ADOPTED GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE WAITEMATA 6.
6. Develop small east/west streets for access to rear of heritage build-
WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT
1. A Transport interchange for Auckland connecting
new heavy rail, new light rail, existing ferry and bus
services: The transport interchange should aim to provide
easily understandable, convenient and protected pedestrian
links between all transport modes.
PROPOSAL : Transform Queen Elizabeth Square into an Ur-
ban marae as a transport interchange
2. A major entry point to the central business district
and the waterfront: The former Chief Post Office, the ferry
terminals and associated public spaces are key elements in
achieving this objective.
PROPOSAL : Extend Urban marae North onto Queens Wharf
and South to Queen Street
3. 24 hour Urban Transport Village: This guiding principle
highlights the need for a diverse range of activities on the
site, including residential uses and a considerable injection
of new floor space consistent with broader urban design
objectives.
PROPOSAL : Create a walking street precinct extending to
the East and South to Fort Street
4. A safe, welcoming place for people: The presence of
people for extended periods of the day and night helps to
achieve a safe environment. A welcoming place implies a
strong sense of a public environment.
PROPOSAL : As a public facility, a carefully designed trans-
port interchange and associated activities will help to meet
this objective.
5. Enriched public spaces: While the quality of the public
spaces is an important factor, equally important is the devel-
opment of a diversity of activities at ground level, especially
at the edges of streets, along pedestrian routes and in open
spaces. Vibrant and exciting spaces are typically also inten-
sively used spaces.
PROPOSAL : Link various public spaces with walking streets
and enrich with artists collaborations
6. Enhancement of the downtown waterfront precinct,
to connect the city to the sea: The city meets the wa-
terfront. Development should maintain and enhance physi-
cal and visual connections between the city and the water-
front. The potential for the Britomart block development to
stimulate future waterfront development should also be rec-
ognized. That is, Queens Wharf and the ferry terminals.
PROPOSAL : Expand the public realm
Create a new urban park on the water. Allows
for views back to the city. Green jewel at the
end of Queen Street
Link to working Port and recreation
7. Connecting the downtown waterfront precinct with
the Viaduct Harbour and Quay Park: East meets West.
The Waitemata Waterfront Development provides a com-
prehensive opportunity to develop an urban environment of
the highest quality which links with, and provides a comple-
ment to, the Viaduct Harbour Precinct to the West and fu-
ture developments in Quay Park to the East.
PROPOSAL : Develop waterfront promenade lined with palm
trees for visual transparency and strong visual linear state-
ment
ADOPTED URBAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES
1. Effectively integrate existing and new buildings, vehicular and
pedestrian circulation and open space provision.
2. Establish visual and physical links between the CBD and the
waterfront and with existing waterfront precincts such as Princes
Wharf, the Viaduct Harbour, the southern end of Queen’s Wharf
as well as Quay Park. Carefully preserve these links from Cus-
toms Street and from within the site (Commerce and Gore
Streets).
3. Recognize Auckland as a Harbour edge city. Since the Viaduct
Basin draws the harbour in , it may not be necessary to repeat
this experience, but develop new forms of water awareness.
4. Develop links to adjacent parts of the city. Establish an easily
comprehensible network of public spaces which meshes well
with the existing urban structure of the city and will satisfy the
requirements associated with a range of public activities and
functions. The layout of public space should be in a coordi-
nated manner linking with the underlying urban structure of
the precinct.
5. The existing urban structure of the city is one of streets in a grid
pattern. This design objective implies that on-site public space
should recognize and complement this pattern. At least two of
the four existing north-south streets must be retained for dis-
tribution of local vehicular traffic. Strengthen the existing north/
south streets. Retain visual and physical links
The idea of the street and existing street patterns to provide a
structure to the development is of prime importance.
existing heritage buildings (in particular the former Chief Post
ings. Recognize the potential for Galway and Tyler Streets
to provide visual and physical links between Queen Elizabeth
Square and Britomart Place.
7. Queen Street should be reinstated between Customs and Quay
Street.
8. Develop Quay Street with a tree lined waterfront promenade on
the north side effectively linking the Viaduct Basin to the East
with developments to the West, as well as defining the new pre-
cinct. Develop Boulevard type planting along a central linear
median strip and major pedestrian crossings at Commerce Street,
Gore Street and Britomart Place.
9. Opens spaces should establish close links with public activities at
ground level in adjacent buildings. Establish a hierarchy of public
space which enhances that already existing in the surrounding
city and which reinforces the topographical form of the Queen
Street valley and the harbour edge.
10. Establish a new public Open Space on the East Side of the former
CPO (Auckland Central), such as a market plaza, to generate aware-
ness and activity to the eastern end of the site.
11. Enhance visibility of open spaces from a number of directions.
12. Promote a rich mixture and variety of compatible land uses and
activities.
14. Develop a safe precinct which is used at all times of the day and
night.
15. Ensure a micro-climatically comfortable environment for pedes-
trians.
This requirement implies that principal pedestrian routes should
be substantially protected (without needing to be fully enclosed).
While open spaces and pedestrian routes cannot be fully pro-
tected, new building development should attempt to minimize
adverse wind effects.
16. Allow for new and existing buildings and other forms of devel-
opment to be serviced in a practical manner. Design proposals
should not solely rely on Customs and Quay Street for the servic-
ing of buildings fronting these streets. The loading and unload-
ing of service vehicles should not be remote from buildings.
17. Enable emergency vehicles to gain physical access to all build-
ings and public spaces.
18. Develop tree lined North/South streets as an important linking
element.
19. Develop the ground level as the principal pedestrian circulation
level. Develop pedestrian circulation by introducing a finer grained
network of pedestrian linkages through walking streets, alleys,
arcades, colonnades and passageways through buildings.
20. Consider public access to an expanded ferry terminal operation
extending east and north on Queens Wharf. Link this to an urban
waterfront public park !
21. Link expanded ferry terminal operations at Queens Wharf to Queen
Elizabeth Transport Interchange to the south.
ADOPTED PEOPLE PRINCIPLES
1. Diversity of activities/uses, including residential for various in-
come levels, to establish diverse on site population.
2. Activities throughout the day and night.
3. Activities that engender a sense of belonging and ownership.
4. A concentration of public activities at ground level – concen-
trated retail.
5. Distribution of activities to ensure through-site movement – in
addition to commuters.
ADOPTED PHYSICAL PRINCIPLES
1. Good accessibility and visibility – multiple points of entry.
2. Interesting journeys. Protection from elements. Alternative routes.
3. Inviting open spaces with active and well defined edges.
4. Ground plane as the principal activity plane
5. Appropriate scale of development.
NEW BUILDING DEVELOPMENT
(between Commerce Street and Britomart Place)
1. Develop an Urban Transport Village as an integral part of the east-
ern downtown area of the CBD. Strengthen the character of the
precinct from Fort Street to the waterfront to create a clearly
identifiable Urban Precinct.
2. Promote a scale of development appropriate to the surrounding
city, the waterfront and to the buildings to be retained on the site.
In relation to the issue of scale, both the building footprint and
height are important. New building should adopt a footprint that
is comparable in size and scale to that of existing buildings. A
desired contrast with existing heritage buildings may be achieved
by other means. It is anticipated that mid-rise development (up
to 12 stories) would represent the upper height limit for new
building development. Building height should relate to urban
character and intensity of the precinct.
In evaluating designs in respect of scale of development, the value
of providing significant amounts of new floor space will need to
be weighed against the potential impact of new buildings on
ADOPTED TRANSPORT PRINCIPLES
Office) and on their effects on the experience of the development
for those at ground level.
3. Ensure new development is architecturally differentiated from,
but complementary to, heritage buildings that are to be retained.
Differentiation can be achieved by treating new buildings in a
contrasting architectural style. New structures should not ignore
existing buildings or create unpleasant spaces between them. New
buildings should not obscure the architectural qualities of the
heritage buildings. Bulk and location of new buildings should be
closely indexed and aligned to the boundaries of adjoining public
space.
Ground floors of new buildings should contribute to and sustain
lively and publicly attractive activity on the edges of adjoining
public space.
A Contemporary design division should be created modelled af-
ter
Auckland City’s Heritage division, and the New Zealand Historic
Places Trust. This would serve the same role in protecting and
guiding the interests in the creation of contemporary architec-
ture within the precinct.
4. Develop a rich mix of retail at ground level, workplace and low to
mid-rise residential accommodations between Commerce and
Gore Streets.
5. New development should establish a sequence of public spaces
that promote pedestrian movement and enable the use of such
spaces for a wide range of activities, occurring over extended
periods of time.
6. Develop pedestrian walking streets similar in scale to Vulcan Lane.
Also sequence of spaces similar to High Street & Freyberg Square.
Allow these streets to extend beyond the site boundaries and link
to adjacent parts of the city.
7. Variances to the Guidelines shall be granted on the basis of Archi-
tectural merit and existing conditions.
8. Strict height controls are set for all new buildings. Designated
minimum and maximum building heights are as noted on the
drawings.
HERITAGE STRATEGY
1. Heritage building exteriors should be fully refurbished. Miscel-
laneous appendages/annexes at the rear of buildings along Cus-
tom Street, between Queen Street and Gore Street, should be
removed.
2. Interiors should be gutted back to original structure revealing
shell and core elements. Significant heritage fabric should be
salvaged, retained and/or reinstated.
3. Develop the CPO as a key element of the transport interchange
– Auckland Central. Concept:: develop the former CPO build-
ing as the mahau, the intelligence, of the project, serving rail
station functions at ground level and cultural functions at upper
levels. The ground level of the former CPO should be perme-
able on all sides, like a transparent temple or great hypostyle hall
for ‘meet and greet’ functions (tourist amenities should be pro-
vided here). Thus, linking east and west. Upper levels of the CPO
building should be developed for public uses. We propose a
cultural centre, thus balancing the shopping centre to the west
and the cinema centre to the east. A balance between the com-
mercial and cultural. It is envisioned that the top level could
serve as a downtown extension to the Auckland Museum, since
only a small percentage of it’s entire collection is on display at
any one time. Similarly, level 2 could be developed as an exten-
sion to the Art Gallery. Continuing the cultural theme, level 1
would become a New Gallery extension. Gift shops could func-
tion on ground level with rail station functions. It is proposed
that the domed skylights be move to roof level in order to de-
velop a contemporary vertical circulation core with escalators
(and perhaps glass elevator) through this light shaft all the way
down to B1. Thus creating a spatial link between all levels ver-
tically as well as developing horizontal visual and spatial links.
The roof level would be accessible to the public and become a
great viewing platform and potential sculpture garden open to
the sky.
4. Auckland City should develop the heritage buildings on Cus-
toms Street, between Queen Street and Commerce Street into
public/government use. Such as community meeting rooms,
daycare center and post office. Retail can continue on ground
level and should develop a dialogue with the new market plaza
at the rear of the former CPO. Amenities to those using trans-
port should be provided. With the development of the former
CPO as a Cultural Centre, perhaps commercial galleries and
workshops would be appropriate here as well.
5. Auckland City should retain the Wharf Police Building and de-
velop it into a contemporary police substation, thus provide
security as a community service.
6. Establish open spaces along the rear edge of the heritage pre-
cinct that comprises heritage buildings fronting onto Customs
Street.
builds on the value that the train station brings to both office and
1. Transform Queen Elizabeth Square into an important transport
interchange linking heavy rail, light rail, ferries and buses This
major open space should celebrate the transport interchange
(and
great people watching) and develop strong visual and physical
links from Queen Street to the waterfront. Develop an effective
urban open space serving transport activities and connecting
Queen Street with the waterfront. Formalize the entrance to the
CPO building as a forecourt with architectural steps for ‘meet
and greet’ functions and a new architectural canopy to service a
drop-off and pick up lay-by area.
2. Create a strong relationship between the interchange, the sur-
rounding street network and its neighbourhood.
3. Give the interchange and related elements multiple pedestrian
entry points.
4. Provide sheltered pedestrian links between the various modes
of transport associated with the site.
5. Provide conveniently located car, taxi and bus drop-off and pick
up points.
6. Develop extended pedestrian movement at below-ground lev-
els to link to ferry terminals and Queen Street.
7. Enable connections within or between the various transport
modes to be easily understood by passengers.
8. Create a safe environment for all users.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR AN ON-SITE BUS INTERCHANGE
1. Develop proposals that satisfy existing operational require-
ments.
2. Anticipate possible future changes in the nature and extent of
provision for buses. Therefore, avoid specialized solutions.
3. Develop designated bus lanes and other improvements in met-
ropolitan traffic management.
4. For the waterfront area, consider off-site marshalling.
5. Develop drop-off and pick up points close to Queen Street., no
further east than Gore Street.
6. Ground level location is desirable.
7. Develop bus drop off and maybe pick up at Queen Elizabeth
Square (Queen Elizabeth Transport Interchange). Queen Street
is envisioned extending across Quay Street developing an in-
terchange with a new proposed light rail station, the train sta-
tion and the ferry building, thus creating an urban transport
plaza.
8. Buses and Pedestrian friendly retail intensive streets are in-
compatible between Commerce Street and Britomart Place.
9. Buses should probably be kept away from the backs of Herit-
age buildings on Customs Street.
10. Bus pick up points should have good pedestrian visibility.
11. Allow for areas where passengers are able to move through the
interchange on protected routes and without needing to cross
bus carriage ways,
12. Parallel loading rather than nose-in or herringbone layouts.
13. Bus marshalling may be other than ground level or off site.
14. Recognize that the requirements for bus-stops different from
moring to evening
15. Recognize that patterns of bus use and transportation tech-
nology may change in the longer term. It is therefore impor-
tant to provide facilities for buses that do not restrict future
land use options. Therefore, a distribution of bus stops con-
centrated between Custom Street and Quay Street and be-
tween Commerce Street and Albert Street is envisioned.
THE CASE FOR AN URBAN TRANSPORT VILLAGE
In many ways, transport villages are about increasing choices – open-
ing up more options as how to travel, where to live and work, places
to go, and how to spend one’s free time. Transport villages present the
possibility of a more seamless form of mass transportation travel by
bringing the community closer to the transit node itself. The train
station is the village’s gateway. By physically and symbolically linking
surrounding neighbourhoods to the station, transport becomes a re-
spectable means of travelling.
Transport villages also offer alternative living and working environ-
ments that combine the values and lifestyle preferences for open
space, human-scale buildings and a sense of security with the more
traditionally urban values of walking to neighbourhood shops,
meeting people on the street and being in a culturally diverse
setting. The transport village offers the opportunity to revitalize
decaying neighbourhoods through the transit station’s role in
stimulating economic activity and enhancing public safety. This is a
break from earlier approaches to inner-city revitalization, owing to
its village scale (in contrast to high-rise public housing), mixes of
residences by incomes and tenancy, and codevelopment of new
residential and commercial projects. The inner-city transport village
WAITEMATA WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT DESIGN COMPETITION STAGE 2 : URBAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES
OCTOBER 2000
007
ther enhance public security and safety.
retail activity in the form of increased walk-on traffic. It also builds
on the value added from creating a neighbourhood where there is a
24 hour per day presence of residences and a centrally located
police substation.
The most important physical elements:
1. Civic plazas near train entrances
2. Pleasant walking environments
3. Diversity in housing
4. Compactness
The following elements have been identified as vital to the long-term
success of a transport village:
· Enhanced mobility and environment
· Pedestrian friendliness
· Alternative urban living and working environments
· Neighbourhood revitalization
· Public safety
· Public celebration
1. Enhanced mobility and environment: The primary transporta-
tion benefit of congregating housing, jobs, shops and other ac-
tivities around transport stations, of course, is that transport
ridership is likely to increase as a consequence.
2. Pedestrian friendliness: By definition, transport villages should
be inviting places to walk in. Mixes of land uses, with some
housing built above ground-floor shops, can encourage walk-
ing, as can the narrow tree-lined streets, wide sidewalks, and an
absence of large surface parking lots and long building set-
backs. The transport village’s pedestrian orientation can be con-
trasted with the auto-dependent insular designs of large-scale
office centers. In their place are mid-rise office structures, housing
of all kinds in neighbourhoods with moderate blended densi-
ties, outdoor eateries and shops that directly front onto the street.
Auckland City should seek to reconfigure the area into a more
pedestrian-friendly and transport-oriented area. Office struc-
tures should incorporate street-level retail shops and the street
network is developed to encourage walking. The area to the
south extending to Fort Street should be transformed into a
Transport Precinct, featuring a well-lit, active train station, an
architecturally landscaped transport plaza, street art and a con-
tinuous pathway network that ties the station to nearby bus
stops and taxi stands.
3. Alternative urban living and working environments: The trans-
port village offers the opportunity to live in the city without
being entirely dependent on the automobile and with a rich
variety of activities and services. As an alternative to suburban
community, the transport village vision calls for a mix of hous-
ing suited to a range of incomes and lifestyle preferences. The
diversity of housing in transport villages can mean a much-
needed increase in the stock of affordable housing. Transport
villages will do a lot to provide more live-travel options for those
wanting to economize on housing and transportation expenses.
A transport village, whose village scale and make up promote
social interaction and indeed entice people to get to know each
other, is consonant with the notion of “community as place”.
4. Neighbourhood revitalization: The transport village offers a fresh,
new approach to stimulating economic growth in inner-city
neighbourhoods served by rail. It invites private investment by
creating the conditions for financial gain – from the foot traffic
of the commuters regularly heading to stations, from the value
added of siting commercial buildings near viable transport nodes
and from the benefits of well-planned urban milieu.
Of course, there remains an important role for Council leader-
ship in bringing about a successful transport village. Combin-
ing transport village planning with aggressive programs to im-
prove the social and physical infrastructure of such neighbour-
hoods can provide a formula for progressive change. The Trans-
port Village must be part of a larger effort of community re-
building. Drawing on the strengths of both the private and pub-
lic sectors, the transport village will ultimately depend on forg-
ing effective partnerships for bringing about positive changes.
An important asset will be their social diversity. As places that
bring people of different ages, incomes and walks of life into
daily contact and that encourage social interaction, transport
villages can be important catalysts to community rebuilding.
5. Public safety: No issue is more important to attracting people
to transport villages than public safety. Residents, in particular,
must regard the transport village, with its many activities and
offerings, as a secure and safe place in which to live. Residents
themselves are the most valuable asset in this regard. They be-
come the eyes of the community 24 hours a day. A transport
village populated by residents, workers and shopkeepers is a
place where there is a continual security presence. Resurrecting
a police substation in the former Wharf Police Building can fur-
places, building overhangs and weather protection and safe street
6. Public celebration: A Public Plaza that leads into the village’s
train station entrance provides a natural spot for community
gathering-a marae-a place for celebrations, parades, perform-
ances and protests. The plaza can be chameleon like. In the
mornings, it might be converted to a colourful farmer’s market,
populated by flower stalls, fruit kiosks and gazebos. On week-
ends, concerts might be held there. What is important is that the
train station, functioning as the window to the rest of the re-
gion, is physically tied to and associated with the village’s major
gathering place. Residents are drawn to transport nodes by the
attractiveness and vibrancy of the surrounding public areas.
Concessionaires, street artists and vendors are drawn by the heavy
walk-on transport traffic. Although the particulars of designing
and building a transport village are important, it is also impor-
tant to recognize the connections of the transport village to the
larger city. A single transport village in a sea of sprawling, auto-
oriented development will yield few transportation, environ-
mental or social benefits over the long run. However, a collec-
tion of functionally related transport villages can form the build-
ing blocks of a successful and sustainable transport city.
LAND-USE DIVERSITY
In addition to being compact, transport villages should be diverse in
their land-use composition. Mixed land uses are important beyond
inducing people to ride transit or walk. Having shops, restaurants,
newsstands, coffeehouses and open-air markets near neighbourhoods
and work centres adds variety and vitality to an area. An essential
feature of any healthy city is an intricate and close-grained diversity
of uses that give each other constant mutual support, both economi-
cally and socially.
Are there any special mixes of services that are compatible with a
transport-oriented community? Among the “appropriate” uses pro-
posed for a mixed-use infill neighbourhood with strong pedestrian
orientation are:
Bakeries post office
Banks grocer stores
professional offices bookstores
gift shops public/government use
camera stores hardware stores
radio, TV, stores video, music stores
clothing stores health clubs
restaurants, bars collectible shops
home furnishings schools-private
day-care centers ice cream parlor
shoe stores, delis’ instruction studios
small appliance repairs Convience stores
Laundromats small theatre
dry cleaners office supplies
specialty foods florists
personal service shops sporting goods
food vendors pet stores
tailor galleries
offices residential
TRANSPORT – SUPPORTIVE DESIGN
The urban design of transport villages should encourage walking and
transit riding. Since all transit trips involve some degree of walking, it
follows that transit-friendly environments must also be pedestrian-
friendly.
Transport – supportive design is to create places that, in addition to
being more compact and diverse, have design features (e.g. landscaped
sidewalks and retail street walls) that make walking and transit riding
more enjoyable.
Following are examples of design guidelines that promote transit –
friendly development. The main purpose of these guidelines is to
influence the project design decisions of developers at the
conceptualization as well as the plan review stages.
· Continuous and direct physical linkages between major activity
centers; siting of buildings and complementary uses to minimize
distances to transit stops. That is compact versus spread-out
development around the train station.
· Streetwalls of ground-floor retail and varied building heights, tex-
tures and facades that enhance the walking experience; siting
commercial buildings near the edge of sidewalks.
· Integration of major commercial centers with the transport facil-
ity, including air rights development.
· Grid like street patterns that allow many origins and destinations
to be connected by foot; avoiding cul-de-sacs, serpentine streets
and other curvilinear alignments that create circuitous walks and
force buses to meander or retrace their paths; direct sight lines to
transit stops.
· Minimize off-street parking supplies; where land costs are high,
tucking parking under/in buildings or placing it in peripheral struc-
tures.
· Providing such pedestrian amenities as attractive landscaping,
continuous and paved sidewalks, street furniture, urban art in public
crossings.
· Convenient siting of transit shelters, benches and route informa-
tion.
· Creating public open space and pedestrian plazas that are con-
venient to transit.Any one treatment will unlikely be noticed. Col-
lectively, however, they will create a fundamentally different ur-
ban milieu than what
the vast majority of Aucklanders are used to.
Urban designers often stress the importance of public spaces in creat-
ing lively and interesting urban milieus. Having plazas, courtyards,
gathering places and greenery near the transport station, we believe,
is vital to the transport village. Notably, transport villages must be
places that are enjoyable for people to go and interact, whether en
route to the train station or simply to take in village life. Having
splendid public spaces, we believe, would perhaps do as much to
draw people from different walks of life into the community as any
single design element.
GUIDELINES FOR AUCKLAND’S URBAN TRANSPORT
VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
The challenge of redeveloping an area like Britomart is to add enough
development incentives so that, in the minds of prospective develop-
ers, the many assets are enough to offset the liabilities.
· Interagency coordination and participation: The active
participation of Auckland City will be necessary, as the first stages
of development will require significant public investment before
any private investment will be forthcoming. The urban transport
village requires the polling of resources among interagency co-
ordination and participation. No one agency alone is able to
achieve the scope of development needed for the Waitemata
Waterfront development. Strength will lie in numbers.
· Critical mass: The transport village will be more than a handful
of structures; a critical mass of development will be needed to
form a revitalized community. One or two new developments at
Britomart will not be sufficient to revitalize the area or even to
survive economically themselves. The critical mass of develop-
ment is in the range of new housing units, retail and a regional
draw, like an entertainment-cultural center.
· Essential transport village elements: Housing should be
the main component of any transport village plan, though the
plan needs to include other elements as well: mixes of uses, civic
spaces and both physical and symbolic connections to the sur-
rounding community. Housing is the glue of an urban transport
village because it means personal commitments to a neighbour-
hood and a near 24 hour presence of human activity. However,
housing is by no means sufficient. It must be complemented by
neighbourhood services, sources of employment, public gather-
ing spots and community amenities like libraries and playgrounds.
Possible retail and civic uses should be identified during the site
planning process and through careful market assessment. A pos-
sible key element could be a branch of the Auckland Museum
located in the CPO. The kinds of inducements needed to leverage
ancillary investments, like land write-downs and tax credits, needs
to be spelled out in financial pro formas.
· A site plan, illustrative designs and phasing strategy:
The second major step should be the preparation of an illustrative
site plan that sets out a vision for the quarter-mile radius around
the station and that defines a phasing plan. The site plan should
be prepared in conjunction with neighbourhood and community
groups and private developers. The site plan is needed from the
start to guide the design and implementation process. It must be
embellished by illustrative drawings and building proposals for
individual parcels to give the plan some concreteness. When
specific improvements will be phased in also needs to be articu-
lated. HARBOUR PARK
· Public-private partnerships: The first phases of the urban
transport village – housing, transport plaza, physical infrastruc-
ture – normally require public-sector subsidies. As a third step,
potential sponsors from the public sector and private founda-
tions should be approached and their participation sought as an
appeal to bettering the community. Important in approaching
outside sponsors is clarity in how the transport village differs
from previous inner-city revitalization approaches: in its village
scale, in its mixes of demographics and income levels, in its al-
lowance for home ownership and in the physical blending of
new residential projects and commercial ventures.
· Request for Proposal for private sector partner: At the
same time that project financial support is being lined up, market
interest should be tested through an RFP process that seeks a
master developer or a developer on one or more phases. Issue an
RFP to “test the waters” as well as to bring the experiences and
creative thinking of private developers into the process. The RFP
should be viewed as an iterative process of securing eventual PAVING SCHEDULE
private sector participation in return for the right mix of develop-
ment incentives.
6/7