Architecture NZ magazine recently published (Issue 01, 2012) an edited transcript of a round table discussion, between leading council figures and Auckland architects, on the Draft Auckland Plan chaired by Justine Harvey, Editor Architecture NZ magazine and Alastair McKenzie, CEO Auckland Architecture Association. Participants in the discussion included:
Ree Anderson – manager, Regional Strategy, Community & Cultural Policy, Auckland Council
Dr. Roger Blakeley – chief planning officer, Auckland Council
Ludo Campbell-Reid – urban design champion and manager, Environmental Strategy & Policy Department Auckland Council
Marshall Cook - architect/director, Cook Sargisson & Pirie
Greg McKeown - consultant, Heart of the City
Andrew Patterson - architect/director, Patterson Associates
Christina van Bohemen – architect/director, Sills van Bohemen
The table discusses a number of significant issues that the draft Auckland Plans is challenged to address, from an architectural and council planning standpoint. The AAA have reposted these videos here, of the full discussion, to direct to our members and interested people to this significant discussion. Essential Viewing. (videos originally posted on architecturenow.co.nz)
Pingback: Homepage
Phil
Finally some serious comment about the macro-urbanomics of Auckland. For too long Auckland has been a collection of suburbs looking for a city. Intensifying urban development (compact city) wont necessarily decrease private vehicle use, unless there are incredibly well designed public transport systems, something we don’t have yet.
Why aren’t we finishing the design concept implementation of light rail up Pakuranga Rd and out along Ti Irirangi Rd, for example. Now is a great time to be developing the NorthShore-Rodney public transport extensions, and yet do it in a innovative way that develops a New Zealand vernacular.
tonylaloli
Is there a summary document available ? an edited version with key points ?
Alastair McKenzie
The best summary would be the one in the current issue of Architecture NZ, the online versions are just the video.
NS
Firstly this discussion, and the fact it was filmed and shared, is excellent. This is valuable and must happen more often.
Less prescriptive rules to allow more “creative” outcomes – I find this a little concerning. From an idealist architects perspective I’m certain better outcomes will be realised with a less prescriptive set of development rules. Stepping back a bit I shudder to think how mediocre architects (and more so – their clients) will interoperate these – and then those (non-architects, the greater share of those draughting houses) who haven’t a concern for sensible design, who will be leveraging a creative bias rule set for all its worth – how is the planner at the ACC desk supposed to say a design is not a quality outcome without some objective means to measure it – “nonsense miss, I had an architect draw these up”. Quality design is subjective and can’t be realistically be evaluated on paper by a planner.
I can’t agree that ‘design guides’ should be abolished for the sake of allowing greater creative freedom of the designer – even though they are taken as more than a guide by some of Andrew & Marshall’s clients. Lets call them books of minimum standards instead – because what the do very well, for the remaining ‘Noddies’, is provide a measurable means to design something that isn’t total shit. Thanks to Christina who does recognise this. Andrew and Marshall (who know they are better than everyone else) can’t be so naive as to think most of Auckland’s houses are designed by ‘Noddies’.
Andrew’s quite simple suggestions with regards to encouraging the engagement of a good architect I think are superb. Insentiviseing the use of proven designers to me seems the most powerful way to encourage good design and ultimately a better quality of building in Auckland. A less prescriptive set of development rules for proven designers would allow good designers to design better buildings whilst preventing non designers from screwing up Auckland.