I had a couple of meetings in town yesterday with a bit of a gap in between them in the middle of the day, so took the opportunity to enjoy the nice autumn sun that we have been having by relaxing outside. I was sitting in Elliot St, having some lunch and catching up on a few emails when I happened to notice just how many people were actually walking past me. Put simply there were a lot of people either walking through, or hanging around Elliot St. As we know, the shared spaces have been a huge success, businesses located on them have seen huge increases in activity and in the case of Fort St with hospitality alone is up 400%. The shared space makeovers have helped to kick start the transformation of some of the city’s street’s from grotty areas to be avoided, into some of best areas in the city which is extremely impressive since none of them even existed 3 years ago.
Anyway enough about the existing shared spaces, the point is sitting down in Elliot St yesterday had me wondering what is happening to the other street upgrades. I know that the other end of Fort St is currently undergoing a shared space makeover, and there are some photos of this below, however it is really just the last stage in the Fort St project that came about from the old Auckland City Council. In fact it took until September last year, almost 2 years since Auckland Transport came into existence, that we finally heard anything about more street upgrades in the CBD.
First up we had O’Connell St in September last year however oddly that wasn’t a shared space. The proposal talked about making footpaths wider by removing car parking. Yet car parking was pretty much the only reason that cars would ever need to be in O’Connell St and with that gone, so to would probably most of the cars (not that there are that many in the first place). Those cars that did still use the street would no longer have to worry about someone opening their door or pulling out of a parking spot so are likely to travel down the road faster, not a desirable outcome in an area where we want lots of pedestrians. Overall it seemed like a poorly thought out design and we encouraged readers to make submissions saying so. The thing is despite the consultation closing back in the middle of September, we are yet to even hear what the outcome of that consultation was. I heard informally a while ago that the project went back to the drawing board but it would be nice to have an official update about where the project is at.
O’Connell St as it is now, devoted to cars
Late last year we then heard about plans to turn Federal St, between Wellesley and Victoria St, in to a shared space. Once again consultation took place but since that time we haven’t heard anything about it. The upgrade had been proposed for some time and originally was going to be paid for by SkyCity and built in time for the RWC in return for getting the right to build another larger skybridge across the road however the council is now paying for it and the plans for an extra skybridge have been dropped.
So come one Auckland Transport and Auckland Council, what is going on with these projects? To me they have been instrumental in revitalising parts of the city simply by giving pedestrians much greater priority. I know some people don’t like them because the definitions between road and foot path disappear but to me at least, them seem much more civilised.
As mentioned above, here are some pics of the Eastern end of Fort St which is in progress right now.
Large parts of the street have already been finished
The connection out to Customs St still has a long way to go
Businesses already taking advantage of the upgrade
Gore Lane
Processing...
I’m a bit confused about Gore Lane personally – I rent a carpark in the abandoned building at the Gore Street end and while it was nasty before and looking much nicer now that it’s (half) paved, I’m struggling as to why. The lane basically accommodates 3 parking buildings and the wilson open air one – there are no businesses to make use of it and barely any pedestrians that I ever see using it. All those tiles/expenses would have had O’Connell street done (ignoring redrawing of plans) – it’s about the same length. Just seems a waste, or am I missing something?
It won’t always be that way, projects like imperial lane only took place because of the upgrade to the dingy Fort Lane but is now a very neat place. By doing that lane, when those sites are eventually redeveloped (and they will be), then the developers will almost certainly develop out on to them.
The point is to create a lane that will hopefully become a focus of any new buildings built on the empty lot, Fort Lane was previously simply an empty lane but look what has happened there since its transformation, nearly every building on the street has been remodelling to take advantage of it. The same will happen on Gore Lane, it’s about the council being proactive to get a good outcome in the future rather than playing catchup or letting the private sector turn it into some hell-hole as happened to the lane behind the (ob)scenes.
I too have wondered what is happened on O’Connel, it’s a great little street ruined by parked cars and the proposed plan would have simply resulted in a similar outcome to the area in front of the Auckland Art Gallery, looks good in a picture but the cars come roaring through at high speed so it’s not at all a pedestrian friendly place – cars still quite clearly have priority, and the same would have been the case on O’Connel Street. The council should either pedestrianise it, or leave it as it is until they get some guts and actually make some bold changes. The worst outcome would be getting a half-baked upgrade like High Street which remains unpleasant and car-dominated with tiny footpaths despite the huge numbers of people walking along it.
I absolutely hate the lack of definition. If I am walking I want to know where the path is and if I am driving where the road is.
Well then Owen 99.9999% of all of Auckland is designed just for you. Enjoy.
Well said
Agreed. We have more than enough car-centric design in Auckland. The CBD is one of the few places that would benefit from these pedestrian sensitive streets since it is predominantly used by pedestrians.
Isn’t it the lack of definition that makes them safe? Everyone slows down and looks out for others- which is how a lot of us imagine the world should be.
Yep and if feels so much more civilised as well.
The main idea is to make the environment quite complex for motorists – to introduce uncertainty in priority for them. This way, you get a self regulation of driver speed without having to place signage everywhere. However, this idea hinges upon having a driver population that has the adequate skills to drive in environments with significant uncertainty.
The road is whereever the pedestrians arent.
Shocking I know, but cars dont have priority.
Welcome to the 21st century! 🙂
I absolutely LOVE the lack of definition; it slows cars down and makes the space more accessible to pedestrians.
Plus it means you don’t have to get stuck behind a slow moving group of pedestrians on a narrow path. If you want to get around them, just walk around them across the wide street.
congestion reduction and travel-time savings for pedestrians!!!
Sorry Stu – time travel savings and congestion reductions are not allowed to be counted for pedestrians when calculating BCRs. That’s for cars only.
Why would you ever drive down these roads though. Unless you are delivering to the street there is no reason to do so.
Car traffic HAS reduced quite a bit since introduction of the shared spaces. I believe the Council stats had it down something like 30% or so.
The interesting question is whether car traffic has gone up on adjacent arterial streets at the same time. Are people sticking to the main roads, or just not driving into town at all. I’ve heard the suggestion that an appreciable proportion of traffic is caused by people circulating around the blocks looking for a park, which obviously they can’t do anymore on shared spaces. I guess the best outcome is if we still have the people coming to the CBD but they simply just drive straight to the parking buildings instead.
I think you are all being a very harsh on this comment.
New Zealanders are neither used to driving in such shared spaces or walking or cycling in them. Much as the anti-car sentiment so often expressed on this site would wish it so, this fact won’t go away any time soon. I’ve been around these shared streets and the confusion, chaos and general lack of experience with the etiquette required – from pedestrians, cyclists and cars – is appalling, and very dangerous. Within such a context, someone noting they don’t like the lack of definition is perfectly understandable. A bit of explanation and sympathy would go much further than the sarcasm and bullying he got.
Really? I walk through Fort St every day at peak time as part of my commute, and through Elliot St three or four times a week visiting a second office. My observation is it works beautifully, the harmony between pedestrians and motorists is better than I expected. Certainly wouldn’t call it dangerous or appalling myself.
I think though that two people can experience the same space and have quite different interpretations. For all we know, Owen Thompson might be an irregular visitor from Warkworth, who found the lack of definition a bewildering and frightening thing, whereas yourself is a steely eyed cycle courier, used to darting hither and yon through what appears to the eyes of our (perhaps) friend from Warkworth an impenetrable mass of traffic. Anyway, being nice to someone who is clearly isn’t a troll takes no more time than being horrible, and this isn’t kiwiblog so that should be more the rule than not.
I agree that we should be nice, but the tone of the discussion never got *that* bad and all comments (even Patrick’s sarcastic one – which I among others thought was quite funny) were on topic. While we’re not KiwiBlog, but we do enjoy a good laugh – and I think most of us were genuinely laughing at Patrick’s witty comment, rather than at Owen’s expense. You have to admit that Owen’s comment was pretty unhelpful and unenlightening, as such there’s a reason for the sarcastic season. Plus Owen’s commented on this site a lot before, so I suspect he can handle the cut and thrust.
Nope Sanctuary, you’re being way too hyper-sensitive here.
Owen’s comment above (and the one below for that matter) was provocative. Note his use of the phrase “absolutely hate”. For others to respond to such comments in a somewhat sarcastic way is quite reasonable I think. And from reading the comments all of them provide additional explanations as to why they think the lack of definition is actually a good thing, which relates directly to Owen’s more substantive (albeit still self-centred) second comment.
As an aside, it’s fine if you and Owen don’t like shared spaces. But you can’t ignore that pedestrian counts and retail activity have grown rapidly on these streets since they were made into shared spaces. As such I have no doubt the balance of experiences on these streets are positive, even if yours have been negative.
I don’t mind them, I am a little unsure about how safe they are, especially in this country where we all turn into territorial maniacs in cars and boorish standers-on-principle on bikes, surrounded by a sea of nervous pedestrians.
The Waitemata Local Board agenda is the place to find the progress report for City Centre transformation projects (including the ones mentioned in the post). Our Chair, Shale Chambers includes the report prepared for the CBD Advisory Board in his monthly report. http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/AboutCouncil/meetings_agendas/local_boards/Pages/waitematalocalboard.aspx (refer item 24 at p177)
Thanks for that link Pippa. I went through the list and it looks like a lot of progress is being made.
Obviously hard for you and the Board to undo 60 years of auto dependent development. I certainly dont envy you having to convince the retailers in the O’Connel Street/High Street/Freyburg Sq precinct that taking away parking wont destroy their businesses. Though the success of Fort Street must make that task easier.
Stick at it and you have a heap of support from a lot of people on this blog for your efforts.
Perhaps the high street retailers and landlords will convince themselves, after looking at their vacant rate and sales receipts and then seeing what they are doing down at Fort St. And Britomart… Or perhaps they just need to sit down for lunch on Elliot St like Matt did to see the foot traffic.
The report confirms the lack of any progress on O’Connell St. Despite a round of consultation about a well-defined design concept, the current situation is that a design concept hasn’t even been confirmed.
There is no parking issue in O’Connell St. A study showed that parking there contributes very little to local business. Clearly the benefits brought by higher pedestrian volumes would far outweigh the loss of the occasional street-side parker.
And how many votes do these retailers/businesses have?
Agree.
There was consultation on a well defined concept, although that concept basically treated O’Connell St in isolation with no consideration for changing the surrounding streets. That consultation revealed most people weren’t happy with the scheme so it was back to the drawing board. That report reveals they are now taking a wider view including the wider High St, Freyberg and Chancery precinct, which is a good outcome.
One issue I could see with the old proposal is that O’Connell was the only outlet for Chancery St westbound. It seems silly to maintain a few carparks and a formed roadway on O’Connell, but if you make it a pure shared space then it could become a traffic outlet with nothing to slow cars. The solution in my opinion is to make Chancery St eastbound only, close O’Connell to traffic entirely, and use the new kerb spaced formed at each end (where the intersections with Chancery Ln and Shortland St are no longer needed) to provide two new loading zones.
At the same time they should consider closing the traffic lane across Freyberg Square, which would leave the second part of Courthouse Lane and the first part of Chancery St as a one way local access loop around the Chancery development. Naturally the shared spacing of High St should happen too. Removing the street parking would drastically reduce the traffic levels on High St, as there would only be a handful of loading docks left to access from the street.
Just thinking a little further, if you made the first part of Chancery Lane one way eastbound only then there would probably be enough room to run angle parking right down one side. That could turn the existing six parallel parks into about twenty.
Speaking of missing things, I was looking forward to seeing the fort lane artwork “eyelight” (I think it was called). This has yet to show up.
I am stunned that it takes 177 pages to get to item 24.
April was a short agenda! it reflects the fact we are a really energetic Board working in a dynamic area (City Centre and central suburbs) with lots of projects on the go .
I walked through Fort Street last week and I thought it was coming up splendidly. Already feels like a vast improvement on its previous grotty state, with cafes putting seats out onto the paving in among the construction barriers.
As an aside, I often wonder about the surface level car-park that fronts onto Gore/Shortland Streets – once the Fort and O’Connell Streets upgrades are complete that site will be quite close to the centre of Auckland’s pedestrian universe. Would that not suggest that some form of medium to high density mixed use retail/commercial/residential block would do quite well there?
I realise the area is somewhat undermined by the ugliness of the building on the corner, although the Police are vacating that so maybe there’s an opportunity to rennovate it and/or knock it down and start again.
That site will be developed eventually. What I find weird is all of the car park entrances for the towers on Shortland St. In hindsight it seems odd that we allowed that area to become the loading bay while the hilly and not so pedestrian friendly Shortland St became the main entrance for these buildings.
Secretly I’m rather fond of that stepy 70s effort. But it does need much better activation at ground level and a fantastic new neighbour.
It was built for the National Bank and replaced the only Beaux Arts vaulted banking chamber in New Zealand. Coming soon after the demolition of the Flemish revival Victoria Arcade building by the BNZ and the subsequent arson of the Auckland Star building (a vacant car park for near on a quarter of a century now) its construction foreshadowed the almost complete destruction of one of the finer quarters of the city, architecturally speaking at least.
Wow that is a sad litany of the destruction of our architectural heritage. What a shame.
Allan Matson pointed out that if you look upside the wee police counter you’ll see an amazing ceiling, then if you go around to the dairy on the other side (fronting Shortland St) you’ll also see the same ceiling decoration… He thinks it’s the ceiling of the original (1970s) public banking counter area. He pointed out that if the Police were to go, and you removed the dairy, you’d get an amazing front space with a very cool ceiling…
Re: O’Connell and High St’s – get those cars out of there. Service vehicles only.
Absolutely.
Still way too many cars going way too fast on Fort St – saw two going a good 40 km/h just an hour ago. Seems to me peds should have abjsolute right of way.
Couple more tree pits in the middle should do the trick, or maybe a pop up juice stand or something?
“Seems to me peds should have abjsolute right of way.”
They already have (with the “not to obstruct cars wilfully” proviso. And some drivers hate that fact.
Every time that I walk across ther I make a deliberate effort to step out in front of fast moving cars in order to remind them that it is a pedestrian place not a road.
As do I, I make the point to continue walking to where I want, many people wait on the sides for cars to rush past before walking across the space.
I make a point of riding directly toward the vehicles as if trying to decide which direction to go – left or right – this makes them slow down very quickly…
While the street upgrades thus far have been a success, there are still lessons that are being learnt about the detailed design of shared spaces.These are things such as the pavement design (some within AT are worried about the long term maintenance and upkeep aspect of the unique shared space pavement) and street furniture – due to incidents where tables and such have been struck by cars. And, of course, a major concern is safety – there have been a couple of minor incidents where pedestrians have been hit by cars as well. Finally, we are still trying to understand where shared spaces work and where they do not.
So while we shouldn’t put these on the back burner, we also should not rush into them before we have learnt from our earlier mistakes.
Interesting. I see O’Connell being more suited to nearly full pedestrianisation but with accommodation for deliveries and emergency vehicles. Really no need for any other vehicles to be in this lovely urban space at all…..
I would say full pedestrianisation myself (which implicitly assumes emergency vehicle access is maintained). Even deliveries and service vehicles don’t need to be accomodated. O’Connell is only 110m long, a loading space at either end where the intersections used to be would put every part of the street within 55m of a a service bay.
55m is a long way when you calculate in a whole days deliveries 🙂
Hardly, have a look around the rest of the city centre and take note of the spacing of loading zones, most buildings are much more than 55m from one.
Talking of maintenance, the in-pavement mini lights (more artworks than lights, very small ones on the southern side of Fort Street) were a neat idea, but obviously someone bought from the cheapest retailer, because many of them were cracked and broken just months are they were put in…
People have been hit on normal streets throughout Auckland, I don’t see the council redesigning them to stop it? Why is it that as soon as a pedestrian is hit somewhere they have priority instead of looking to train drivers better the council automatically blames the pedestrian for getting in the way and plans ways to get them out of the way again? Sounds a lot like the attitude to cyclist, if one is hit then it’s the cyclists fault for not have a flashing billboard attached to their bike, how about for once changing laws and penalties for drivers who hit these people and cyclists – works well in countries like the Netherlands.
That is not the issue with the incident that I mentioned – the pedestrian was not blamed as far as I know. The point is that pedestrians have to FEEL safe in a shared space in order for that space to be effective. If pedestrians are being struck in shared spaces (for whatever reason), then there is a risk that a perception will develop that shared spaces are unsafe for pedestrians, and the whole scheme will fail. Therefore, we should take every reasonable step to ensure that they are safe – and making sure that we have the detailed design of these spaces just right (each of them with unique characteristics) is a very reasonable measure.
As part of working with officers to install Stage Two of the Fort St works, I asked officers if anyone had been hit by a car in any shared space. They had the same question on their mind, so they reviewed a video of the Fort St shared space. They noted that vehicle/pedestrian interaction was fluid, and that the only time someone was hit was a person who was somewhat tipsy who came out from the one of the bars along there.
I think the essential point is that given that there are large numbers of instances on a daily basis where there is potential for vehicle / pedestrian direct conflict in these spaces, the question is why isn’t there large numbers of instances of these conflicts?
Well when I sat my Drivers License in 1984 there was clearly bits and pieces about SHARE ZONES. You know pedistrians having right of way though being away not to unduly interfer with a motor vehicles progress. I think in most peoples books walking isn’t unduley interferring but crawling probably is.
Other parts we had to study for a written test were the defination of a SHARED ZONE. Everything single Driveway, Car park or vehicle access way in New Zealand that has public access. To me that would include every Petrol Station, Mall Car Park, Supermarket, and hen house :).
So I would say New Zealanders have had at least from 1984 to get to grips with the legality of SHARED spaces. As they say ignorance of the law is no defence. And for those who don’t know the Road Code I strongely suggest they keep off off the roads.
There are plenty of people in New Zealand who could do with a refresher written theory test. In fact, there are plenty who’ve never done one at all, since you can convert some overseas licences without doing any sort of test.
The government should really require a theory test whenever you renew or convert your licence. Lots of rules have changed even in the last 10 years – giving way to right-turning traffic, shared spaces, stopping at zebra crossings.
I didn’t do any test when I converted my licence to a NZ’s one but I tell you, what I learnt where I come from is that you give way to pedestrians, always. Because if you kill one, you go to jail, no excuses.
Most of the angry speedy drivers I see are Nz bred.
How can you tell what country someone grew up in by looking at them from outside the car? If I were a betting man, I’d put a lot of money on you being right, though.
For the record, you don’t have to do a theory test if your licence is from Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom or the United States of America. http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/factsheets/72/overseas-driver-licences.html
So you think people from these countries should pass a Nz test to lower their standard of driving and be compliant lol?
Ha. Actually, it’s kind of worrying, because those agreements probably cut both ways – meaning Kiwis can drive in any of those countries.
California isn’t much better than Auckland, although I’ve been to a few other countries on that list (including other parts of the US) and they did all have a much higher standard of driving than here.
This is getting into generalisations but all of those countries have bad drivers, and certainly most drivers in the US and France never bothered to stop for me when trying to cross at a zebra crossing. About the only drivers I would trust my life with would be those from countries like Germany, Netherland, Switzerland, Scandinavia. All of them require many hours of supervised driving practice and it shows. So to claim foreign drivers are worse than NZers is stupid, furthermore, when I did my licence test it was a 2 sided 10 question multiple scratch test that took around 30s to do.
Bizarrely enough, the safest place I’ve ever felt as a pedestrian has been crossing the zebra crossing at Piazza Venezia in Rome. It appears quite scary initially, with an almost constant stream of circulating cars, but nevertheless they drive around you like water. I’ve lived in London, Copenhagen, Brussels, Paris, Rome and Sydney but from a pedestrian’s perspective the worst place in the world for driving is Auckland, no comparisons.
@bbc – I’m amazed you actually found a zebra crossing the US. They don’t seem to be a common concept.
It doesn’t matter in the slightest whether people from particular countries have a better average standard of driving, since most drivers, wherever they’re from, are still not good enough.
The question is whether individual drivers will be better if they have to pass a theory test to keep their licences. It’s pretty cheap to administer, since all the licence renewal offices already have a bank of computers for the learner tests, and I think we can all agree that if you fail one you’re not cut out to be driving. Requiring a practical test as well would be much better at getting bad drivers off the road, but it would also be a much bigger inconvenience and would cost a fortune.
Do you have to stop at zebra crossings in France?
In a few European countries they just mean to take caution as people may be crossing.
When is something going to be done about the mess left when these new paved areas are dug up? I see lots of areas where the pavers have been removed and some cold tarmac put down.
Aren’t the council enforcing the need for these areas to be returned to as they were?
I was thinking of taking some photos and posting them but I might need another memory stick for my phone!
Where are you talking about exactly?
These patches are where future light poles are to be placed.
Hi Matt – thank you for your positive comments about the street upgrades in the city centre. As mentioned by the other responses work has been progressing on the designs of both Federal Street and O’Connell Street in response to the consultation last year and we’ll be providing updates on both these projects through presentations to public local board and council forums in May.
I’ll let you know when the information is live – it’ll be on our usual City Centre Masterplan website http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/citycentre.
ps The Elliott and Darby Street upgrade won an award this week at the NZ Institute of Landscape Architect Awards – check out Auckland Scoops NZILA Awards – http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/newseventsculture/OurAuckland/News/Pages/aucklandscoopsnzilaawards.aspx