Post by Kiwi Frontline on Mar 25, 2018 6:05:48 GMT 12
UNDERGROUND STATION IDEAS SLIDE OFF THE RAILS
A recent lengthy article in the Weekend Herald described proposed plans for Auckland's City Rail Link stations (CRL). The writer, Simon Wilson, claimed the CRL was more than just a transport initiative, that it was possible to get highfalutin' about the stations.
He was not kidding. He asserted the new stations would reveal "who we are" and, even more extraordinarily, "become us". The buildings would engender "personal aspiration". He described one station entrance as symbolising Rangi and Papa's separation and its ceiling as a "scalloped voids" with the teeth of a taniwha.
This language may be briefly amusing but, after careful reading, the ideological basis lying beneath the design descriptions becomes much more troubling. To my mind, the proposals emerge as unbalanced even biased.
Wilson said the new railway stations could be "democratising spaces" although what he described of the design sounded extremely undemocratic. He passed over without comment a crucial point, the stated decision of the designers not to focus on Auckland's "colonial history" but to fix attention on Maori gods and stories.
I am all for a Maori component, but the present design appears to be solely concentrating on that aspect at the expense of all else. It's all gone a bit off the rails. Could this be because eight mana whenua groups have been "partners" of CRL Ltd in the design process?
A self-imposed cultural and historical amnesia about "colonial" heritage has led the team to set about deleting and expunging those aspects of city history that happen not to be Maori. Wilson talked of the buildings embodying stories to bring us together but the plan sounded more like invisibility and muteness for many.
My misgivings about the designers' attitude is crystallised in their suggestion to change the present names of CRL stations. The primary task of station names is surely to help passengers know exactly where they are, and to recognise precisely where they are arriving.
Two proposals are especially silly and need to be knocked on the head by the Auckland Council: changing the names of the Mt Eden and Britomart stations to "Maungawhau" and "Waitemata" respectively, ideas that exemplify what is wrong with the overall design concept.
Mt Eden station has had that name since the Auckland-Kaipara line opened in 1875 and it is also the name of the suburb it's in. Mt Eden Rd actually crosses the tracks at the eastern end of the station, which is not directly connected to the scoria cone we associate with the name "Maungawhau". Why change a name that evokes so much of the city's heritage, and end up confusing travellers?
Britomart (the existing name of the downtown station undergoing a major upgrade) is also very suitable and it would be stupid and insensitive to cast it off for no good reason. It is the name of the headland (Point Britomart) where Auckland's first railway station was constructed, and Auckland's second downtown station (located where the present Britomart station stands) was opened in 1885 on reclaimed land using fill excavated from Point Britomart.
Above today's station is the thriving Britomart Quarter. one of the successes of recent urban design in Auckland. Why throw that name out for one that makes little sense geographically? "Waitemata" is the name of an entire harbour, and has no specific reference to the site of the station. Even the Orakei station is closer to the harbour than Britomart.
Another reason to support Britomart's retention is that. architecturally, the Britomart CRL station will be dominated by the reinvigorated Central Post Office building, a splendid imperial baroque example of European architectural heritage since 1912. If design zealots wish to entitle some downtown transport feature "Waitemata", it would be slightly more sensible to add that to the name of the Ferry Building.
The current CRL station design proposals, especially the name changes, are unacceptable because they represent the distortion of Auckland's heritage by a partial viewpoint that throws history out of balance. It is not representative of who we are, only of who some of us are.
It is not a multicultural blend of the city's stories, nor even bicultural because of its blindness towards and rejection of important cultural values. Indeed the plans appear to be not a merger of cultures but more akin to a hostile takeover.
Dr Brian McDonnell teaches media at Massey University Albany and lectures in Auckland's social and architectural history. He is of Irish and Maori (Tuhoe) heritage.
Published NZ Herald 23/3/18
A recent lengthy article in the Weekend Herald described proposed plans for Auckland's City Rail Link stations (CRL). The writer, Simon Wilson, claimed the CRL was more than just a transport initiative, that it was possible to get highfalutin' about the stations.
He was not kidding. He asserted the new stations would reveal "who we are" and, even more extraordinarily, "become us". The buildings would engender "personal aspiration". He described one station entrance as symbolising Rangi and Papa's separation and its ceiling as a "scalloped voids" with the teeth of a taniwha.
This language may be briefly amusing but, after careful reading, the ideological basis lying beneath the design descriptions becomes much more troubling. To my mind, the proposals emerge as unbalanced even biased.
Wilson said the new railway stations could be "democratising spaces" although what he described of the design sounded extremely undemocratic. He passed over without comment a crucial point, the stated decision of the designers not to focus on Auckland's "colonial history" but to fix attention on Maori gods and stories.
I am all for a Maori component, but the present design appears to be solely concentrating on that aspect at the expense of all else. It's all gone a bit off the rails. Could this be because eight mana whenua groups have been "partners" of CRL Ltd in the design process?
A self-imposed cultural and historical amnesia about "colonial" heritage has led the team to set about deleting and expunging those aspects of city history that happen not to be Maori. Wilson talked of the buildings embodying stories to bring us together but the plan sounded more like invisibility and muteness for many.
My misgivings about the designers' attitude is crystallised in their suggestion to change the present names of CRL stations. The primary task of station names is surely to help passengers know exactly where they are, and to recognise precisely where they are arriving.
Two proposals are especially silly and need to be knocked on the head by the Auckland Council: changing the names of the Mt Eden and Britomart stations to "Maungawhau" and "Waitemata" respectively, ideas that exemplify what is wrong with the overall design concept.
Mt Eden station has had that name since the Auckland-Kaipara line opened in 1875 and it is also the name of the suburb it's in. Mt Eden Rd actually crosses the tracks at the eastern end of the station, which is not directly connected to the scoria cone we associate with the name "Maungawhau". Why change a name that evokes so much of the city's heritage, and end up confusing travellers?
Britomart (the existing name of the downtown station undergoing a major upgrade) is also very suitable and it would be stupid and insensitive to cast it off for no good reason. It is the name of the headland (Point Britomart) where Auckland's first railway station was constructed, and Auckland's second downtown station (located where the present Britomart station stands) was opened in 1885 on reclaimed land using fill excavated from Point Britomart.
Above today's station is the thriving Britomart Quarter. one of the successes of recent urban design in Auckland. Why throw that name out for one that makes little sense geographically? "Waitemata" is the name of an entire harbour, and has no specific reference to the site of the station. Even the Orakei station is closer to the harbour than Britomart.
Another reason to support Britomart's retention is that. architecturally, the Britomart CRL station will be dominated by the reinvigorated Central Post Office building, a splendid imperial baroque example of European architectural heritage since 1912. If design zealots wish to entitle some downtown transport feature "Waitemata", it would be slightly more sensible to add that to the name of the Ferry Building.
The current CRL station design proposals, especially the name changes, are unacceptable because they represent the distortion of Auckland's heritage by a partial viewpoint that throws history out of balance. It is not representative of who we are, only of who some of us are.
It is not a multicultural blend of the city's stories, nor even bicultural because of its blindness towards and rejection of important cultural values. Indeed the plans appear to be not a merger of cultures but more akin to a hostile takeover.
Dr Brian McDonnell teaches media at Massey University Albany and lectures in Auckland's social and architectural history. He is of Irish and Maori (Tuhoe) heritage.
Published NZ Herald 23/3/18