41: Shopping Malls for a Better Auckland
What if we planned a more urban future for every sub-urban shopping mall?
A simple idea really, a bit of a no-brainer perhaps but certainly one with huge potential to be realised across all corners of Auckland. Large land holdings in single ownership and usually in proximity to town centres or on major arterial routes should be ideal candidates for intensification in the future.
Clearly the Milford case was an early example of seeking to advance such an opportunity. Without getting into the merits of that particular site or proposal, more generally it seems a strong proposition to strive for more mixed use development on mall sites, with a greater intensity and diversity of uses and activities resulting in great urban outcomes for Auckland.
This idea explored some site planning strategies that could be developed for the progressive but incremental redevelopment of mall sites over time while maintaining the retail activity. Breaking up the block and re-knitting it into the surrounding urban fabric is a key move to get a truly urban outcome and is important to look at ahead of identifying development opportunities. Secondly building over surface carparking seems a logical first stage of further investment. New street and walkway based connections can be established in realising those initial development opportunities. Lastly, in the longer term, additional height can be added above street level buildings as well as adding more quality public space, local services and community facilities that are an important part of the mix to achieve a truly urban town or local centre.
Stuart Houghton 2014
Processing...
I’m looking at you Sunnynook.
I totally agree this is where our developments suppose to go.
However one issue here is again, the red-tape council policy. There was a story few years ago that Sylvia park wanted to add a large IEKA store. Unfortunately some neighbor complained about traffic issue and the noise of the pick up truck. So the plan is rejected.
Same thing with St Luke mall extension. The mall was proposed to add two extra levels. However the neighbor complained about extra traffic. The plan was rejected.
There is something really wrong with our government process
I think you’ll find that the St Lukes plan change was approved. You will always get a degree of local opposition from those who are either directly affected by this type of development (i.e. shading) or those who would simply prefer things to stay the same. If the district plan provides for this type of development then it’ll happen – if the developer wants it.
The biggest problem is that suburban supermarket operators perceive that a highly visible supermarket with a sea of highly visible surface carparks in front of it is the only recipe for commercial success.
In the case of the Sylvia Park IKEA store plans was probably rightly rejected.
The existing roads are already extremely busy and adding a major retailer like IKEA who are known to be “major traffic generators” by planners, to an already busy and congested area of the city is not a good idea don’t you think without proper planning for the consequences of doing so?
Now if Sylvia Park management were on the ball they would have offered to mitigate the traffic issue better by for example, ensuring that you didn’t simply have to drive to get to the mall (and thus the IKEA) e.g. with satellite Park and Ride integrated with the existing PT option (bus and train) – and therefore eliminated their traffic issues.
Instead the developer simply washes their hands of the problem and says “its not my problem to fix the PT system so people don’t have to drive to my mall” and then wonders why their plans are not approved and blames the council? It is their customers who are causing the traffic, so they need to look at the problem holistically, not as individual developments.
From living in 3 cities with IKEAs, they are indeed MASSIVE traffic (car) generators. I am going to take a guess that if you restricted the amount of parking (either by policy (council) or by management decision (Sylvia park)), the franchise holder for IKEA wouldn’t have been interested in proceeding. I’m have no way of knowing for sure, but I am assuming we haven’t got an IKEA yet because of the carparking requirements/requests of the operator and the traffic that induces falling foul of the planning/approval process.
If we want to improve the form and function of our suburban malls then improving Queen St might be the answer – as funny as it sounds. It has every half-decent store the malls have, but it has so much more – Gucci, LV, Tiffany etc etc. plus better quality cafe’s, restuarants and bars nearby. If it was a true, med-high end, pedestrian only, shopping precinct it would stand alone in the region and compete with any mall (free car parking aside). Do that and it would drag up the quality of experience the suburban malls would need to provide.Competition tends to do that.
Yes going to IKEA does require a vehicle since they have bulk items like cupboards and chairs etc. Would be hard to take on PT.
Small steps, perhaps? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-29/ikea-goes-urban-with-first-city-store-in-hamburg-s-altona.html (” targeting a rising number of urbanites who dread the long haul to its traditional outlets” – tell me about it)
I do agree though – I catch PT to Ikea on all occasions as I don’t have a car, but buying furniture was a pain – they only deliver big flatpack stuff (same day, $60) so if you have a mixed shop you end up carrying a lot of (still fairly bulky) stuff on the bus/train (both in my unfortunate example). Their online shopping isn’t so hot either – my ideal is to make a list (in store or online) and have it delivered, but the majority of things don’t seem shippable (in Canada anyway)
Most people going to ikea don’t buy furniture though, at least in Europe the majority are buying small items, cups, bed sheets, kitchenware. In fact I was in the Altona store a couple of months ago and people were mostly buying hot dogs!
Of course plenty of people still do buy flatpack furniture there, but plenty don’t also. Not everyone has to drive because of their purchases, everyone has to drive because it’s in a big box strip mall at the end of the freeway.
It’s the same funny logic you hear about malls: you can only get to a mall by car because I bought a big screen TV once and had to put that in the car… Ignoring the other ten times they went to the mall and came away with only a pair of jeans, or a lunch or a movie.
Well, I live in a city with an IKEA, have a car and still regularly use the delivery service for larger items. So in theory,at those times, I could have taken PT (though there is none where I am). In fact I would have preferred it – getting a car park is a nightmare.
I lived in Sydney without a car and probably went to IKEA there 20+ times. Managed to buy all manner of items. Most big items were delivered by everyone else I knew.
No one is denying most trips will be by cars but as long as there are options, people will use them.
Agree Nick R – most times I go its small items which can be carried in a couple of plastic bags only.
Not in Groningen! http://railzone.nl/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/IMG_64351.jpg
Of course that could never work here because Dutch people are aliens beamed down from outer space and Aucklanders have a completely different DNA. So Aucklanders could never use those or cycle anywhere except for recreation.
It will have nothing to do with the amazing urban design and cycling infrastructure offered by Groningen where 60% of trips are by bicycle.
Have I channeled the anti-cycling brigade correctly?
That’s exactly the plan for New Lynn over the next three decades. So at least one mall owner is on board.
Owners of LynnMall are Kiwi Income Property Trust, who also own Sylvia Park, ASB North Wharf and Vero Centre.
In the Philippines that’s how it works. As soon as a new area is open to start development the largest mall company SM will have bought a large piece of land to build a mall. There malls are so huge in the Philippines with all having arcade, some have 10 pin bowling, majority if not all have cinemas. Also malls there work where the mall owner owns the department store, supermarket, cinema, bowling etc. so in SM it is SM Supermarket, SM Department Store. Not just a countdown or farmers in the mall
I can’t understand why IKEA didn’t set up at Pukekohe. Would have served Auckland and Hamilton. They could have put up a massive sign like the IKEA stores in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands just over the border from Luxembourg. The signs are visible from a significant part of Luxembourg. The stores and their signs were constructed after Luxembourg rejected the idea of having a IKEA store in their cute and rich country. You would be able to see such a sign in Pukekohe from SH1. No public transport worries as the land available in Pukekohe was 20 minutes walk from the railway station, so there would not be ant PT customers.
Lloyd: ’20 minute walk from the station’ are you crazy?, that isn’t close or convenient. Everywhere else in the world the station is in the shopping centre. That’s how you do it.
What is the big thing about IKEA. Travel along Wairau Rd and Link Drive and the furniture shops are all fighting for space. Yet another furniture shopping box defeats the argument here
I kept looking at the Whangaparaoa mall and thinking that the air-space above the mall was a terrible waste. Can’t be many malls with better views.
Any apartments, upmarket retirement community and/or office space there could have close to 360 degree sea views available in a location that also has some cafes, restaurants, library, cinema etc available.
Suspect the land value is still not high enough compared with say Milford, and would need better PT links, but still have hopes that in the long run, some developer with deep pockets could re-invent the mall, bringing in some more foot traffic and make the most of the area.