A sign of a good conference is to come away both inspired and challenged. After a five-year hiatus, UrbanismNZ returned in April 2023, hosted in Tāmaki Makaurau. This year’s theme over the two days was ‘Shaping our Urban Legacy’ with more than 80 presenters exploring the intertwining sub-themes of mana-enhancing, regenerative, liveable communities; technology and innovation; productive and economic, and integration.
Of course, the best part was re-connecting with urbanism professionals from across the motu, after such a long time.
Wins and successful projects were shared and celebrated but the challenge of how we shape successful urban futures in Aotearoa was the key takeaway from the UrbanismNZ Conference 2023.
From my perspective, there was consensus among attendees – even at the political panels. We seem to be at a point where we agree on what overarching good urbanism looks like, at differing scales, within our communities. We agree that we require change to improve our cities, to make them better places to live as we face a growing population in a climate crisis. The need to design cities for people is no longer radical, nor up for debate. However, the way we achieve change and the speed in which we do it, is still a point of contention.
This poignant quote from Auckland Councillor Richard Hills, during a panel discussion about their recent floods, reflects the urgency of the issue:
“Good is happening – but not at the scale we need it.”
During conference sessions we shared achievements, probed innovative ideas and, crucially, challenged the status quo.
It was an important reminder that we are in a critical moment in time, to think about how we promote and achieve good urbanism. By placing the needs and wants of people at the heart of design practice, we know we can create good places, yet repeatedly our decision-making and economic frameworks do not favour or go far enough, to consistently support this approach. For example, in our streets, movement and provision for private vehicle use is still generally prioritised over place.
Greenfield sprawl and subdivision spreads the extent of existing urban issues, such as designing cycle-friendly streets in car-dependent neighbourhoods. Housing yield on brownfield sites continues to win over connected, high-amenity, liveable communities.
This all results in in sub-optimal urban outcomes, detrimental to communities and the environment. Extraordinarily, climate change was mentioned in little detail at the conference, as it is now considered a given. Terms like ‘sponge cities’, previously considered technical, are now used and appreciated by the general public. We clearly have consensus, beyond our profession, on the state of the environment and the need to act.
For us, as a community of practice, there is an imperative to do better. Despite a shared vision of what good urbanism looks like – suboptimal outcomes continue to be enabled within our urban frameworks.
So, what would a governance system that promotes and prioritises good urban outcomes, at pace, look like?
Challenges discussed included if we are over-regulating and losing scope for superior design. Or is it that we are under-regulating to enable consistently poor urban outcomes? Is it both? Whatever the ‘how,’ there was a sense that processes must change to ensure the right people are participating.
How then do we as professionals ensure our communities are empowered to be a part of and envision positive urban futures that centre their well-being? The piecemeal, effects-based approach of the Resource Management Act, while perhaps doing better in protecting the natural environment, has led to years of development that ignores high amenity urban outcomes. Recent legislation compounds this situation with the prospect of dire outcomes. It’s no wonder many communities feel threatened by ideas essential to successful urban growth, such as intensification and mode shift.
Urbanism is complex and holistic, so to influence decision makers, we must achieve true collaborative outcomes that put people at the heart.
A key point in enabling community understanding of the work we do and outcomes we want is through better sharing of data and evidence.
Affected communities need to see themselves as included in the benefits. A highlight from the international speakers was Henriette Vamberg of Gehl Copenhagen who combined data and experience to build a case for designing streets as a clean air network. The first part of the research measured air quality through a detector attached to a Google Maps street-view car. In the second stage, a camera was attached to a toddler’s front, to understand the way smaller children experience the city at a height of 90cm. Combining this with the air quality measure, they were able to design a network of clean air streets which considers the way children navigate space, promoting a network of child-friendly streets. The power of linking science with the experience of a vulnerable user tells a strong story that makes it hard to deny the sought-after outcomes of that urban streetscape design. Of course, clean air benefits all users, not just our vulnerable future generations.
Aspirational international processes can too easily suffer the fate of rejection when we consider applying them in a local environment. It is easy to dismiss them with a ‘We are not [insert city here]’ or ‘It wouldn’t work here.’ Even at a local scale, communities frequently reject design approaches that are successful in other cities in Aotearoa, let alone internationally.
We are fortunate here to have an increase in the understanding and application of mātauranga Māori in design. However, the adoption of Māori design principles into everyday design outcomes, much like other urban design principles, has been slow and non-mandatory. The conference opened with a thought-provoking panel featuring the incredible combination of Jade Kake, Dee Issacs and Alan Titchener and gave us insight into what urbanism means to Māori communities. We have a wealth of Māori expertise in Aotearoa. We should be following their lead to link international best practice with what empowers our indigenous communities to feel represented and to shape successful design practice for local urban communities. Our frameworks can and must prioritise this approach.
Confronting stories from other local contributors also reminded us of the low-hanging fruit we are missing in our design practice. Minnie Baragwanath from the Global Centre of Possibility reminded us that we determine peoples’ futures through design, and if the people whose complexities we are designing for are not in the room, we simply design them out of our spaces.
So, while we may need political will and reframing to enable good urban outcomes, at least designing accessibility into everything we do is currently in our control.
The plenary session keynotes at UrbanismNZ were well-chosen, ranging from European examples we can aspire to, and local leaders (like the aforementioned), who identify critical components of design which may be missing from our everyday practice.
No matter our place in this world, international speaker Dr Tony Matthews provoked the attendees with an enthusiastic presentation identifying key stressors that will impact our profession.
These ‘stressors’ are external influences which may challenge the typical way we shape for urban futures. Included was the pace at which AI is changing the way we work. Thankfully, the nuances between people and place are so particular, it sounds like we’ll still be in a job in a few years’ time – but we will need to be prepared to change some of the ways in which we work.
The idea that we need to stop planning for home ownership was another stressor that hit home. The cost of housing is a significant catalyst behind many of our urban rules and policies (the much-debated Medium Density Residential Standards come to mind). Dr Matthews questioned the emphasis on housing supply, rather than policy mechanisms which could help plan for a future that involves younger generations as participants.
Another major stressor, which we are all too aware of, is climate change. Climate refugees already exist in Aotearoa, and our towns and cities will all face similar challenges of varying context and scales. While these stressors can be a threat, they can also enhance the argument that designing to the status quo will lead us down a path of regretful decision-making.
Shaping our Urban Legacy proved to be an appropriate theme for this moment in time.
Going forward, a stronger, cohesive message to decision-makers is needed, combining the expertise of urban designers, architects, landscape architects, and planners, and most importantly, including local communities.
Opportunity is on the horizon to work together to form a framework supporting the importance of good urban outcomes through local government reform, formalising a profession of urban designers and updating central government strategies such as the Ministry for the Environment’s 2005 Urban Design Protocol.
Our web of complex design guidelines, panels, protocols and disciplines can become, and needs to become, a clear design-led structure putting communities and well-being at the heart of our urban planning systems.
As an urban designer, it’s no surprise I support the position that formally recognising the value of urban design plays a role in determining our urban futures. The word ‘design’ is often incorrectly associated with ‘nice to have’. This perception has likely influenced decisions to cut out design elements from projects, or embed Council design teams within planning teams, rather than champion design-led outcomes.
It was a shame to see a lack of elected local and central government representatives in the room. These are the people who have the power to push for change, but as citizens of our cities, we all have a voice and a responsibility. The onus is on all urban professions to work together to advocate for our urban legacy.
John Alexander’s book Citizens was mentioned more than once, with regard to this. I confess, his book is sitting unread on my bedside table. So, it is time for me to pick it up, and it is time for our professions to solidify a successful process of engaging, designing and story telling that works for urban communities of differing scales.
Like any good thought-provoking conference, the UrbanismNZ event left me with more questions than answers. Nevertheless, there were multiple strong takeaways for any urbanist to carry forward in their day-to-day mahi, and to consider carefully and more deeply, as we move forward towards the next UrbanismNZ conference in 2025.
Awesome, well-articulated summary of the conference. Thank you Miriam. I think you have captured the essence of conference well. I agree it was great to re-connect with so many people in person. And I agree it raises many more questions than answers…the challenge for us now is to make sure this debate continues. Thank you.
I agree Alistair. This is an excellent and balanced summary. Thank you Miriam