We’ve spent almost 60 years designing our cities and streets based on one overriding principle, the movement of as many vehicles as possible. This is seen not just on our roads but also in how we develop town centres and even our suburbs. It has become so extreme that in many cases it is virtually impossible to get around a place in anything but a car. Of course this isn’t unique to New Zealand with similar situations arising in many countries, but particularly the English speaking new world ones such as Australia, Canada and of course the US.

We have lots of examples of this in Auckland that have come to symbolise this car centric planning and some classic ones are Albany (left) and Botany (right) although there are many other places equally bad on smaller scales. They share a number of similar characteristics such as a huge volume of parking, buildings set back from the street and all surrounded by large roads that are difficult to get across. It’s not uncommon in places like these to people drive 150m to change carpark rather than walk between stores.

Albany-Botany aerial

Yet both of these two places are listed in the Auckland Plan as being Metropolitan centres which means they are meant to (or eventually meant to) accommodate a large proportion of the city’s future residential, retail and employment growth and be linked to the region through efficient transport networks. To achieve this we will effectively need to retrofit them to become much more dense and walkable urban environments focused on people rather than the movement of cars.

This isn’t going to be an easy task but thankfully it’s a challenge now being tackled in many cities around the world that we can learn from. Below are a handful of underlying principles distill down the key elements that make for successful and walkable urban areas courtesy of Design for Walkability which is from SPUR, a research and advocacy group out of the San Francisco Bay area. They are all points that we’ve covered off before but it’s useful in repeating them and of course they are not just useful for the likes of Albany or Botany but should be applied to any urban areas.

1. Create fine-grained pedestrian circulation

Frequent and densely interconnected pedestrian routes are fundamental to walkability, shortening both actual and perceived distances. This can be accomplished by making city blocks smaller or by providing access through blocks via publicly accessible alleys, pathways or paseos (pedestrian boulevards) coupled with frequent crosswalks. A good rule of thumb is that a comfortable walking environment offers a choice of route about once per minute, which is every 60 to 90 metres at a moderate walking pace — typical of a traditional, pre-war city block. This not only allows pedestrians efficient access but also provides visual interest and a sense of progress as new structures and intersections come into view with reasonable frequency.

This kind of “permeability” sometimes meets with resistance from developers and property owners, who may cite security, property rights or site-planning concerns. But street networks are fundamental to walking. Walking five 60 metre blocks through Portland, Oregon, is easy and comfortable. Walking the same 300 metres on a suburban commercial street, past a single distant building and no intersections, is very uncomfortable.

A major statistical analysis found that intersection density and street connectivity are more strongly correlated with walking than even density and mixed land uses. Only proximity to the city centre has a stronger effect.

 2. Orient buildings to street and open spaces

In walkable urban environments, buildings are placed right at the edges of streets and public spaces, rather than being set back behind parking lots or expanses of landscaping. These built edges provide a sense of definition to streets and other spaces, which helps makes the environment more legible and coherent. At all scales, from big-city downtowns to small neighborhood centers, edges help reinforce circulation routes while allowing easy pedestrian access to buildings. Building entrances are on or next to sidewalks. Setbacks from the street are short and exist only to provide public space or a transition from public to private life.

Where buildings are set back behind parking lots or landscaping, pedestrians are isolated from uses and activities, exposed to traffic and forced to walk greater distances. Even if a walking path or sidewalk is provided, pedestrians and transit users receive the message that they are of secondary importance. Loading docks, service entrances, blank walls and driveways should be limited in size and located where they minimize disruption of pedestrian access.

3. Organize uses to support public activity

The way uses are arranged on a site has a major impact on the activity, vitality, security and identity of surrounding streets and spaces.

Active uses (such as retail, lobbies and event spaces) should be placed strategically along pedestrian routes to engage the public and should be designed for transparency and interest.

Secure, private spaces should be placed at site interiors, away from public streets.

Residential entrances should be designed to provide a graceful transition from public to private. Stoops, front porches, balconies and lobbies can all provide privacy while supporting sociability and greater security by increasing the number of “eyes on the street.”

Certain uses, such as garages and cinemas, should be tucked deeply away, but their points of access can be major nodes of activity.

Loading and utility spaces should be hidden from pedestrian frontages.

4.  Place parking behind or below buildings

In newer development, good places for people depend heavily on the artful accommodation of cars. Parking is an expensive, space-hungry and unattractive use — and it’s a key driver of site planning and project finances. It should be provided in multilevel structures where possible and placed where it will not disrupt pedestrian spaces. Well-designed garages can serve multiple buildings, draw people onto streets and allow parking to be managed efficiently. Once they have parked, every driver becomes a pedestrian, so pedestrian garage exits should be located to support and enliven public spaces.

5. Address the human scale with building and landscape details

People experience the built environment at the scale of their own bodies in space. Buildings should meet and engage people at that scale, with awnings, façade elements, lighting, signage and other features along sidewalks. Building forms can be broken down or subdivided visually to lighten the sense of mass. Even very large buildings can meet the human scale in a gracious and accommodating manner.

6. Provide clear, continuous pedestrian access

Wide sidewalks that include elements like trees, lighting, street furniture and public art are the city’s connective tissue. In great walking cities like Barcelona and New York, sidewalks 12 metres wide are not uncommon, but a well-designed 3 metre sidewalk can be adequate in some contexts. Sidewalks should form a continuous network connected by frequent, safe street crossings.

Sidewalks, while fundamental, are only one part of the broader public realm. They should be seamlessly integrated with walkways, paseos, building entrances, transit facilities, plazas and parks. In order for people to feel comfortable walking, the continuity of pedestrian access among major uses and amenities, including transit facilities, is essential.

7. Build complete streets

 Streets can accommodate a variety of travel modes while also serving as public amenities, sites of commerce and green spaces. Vehicular roadways should be no bigger than necessary for their function, and they should apportion space safely among private vehicles, transit, bicycles and parking. If they are well designed, streets can move significant volumes of auto traffic and still support other activities. Small streets are equally important and can limit vehicular speeds and capacity in the service of other functions, from deliveries to social activity.

From The City of San Jose’s Envision 2040 General Plan:

“A complete street provides safe, comfortable, attractive and convenient access and travel for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit users of all ages, abilities and preferences. The design of a complete street considers both the public right-of-way and the land uses and design of adjoining properties, including appropriate building heights and the planning of adjoining land uses that actively engage the public street realm.”

Obviously implementing all these recommendations straight away is a bit tricky but they are definitely something we should be working on too across the region.

h/t Wired

Share this

40 comments

  1. All excellent suggestions of course, but where’s the evidence this is happening in our newer major centre’s? As you show, Albany and Botany are disasters. Westgate’s not even built yet and it looks like it’ll be a disaster. Silverdale is a more recent version of Albany. Sylvia Park is a mall rather than a true Metro Centre. Manukau, need I say anything?

    Council needs a complete rethink about how it plans major centres. Because it’s not working.

    1. Sylvia park will become a true metro centre once the office towers and apartment blocks are constructed where the ground level car parks are located along the Mt Wellington Highway frontage.
      Then it will be somewhat better than what it is now – a miniature Botany, with the additional “benefit” of a motorway running through the middle of it and another to the south.

  2. The built bits of Albany are horrible but there’s still a great deal of open space near the bus station that hasn’t been developed yet.
    There’s still a chance that a great community could be built there.
    Close to amenities, close to transport, pretty close to the beach.

  3. Without the car Botany would not exist. It was built as it is because land was cheap and concrete was/is expensive. Most of Botany’s shoppers are not residents but those who work in East Tamaki and shop in their lunch hour or after work. This is not possible without a car and suitable parking. This article can only be applied to areas with high density offices, not to areas with factories and warehouses which take up large amounts of land.

    1. If there were frequent bus services from Botany to East Tamaki, those working in East Tamaki could use them to get their shopping done, have lunch etc. at Botany

      1. There is not enough time to walk to a bus stop, catch a bus, shop (or eat lunch), catch another bus back and walk to your place of work, all within an hour. After work shopping usually includes a supermarket visit and this generates too many bags to carry onto a bus. Sylvia Park has both train and bus access and yet has had to build 4,000 car parks to meet the demand.

        1. 5 minutes walk 5 minutes wait 5 minutes ride each way leave half an hour at you favourite cafe.

          I have carried 8 supermarket bags on a bus before comfortably. It is entirely possible. Most people don’t live with a large family and don’t do a ‘weekly’ shop, so don’t need a car.

          Also, the owners of Sylvia park chose to build 4,000 carparks to meet a perceived demand that simply doesn’t exist.

        2. The owners of Sylvia Park initially built only half that number and ran into problems with too many cars for too few parks, and queues blocking the road trying to get into the complex. Property companies do not build structures that are not needed.

    2. Botany could have been awesome. If the busway had been built and a tight street grid with mixed use. But they didn’t. Flatbush is heading the same way. 4 lane arterials rather than PT, active transport friendly corridors.

  4. An interesting and useful project would be to take one of these centres (Botany, Manukau, Albany etc.) (or a few blocks) and create a plan for remaking them using these principles. That will give an idea of the scale of work involved. It could even spur small changes as experiments or prototypes.

  5. The problem I am having with complete streets is how wide they end up being. By the time you add in everything AT asks for the urban designer then tells you it is too wide!

      1. I suppose I could remove the two traffic lanes but then it wouldn’t be a road and the bus would get through! AT wants 2×3.5m lanes for the bus, 2×1.8m footpaths, 2×1.8m cycle lanes plus 1m clearance if anyone is able to park near, front berms for safety, back berms wide enough for services and then rain gardens/swales. If we gave them everything it would be 24m for a residential street. Dominion Rd is only 20.1m in a lot of places. I have decided the best way to deal with AT is to treat them like a grumpy neighbour, just say no to them and invite them to make a submission.

        1. Couldn’t you narrow the traffic lanes and then lower the speed limit? Take out the centre line for a start – that will make the street much safer as divers instinctively slow down where there is no clear right of way.

          Remember that speed is a factor in 100% of accidents.

        2. Why not use a one way road system through these centres. This should half the required width and make pedestrian crossings easier and safer.

  6. I see Manukau got picked out again a few times in the comments section and I can see why.

    I can say although I am still fuming with Council for doing it that the first large surface car park in Manukau City Centre is to be “replaced” with a bus interchange and some mixed use development on that car park (Lot 59). My fuming part was Council selling the land as it had owned it rather than holding it and becoming a developer and landlord to the subsequent development on that site – thus gaining some nice healthy rent to supplement the income while gaining a highly desirable new mixed use space that has a bus interchange running through it.

    Slowly the above in the post will happen in the Metropolitan Centres but our Council needs to be more savvy than what they are at the moment (Westgate being the one to watch).

  7. One of the worst things about Sylvia Park is that is sucked all the life out of Panmure, which actually has an attractive, human scaled main street. Once AMETI has been completed, the Panmure main street and surrounding area could become the model for a decent metropolitan centre. It is close to a major employment area (Mt Wellington), has some great public amenities (a nice swimming pool, a great library and some fantastic parks), an interesting and accessible natural environment (Mt Wellington, the Panmure Basin and the Tamaki river estuary), a major train and bus station, and great heritage (including a fantastic old pub). It is an area that currently suffers from neglect, but it has huge potential. Hopefully the Tamaki redevlopment will include some decent medium density housing in this area, which will in turn support a revitalised retail and hospitality sector on the main street. Here’s hoping.

        1. Agreed. Perhaps a good side project for AMETI should be to drop the speed limit on Queen’s Road to 30kph and add raised pedestrian crossings. Panmure actually has a relatively active business association. In any event, I thought the whole point of having a council was to (coercively) coordinate resources for common projects? I actually think the main problem is more to do with the types of business that can currently survive in Panmure given competition from Sylvia Park and lack of local customers (partly due to insufficient housing density).

      1. Panmure will always struggle because the buildings have different owners, and it is too hard to get then to agree to spend money on a common project.

        1. I disagree. The biggest issue in Panmure is damn traffic. As a former local for 5 years, I hated walking through there. As for riding a bike, you’d have to be fkn mad. And then there is the walk across the road to the train station. Equally nuts.

        2. I too am a local, and would never drive through the shops unless planning to park there. Lagoon Drive is so much easier and quicker.

  8. Developers are motivated to build the cheapest way possible.

    Since our land is cheap and construction cost is expensive. They would prefer to build single level structure with car parking on bare land.

    As the value of the land grows, they would sell the car park bare land and make a profit.

    However they hardly demolish existing building.

    So our council should enforce minimum density on buildings.

  9. I cycle to Albany for work. I can’t express how bad it is walking around at lunchtime. The whole area is ruined by multilane roads leading from one parking lot to another in long curves that tempt drivers to go fast. You can only find pedestrian crossing inside parking lots (maybe), you have to run across 4 lanes otherwise.

    All day from my office I hear cars honking at each other as they accelerate around the multi lane roundabout trying to ram someone while outrunning someone trying to ram them. Cycling is mostly a joke. The Albany expressway is getting an off road cycling path being built now which will be good.

    Unfortunately the bus station is too far away from any other developments right now. If that gets built up with medium density and mixed use housing in all those green fields, things would get interesting. If big box retail fills the gaps then it’s time to despair.

    I think a lot of problems would be solved by whacking down a dozen raised pedestrian crossings in albany.

  10. [Whoops, that was a response to Lyndiman]

    Zebra crossings? Sorry – our current rules forbid adding them where there’s not enough pedestrians, based on a semi-logical safety argument with major unintended consequences.

    So we are stuck with no pedestrians. Neither the chicken or the egg ever arrives.

  11. A huge barrier to achieving these aims are:

    – Traffic engineering standards themselves (e.g. can’t build a pedestrian crossing unless it gets a warrant). There is an inherent assumption that pedestrian crossings should only be built for safety reasons, not to encourage or make it more convenient to walk.
    – Transport funding system which is dictated by NZTA and accordingly all about building more motorways, or more arterials to get travel time savings. Anything to do with better urban design, better pedestrian amenity or convenience or cycling improvements gets shafted. If the Mayor hadn’t specifically required $10m for cycling I’d hate to think how little progress would have been made on ANY cycling projects, let alone pedestrians one.

    Perhaps also an overarching issue of pedestrian and smaller scale improvements not being “sexy” enough, or not big enough to suit the egos of the project mangers involved?

  12. It’s obvious what doesn’t work, but they keep building new areas like it in Auckland! Are there any good examples in Auckland? Although not perfect, I personally like onehunga town centre’s size and scale. A grid street layout, even the supermarket isn’t oversized.

  13. Birkenhead aka Highbury Shops is fantastic human scale with over a half dozen (mostly raised) pedestrian crossings down the 3 main streets. Motor vehicle density, the crossings, all the buses, single lanes and cars constantly pulling into the on-street parking makes it almost impossible for cars/trucks to get past 30km/hr. There is a lot to keep motorists busy but the last accident I can remember was a bus car bus sandwich!

    So In my opinion I think having lots of on-street parking actually slows motorists down, making for great pedestrian safety!

    Compare Mokoia Rd, Birkenhead and most of the residential streets in Ponsonby with that Rural traffic sewer through the middle of the Silverdale shops!

    1. I love the Birkenhead Shops. It is one of the few “main street” areas of Auckland that still does well. We need to prioritise these areas for further “humanisation” and development of medium – high density housing and transport infrastructure. Other similar “main street” suburbs are Henderson, Onehunga and Panmure (as I have talked about above). As an aside, Birkenhead library is one of the best recent examples of civic architecture in Auckland (along with the new Ranui and Waiheke libraries).

  14. If those ideas are to be accepted in Botany, arguments in favour would need to be framed to appeal to a right-wing and somewhat conservative mind.

    1. Or the city could just go ahead and do it because it is a fiscally, socially and environmentally sound thing to do. And not spend all our time debating with people who still think it is 1960.

        1. 2 big apartments one on library lane, and one on the main strip, plus a heap of terraced houses down by the Lucas Creek bridge.

Leave a Reply

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