Editorial: Swanson St revamp not necessary

Streets sometimes develop a utility and character that defies logic. Dolling them up is usually a waste; the money spent cultivates no greater pedestrian use. Such is the case with the proposed upgrade of the Swanson St thoroughfare between Queen St and Mills Lane. The Auckland City Council's plans for the pedestrian zone promise wider footpaths, seating built into a curved wall, and a variety of tree ferns, low shrubs and titoki trees. It is all very well-meaning, and doubtless the stuff of town planning treatises, but it is all utterly unnecessary.

Initial reaction to the proposal has focused on retailers' claims that their feedback has been ignored by the council. Immediately, this raises parallels with the planned makeover of Vulcan Lane, the subject of an embarrassing council backdown last week. There are echoes, too, in a wasteful relaying of perfectly good footpath paving in the Remuera shopping strip; a job causing great disruption for no visual gain whatsoever while potholed footpath within a few hundred metres is left.

The fundamental objection to the Swanson St plan, one that questions the very need for a revamp, is that the thoroughfare serves mainly as a link for pedestrians moving between Albert and Hobson Sts and Queen St. As it is, it is highly functional. The sizeable foot traffic suggests there is nothing that deters pedestrians from using it. Equally, however, it is not a place where they would wish to linger. So narrow is the precinct and so tall are the buildings on either side that the sun barely penetrates. This will not change, no matter what improvements are made. People looking to eat their lunch or pass the time in pleasant surroundings will always seek out better places nearby.

Why, then, does the council's urban strategy and governance committee seem set on spending more than a budgeted $1 million to revamp it? According to the acting chairman, John Hinchcliff, it is part of a city upgrade aimed at creating a "more friendly and more accessible place".

Such sentiments are noble but history shows they have too often been the recipe for development that deprived an area of character and soon had Aucklanders yearning for the original. In the case of Swanson St, those sentiments are certainly misplaced. The upshot would be a clutter of seating, shrubs and trees on a narrow, sunless thoroughfare. The council's money could be better spent pursuing its ambition in other areas of the city, not least Queen St, or on other projects.

Even Swanson St's retailers seem to accept as much. They, of all people, could be expected to support an initiative that aimed to make people linger in front of their shops. Yet those spoken to by the Herald seemed, virtually as one, to believe there was little point in the changes.

Council consultation presumably took place at the same time as that for Vulcan Lane. But, as in that case, the views of retailers seem to have been largely ignored by council designers. That suggests the triumph of preconceived notions, not realistic consultation. Perhaps the only saving grace is that Dr Hinchcliff appears chastened by the negative feedback. And by the knowledge that, once more, the council may "need to consider again".

The plans for Swanson St, like those for Vulcan Lane, smack of politicians and bureaucrats eager to invent problems where none exist. Swanson St will never be more than a practical pedestrian thoroughfare, while Vulcan Lane is a shining light in a generally bland cityscape. Neither needs more than minor improvement and regular upkeep. Aucklanders recognise this, and see any number of far more serious woes. So should the city council.