Editorial: Time to give Queen St to the people

It is a frequent criticism of Auckland that it is not so much a city as a collection of villages without a heart. There is some truth to that claim. Whereas geography has forced, say, Wellington to focus activities in the one small area of flat land between the harbour and the hills, Auckland has had ample room to spread itself out.

The consequences are not all bad either. Development as a collection of villages has allowed Auckland to be a much more diverse city than, say, Christchurch. Rather than presenting a single face, like Christchurch's transplanted English town, Auckland can offer a series of faces, Polynesian or English, retail or recreational, maritime or garden, historical or modern, depending on the village.

That said, the Auckland region does have a focal point, and that is Queen St and the surrounding central business district.

The CBD is certainly less dominant economically than it was once, but the redevelopment of the Viaduct Basin, the creation of Britomart as the intended regional transport hub, the growing importance of Aotea Square as an entertainment area and the planned construction of an international-sized indoor stadium on the waterfront have all served to emphasise its position at the centre of the region.

Unfortunately, despite those developments, the CBD - and Queen St in particular - remains a cramped, uncomfortable, down-at-heel place, offering only brief glimpses of the modern, vibrant, centre that would be expected of such a progressive, exciting, successful region.

Auckland City clearly understands this. That, obviously, is why it is in the process of upgrading Quay St to provide a link between Queen St and the excitement of the Viaduct Basin. No doubt, too, it was a factor in the improvements to Queen Elizabeth II Square at the bottom of Queen St and Aotea Square in the middle. It is also, presumably, why some months ago it proposed a much-needed $23 million redevelopment programme for Queen St itself.

Unfortunately that redevelopment appears to have stalled in the face of disagreement between the city and the so-called stakeholders, most notably retailers and building owners, about whether the emphasis should be on pedestrians, with wider footpaths, more street furniture and improved shelter; or on vehicles, with a maximum number of parking spaces and four lanes of traffic.

That is not a subject about which there would be much argument if the city looked beyond the property owners to a more important group of key stakeholders, the people who visit, shop, plan, live, learn or work in the CBD. Their priorities would clearly be for a street which is more pleasant, interesting and pedestrian-friendly.

The present roading system makes it inevitable that for the time being Queen St - like Quay St - will continue to be an important traffic thoroughfare. But the idea that its long-term future lies in a continuing role as a combination of car park and motorway is absurd. It is equally ridiculous to suppose that the commercial viability of the CBD depends on maximising the number of short-term carparks in Queen St. Of course it needs a reasonable amount of parking, just as it needs a good public transport system, but those services are means to an end and not the end in itself and cannot be allowed to dominate.

The successful city centres of the world have learned to take primacy away from the car and give it back to people. Queen St's future lies in becoming somewhere people want to visit, a pleasant place to stroll around or sit, where it is easy to move between shops, theatres and cafes, a link between the commercial heart and the harbour playground, a true focal point for the region's vibrant personality.

Until that happens Auckland will remain a region of many pleasant villages but lacking the pulsating heart it deserves.