Editorial: Queen St needs more than golden arches

Three years after an expensive facelift, an unfortunate phenomenon is afflicting Queen St.

New Zealand's premier retailing strip has become the site of an increasing number of fast-food outlets. Dozens of them, churning out burgers, kebabs, fried chicken and bread rolls, inhabit the 1km from Britomart to Aotea Square. Clearly, this is not what the city planners had in mind when they sought to introduce the sort of shops that would lure people from suburban shopping malls.

In one way, the burgeoning number of fast-food restaurants is a testament to the success of the $43.5 million upgrade. A core aim was to increase the number of pedestrians in Queen St, which, in turn, would boost retailers' takings. Obviously, the way this has happened has encouraged fast-food sellers to increase their presence there. McDonald's, for example, will soon have four shops in or around Queen St, and Burger King and Subway each have four on the street itself.

Their proliferation, jars, however, alongside one of the other ambitions of the upgrade. That was to introduce shops selling top international brands, thereby creating a point of difference with malls. This, too, has succeeded, and Queen St now has high-quality outlets with names such as Gucci and Louis Vuitton. But they sit uncomfortably among a surfeit of fast-food operations, a situation unlikely to be duplicated in many of the world's leading cities.

This outcome is something of an embarrassment for Ludo Campbell-Reid, the Briton hired five years ago as the city's "urban design champion". He says the number of fast-food outlets needs to be controlled, but concedes this will not be simple. A retail strategy for Queen St could help, he says.

The first impulse of such a strategy may be to prohibit the presence of new fast-food outlets. Overseas, some towns and cities have done this for what are claimed to be environmental or aesthetic reasons. Food zoning, as it is called, is also now being justified as a means of combating obesity. Such a step, it is said, is no different to controlling the location of liquor outlets, and should be adopted, particularly, for poor areas of cities.

That is hardly the case with Queen St. If a similar step were taken there, it would be on the basis of aesthetics. But whatever the reasoning, it would be too heavy-handed. Those of this school of thought are also inclined to demand, for example, that all of an area's buildings should be painted a certain colour, This improves the character of an area not one jot. The outcome is a dull uniformity.

A far more fruitful response to Queen St's problem would be to make it such a pedestrian magnet that fast-food outlets face stiff and, ultimately, unbeatable competition from high-quality shops for available retail space. The upswing in foot traffic since the facelift reflects the fact that the street has gone some of the way to justifying the tag "pedestrian-friendly".

Footpaths are wider in places, pedestrian crossings are more generous, different trees have improved the ambience, and traffic has been discouraged. The result shows signs of corresponding to what has happened in the vast majority of the world's most liveable cities when people and public places have been given precedence.

Accelerating that process seems the most likely solution to Queen St's woes. The Auckland Council's 20-year city-centre masterplan envisages turning all or part of it into a pedestrian mall. With the previous city council's planning having hit a snag, there is good reason to proceed. Tourists and locals, alike, are entitled to expect more of Queen St. The more attractive it is to them, the more likely there is to be a better mix of retailing.