This is a Guest Post from Generation Zero Auckland Director Leroy Beckett

Graphic-Takapuna3.jpg

There is an urgent opportunity to quickly feedback on a new Council-lead proposal in Takapuna on the North Shore- whether to build a sustainable new example of “ urban density done well’ OR (as some angry locals want) retain a wasteland of a car park.

It’s a really simple question and you can answer using our submission form here!

During the Unitary Plan discussions we fought to create a more liveable low carbon city through more medium density apartments near public transport routes. Thanks in part to our efforts Auckland Council’s public development agency, Panuku Development Auckland (the people behind Wynyard Quarter) are now able to come up with fantastic new Urban Design in places like Takapuna! (Heaps of other Auckland areas are getting similar designs soon)Their plan for the shore includes turning what’s at the moment a crappy asphalt car park right next to a major bus interchange into an exciting new mixed use urban regeneration. Think loft apartments, sustainable buildings, and a  new network of laneway shops and connections from public transport through to the beach! It’s exactly the kind of city-making Generation Zero and Auckland has been crying out for.

(You can read the full plan here )

masterplan.png

Crucially the proposal will also keep a large amount of public open space- including the much beloved Potters Park and some new urban public spaces that will enable the Takapuna Saturday Markets (who currently use the car park on Saturdays) to reshape and continue in a layout that is more sheltered and connected to the Main Street of Hurstmere ave.

However, due to some angry out-of-date NIMBYs- locals are being told to be afraid of ‘high rise’ towers and to stop the reuse of the car park site as if it will somehow destroy the markets (it won’t!). This is plain and simple fear mongering by a silly group of people who are trying to stop the Council from delivering exactly the kind of change we need- sustainable housing and more public spaces for everyone to enjoy.

Screen_Shot_2017-09-01_at_9.55.40_AM.png

There is however one element of the proposal that we strongly disagree with. The suggestion that the development needs to provide even more parking within the new buildings that are created.

Takapuna currently has over 2500 publicly accessible carparks of which 250 are on the Anzac Street car park but unfortunately the proposal is suggesting that up to 500 should be delivered.

We think this is crazy, and not in keeping with the kind of urban place the development will be. Providing too much parking just encourages people to drive more often. Doubling the current amount of parking is an outdated approach to transport planning.

We think Panuku should have NO PARKING in this new development and instead encourage fewer cars on the road by promoting public transport on the North Shore, such as ferries, buses and a future rail connection to Takapuna.

The way a new generation of Aucklanders visit places like Takapuna is changing – we are walking and cycling for short trips more often and increasingly using public transport and rideshare options which don’t need any carparks at all!

Takapuna’s new development should reflect our changing city.

Overall though we think the plan for Takapuna is awesome but really need your help, support and feedback!

Our quick submit form lets you say how much you support the plan overall- as well as some space for some specific feedback about how they don’t need more parking and how the sustainability of this building is a top priority.

Submissions close today at midnight so have your say on our easy form here.

Alternatively the official Panuku form can be found online here.

Share this

107 comments

      1. I have one concern and that is that we need to reserve space for the eventual Takapuna terminus for the next Waitemata Harbour Crossing (hopefully rail of some sort) either on this site or even better on the old gasometer site.

        Protecting this need is important before we start building the place out. Remember we didn’t provide any protection to safeguard the Onehunga to Airport rail route before it was built over.

        So le’ts not shoot ourselves in the foot this time.

    1. Do you want a brand new railway line
      OR
      DO YOU WANT GENGHIS KHAN AND HIS HORDES TO RIDE UP THE ROAD OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND SLAUGHTER ALL WHO OPPOSE HIM?

      1. JDELH – There has been discussion on this website on numerous occasions about a spur to Takapuna on the rail only AWHC, in preference to the National Party’s motor vehicle only tunnel crossing, with the ultimate intention of proceeding northwards up the busway.

    2. If you want people to have an informed opinion balance the reporting. This is a disgusting attempt to encourage people to reinforce your position. I am now motivated to provide a submission but it is unlikely to support this bias.

      I have read the report and agree the car park ought to be repurposed but more commercial building sold for profit to benefit the few – is this what taka puna really needs?

      1. Probably a bit late for submissions – they closed last night, but I doubt you were planning on following through with that threat anyway.

        If the council sells the land for profit it doesn’t exactly benefit the few, it benefits pretty much everyone who is a ratepayer in Auckland.

  1. Combine a balance of both. You can’t keep building without allowing for vehicles to park, that’s just insane. So build underground for the carparking, not just for the urban development ie like Aotea Sq does and do the normal development above. Pleases both sides and you’re not looking at a whole lot of cars.

    1. “You can’t keep building without allowing for vehicles to park”

      Yes, you can. The city centre has done it for years, as have other cities all over the world. People don’t have to drive.

      And when one side is saying ‘lets make people safer, and healthier’ and the other is saying ‘I want the council to subsidise my lifestyle choice’ we only need to please one side.

      1. City Center has lots of transport options into it. Takapuna is quite limited with infrequent buses.

        All this is going to do is force customers to Albany/Glenfield malls basically killing off Takapuna shops.

        Need to do what council did with the City. Improve PT…THEN kill the carparks, not the other way around.

        1. Agree that PT needs improving. More bus lanes in the area would be a good start.

          However, I’d argue that if people are not attracted to Takapuna by the distinctive streetscape, nice mix of shops and beach close by, what would drive them away (especially if they’re getting around by car) is the lack of a supermarket. Shore City must be one of the few major malls anywhere in NZ without one (anyone know any others…?)

          Turning low-value carparks into high-value dense urban development doesn’t change the lack of a supermarket. But it does make the area more attractive in other ways.

    2. It is true that we can’t keep building without providing access, and in any place that already generates a lot of driving, if we try to add that additional access by encouraging more driving (as more car parking does) we will only end up actually reducing accessibility (and therefore its success) through increased traffic congestion.

      When it comes to both driving and parking, more is not more. And Takapuna is a spatially constrained place, as well as a potentially great place for a more vibrant street and commercial life.

      To make matter worse, the space and investment put into parking structures and busier roads will crowd out the chance to improve alternatives, better buses and future rail services/ better wider pedestrian areas and space for trees etc, so to add more parking to a small place like Takapuna already with 2500 parking spaces is likely to permanently set back its improvement into a vibrant, walkable, and prosperous Metro centre….

      And drivers and PT users alike will head elsewhere because it’ll be both cluttered with cars, and duller than than it should be. Not shaped for this century’s commercial success.

      1. Yes, if I can’t get to a place in Auckland easily by PT, I don’t go. It’s not that I can’t drive, but if the place doesn’t have good PT access, it will be car dominated, almost certainly ugly as hell, and likely to send me into depression about what we are not doing to improve things.

        1. Well Wenderholm proves you wrong but I would be happy to see the car parking moved nearer the entrance so long as you have permission to unload your kayak.near the wharf.
          And Ardmore airport has it charms but no PT.
          However I do agree with the underlying concept of your argument – just searching for exceptions.

      2. Well said. When I attended the public meeting I questioned the need to develop the gasometre site for parking and requested more bus services. Making takapuna a central hub transport hub with regular feeder buses to the bus way and beyondo seemed like a no Brainerl There are 2500 new apartments planned for the area. That’s a lot of people that all need some incentive to give up their cars. Improving retail options, the ability to live and work in taka puna but also increasing the ability to commute elsewhere on a quality PT system would be helpful. There was no support from council in developing a central transport hub…it seems the focus is on trying to raise funds from the sell off of real estate

    3. Exactly. Whilst the author has an idealistic view about none of the residents owning vehicles, the fact is that most of them will. As such, a lack of onsite parking is just going to inconvenience everyone and clog up the surrounding streets even more (finding a carpark at Taka is challenging enough as it is). Apart from that, the amount of snark in the article is very saddening; Greater Auckland usually has much higher standards.

      1. “the fact is that most of them will.”

        Citation needed.

        “finding a carpark at Taka is challenging enough as it is”

        Finding a car park is easy. Go anywhere it is charged fairly.

  2. “Providing too much parking just encourages people to drive more often.” OR maybe it actually allows people to visit Takapuna. I recently went with my wife for a meal in Takapuna. We parked at this car park that will disappear. It was nearly full. One reason we were comfortable with going is that we knew that we would be likely to be able to get a car park. Otherwise we would have not have gone. I know on this blog cars are evil but car parks are important to allow people to go to places. Buses are not suitable in that sort of scenario where we had very limited amount of time whilst the kids were being looked after by grandparents.

    1. Maybe you could try parking at Shore City. In my experience there are always lots of free parking spaces there on the weekend. If you spend a couple of bucks in the mall it’s cheap too.

      Just because this site is currently used for car parking doesn’t mean there is no better use. We should always be challenging ourselves to ask how things can be done better. This proposed development is a great example of enhancing on underused site with massive potential for use in its own right and connectivity to the surrounding shops/beach/green space. It needs no car parking at all.

      1. +1, there are thousands of car parks in the area. The council should not be subsidising parking for people who choose to drive.

      2. Exactly. Takapuna is in urgent need of redevelopment. The public realm could be so much better for people if so much space wasn’t handed over for publicly subsidised storage of cars.

    2. Had a similar experience last week, on a Tuesday night. We needed a place to grab some food and could only find a park at the Anzac St carpark, which was nearly full. Otherwise we would have driven away. I had two tired and grumpy kids in the car, our journey was multi-stops and the bus was not an option.
      Not saying the carpark is a great use of the space – but saying that providing carparks encourages driving is not always right.

      1. If you want to drive to a restaurant, you shouldn’t go to a metropolitan centre and expect cheap parking.

        If you want to drive and get cheap off site parking, go to a smaller centre. If you want to drive and not get charged directly for parking, go to a restaurant which includes the cost of parking in your meal. If you want to go to a metropolitan centre and not pay for parking, don’t drive.

        People do not have the right to council subsidized car parking.

        1. Sailor Boy how do you suggest people travel to Takapuna in the evening? I have one direct bus per hour, which takes 35mns, or with connections – this takes over an hour.
          Until we have really good PT into Takapuna including in the evening and weekends, people will use their car.

          1. “Sailor Boy how do you suggest people travel to Takapuna in the evening? ”

            I gave you three options above. Pay for at the restaurant, pay a fair price for car parking, or go somewhere else. You have several other options too; walk, cycle, catch the bus, or catch a taxi.
            If your concern genuinely is with access then obviously we fund a massive improvement in the bus network for decades with the money that AT want to waste on a car park.

    3. Stefan, a couple of times, my husband and I have gone out for a “date” (with grandparent looking after the kids), and we played a game: we walked to Great North Rd, caught whichever bus came along first, hopped off wherever a cafe or restaurant looked good, and explored that area. Of course we didn’t go as far as we might have if we were driving, but it was really fun. And we were able to think about the future our children would inherit, in the same part of our brain as we were thinking about our transport choices.

      1. That’s an interesting game.

        However, as someone living within reach of high quality PT, you’re in a highly privileged position. Most people can’t afford the expense of housing in those areas. For many people the choice is simple: (1) drive, (2) stay home. It’s a crappy situation, but it is what it is.

        Case in point there’s a large area west of the motorway (Birkenhead, Beach Haven, Glenfield, etc) from where you can easily get to Takapuna in a car, but not on a bus. Crucially, AT has no ambition at all on improving PT access for that area. For some laughs you can ask Google Maps how to go from Glenfield mall to Takapuna mall on a Saturday morning.

        But that being said, some development on that car park (and the one on between the beach and the town centre) would be nice.

        1. The development of places like this carpark provides more people with homes in areas with good PT. And it prevents more sprawl and the accompanying poor PT.

          Yes, I’m privileged. But I sold my car and adopted a PT mindset before good PT came to where I live. (GNR is actually a 2km walk so it is the Outer Link that’s changed things.)

          Although there are sacrifices involved with limiting my life to just where PT can take me, it can also be more fun and more rewarding. That was my point.

  3. It is time to take away the Metropolitan Centre status from Takapuna and reclassify it a Town Centre. It is the Panmure of the North Shore – a place that used to be important.

  4. That car park is a blight on central Takapuna, however there are a few things the article needs to do if it is to be taken seriously.

    If as the writer suggests the two main objections are the possible loss of the market and the parking issue it would be better to address them rather than adopting the lazy cop-out of the NIMBY argument. Everyone evidences Nimbyism if they don’t like what’s being built GenZero just as much as Boomers. One thing the writer could have got right is the day that the market falls. A small thing for sure but guaranteed to convince the naysayers that he is just another asshole with an opinion rather than a balanced objective writer.

    As for parking/cars. There’s lots that could and should be done – close Hurstmere Rd to traffic. Develop The Strand and get rid of all those car parks on the water frontage but until there are alternatives to the car there is a need for parking.

    Takapuna is already crammed full of cars M-F. I had to attend a conference there recently (@ Spencer) and had to park halfway to Hauraki Corner. Its workers that take the car parks so what is needed is a comprehensive combination of genuine workable PT alternatives, parking restrictions and some off-street options.

    I’m fortunate in that I mostly go there for entertainment and I am lucky enough to live on pretty much the only reasonably connected PT route but for the majority buses that don’t go where people need them and stop early are not an alternative option to the car.

    So do we accept a short term need for parking and build the environment now or delay the build until PT is in place? Because building without transport options will be a mistake

    1. It seems that everybody is in agreement that the lack of public transport is the reason car parking is wanted. The question then is, where is the light rail station in Panuku’s plan? Will it be underneath one of the commercial developments?

      If we don’t plan for public transport when designing a space then we are just repeating the mistakes of the last 30 years or more. Now is not the time to design urban centres that are disconnected from rapid transport networks.

    2. “But until there are alternatives to the car there is a need for parking.”

      I completely agree, we should add a few more frequent routes and then we never have to build another car park in Takapuna

      “Takapuna is already crammed full of cars M-F. I had to attend a conference there recently (@ Spencer) and had to park halfway to Hauraki Corner.”

      The Shore City car park is always half empty and is only a few hundred metres away. Alternatively, there is good bus service from Smales Farm.

      “Its workers that take the car parks so what is needed is a comprehensive combination of genuine workable PT alternatives, parking restrictions and some off-street options.”

      Agreed, the parking restrictions should be reduced car park numbers and higher fees.

      “So do we accept a short term need for parking and build the environment now or delay the build until PT is in place? Because building without transport options will be a mistake”

      We increase the frequency of the bus routes. Your question is akin to asking whether to burn our house down or buy a heater when we’re cold. One ruins the house, the other makes it more pleasant to be in.

  5. Zero car park is too extreme.

    I agreed cars are not ideal, however the public transport simply not there yet.

    Takapuna unlike city central, the public transport are not as convenient as CBD.

    Especially at night, bus is very low frequency and unsafe to walk the last mile to home.

    Having no car park will just put people off. Restaurants and nightlife will lose customers. The new residence from the apartment are not enough to offset the loss of regional customers.

    1. There are 2,300 public car parks in Takapuna and as many, if not more, private car parks. This post supports removing 250, around 5%.

      If buses are infrequent then frequency should be increased using money that would otherwise be wasted on the car park. This blog and the author of this article frequently also advocate for further improvements to buses.

      1. 250/2300 != 5%
        9.2%

        I think SB that a lot of us agree with you. If I could jump on a direct bus, or even one with minimum transfer time, and get to Takapuna in the same time it takes me to drive, then I would never, ever drive to Takapuna.

        Unfortunately it is about a 20-25 minute drive for me and about a 90 minute bus. So build me a 30 minute bus and you can take every single carpark out.

        1. “and as many, if not more, private car parks”

          250/4,600 > 5%

          I agree that we need improved PT first. However, if people actually wanted that, you would lead with ‘hey, we need to improve buses before we remove car parks’. Instead they lead with ‘you can’t remove car parks, we need them to drive’. It’s particularly disingenuous because the framework for improved buses has been built (new network), it just needs some tweaking, which opponents always ignore.

          This is textbook concern trolling.

  6. Guessing you don’t actually live in takapuna.i do and as I don’t drive I’m reliant on public transport.i can tell you now that the situation there is not great.many of the buses now bypass takapuna starting their routes at smales farm instead.your language is frankly insulting.we have four apartment blocks already going up in takapuna-i notice you didn’t mention those.we aren’t nimbys, we just don’t want apartments where our town centre is.i think that just for once the council should provide actual public transport that works before anything else.

      1. No. What Nikki has stated is an opinion that’s different to yours and she deserves some respect.

        What we have in this situation is a lobby group trying to drive a bulldozer through the wishes of locals to establish their ideology on a group of people who have to suffer the consequences of this decision.

    1. Only 4 apartments going in a metro centre? That’s not much, and nothing you’ve mentioned is any reason to stop the redevelopment of Takapuna to be a transit and people friendly space.

    2. You do realise that more apartments mean more people, which makes public transport more viable? Or do you just want the PT without having to put up with sharing it with others?

  7. The ground floor on both side of the little alleys should model like Fortieth & Hurstmere lane way/Ponsonby central. Which consists of hospitality and retail on both sides with well designed atmosphere and decorations.

    To do so, the little alleys needs to be public private partnerships. Council should own the alley land, but the design and maintenance of the ally is up to the shop owners’s body corp.

  8. Even by Generation Zero’s high standards this is highly melodramatic.

    How dare anyone express an opinion contrary to theirs. The lazy labeling of anyone with a different opinion as “angry” and “out of date” is the sort of rubbish best confined to a far-left blog site. How can anyone have a rational discussion when you have to deal with language that is little short of hate speech?

    With regards to the proposal itself we need to ensure common spaces can be used by as wide a section of society as possible. A carpark is one useful aspect of this. Can you imagine trying to get to Takapuna from anywhere south/east/west of the CBD without adequate carparking? It simply wouldn’t happen and a portion of Auckland society would lose the ability to enjoy what is one of the more pleasant areas of Auckland.

    Instead of spewing hatred the people at Generation Zero would be better served checking their privilege and do some listening to those who live in the community the are about to try and fundamentally change.

    1. “How dare anyone express an opinion contrary to theirs”. Well that’s rich, coming from you.

      There are plenty of carparks now and there will be plenty remaining with this development. Your concern should be for the missing mode, frequent PT. But of course, it isn’t. It never is.

      Don’t let your blind ideology smack you in the rear on your way out.

      1. I always let others express an opinion. It’s my opinions that are sometimes treated with a lack of respect.

        As for the missing mode I suspect you missed this part of the article “right next to a major bus interchange”.

        In any case the topic of discussion is urban form in this instance.

        1. You treat others opinions, almost always, with a total lack of respect. Your first condescending line is now standard.

          Its the quality of the PT that is missing. Perhaps you missed that comment mentioned about 50 times.

          And you are wailing about losing 5% of carparks in an area where several people have said there is almost always additional capacity nearby.

          The opportunity cost of your (standard) position that nothing should inconvenience the SOV is again, to the detriment of the area.

  9. Auckland city and others had 100’s of meetings over was it about 10 years.
    They finally agreed on the unity plan which shows where and what can be built.
    It will show what is allowed in Takapuna.
    But now some people don’t accept the plan and want to start all over.
    Auckland city must intensify and be more people friendly.

  10. There needs to be an investigation into the intimacy between the Developers and the planning consent department in the Council. The person who wrote this clearly has a lot of financial interest in the monstrocity going ahead. The council will consent no matter what the ratepayers want. The person who wrote this should declare who they are and what finacncial rewards they will gain by writing this. Guarantee it is someone associated with the developers. Also stop calling people names just because you cant get your own way, you developers need to grow up and stop throwing tantrums when people question your projects , they have the right to do it.
    The Council should also publish all the donations that were made by developers to serving councillors election campaigns. I believe the public needs to know.

    1. “The person who wrote this clearly has a lot of financial interest in the monstrocity going ahead.” Has your comment appeared in the right place? Which person writing what are you referring to? The author of the post?

        1. I think you’ve jumped to a poor conclusion. I’ve never met Leroy, but I have heard him speak. I doubt he’s got any financial interest in this at all.

  11. We live about 500m from the town centre. Our street is the first to fill with cars every day because parking is free. Conversely the pay and display carpark at the front of the gasometer site is never full although people pass by this to enter our street. I am certain that the argument being advanced is not that people want more parking, but rather they want free or very cheap parking.
    The Anzac Car Park is free from 6pm. What possible rationale can there be for rate payers to provide free parking? Takapuna is a metropolitan centre and hence the cost of land is enormous. It deserves to be better utilised than a non economic car park.
    As a first step AT should charge commercial rates and find what the true demand for parking is. Patterns will no doubt change, just as when we evaluate a trip to say, The Civic. Do we pay $16 for parking or do we travel by bus?
    The gasometer site is the worst example of AT’s mismanagement of parking in Takapuna. Here the long term leaseholders only pay about $5 per day compared with local parking charges of $15 for early bird rates. The gasometer yearly rate is less than one half of the rate for a lease at Downtown. Why are rate payers subsidising local business people, workers and apartment dwellers with parking?
    Takapuna has a chance to be a people friendly town centre rather than tracking the same route that the city and Albany have already stumbled along.

    1. If you charge for parking, people won’t necessarily use the bus they won’t bother to go to Takapuna businesses (I wouldn’t) they will find somewhere cheaper. the bus would take 3-5 times as long as a car. Not a realistic alternative.

      1. Stefan, I appreciate your viewpoint but respectfully I think its wrong. AT substantially increased parking charges in the area this year and it didn’t kill business. The affect, judging by complaints in local newspapers, was to move workers cars out of the area freeing the vacated space for shoppers.
        Please also read my posting about Queen St.
        Yes there will always be people who will think its a better deal to drive another 5kms for free parking. There will always be people for whatever reason who won’t take the bus or train. It is almost a certainty however that those who live in close proximity to the town centre will shop there for their bank, travel, bars, restaurants at a minimum.
        There are currently about 8 apartment blocks planned, or in construction close to the town centre that will drive this area, far more than those who will begrudge paying a few dollars for parking.

      2. It is a cheap shot to say the bus service is slow and takes 3 or 5 times longer than a car.
        I don’t believe that is true for the majority of people. It’s just an easy excuse for some people never wanting to walk or even try a bus or our beautiful trains.
        Some people always want cars to dominate over all other forms of transport

        1. Yes Jim generally the people who make these claims never leave their cars, so actually have no experience of using PT (but just know its horrible) and also base the driving time on an idealised no other traffic fantasy also with no parking time or cost.

          What driving should be like versus a bus I caught in 1972.

          1. Patrick, that’s simply not true. I use a bus when it is more efficient than using a car. There’s quite a few trips I thought of taking my son on recently. They literally take three times longer on the bus and still cost less even with parking

          2. Well maybe it’s time to get in touch with reality outside the isthmus.

            I once tried to take a bus from Birkenhead to Takapuna. I think it took about 45 minutes just on the bus. Add to that the time it takes to wait for the bus (remember, you only get 1 or 2 buses per hour) and the time it takes to walk to the bus stop.

            By car you’ll get there in about 20 minutes (or 30 if you’re silly enough to try to park on the Strand. Which is still a lot faster than a bus).

            That was only a few short years ago. Maybe the routing has improved since then, but the 30 minute headways are still there, and AT is not intending to fix that.

            But wait, what if you’re not going to Takapuna? Then the usual case is to see 10 or 15 minute drives balloon into 1 to 1.5 hour journeys on PT. Reality sucks.

          3. Roeland, being a squeaky wheel is important. I hope you’ll keep up the pressure for improvement, as I am doing too.

            Encouragement for the changes that are required to make the network work better are also important: denser living, road reallocation to PT and active modes, and reallocation of parking lots to housing, transport interchanges and parks.

            Making the changes fast enough to have an effect on user experience is important, so resisting on the basis of order of operation may slow things down to the point it’ll never happen.

          4. Yes keeping up the pressure is good. Although I’m not always sure if anyone is listening on the other end.

            But the point is, comments like Patrick’s and Jim’s above are not constructive. There’s a few people around me using PT. I’m on those buses myself from time to time. And yes it often takes almost an hour to get to a place less than 10 km away. I know because I live there.

        2. Firstly, we don’t have trains on the North Shore. Secondly, it’s absolutely the case that it is slower than driving. More often than not three times, sometimes a bit worse, and better only in peak. I just looked at what it would take to get a bus to go to my doctor in Takapuna. If I had an appointment at 12 PM (as I did recently) I’d have to leave here at 11:07 on the bus. If I took the car I could leave at 11 40-11 45. Close enough to 3 times longer. Most trips that I look at taking public transport for would take that much longer. To go to my massages would take 26 minutes on the bus or 8 minutes in the car. It never takes 26 minutes it’s more like 30. Despite that I generally take the bus because it’s easier in that case. But still more than 3x slower.

          1. I do cycle everywhere I can. I cycle more than I drive in my car (excluding trips with kids in the other car). I do around 1000km a year cycling. Unfortunately every time I get out on the bike I am risking my life with the lack of protected cycle lanes up here – most cyclists from our Bike Albany group won’t even attempt to cycle on Oteha Valley Road. There are no plans from Auckland transport to improve it sadly. 15 minutes drive to Takapuna for the doctor would be about a 35 minute trip on the bike. I haven’t yet got up the courage to take a trip to Takapuna on the bike primarily because I’m not sure my electric bike battery would last the whole way.

          2. Yes, was very disappointed to see that there is absolutely nothing in Auckland Transport’s 10 year plan for the top part of the North Shore. Based on some figures posted on this blog the other day there are 37,000 vehicle movements on Oteha Valley Road every day. in addition there will be a cycleway on the northern motorway starting at Othea Valley Road. On that basis you would think it would be a priority. The road could easily be reconfigured without affecting the number of available traffic lanes at all, but no plans at all 🙁

          3. Damned if they do and damned if they dont – Lots of cycle lanes seem to be protested about by locals, both north and south in the local papers. One way would be head a long to local board meetings or the AT consultation things they have occasionally and make some noise and about the lake of cycle facilities.

      3. If the buses are poor then we should spend money improving the buses, not rebuilding a car park. AT has already developed a framework that can be expanded to form a great network. Let’s pay to expand it.

        1. I’m unconvinced that it will be more efficient than driving except in peak hours. From what I’ve read of the new network is going to be worse from where I live. In addition, for example the proposed light rail from the shore to the airport would still take far far longer than driving in off-peak hours.

          1. The only reason that driving is currently more efficient is that we have an enormous public subsidy for roads and, in particular, parking. If you had to pay a market rate of $5+/hour for parking, then it may not be more efficient.

            As I said, the new network is a framework that we can easily build on.

            Out of interest, approximately where do you live?

          2. Northcross, top end of the shore. Unless has changed since I last looked at the new network, from where I live will be worse than currently. I think the only buses that come past us will go to the Albany station which I don’t always want to do. So you have to end up walking a lot further (15 mins or so vs 3 currently) to get any buses going locally/within the shore, which is impractical with a 2 year old and not much fun in the rain. May have changed since I saw the last plans, hope it has.

          3. My mum lives just off Glenvar, and I lived nearby for a few years, know just how bad it can be up there. You will be sorted in the new network, though.

            Bus to Albany, bus to Smales, Farm, bus to Takapuna. If you really don’t want to transfer for some reason, there is even a direct bus every 15 minutes. Including your walk and transfers, that will take at most 40 minutes, if your transfers worked out perfect it might take 20.

            The new network is going to be better. Maybe not as good as driving currently is straight away. However, we aren’t just retrofitting PT. The city will change shape in response to this investment, which will enable more people to live where PT access is good.

  12. As long as we have lived in Takapuna the town centre has underperformed. There is a constant process of start ups of new businesses as businesses struggle to survive on Hurstmere particularly. Despite the abundance of parking something is not working for many of these businesses.
    Twenty or so years ago when I left Auckland, Queen St was dying. Today its an increasing vibrant place with a strong retail sector. Was the area revived by the construction of parking buildings charging low rentals? Bizarrely for some, no. The cheapest parking currently runs around $25 for an early bird rate. The success of the area has been built on a significantly greater number of people working in the city and a huge increase in city dwellers, predominantly in apartments.
    Hey, isn’t this what Panuku is proposing for 40 Anzac? And isn’t it just replicating the development of say The Maison Apartments; or the Sargeson; or the AIA commercial building? So we are not reinventing Takapuna after all? It seems as though we are just looking for space for the projected three fold increase in Takapuna’s population.
    Eventually AT will be dragged kicking and screaming to link the metropolitan centre with other places. They will implement the new northern network that was due last year (and why haven’t they said the reason for the delay?).
    There will be regular public transport links to Milford, the City and the busway. I am not hopeful about Devonport as they seem to want to drive everywhere.
    The town centre will prosper and in time we will realise that other car parks such as near the Elephant Wrestler will form an ideal spot for future development.
    Disclaimer: currently developing our front garden

      1. James believes that only developers want development, the rest of us don’t want us or our children to some day be able to afford a home.

  13. How about improve our public transport before get rid of the existing car park? Current PT in Bayswater, Belmont and Devonport heading to Takapuna is piss poor . First improve the PT and then think about removing car parks.

    1. The New Network is on its way. Both place and movement need to improve together. There is plenty of parking at Takapuna, the energy needs to go in to improving the place itself along with the alternatives to driving or it will fail to compete as a destination.

      1. Yes, but there’s a problem — the new network doesn’t actually implement a network. The only places with a frequent connection to Takapuna will be the CBD and Milford.

        Maybe if this development goes ahead it gives a little more incentive to improve things (start with a non-zero amount of cross-town services). We can always point it out during consultations. But this time AT said no.

        1. “frequent connection to Takapuna will be the CBD and Milford.”

          And Samles Farm, Sunnynook, Totara Vale, Constellation, Windsor Park, Mairangi Bay, Murrays Bay, Rothesay Bay, Browns Bay, and Northcross.

          If you include transfer between RTN or frequent routes (and you should). You can add the Albany metro and Rosedale (once the bus station is built).

          The new network impalements a network. Sure, it needs more frequency, especially on crosstown routes, but that doesn’t stop it being an enormous improvement and a good base to start from.

          1. +1, the connections to the west are abysmal. There was an opportunity to provide at least one route from Birkenhead and one from Glenfield that were frequent.

          2. A good base to start from?

            Only about 30 percent of North Shore residents will have access to frequent public transport with this new network. That is the same poor outcome that was designed into the west and south Auckland new networks. The other 70% of residents in all of these areas therefore have to drive.

            Is this 30% coverage acceptable for the central new network though? Absolutely not, on the isthmus the new network provides over 80% coverage and they even threw in some nice cross-routes as well. That on top separated cycle lanes, a greatly upgraded rail network and now even LRT is being proposed only for the isthmus.

            That’s the big difference between being in AT’s coverage area (Auckland isthmus) and not. The frustration being felt is real and most people in central Auckland just don’t know what’s going on with public transport in the rest of the city.

          3. “Sure, it needs more frequency, especially on crosstown routes, but that doesn’t stop it being an enormous improvement and a good base to start from.”

            It’s really poor form to not at least quote a full sentence.

            The network is a good base to start from in that routes can progressively be increased in frequency and split up as necessary, without completely redesigning the network again. As I said, it needs more frequency to work well.

            The isthmus is always going to have better routes than the shore. It’s denser, and has a really strong grid. While the Shore has less cycling investment than the isthmus, it’s not as dire as you make out. The Northcote Safe Route, Skypath, and Seapath are all cycling projects on the shore. Major improvements to cycling are included in the Albany Highway Upgrade, Lake Road Upgrade, and Northern Corridor Improvements. And all of this is in spite of enormous opposition from some locals.

          4. People on the isthmus live at much greater densities than people on the North Shore. This is a simple and unaviodable fact that influences the allocation of more resources to places where more people will use it and generate more fares.

            AT is legally obliged to achieve a 50% farebox recovery rate, that boils down to more service where people live densely and catch lots of PT, and less service where they are spread out and don’t.

            Now I do think the North Shore should get a bit better network than it has coming, but there are fundamental core factors why it will never have the same level of PT as the isthmus.

            TLDR: You can’t have cost effective, extensive high frequency PT, at low densities. Pick two.

      2. Devonport Takapuna bus stays at 30 minute frequency off peak in new network. And no bus lanes on Lake Rd mean it take anywhere between 20 and 90 minutes.

  14. 1) Takapuna is a major bus interchange. If this is the kind of place that people whine about “poor PT so we HAVE HAVE to use cars”, then never move to Wattle Downs or Hobsonville, your head will totally explode.

    2) This character who keeps “shill-baiting” the author of this post is the kind of person who gives NIMBYs a bad name. Penny Bright’s cousin? https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shill_gambit

    1. Daphne – while Takapuna benefits from a much better bus service than Hobsonville, I can assure you that trying to get there in the evening from Kaipatiki for example is not a walk in the park.

  15. I never travel to the shore so I’m fine with it being a carpark wasteland. I submitted something along the lines of “MOAR ROADS! MOAR FREE PARKING!! MY RIGHTS!!!”

  16. I feel this article is below the standard I’m used to seeing on the GA site (i realise this is a guest post, but i also expect more from gen zero). It seems like most of the controversy in the comments has originated from an overly emotive article. The bias has detracted from the point they were trying to make, which was ‘if the development is going ahead, we feel it should it be allowed to do so without carparks (or at least not an increase on the existing).
    Overall a fine principle, however I don’t feel there is enough reasonable information presented on the expected impacts in this specific location to make an informed decision.

  17. Missed the submission deadline…

    The cynic in me thinks if it ends up compromised outcome you will end up with enough car parks to destroy the amenity, but not enough that all the drivers will complain there is not enough and spend time driving around trying to find one because there is “almost” enough to try & you get one eventually.

    ….now on to submit on the Otahuhu Town Ctr Upgrade.

  18. I know I’m a minority but everytime an event I’d like to go to is in Takapuna I think ‘I’d have to drive there’ and the idea get’s shelved. (Although I’ll have a think for Kathy Griffen).

Leave a Reply