Gone Fishing

Originally published Architecture NZ, Issue # 5, September 2014.

State housing in a holding pen, Hobsonville Auckland

There is now only weeks to a national election and a fleeting  opportunity to reboot a discussion on what issues Architects and design professionals should be thrashing around meeting tables, wine bars and lunch rooms  other than what revit family they may have recently married into or what solution offers the least risk when detailing the next winning contribution to the WAN awards. What is an acceptable solution for architects in national politics? What party will contribute most through a proactive architecture agenda?

We are all part of the same big picture 21^st century NZ inc bubble competing for global dollars and talent within a profession struggling to maintain a relevance in a landscape peppered with socio economic disparity, cycles of boom and bust, inflated egos and margins, social media, global warming, primacy of image, reactionary regulation, geographic disparity, effectiveness and efficiency in governance, ecological decimation, capital gain and stasis. So whats the difference in the regions ?

Two terms into a Key government theoretically we are all in the same boat though the regions have been left without the prop of sky rocketing property values or subsidized rebuilds, left largely at the mercy of the weather, the value of the dollar, the price of milk and effectiveness of local government leads a widening gap in the architecture haves and have nots. Where could political will make a positive difference?

Nothing like a step program to better health, ten steps to regional architectural nirvana:

1. A national spatial Strategy that defines regional development in the context of a national vision and proactively promotes and incentives regional growth
2. A definition of quality in the resource management act that can be used to leverage something other than a beige urbanity. Design Quality needs to be mandated at a national level, Critical regionalism doesn’t mean different standards outside of the mets.
3. A government Architect with networked regional offices mandating quality across sectors, absorbing young talent from the metropolitan areas as catalysts for innovation and promotion of best practice design.
4. A national business case and mandate for the value of design as integral to economic, social and cultural development. Works for Denmark, Design lead NZ inc.
5. A National urban design review panel on call with objective critique for projects of significance able to rise above vested interests, potential conflicts of interest, fear of critical engagement and parochialism.
6. A national procurement policy that guarantees all public funds are leveraged to enable best outcomes in the built environment through rigorous design competition processes. Including schools and social housing.
7. A focused and integrated research agenda that realizes the potential of architecture too add value to primary exports like logs and tourism.
8. A devolving of power from local government to Communities who need to be given back a voice in place making through meaningful engagement processes.
9. The establishment of a National grants program available to architects and urbanists as creative practitioners and producers of culture of national importance.
10. A reassessment of built heritage in light of the EQ prone building issues with a funding strategy available for owners in order that a national resource is not decimated in the short term.

Of course sustainability, integration, diversity, resilience and all those other buzz words are built into the above. 

The public nature of their work embeds architects in political debate whether they like it or not. An election year then is an opportunity to  gain a footing in a national conversation about the environment and the opportunities design may leverage. It’s the difference between architecture as a luxury accessory or a route to social and economic development.

Meanwhile The Key Budget 2014 relative to Architecture and the built environment throws up some interesting numbers:

• $200 million for health sector projects. 
• $198 million for KiwiRail. 
• $172 million for school property expansion. 
• $40 million to invest in irrigation infrastructure.
• $30 million boost to the Social Housing Fund from 2015/16 to help the community housing sector provide homes for high-need families.
• $375 million loan to the New Zealand Transport Agency to kick-start $815 million of Auckland Transport projects, further reducing Auckland congestion.
• $1.1 billion to meet demographic growth and cost pressures.
• $111 million of operating funding to support school property development.
• $15.4 billion Government's contribution to the Christchurch rebuild.
• $53 million to establish three extra Centers of Research Excellence from 2016.

In 2013/14, the value of the Crown’s assets is expected to be $246 billion. By 2017/18, total assets will have grown to $282 billion.

Significant growth in financial assets is forecast. The social portfolio is the single biggest component of the Crown’s assets. Social assets are used to deliver public services, such as state highways, social housing, schools and hospitals.

There is no lack of central government funds being spent on projects with the ability to have a direct affect on outcomes in the built environment. With out the understanding that architects and urban designers add value to that spend directly and indirectly it will be more of the same ? Roads, intensive dairying and fracking, where is the architecture in that equation? 

Sounds good to me one bloke was heard to say as he hoisted his fishing tackle onto the back of his quad bike.