Yesterday the Auckland Development Committee approved the Downtown Framework which has been put together by the City Centre Integration Group (CCIG) which is a team comprised of members from all the relevant council agencies (e.g. Auckland Council, Auckland Transport, Waterfront Auckland etc.). The framework should be available online sometime today.

To understand what the framework is for you first need to remember some of the history that has led to it. The Auckland Plan, the City Centre Master Plan, The Waterfront Plan and many others have all contributed towards what is hoped will happen in the city centre over the next 30 years. From them a huge number of projects have been born to make the city a better place. There are around 50 all up and are shown on the map below and are a mix of transport and place making projects.

CBD Projects

The projects over the decade can be grouped into five specific areas

CBD Projects - groups

For each of the five areas a framework is being developed which is meant to create a bridge between the strategy set out in the various plans and the actual delivering projects. It effectively deals with issues like working out the sequencing and interdependencies of the projects. After all we wouldn’t want to create a fantastic new public space only or it to be dug up again a few years later for something else like the City Rail Link.

The Downtown Framework is the first framework of the areas above to be released. It broadly covers the area north of (and including) Customs St and from the Viaduct Harbour in the west through to Britomart Pl in the East. Within the Downtown area it has further been divided into 8 areas of opportunity which are shown below.

Downtown Framework - Areas of Opportunity

With those 8 areas there are 12 projects that the council are looking at over the next decade and a further 4 projects that could happen in the future. The projects for the next decade are

  1. City Rail Link – Enabling works proposed to construct tunnel sections from Britomart to up Albert Street beyond Customs St allowing other projects to be completed without further disruption.
  2. Lower Queen Street – Proposed relocation of the buses from Lower Queen St provides opportunity for a new public square.
  3. Queens Wharf – The redevelopment of Queens Wharf will deliver significant new public space as well as accommodating ferry and cruise operations
  4. Quay Street – Quay Street is planned to be transformed into Auckland premier waterfront boulevard that will connect to various parts of the wider waterfront.
  5. Downtown Bus Interchange – The proposed new interchange will be divided between Lower Albert St and Britomart Transport Centre and enable the new public space on Lower Albert St.
  6. Fanshawe Street Urban Busway – The Fanshawe St upgrade will see an extension of the Northern Busway into the CBD.
  7. Customs Street Upgrade – The upgrade of Customs St will deliver reliability improvements for both buses and private vehicles.
  8. Ferry Basin Redevelopment – The redevelopment is to accommodate forecast growth in ferry services
  9. Downtown Shopping Centre Block Redevelopment – Precinct Properties are embarking on a comprehensive redevelopment of the block including a new retail offering and commercial tower.
  10. Beach Road Cycleway – This will become a key link with wider connections into the city including the Grafton Gully Cycleway.
  11. Seawall Upgrade – The seawall between Princes and Marsden Wharf is to be seismically upgraded
  12. Central Wharves Strategy – The strategy is to address competing demands on the water space and to make best use of the wharf space available to allow growth in cruise, ferry and port activities.

And the four future projects are:

  1. Hobson Street Flyover Removal – The future removal of the Hobson Street Flyover provides a significant opportunity for additional public space and further connection to the waterfront
  2. Downtown Carpark Redevelopment – The car park site is a significant opportunity for a potential commercial development and represents one of the last large development sites on the waterfront.
  3. Federal Laneway Extension – The CCMP identified an ambition to extend Federal Street between Customs and Quay St to provide a new link to the waterfront.
  4. Central Wharfs & Breastworks Opportunities – The Central Wharves and Breastworks represent an opportunity to work with POAL to maximise public space whilst allowing for port growth

The CCIG have then come up with a range of different implementation options and scenarios to deal with the different scenarios that might come up depending on what eventually gets the go ahead. These are all included in the document being released. One of these looks at what to do with QEII Square and the bus interchange on Lower Queen St. Options range from keeping the status quo through to moving the buses to Albert St and selling QEII Square like we reported on the other day (of note the councillors also agreed to sell the square at the meeting).

Downtown Framework - QEII Square and Bus Scenarios

So it already seems like we’re heading firmly towards option 3 and here’s an image of what the more people focused space in front of Britomart may look like..

Lower Queen St

One of the new spaces potentially funded by the sale of the square is at Admiralty basin which is between Queens Wharf and Captain Cook Wharf. Here’s an impression of that.

Admiralty Basin

There’s other interesting discussions to be had based on a briefing Patrick and I received the other day and we will aim to cover some of those in the coming days. For now we’ll just have to wait for the official document which should hopefully be online soon. Update: the document is available here.

Share this

44 comments

  1. All exciting stuff. I like the moving of the buses.

    All really lacking in firm details at this stage. Would like to know what they would like on queens wharf as what I’ve heard so far isn’t inspiring.

    Also curious to see what’s proposed for 20 on the map which I guess is high street.

  2. (Partly) pedestrianising lower Queen Street is a great move. Developing the public realm at the ferry terminal, Queens Wharf etc. are also great moves.

    But what have those got to do with selling QEII Square? Sure, the plan is to use the money to tart up some other places nearby, but that’s not the only way the council has of raising money. It’s actually close to being the worst way. Leaving aside the madness of, you know, raising rates, I’d frankly prefer we just sold off a bit more of Auckland Airport. Not just decide that we can just sell off public space whenever we’re strapped for cash.

    So, here’s the question: what is the deal? The trade? What is it that we’re getting in exchange for selling QEII that we can’t get any other way? I’m sure there’s some new area or opportunity we can get in exchange, since the current QEII Square would be pretty easy to outdo. But no-one’s suggested anything so far.

    1. Steve, ‘no one’s saying anything’ more; you ain’t listening. The trade is for real streets through the site, and money to be spent on new public space across Quay St on the water, and on building the plaza out front of Britomart.

      This is a win for us all, but also a win for PP as that is actually a relatively small block to get the kind return on investment that they’re making, so, I do agree that the details of the deal do matter enormously. However the vote for the sale in principle has to go through before fair dealing can commence…..

      I find it hard to be negative or suspicious about this however, as as I see it what PP need and what is best for the people overlap almost completely.

      Will write longer post over the weekend.

      1. > Steve, ‘no one’s saying anything’ more; you ain’t listening.

        I know you guys go to all the media events, get told things in confidence and so on. I’m going on this blog post, and the write-ups in the media, and the press releases. I can’t look at the plan because it hasn’t been released. So I’m going by the impression I get from the public sources, which is that:

        * We’re selling QEII Square
        * For cold card cash
        * We’re then spending that cash on a bunch of (very worthy) things
        * But those worthy things don’t in any way require that money to come from any particular source

        > The trade is for real streets through the site,

        Errrr… the street through the site is there in Option 2, so obviously that’s not a part of the trade.

        > and money to be spent on new public space across Quay St on the water, and on building the plaza out front of Britomart.

        Yes, if you read my comment, I’m well aware that we’re getting money in exchange. There’s no reason why that needs to be the source of funding for the other projects.

        > as as I see it what PP need and what is best for the people overlap almost completely.

        Yes, it’s a great deal for Precinct, and that isn’t in itself a bad thing for the public, either. But our interests aren’t as closely aligned as all that: Precinct would be happy to just buy the square outright and build on it, but that wouldn’t be a good deal for us.

        1. Steve sure we could develop those other spaces too and have them plus QE2 square but the reality is they won’t come cheap and so otherwise might not happen for decades. Both the ferry basin and admiralty basin proposals involved building out over the water further so it’s not just a simple repaving of the surface. Admiralty Basin also needs to be brought off POAL

    2. “I’m sure there’s some new area or opportunity we can get in exchange, since the current QEII Square would be pretty easy to outdo. But no-one’s suggested anything so far.”

      You mean apart from all the suggestions in the document? These all require cash to be developed and the reality is that Auckland Airport shares provide a good dividend to the council. QEII square just seems awkward in its current configuration. It’s an odd shape, the buses cut it in half, and make it louder than it should be. Selling off the portion will enable a better shape more suited to public events, will restore the original building line and enable the weird awning thing cutting through the square to be removed, and will make provide funds that can be used to make better public spaces in the area.

      1. > You mean apart from all the suggestions in the document? These all require cash to be developed

        They don’t require that cash to come from selling QEII square. There’s no connection between the one and the other. If it’s worth doing, it’s worth spending rates on. If it’s not worth spending rates on, maybe it’s not worth doing no matter where the money comes from?

        > the reality is that Auckland Airport shares provide a good dividend to the council.

        Yes, that was my example of “the next worst way to raise the money”.

        > It’s an odd shape, the buses cut it in half, and make it louder than it should be

        That’s a good point, actually: some of the problems with QEII Square actually go away if we pedestrianise that part of Queen Street! There’s no buses, no need for bus shelters, and the shape becomes just part of the larger space of Lower Queen Street.

  3. “It’s actually close to being the worst way.”

    Why is it the worst way? QEII is unloved and unused as a public space, but has greater value as private space. Being on the south side of a large building it doesn’t have great potential even with improved design. If its sale can be used to raise enough money to make better public space elsewhere, then why shouldn’t it?

    There seems to be a general knee jerk reaction (I’m thinking more Cayford and Darby than you) that any selling of private space no matter how poorly used, and no matter how good the deal is, is some corporate evil that must be stopped.

    1. > QEII is unloved and unused as a public space, but has greater value as private space

      It’s not unused. It’s not great, but it’s a lot better than nothing. As for having “greater value” as a private space, well, we could flog off any park in the city for more money than the zero dollars they produce as parks, but that’s still not a good thing for the public.

      > any selling of private space no matter how poorly used, and no matter how good the deal is, is some corporate evil that must be stopped.

      As I’ve said, I’m open to the idea of selling it. But not just because we need some dough. If we were trading it for something we couldn’t get another way, or even spending the money on buying a replacement space elsewhere, that’d be a different thing.

      Hell, there are probably even parts of Auckland that have too much public space in general, and it’d be OK to just sell part of it. But that definitely doesn’t apply to downtown, which is crying out to be more of a public space, not just a transport corridor between private and commercial spaces.

      1. We are using the proceeds to buy a public space elsewhere, effectively we’re swapping a windswept hole for a sundrenched “beach” (we might “own” the area, but it’s not very usable).

        The only people who “use” QEII are the addicts puffing on their ciggies, and folk like me accessing one of the surrounding buildings (and I’d prefer not to when it’s raining). And very occassionally a lost tourist or someone eating their lunch…

        1. > (we might “own” the area, but it’s not very usable).

          We’ve chosen to fill the area with cars and other random thingamajigs, just as we’ve chosen to fill lower Queen Street with buses. We could choose not to, without selling QEII Square. I was thinking more literally about trading the space for another privately-owned space somewhere else.

          > The only people who “use” QEII are the addicts puffing on their ciggies, and folk like me accessing one of the surrounding buildings (and I’d prefer not to when it’s raining). And very occassionally a lost tourist or someone eating their lunch…

          Well, first of all, having a smoke is still using the space, and it’s a nicer setting to do so than standing out the back of a loading dock.

          But it gets more use than you seem to think. Not as much as it could, and not as much as another space elsewhere might. But it’s hardly worthless. If you want to flog off a really worthless bit of public space for a commercial development, how about this? http://goo.gl/maps/3BazD

        2. QEII has had a number of attempts to improve it. They have all failed. We have 2 consultants reports that spell out why it is unsuitable for a public square. Why should we continue to pour good money after bad?

        3. > I think this should be flogged off as well with a covenant that any development must provide a high standard access to Myers Park.

          I think with a little reconfiguration that carparkingy bit at the south of Aotea is one of the best opportunities for a larger but genuinely central city school.

          > QEII has had a number of attempts to improve it. They have all failed. We have 2 consultants reports that spell out why it is unsuitable for a public square. Why should we continue to pour good money after bad?

          Cool, so let’s see how we can exchange it for something better. Not just for cash.

        4. @Steve – whilst I agree that land by the motorway is a good one to get rid of, it’s most likely actually owned by NZTA not AT, and unlike QEII Square doesn’t have anyone that wants to incorporate it into a tower, so it’s not really a relevant comparison. I’d actually guess NZTA wouldn’t want anything built there because of concerns of it slowing down cars exiting and entering the motorway.

        5. > There are a huge number of ideas they’ve gone through, so it’s not a random uneducated decision by the council. Have a read of the proposals and why there are better interventions for the waterfront area:

          None of those, however, are in any way connected to the decision to sell QEII Square. They’re all proposals to reconfigure or do up existing public space. Most of them are good ideas! We should do them! But… none of them come with any reason why we should – as a totally separate, independent action – get rid of QEII as well.

          > whilst I agree that land by the motorway is a good one to get rid of, it’s most likely actually owned by NZTA not AT, and unlike QEII Square doesn’t have anyone that wants to incorporate it into a tower, so it’s not really a relevant comparison. I’d actually guess NZTA wouldn’t want anything built there because of concerns of it slowing down cars exiting and entering the motorway.

          Yeah, that’s not a particularly serious proposal. Although that said: there’s vehicle crossings directly opposite on Union Street, so clearly it’s not the end of the world to be that close to the onramp. And if it were actually put up for sale, someone’d buy it.

    2. The government (local or national) should control the “commanding heights of the economy”
      In the past this meant heavy industry, in 2014 this may mean places close to heavy tourist flows etc – and as such, QE2 square should remain in public ownership

  4. How does the plan for LRT from Wynyard through Dominion via Queen work with the open space in front of Britomart: They want to remove the buses which is good so the space can be better utilised as a public square, but won’t LRT also give reduction in public space (not as much I guess?)

    Be interested to hear views.

  5. I am amazed that the existing QE2 is the product of a number of attempts to improve it. It doesn’t meet basic standards for successful open space now. Why not? It’s sterile, cold, hard and unwelcoming. That can be easily changed (assuming subsurface conditions allow it, and I don’t anything about that).

    (Minor quibble alert)
    Forgive my old-fashioned aesthetic sense but I just don’t think shipping containers have any decorative or curiosity value at all.

    1. There have a been a number of studies looking at how to improve it (and sticking some grass and trees isn’t going to change much), and all have suggested there’s not a lot to be done. The fact of the matter is that it’s in shadows most of the day and despite being right by the harbour’s edge has no connection to it at all. Better to utilise the possibilities allowed by opening up the waterfront IMO.

  6. So the intention appears to return lower Queen Street back into the QE II Square that it was prior to Britomart being built. It was a bit of a failure back then, but things have changed a lot since then, in the 80’s the CPO was a derelict boarded up wreck for starters. I do think selling off the failure of a public space that remains and generally seems to be used by couriers to park their vans is a good idea if it means more of the waterfront can be improved. People have seen how great Wynyard is and unsurprisingly would like more of the same around the Ferry Terminal, rather than the shambles it is at present.

    1. Was the CPO really a “a derelict boarded up wreck”? I am not disputing it, just amazed if so.

      I work upstairs in it now and it is such a nice building. It just goes to show how far Auckland had strayed from being a real city. I am glad I never saw it like that. I also understand now why no-one had a good word to say about Auckland when I was growing up in the 1980s and 1990s.

      1. Yes it was – comparable to that building on Albert St the developer is running down. Broken glass, graffiti, boarded up lower windows and doors but without the fresh lick of RWC grey paint. It also had a continuous row of about 20 phone boxes out front which shows the different era we were in.

        When Les Mill’s Britomart 1 plan came along they salvaged a small cordoned off area of the northern corner for a public display – the first time it had been open for quite a few years.

      2. Yeah, the front was closed off by a row of several dozen phone boxes, aside from that it was boarded up. The first time I ever saw it in use was, as mentioned, when they used it to display images of what was proposed for the Britomart redevelopment. I can’t be totally sure but I think some of the earlier versions involved getting rid of it along with everything else in Britomart to allow a ‘business’ district of skyscrapers to be built. Underneath it all was a 6 level carpark and bus station.

    2. There’s a lot more activation around the square these days and with the return of the original building line this will only increase. The station and consequent development has also increased the amount of foot traffic in the area.

  7. LOL.

    “The ‘down-tuning’ of Quay Street will be supported by improving the reliable movement functions of Customs Street. Unnecessary through-traffic will be encouraged to use the motorway ring route.”

    That is rubbish. There is almost no ‘unnecessary’ through traffic on Quay. The majority using Quay, head up Albert or Hobson or halsey or Beaumont. There is no easy way to access those sections of the city from the motorway if you come from the east. The Port link is already well used by people heading to the shore or out west, but they can’t get off anywhere else. So general vehicles trying to get to the west half of the CBD have no choice.

    The future CBD lacks good east/west links. Quay, Customs, Victoria, Wellesley serve this need, but customs is already at capacity with dangerous air pollution levels and Wellesley is already going to buses and Victoria is going to be a park or whatever. The tourist might enjoy Quay, but they will choke to death on Customs. Down tuning Quay will push SOME of the traffic onto customs, but plenty of cars will remain on Quay because of the absence of buses which will all be on customs presumably.

    Obviously they want to get rid of cars which is fine but they should say so and not lie about it saying there wont be any issues. And they should amend all the pretty waterfront pictures and fill them full of cars which will be closer to reality.

    1. The cars from the East could go down The Strand on to SH16 then round the CMJ and then reenter the city from the West. I know it is the long way round but isn’t one of the advantages of a car its speed?

      Quay Street is almost deserted most of the time. I cycled down it today at about 7am and there were far more cyclists than cars.

    2. Or they can drive up Grafton Rd to get to Victoria, Wellesley/Mayoral to get over to the other side of town.

      If downtuning Quay pushes traffic to Customs, we should downtune Customs too.

      1. Probably SB as that was the *only* way you could do it until reasonably recently (in fact until the Grafton to Northern on/off ramps in fact).

        So its learned behaviour. And can be unlearned too.

        I expect they just have not been aware there is any other option as do a lot of people who used to drive the motorway system as it was 15-20 years ago,
        Then Grafton Gully was only for going south or coming from the south and not for going any where else.

        Same coming from the Shore you had to get off at Fanshawe and wind your way through the city, whereas now you can exit from the Northern on to Grafton Gully then along SH16 onto Tamaki Drive.

        By passing Quay St in Downtown in both directions.

        And counting traffic lights, the Grafton Gully option would be quicker, but slightly longer.(2km longer – 5.6 via Motorway and 3.6 via Quay/Fanshawe), when measured from The Strand Quay intersection to the merge point of the Fanshare St on ramp on the Northern Motorway.

        So while its longer theres way fewer lights (3 via Motorway I count) versus, 8+ via Quay Fanshawe, so allowing for the Motorway speed and fewer waiting at lights the otorway via Grafton Gully would be a lot quicker.

        I’ve ignored Motorway on-ramp lights as you’d be impacted equally by those anyway no matter which way you went.

        1. We moved to Auckland after Grafton to Northern was built so it isn’t learned, it’s just that Quay St looks like a bypass and is treated as such by motorists……

  8. FFS. Seriously, this sucks.

    Having blown an opportunity to create a central bus interchange (amazing to think that the crummy old Britomart was actually significantly more useful for bus users than the current afterthought), they managed to find a reasonable compromise by including buses in lower Queen.

    Now, in the vain pursuit of another drab, windswept concrete space that will no doubt be the wet dream of urban planners, architects and their predictable graphic design teams, we’re gonna ditch the bus amenity altogether and just wipe half the buses away altogether, moving them even further away to lower Albert. And let’s face it, there really will be sweet eff all amenity for them – some useless shelters, inadequate signage and mapping and too few seats.

    Think about it, to transfer between buses we’re going to have a diffuse system across Britomart, lower Albert, the ferry terminal (for Airport), further up Albert, Wellesley, Victoria and opposite the Civic. Wow, how useful and convenient.

    So, once again, Auckland gives a giant eff-you to bus users. Utility is out the window, sterile squares that repeat past failures (yes, old QE2 Square looked a lot like what’s proposed here).

    Auckland fails again.

        1. Apologies, the train will be 150m that is a monstrous hike that will be completely unacceptable. The only buses that will be stopping in the back of Britomart are the buses to Pakuranga, which will also stop at the train station. If the 150m walk really is too much then all shorites could transfer at Wynyard and get off of the inner link 40m from the train station.

        2. SB, have a look at page 48 here: http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/CouncilProjects/citycentretransformation/Documents/futureframework-part4.pdf

          You have the North Shore and West Auckland buses on lower Albert on one side… and the Tamaki Dr, Mt Eden, and Central Connector/Newmarket/Howick/Botany bunch on the back of Britomart at the other. That is a minimum 200m walk if the mall is open, a little more if it isn’t.

          Getting to the inner link or nearby parts of the city isn’t the concern, its the connection between these strategic corridors, including the Northern Express busway. I’m not saying it’s necessarily awful (and probably still an improvement on the status quo) but walking two blocks to make a connection isn’t something to scoff at so easily either.

          Also the pic above and the one on page 57, well they’re perhaps a touch dishonest in my opinion. This is a bigger issue I think. The pic shows a lovely paved pedestrian space, but where are all the buses from Mt Eden Rd and the AMETI busway at? The plan proposes they all drive into lower Queen St here and turn right across this space and into the lane alongside Britomart. Again that’s not necessarily a problem that can’t be managed, but it’s not going to look like that picture. I really doubt you can run a high volume of large buses through a shared space like that, it will need to be a paved and curbed roadway.

          On an unrelated note I think that redeveloping the basin or moving the ferries is both unnecessary and unwarranted. They are very well placed right there, and served by a good terminal that’s only some ten years old (and still getting the last of the improvements). If they do something decent with Quay St itself the rest, there is no reason to much with the ‘pedestrian fountain’ at the ferry terminal.

        3. Given that this sailed was agreed on the basis of their being a laneway through the current mall site the mall will be ‘open’, also, the RPTP has the Tamaki Drive buses through routed on Albert, and the Mt Eden on Customs, again AMETI buses are the only true concern. I agree that we don’t actually need any buses on Lower Queen, think that they should all use lower Albert.

        4. Have a look at the link Sailor Boy, it clearly shows they intend to terminate Tamaki and Mt Eden at the back of Britomart. Also the RPTP shows both ending at Britomart, so not sure what you are going on?

        5. Thats a very old and out of date map SB (I should know, I drew it!). The actual RPTP document that was adopted is different.

          There is a reason why Mt Eden buses couldn’t use lower albert, for one it involves extra turning movements that aren’t currently provided for, but more importantly lower Albert will be very busy with north shore and western buses. There is no way it could accommodate everything. Do note that lower albert already has a lot of bus stops, so it’s not just a case of moving Queen St stops to Albert, there simply isn’t room.

    1. As someone who does the transfer from Albert St to Britomart almost daily it seriously isn’t an issue and frankly extremely easy. That would be made easier by the plaza out the front of the station which means no roads to cross. Also I’d expect that post CRL most north shore buses would go via Wellesley St and would transfer at Aotea.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *