be extended out from the Ferry building. It suggests ferry operations would be moved further up Queens Wharf
The council suggest that large parts of the Lower Queen St space would be paid for by the CRL project which will have to put large parts of the area back together after the tunnels are dug. The three waterfront options are being considered together and it’s proposed that the delivery of them is tied in with the Quay St upgrade. They say the sale of the square should be able to cover at least two of the three waterfront options.
So all up we have multiple reports from different companies saying that the existing square isn’t ideal and short of buying and demolishing the HSBC building will always be suboptimal. To compensate for the sale the suggestion is for a series of projects which would improve open space in the area for people. It still seems like quite early in the piece but personally I would much prefer what’s suggested above to an upgraded existing QE2 Square.
Processing...
I prefer the other options. I like the urban north facing beach. Qe2 square does have an advantage that it is probably a better spot for small events and promotions but I remember even the international buskers didn’t use this square instead using the other mall square.
Generally agree, but would shifting the buses to Lower Albert Street create too great a walk for connections between Britomart trains and buses? Maybe if the underground pedestrian tunnel was extended further west this problem could be avoided.
As someone who does this walk on an almost daily basis it isn’t an issue. There will be a permanent lane through the site and no road in front of Britomart so no need for the underground link
As a regular user of the “Downtown” subway, I hope it is retained as an all-weather connection into the redeveloped mall. I don’t look forward to having to cross Queen St in the wind and rain, and I dread the prospect of have to battle an easterly howling through a laneway (major failing of Takutai Square).
Also, if all the subway users have to exit via Queen St, then I forecast massive congestion through the concourse and ground floor. 🙁
Anyone who was in the city yesterday and saw the huge crowds along the waterfront, trying to squeeze over the tiny Te Wero bridge, gravitating to where ever there is water [and food!], and contrasted that with the windswept emptiness of QEII Square knows that swapping this for both better urbanity and street activation in the Downtown block, and higher quantity and quality of waterfront public space is clearly a win/win.
But we must remember this is valuable land and the reinvestment of its proceeds into public realm improvements is a win/win for the private purchaser too, so we must ensure we get maximum value from it.
Oooooh. I like this! Some people working in the CBD offices would have a place to hang out for lunch.
While I like the concept of an “urban beach”, i’m pretty skeptical about its overall attractiveness. Putting aside the WWTP in mangere I could think of few other locations where I would want to actually touch the water, let alone swim – it looks revolting around the CBD.
You don’t have to get in the water to feel its appeal, thousands were crawling all over the wharves and steps down to the water yesterday in the city…. You’d have to be a crazed suburbanist to not see that every city in the world gains huge value from Public Realm development on its urban waterfront. And few have a waterfront with as much potential as Auckland.
The Thames or the Yarra are horrible compared to the Waitemata, yet do we do much to connect the city with it, nor take enough care with what we do build? Not yet, and we must.
On a wider issue. In this mornings property porn liftout is some good analysis. Of Regional Development economist Shamubeel Eaqub says:
“if we stifle growth in Auckland, it won’t turn up in Northland- it will turn up in Sydney or Singapore”.
We are competing with these regional cities and one important level of competition is physical quality. Improvement of the urban waterfront is key to lifting the entire notion of Auckland as a player in this game.
Yes I agree with you completely Patrick – I guess my issue is more with how we try to sell these projects. In my mind the term beach conjures up images of wading, swimming, waves etc. In that regard drawing in the word beach is over-selling what the space is intended to be or how it will actually function.
Agree with Patrick – plus, remember than unless we REALLY screw up our future, the water quality will improve as we go in the coming decades, put in better sewage systems etc…
As long as the CPO building (Britomart station) is allowed plenty of breathing space, I don’t have a problem with selling off QE II square.
Beautiful buildings like this need some space so that you can view their charms in whole, not in part. Getting rid of the buses from the square would also help this.
If only we’d built the matching Dilworth building, imagine the entry to the heart of the city!
Yes, the space in front of Britomart is much more valuable- it’s in the right and expected place; like a real public square in front of the important public building, and as more and more people pour out of the Station it is needed just to accommodate them too. Also it isn’t as shaded by those poorly placed 1960s towers.
Huge win. Ideally the buses won’t be needed on the side streets too as they cause considerable severance for pedestrians to/from the Station. Can they fit on Customs and Albert? Customs needs full time bus lanes.
I agree. Get the buses right out of there.
Why not move QE2 square “around the corner” and make it north facing.
By this method:
Council sells QE2 Square to Precinct and buys HSBC house and demos it (or as Precinct own both?, simply landswap the sites with each other and pay the net difference in value). It was stated that the QE2 square is worth $60m as land, HSBC house worth more than that but it is a tired old building due to either demo or major refurbishment.
Then to offset the higher cost of that option, Council then sells (or leases with agreed buy back rights) the “view” rights/airspace above where HSBC house stands to Precinct for their Downtown+QE2 Square development.
Why do this? – well with HSBC house demoed, those lower 13 floors of the Precincts planned developments including QE2 square portion which would have no good harbour views now will suddenly have “absolute” waterfront views – effectively moving them to Quay street, without the need to do so.
That fact alone will increase the actual and perceived value of the entire Precinct tower developments going in there, and will help offset a reasonable chunk of the marginal cost of land swapping to get control of HSBC house and land. So Precinct get a modern building constructed with absolute waterfront views (ala the PWC building across Albert), which they can lease out for a premium, and the old and tired HSBC house is dumped and a public square is in its place.
We get a north facing square that provides links to the Britomart building, the old Ferry Building and the waterfront in one combined development, rather than a bunch of projects that may or may not ever happen.
And the net cost should be under $40m all up, but we’d get a superior QE2 square – properly located and in a prime spot to further enhance the Quay St precinct and keep the .scale of buildings there.
And even if it cost $40m, that is almost rounding in the CRL cost, so can easily be funded out of the expected savings in CRL as it progresses to construction.
Great idea. Get some sun for crying out loud. All those buildings facing Quay St and no where nice to sit and enjoy the sun. Just cars and trucks.
Wasn’t the original britomart plan to have the bus terminal underground? What a missed opportunity.
The original Britomart was horrible, mostly carparking and demolishing the existing buildings. Also buses underground are not great in general, especially until we’re running electric ones, or those really good electric ones called trains.
Most of downtown Auckland is windblown. Would hate to lose that large downtown space (QE2).Sure it doesnt get much sun but a lot of people appreciate it and use it.
I like the plans very much, question: Will the redevelopment of Quay street include the extension of the tram line from Wynyard Quater to Britomart? It will be pretty silly not to i think.
The plans are all nice as an analysis of open space options in the lower Queens St area, but if they are all being considered in reaction to existing QE2 Square, then they’re over-thinking. To consider tearing down a large commercial office building because a particular public square doesn’t meet some designers’ standards is foolish. Of course it can be better designed. Everything can. But if we’re stuck with QE2 as it is then the responsible medium-term response is to make it as good as it can be, and the designers should be putting more effort into that. In a dense downtown with lots of tall buildings we don’t always have the luxury of day-long sunshine and balmy breezes in every block. Sub-optimizing is often necessary. Maybe more trees, more seating and more water – William Whyte’s three essential elements of a successful open space. Maybe enclose it and make it into a winter garden kind of space. If it’s the forecourt of a shopping centre, so much the better; it’s more active that way. (I would expect the shopping centre owner to pay for part of it.)
If a building is to be demolished, my first priority would be that five story monstrosity on the north side of Quay St between the ferry dock and Princes Wharf. Taking that out would open up the waterfront considerably and make for a better connection along the waterfront to the Viaduct.
That’s what you call “looking at all options”. You sometimes include those that are feasible but not sensible, and then discuss why, to contrast them with those that are more sensible.
The Britomart, QE2, Quay St, Lower Albert St. precinct will never improve while the HSBC tower remains. This was a recommendation when the downtown development was in the planning stage before the tower was built. The building’s resulting wind turbulence and shadow destroys the entire block. Apart from that, the urban beach idea is brilliant and part way to emulating Wellington’s very successful waterfront development. Why not fill in the entire ferry basin with new cruise ship facilities at the end and the harbour ferries could use the eastern side of Queen’s Wharf with a subway to the trains.
I don’t think that a walk from Lower Albert St to the train station is too far especially if it is a subway. Try walking from Liston House in Hobson St to the trains which is what the Birkenhead Transport bus passengers have to do now. And ask any of the Birkenhead bus passengers what they think of the present Lower Albert St bus stop in summer or winter. That bloody overhead walkway wind tunnel has to go.
Love the plans. Will be interesting to see how they evolve – hopefully not devolve as they often do. I hope with all this digging underground they consider running underground access beneath Quay St. It’s a nightmare getting across and missing your ferry waiting for the traffic.
With Aotea station coming on line, I guess the bus to rail transfer won’t be so focused at Britomart. And lower Queen is a really crap bus terminal – I noticed again recently how much better Wellington does this.
It does seem a pity though after all that effort to get a tight multi-mode hub, that it will be unraveled.