Bob Jones is right but…

October 2, 2011

There is a lot of truth in the recent (somewhat ‘in your face’) comments by Bob Jones regarding the future of Christchurch. For those of us who have ‘hands-on’ experience in the development sector it was obvious from the outset that one of the biggest barriers to a successful Christchurch rebuild was investment economics. Bob is correct in saying that Christchurch has always been marginal as a commercial property investment location. That is simply because the underlying tenant demand and therefore rental growth is very shallow. There just aren’t enough quality tenants (and never have been) lining up to pay the kind of rentals needed to generate an adequate return to offset the building costs for a mid-rise high quality building. If the appetite for high quality 4-5 star buildings existed in Christchurch, we would have seen many more new medium rise commercial buildings constructed over the last 12 years than just the two that were (and one of those was for the IRD). Instead the local market has been dominated by ‘part-timers’ and ‘old money’ doing ‘re-fits’ and a few commercial buildings on the fringe. The only two examples of development in recent years that transcended the ‘absolutely positively boring’ label were the Poplar Lanes and SOL ‘entertainment’ precincts that re-used existing derelict urban fabric. Both precincts were financially difficult and both have now suffered severe quake damage.

Unfortunately, the economic fundamentals haven’t got any easier post the earthquakes – with a significant increase in the minimum earthquake seismic construction standards, increased underlying material costs and suppressed economic activity. Some displaced CBD tenants may never return. Those tenants that do mop up space in new buildings already on offer around the city fringe will have to pay the higher initial asking rent – but it is hard to see much rental growth occurring because the long term organic growth in tenant demand hasn’t changed. If anything growth in demand may be suppressed for many years – exacerbated by population and tenant leakage. As such, you can’t blame any investor for placing their insurance payout funds elsewhere. On the investment economics argument Bob Jones is absolutely right.

Where I part company with Bob Jones is where he suggests abandoning the CBD and instead concentrating on further strengthening the burgeoning suburban commercial hubs. I can’t think of a single successful city that doesn’t have a vibrant centre. What is clear to me, is that the nature of the CBD does need to be re-thought and re-invented. Rather than the (predominantly) incoherent mix of second rate office buildings and retail shops that previously existed, the re-invented central city should be focused on:

  • Hotels (low rise).
  • Restaurants, cafés and bars.
  • Bespoke retail (i.e. what isn’t available in the suburban malls).
  • Art galleries.
  • Major weekend farmers market (permanent venue).
  • Museums.
  • Entertainment (shows, music events, festivals and major sport events).
  • Education.
  • Civic offices.
  • Judiciary.
  • Medical & medical research/education.
  • Maori cultural presence.
  • Green open-spaces (parks, wide green boulevards, cycle-ways etc).
  • High quality street furniture (lights, signage, benches, rubbish bins, plants and art).
  • Quality landscaped streets (i.e. no raised curbs, quality paving systems etc.).
  • Properly landscaped waterways (i.e. river edges and walkways).
  • Pedestrian lanes connecting with streets through precincts.
  • Two-way ‘human scale ‘low-speed’ streets (i.e. designed for people, retail and ‘street-life’ not cars).
  • A much reduced number of (low rise) commercial ‘green’ office buildings.
  • Much more high density, low-rise, mixed-use buildings (i.e. residential focus).
  • Connectivity (i.e. free Wi-Fi, east-west and north-south modern electric rail).
Sadly, little of this will happen if left to the private sector alone. If the economic fundamentals stacked-up and we had population density, we would already see some of the above happening in Christchurch. It isn’t. Follow this link to read more ideas on what’s needed to kick-start Christchurch.

Filed under Economy, Infrastructure, Property market, Urban Tagged with , , , ,

Future Christchurch

September 22, 2011

A modern architectural icon for the Square?

Shortly after the 4 September 2010 magnitude 7.1 quake I penned some thoughts regarding what has historically suppressed inner city revitalisation in Christchurch and what was needed to gain some traction. In short, Christchurch needs population density in the central city and it won’t get that if left to market forces. That’s because greenfield residential development will always be cheaper, easier and therefore more attractive to property developers and investors who will by default look to minimise risk and maximise return. That is why, decades after the implicit environmental and social flaws were exposed in books like Suburban Nation, we still have cloned subdivisions and a proliferation of tilt slab single level commercial and bulk retail buildings. In that blog I suggested that the development rules need to be artificially tipped in favour of innovative high density mixed-use inner-city projects and two simple ways the authorities can help is through (1) a long-term moratorium on financial contributions for such projects and (2) establishing a publicly funded ‘urban development agency’ to champion, conceive, financially seed and (if necessary) undertake such projects.

That is because, even in the most buoyant economic times it has never been easy to financially ‘stack-up’ an inner city project in Christchurch given a population of only circa 350,000 residents and slow organic growth. The demand is simply too shallow and I can’t see much in the way of high quality mixed-use projects (with any scale) happening if left to market forces alone. It just will not happen.

The new city plan, like almost every plan before it, is big on rhetoric and imagery and small on detail about how it can be implemented. Christchurch could have the best urban plan in the world – but in the absence of market demand and property owner buy-in it will be doomed to fail. Already it is clear from comments by both local government officials and private property owners that existing property rights will likely to preserved (e.g. building height) and many of the initiatives contained in the plan (regardless of whether you agree on their merit) will be diluted. Without central government leadership, (dare I say) intervention and financial support (on a grand scale), we will likely see a slow reversion to the status quo over a 10-20 year period (with some window-dressing here and there).

After the 6.3 magnitude 22 February 2011 quake I posted some comments on how the authorities approached the immense task of rebuilding following the 1931 Napier 7.9 magnitude quake. Even though times have moved on, it’s worth revisiting the Napier response. With far less resources than available today Napier was rebuilt in just two years – with all planning decisions made by two Government appointed commissioners and an Earthquake Reconstruction Committee. What resulted was a city far superior (in architectural terms) to that which was destroyed and which is now regarded as one of the best and intrinsically intact examples of the Art Deco style in the world.

The lessons from Napier:

  • Look around the world for design inspiration – we’ve done that ad nauseum without any real themes emerging.
  • Adopt a low-rise building scale – for Napier it was a maximum of five levels and for Christchurch it looks like it’s going to be back to the past.
  • Mobilise local architects and resources – I don’t really see that happening outside of the appointment of Ian Athfield as a kind of architectural ‘spin doctor’.
  • Appoint a small number of people to make all planning decisions – we’ve appointed a cast of hundreds who consult with thousands.
  • Appoint one oversight body to provide clear strategic direction – 12 months after 4 September we have CERA plus a host of other (self) interest groups (all still trying to work out what to do).

To me – it’s not shaping up well. At the risk of being a little contentious, here’s my take on what’s needed in the recovery approach and plan:

  • CERA should take hands-on control of the entire planning and rebuild process.
  • Central government should clearly state that it will operate as insurer in the event that the private sector companies will not.
  • A small panel of leading New Zealand architects and urban planners should be appointed by CERA to create a plan and make all planning and design decisions. They should have a blank canvass and discretion to consult with whoever they want.
  • Commence an international design competition to build an inspirational, multi-use, inter-denominational building in the middle of the Square – I’m thinking a major visitor attraction like the Bilboa Guggenheim (but with a ‘Pacific’ architecture flavour). Galvanise the introspective religious institutions, pool limited resources and create something special – a real heart to the City.
  • Commence an international design competition to build a new covered multi-use sports stadium in South Hagley Park (i.e. the corner between the hospital and netball courts). Again, something iconic.
  • Create a beautifully landscaped pedestrian corridor following the Avon from the new stadium back to CBD and right out to the coast.
  • Focus new urban development (within the four avenues) around live-work type residential, low-rise office, bespoke retail, hotels, restaurants, civic, medical, education, arts/events, museum, open space and water.
  • Get rid of the one-way street system. It is an undeniable fact that one-way systems kill street life.
  • Encourage low speed pedestrian friendly city streets with appropriate street design, no raised curbs (just texture transitions) and beautiful street furniture and public art.
  • Underground all overhead wires throughout the City and suburbs and at the same time expand the high speed fibre network out to all suburbs.
  • Institute an ultra-modern electric rail system – airport to City first, then City to the former train station and then radiate out over time along main arterials (all with free Wi-Fi). Link this with the existing main trunk line train system.
  • Offer free Wi-Fi throughout the CBD.
  • Stay firm on a maximum height limit of  five levels.
  • Don’t try and re-build broken heritage buildings how they were. Replace them with modern structures – but use the damaged fabric where possible (i.e. looking forward but respecting the past).
  • Encourage (through subsidy) the use of light-weight environmentally sustainable building materials and systems.
  • Remove financial contributions (including rates) on all inner city development for 20 years.
  • Ensure that financial contributions for greenfield development fully cover the true cost of the public services.
  • Dump the underground bus exchange project and instead invest the circa $120 million earmarked for this in the creation of a Christchurch urban development agency.
  • Sell up to 49% all Christchurch City assets to fund the urban development agency.
  • Seek $1 billion of funding from central government to go to the urban development agency for inner city building and beautification projects.
  • Buy (if necessary) the few remaining undamaged high-rise buildings and de-construct these or replace them over time with buildings consistent with the new low-rise vision.
  • Mobilise the resources of Canterbury University, Lincoln University, Otago Medical School, CPIT, SIT and the Canterbury based CRIs to create a single innovation and commercialisation hub (currently they all do their own thing). Seek $1 billion of funding from central government for development of an innovation campus and to seed innovation and commercialisation activities.
  • Levy a temporary ‘earthquake recovery tax’ on all taxpayers to help fund the above. I’d pay it and I think most loyal New Zealanders in other parts of the country would too.
  • Change the City’s name – for strategic reasons (i.e. in-bound tourism and disaster association). Obvious examples are Canterbury (the province name) or Õtautahi (the first Maori name for the location).
In short – aim to make Christchurch the most modern, beautiful, connected and innovative City in the world. A place where everyone will want to live (i.e. not leave).

Filed under Economy, Infrastructure, Property market, Urban Tagged with , , , ,

National Infrastructure Plan 2011

July 5, 2011

The Minister for Infrastructure’s foreword in the ‘National Infrastructure Plan 2011′ draws attention to the critical role of infrastructure in our economy – by highlighting its importance following the Canterbury earthquakes.

The 2011 plan follows from policy work completed in 2010 and the Minister summarises Government priorities in five key areas:

  1. The Canterbury re-build.
  2. Investment in Auckland.
  3. Better management of social infrastructure assets.
  4. Investment in land transport to support New Zealand commodity exports.
  5. Improved performance measurement.
The report itself highlights five “strategic opportunities” being:
  1. Transport – supporting growth in Auckland and ensuring the overall network is efficient.
  2. Telecommunications – public/private partnerships and greater efficiency.
  3. Energy – improved information base and regulatory framework.
  4. Water – better management practices and partnerships.
  5. Social – increased sharing of services and alternative funding approaches.
The Government hopes to capitalise on these strategic opportunities by implementing a three year action plan focusing on the following:
  • Publish a 10 years ‘Capital Intentions Plan’.
  • Improve understanding of infrastructure demand management and pricing.
  • Improve access to information.
  • Develop performance indicators for each sector (public and private assets).
  • Improve regional strategic infrastructure planning.
  • Improve scenario modeling to better predict investment needs.
  • Learn from the Christchurch diaster to improve infrastructure resilience.
  • Explore alternative funding options.
A full copy of the 2011 plan can be downloaded from the National Infrastructure Unit’s website at this link.
Source: National Infrastructure Unit

Filed under Economy, Infrastructure, Natural resources Tagged with

First ETS report card

June 30, 2011

The Emissions Trading Scheme (“ETS”) is New Zealand’s response to meeting its climate change responsibilities under Kyoto Protocol obligations. The Ministry for the Environment has released its first annual report on the ETS highlighting progress to date as follows:

  1. Forestry was the first sector to join the ETS – on 1-1-08.
  2. From 1-7-10, three more sectors (energy, industry and transport) faced an obligation to surrender units according to the level of their emissions.
  3. The additional sectors (comprising 38 business activities) established a tradable New Zealand carbon market.
  4. Most NZ businesses will not participate directly in the ETS, because it is designed to transfer the cost to those highest in the supply chain.
  5. The transition phase for the new entrants extends until the end of 2012 durting which time concessionary rules apply.
  6. One-off allocations to fisheries quota holders and owners of pre-1990 forest lands have been made by Government to compensate property losses.
  7. Businesses and foresters are factoring the price of carbon into their planning and passing this down to consumers.

A copy of the full report can be downloaded from the Ministry for the Environment’s website via this link.

Source: Ministry for the Environment

Filed under Economy, Forestry, Infrastructure, Natural resources Tagged with , ,

History repeats

March 8, 2011 Leave a comment

After the 4 September 2010 magnitude 7.1 Christchurch earthquake I posted a blog outlining some thoughts on how the City could respond – in particular by using the event as a platform for CBD revitalisation initiatives. The widespread devastation wreaked by the 6.3 magnitude (and much more violent) 22 February 2011 Christchurch event ups the ante significantly!

As well as providing an unwelcome repeat experience of the 2010 event for a somewhat mentally fragile local community, the February event also provided the whole country with a graphic insight into what it might have been like for those who experienced the 1931 Napier 7.9 magnitude earthquake.

The Napier quake caused major physical and personal carnage – including the loss of some 258 lives in Napier, Hastings and Wairoa. The town centres of both Napier and Hastings were essentially flattened – either by the quake or the fires that followed. Tens of thousands of hectares of surrounding seabed was instantly lifted by up to 2.7 metres above sea level. This land now accommodates farming and industrial activities as well as the Napier airport.

Rather than abandon the area, as some civilisations have historically done following natural disasters, our industrious forebears elected to rebuild a new city drawing on state-of-the-art design ideas emerging in cosmopolitan urban centres such as New York and Chicago. A major influence was work by design visionary Frank Lloyd Wright and in particular the Art Deco style.

The process by which Napier approached reconstruction should also be of significant interest to central and local government officials grappling with monumental task ahead. Incredibly, the Napier CBD was rebuilt in just two years with all planning decisions made by just two Government appointed commissioners and an Earthquake Reconstruction Committee. Napier based architects formed Napier Associated Architects to mobilise limited resources and maximise opportunities for local firms. New buildings were all designed to be low rise – no more than five levels.

The mix of building styles has been described by architectural historians as a tapestry which embodies all the strands of the modern design movement. Principally these are:

  1. Early twentieth century modernity including Art Deco, Chicago, Spanish Mission, Prairie School and Stripped Classical styles documented in design publications of the era such as Frank Lloyd Wright’s ‘Wasmuth Portfolios’.
  2. Minimalist ‘Great Depression’ era and indigenous decoration and relief (because of both limited resources and efforts to avoid future danger from heavy masonry typical throughout destroyed town).

What has resulted is a city far superior in architectural merit to that which was destroyed. It is now regarded as one of the best, and intrinsically intact, examples of Art Deco architecture in the world.

With so much of the built fabric of Christchurch destroyed there is, like Napier, a once only opportunity to create something special from the wreckage. Yes, a handful of our most significant damaged gothic buildings should probably be saved or rebuilt – but outside of the obvious examples I think Christchurch should embrace the opportunity presented by the disaster to create a new design legacy for future citizens.

Achieving such an impressive outcome as Napier will not happen through endless debate over historic building merit or individual building issues…and the inevitable bureaucratic inertia which follows such debate. Let’s take a lesson from the Napier response:

  • Look around the world for design inspiration.
  • Adopt a low rise building scale.
  • Mobilise local architects and resources.
  • Appoint a small number of people to make all planning decisions.
  • Appoint one earthquake reconstruction committee to provide oversight.

To draw on the words made famous by renowned architect Mies Van Der Rohe…”Less is more”.

Acknowledgements:
Peter Shaw and Peter Hallot, Art Deco Napier: Styles of the Thirties, 2nd ed, Napier, 1990. Information from Art Deco Trust submission to ICOMOS NZ, 1998. Department of Conservation.

Filed under Economy, Infrastructure, Property market, Urban Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts