Dialogue: Design standards vital to enhance Auckland city

JULIET YATES* says the controversy over AMP's proposed waterfront tower suggests that design controls should become part of Auckland's planning rules.

Public debate about the design and aesthetics of buildings along Auckland's waterfront is healthy and welcome because it might accelerate the incorporation of design standards into the city council's district plan.

Currently, there are no design codes to assess the appearance of a building in the central area.

I have long been aware of this gap and have sought public suggestions for policies to control the style and appearance of buildings, so I support the inclusion of a city urban design code in our strategic plan.

Urban design has two overriding interests: the identification and enhancement of the character of an urban area, and the qualities of its public environment.

Options include compulsory assessment by an urban design panel, to assess the aesthetics of development proposals before they reach resource consent stage, voluntary consultation with urban design experts, or a code which would require strict compliance.

I have offered to meet the Property Council and others to discuss these ideas and have been disappointed by the lack of response. Perhaps this will change now that the media spotlight is focused on waterfront design issues.

Auckland City has sought public input and promoted a design competition for the Waitemata waterfront development, which has attracted a great response, with innovative and interesting ideas.

Urban design initiatives must be developed, and new tools put in place to minimise controversies about the future appearance of the waterfront.

At present, developments must comply with the rules of our central area plan, which was finalised after extensive consultation.

It is a statutory document containing rules for permitted, controlled, discretionary and non-complying activities. These rules can be changed only through notification, submission and appeal processes set out in the Resource Management Act.

The rules are designed to balance competing private demands, the public good and the developer's desire for profit, and to protect the public interest against extremes, such as unlimited excessive developments or planning blight where regulation stifles economic growth.

Every resource consent application is considered fairly according to the same rules, so there is consistency in decision-making across the whole city. There are no favours and no rewards. There are only legal rights which are upheld and the public interest which is paramount.

The problem is that the rules cannot guarantee that a building will be admired. Appearance is not a ground for refusing a consent.

People may call many city buildings ugly, but architects give each other prestigious awards for them and describe them in poetic terms. Even experts do not agree. The American architect Frank Lloyd Wright warned: "The physician can bury his mistakes but the architect can only advise his client to plant vines."

This may have helped the greening of the United States, but commentators state that aesthetic achievements in land development have been limited. There are still many vines to be planted, and buildings to be covered. Researchers conclude that the American system is better at preserving architectural features than encouraging aesthetic developments, apart from private housing controls.

Some European cities avoid urban design issues by preventing development and preserving the city centre as a static city, like a museum.

Medieval Berlin was formed in the pattern of a community subject to the absolute power of God. Later it was reformed with three great gateways to assist political control.

Hitler's city of crushing power was followed by competition for a new order offering clarity, difference and understanding people's needs.

Nineteenth-century cities were formed and deformed by the demands of new industry.

We can learn important lessons from the past and from overseas about what to avoid, and what to aim for.

For example, Melbourne's city centre and historic precincts are universally admired and Vancouver is a much-quoted example, with successful urban design controls under different legislation.

Constant growth spurs Auckland's economic development and creates a scarcity of sites and high land value. We face conflicting demands: preservation of environmental quality, protection of the public interest and development pressures.

The central area plan does contain special rules. Buildings are generally controlled by the maximum floor area ratio that can be built. Extra floor space can be added if the developer provides extra features of public value. There is a special height control in Quay St, but to ensure high public appreciation, design and appearance should be considered.

Our strategic plan for the city has been approved through intensive community consultation. An important objective is the development of an urban design code. The next step must now be taken.

Urban designers, property owners, the planning and development industry and the people who live and work in the city must be involved.

The outcome should be a better understanding of all the issues, so we can look forward to an exciting city centre, filled with lights and laughter and resonant with the sounds of a great city, with an outstanding scheme for the Waitemata waterfront and urban design which reflects its spirit and the qualities that are "Essentially Auckland."

* Juliet Yates chairs the Auckland City Council's planning and regulatory committee.