Screwy

File under: waterfront, urbanism, rants, Wellington

As I mentioned earlier in the week, the propeller from F69 has been installed in the Graving Dock Gardens at Waitangi Park, and there's an article about it in today's Dominion Post. Here's a photo of the propeller in place, with the native coastal plantings about half complete. Once these and the Wind Gardens are finished (about the end of next week), the amount of accessible open space will be significantly greater than when the park first opened during the Arts Festival.

Not that the park is exactly overcrowded as it is. The promenades, skate park and children's playground are busy most of the time, but even on a pleasant weekday lunchtime, the large green field was nearly deserted:


Yet Waterfront Watch continue to insist that the adjacent spaces earmarked for new buildings should instead be used as "open space" that we're supposed to be desparately short of. If this large open space is empty so much of the time, wouldn't it make sense to use the surrounding areas for a mixture of buildings and more intimate public spaces, complete with shelter and public activity?

I know that the field is sometimes much more popular, and that we need a space this size for special events, but even at its busiest (the Fat Freddy's Drop concert during the Arts Festival) it wasn't completely packed, and that was with a large part of the field taken up by tents! That says to me that the field is about the right size, and that the nearby sections of the city would serve the public better by creating a range of spatial experiences to complement the broad openness of the field.

There's a reference to this in the current issue of The Listener. The lead article (not online) looks at urban design and development issues in all New Zealand's major cities, and portrays Waterfront Watch as "the public voice" saving Wellington from rapacious developers. Lindsay Shelton is quoted as saying "Waitangi Park is a big, open extravanganza, but its openness is going to be destroyed by the big buildings they're going to put in beside it". Leaving aside the question as to whether a handful of 3-5 story buildings at the edges would have much impact on such a large space, it ignores the question of whether such openness is actually desirable or appropriate in a city that gains its special character from compactness and verticality rather than wide-open spaces. So a letter seemed in order (update: published 5 June 2006):

Ian Athfield is right: Wellington owes a lot to its "historically strong edges which haven't yet eroded". This has limited sprawl and created a CBD that is compact, mixed-use and relatively sustainable, and it is this density and diversity that gives us the buzz of a much bigger city.

Yet Waterfront Watch wants these qualities kept away from the waterfront. You misrepresent the debate by describing it as a struggle "between citizens who want more public space ... and developers eyeing the returns". There are plenty of ordinary Wellingtonians who want the waterfront to be part of the city, with all the complexity and variety of uses that that implies.

Of course public space is vital, but the quality of urban space is not measured in square metres. It is a function of good design, appropriate location, shelter and active edges, and that requires a judicious balance of buildings and space, not an unqualified "openness". Wellington's Midland Park and Cuba Mall are popular because they are surrounded by buildings, not despite them.

Waitangi Park is well-designed and innovative, and popular while the sun shines, but often empty otherwise. Doubling its size would produce little public benefit, whereas the buildings proposed for the adjacent carparks would bring activity, shelter and spectacular architecture to our beautiful but under-utilised waterfront.