IMG_2919

AucklandNovember 20, 2017

The fiasco in West Lynn: how did Auckland Transport get a shopping village makeover so wrong?

IMG_2919

The council has been remaking the West Lynn shopping village on Richmond Rd in Grey Lynn, putting in bike lanes, calming the traffic and, they say, enhancing the shopper experience. What, asks Simon Wilson, could possibly go wrong?

You can’t laugh. It seems pointless to cry. But Auckland Transport (AT) has just spent a couple of months in the little West Lynn shopping village, digging up Richmond Rd, realigning the footpaths, carparks and pedestrian crossings, moving the bus stops and removing some carparks, adding a dedicated cycle lane on both sides of the street, and the result is… deeply disappointing.

The new contours cause some of the shops to flood every time it rains, so now they have to be protected by sandbags. The new cycle lanes are unsatisfactory. The planting is absurdly poor. The siting of the new bus stops is highly controversial and it’s questionable how much the traffic has been calmed. And as a recent story in the Herald made clear, shopkeepers say their customers have gone and they fear for their future.

Some of the complaints might not be well founded. The loss of customers, for example, largely relates to the construction period. Jacob Faull, who owns the Nature Baby organic clothing store and has just been elected co-chair of the Grey Lynn Business Association, puts his loss of customers during that time at about 20%. A bit down the road at Harvest, the organic foodstore, manager Somboon Khansuk is quoted as saying they’d lost as many as 50% of their customers during the weekends.

But the construction is largely over now. It’s poor that AT didn’t do more to help them during the disruption, but there’s no obvious reason to think customers will stay away now the road barriers and cones have gone.

But even if the shopkeepers’ fears of commercial failure turn out to be wrong, it’s clear this has been a bad experience for the local community. It’s not how the council should do business.

New bus stop complete with shopkeeper’s protest sign. (All photos Simon Wilson)

Did AT consult? Yes they did. Did they want to improve the experience of shopping in the village? Yes they did. Does it matter? It really does. It matters to the people of West Lynn, but it also matters to the rest of Auckland. This little village makeover should be an exemplar, a chance for AT to show communities all over the city how good things can be. Instead, it’s more like a warning.

As a simple rule of thumb, when the council or any of its agencies, like AT, undertakes a project in the community, the outcome they should want is for that community to say, “This is ours. With council’s help, look at the neat things we’ve done with it.” That’s the goal.

In fact, this does happen, and more often than you might think – especially with projects for kids, environmental work, entertainment programmes, help for new parents, family events – all sorts of successful initiatives are staged through council-community engagement in the parks and pools and libraries and gardens and community centres of this city.

But it doesn’t happen often when it comes to transport.

In Grey Lynn, of which West Lynn is a part, it should be easy to get this right. It’s a green and pleasant suburb full of liberal residents. Richmond Rd is wide enough to accommodate all the different transport modes and the cycling count is higher than in most other parts of the city. The West Lynn village itself is full of the kind of shops you might think were extremely compatible with pedestrian-friendly shopping and safe cycling: along with Harvest and Nature Baby there are boutique clothes stores and a boutique bookshop; and cool cafes, bars and restaurants.

How do the complaints stack up?

Early one evening last week, during peak traffic time, I met up with Kathryn King, AT’s head of traffic safety, cycling and walking, to watch the village scheme in action. We were there for over an hour, sitting on a bench in the village. The traffic was busy but not thick: Richmond Rd is a main road in Grey Lynn but it’s not an arterial road. There were cyclists, including some kids, but not many.

King told me the project had started “after a request to improve safety”. Pedestrians were not well protected at the intersections with the side roads, while the pedestrian crossings on the main road needed improvement too. It was identified early on that safer cycling should also be a priority.

King assured me AT understands the value of local shopping villages and wants to make them better places for people to be in. As we talked, she repeatedly came back to these points. Creating a safer environment enhances the shopper experience. Those were the goals of the project: make West Lynn better for shoppers and improve safety on the road, especially for pedestrians and cyclists.

She was sympathetic to complaints the work had not achieved those goals. Some changes to what’s been done will happen.

And, she stressed, the project isn’t finished yet anyway: we haven’t yet seen all the improvements because the road was reopened as quickly as possible, to help the retailers get their customers back.

So, looking at the key project elements and the complaints about them, how bad is it?

The useless awful slope: unless it’s sandbagged, water floods the shops whenever it rains.

The weird new slope outside Frieda Margolis 

There is now a wide slope of asphalt outside the first small block of shops on the north side of the street: the left, as you go up Richmond Rd. Those shops include the Big Sur café and the bar Frieda Margolis. The slope performs no useful function. It’s ugly, it can’t take tables and chairs because it’s a slope, and it hasn’t been planted. If you’re in the café or bar, you look out and up at a row of cars parallel parked at the top of the slope.

But that’s the least of it. When it rains, the water runs down the slope, straight across the narrow channel they hoped would carry the water to a drain, and into the shops. Sandbags are now used to stop the flooding.

King said they know they got it wrong are going to remake this section of the project. AT has been consulting on what to replace it with; to the surprise of surely no one at all, the cafe and bar would like decent planting and flat ground they can put tables and chairs on.

But how did that even happen? King said there were “issues with the design drawings”, which I assumed was her way of saying that between the idea and the implementation something got really buggered up and she wasn’t going to tell me who was responsible.

What’s important now, she said, was that they would fix it, and in a way the community approved. “We don’t walk away when people aren’t happy.”

Good to know. But it’s hard to think how AT could have signalled its own incompetence any more clearly. That slope’s got it all: not a result of meaningful consultation, lack of sympathy for the needs of the retailers and their customers, inept design and construction, lack of aesthetic sensitivity.

Reduced carparking outside Harvest.

They cut the carparks and moved the bus stops!

Most carparks in the village were angle parks, which meant drivers had to back out into the flow of traffic. That creates risk and uncertainty for everyone: drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. There were two bus stops at each end of the village.

AT has removed many of the angle parks, added some parallel parks and replaced the four bus stops with two, both right in the village. In total, eight carparks have been lost.

Putting the bus stops in the village is meant to send a powerful signal: one of the advantages of catching a bus is that you can now use the shops more easily. This is especially relevant in West Lynn, where the new stops are outside the dairy on one side and the liquor store on the other.

Both those shops are convenience stores: they depend on quick-stop customers. They’re getting more of those customers from the buses, now, but they’re at risk of losing more from drivers. If car drivers don’t think they can park outside the shop, they’ll find other convenience stores where they can.

Whether you think the new stops are sited well or badly probably comes down to your view of the way the city is growing. Is it right to put bus stops right in the shopping villages, especially to put them close to convenience stores, or is it better to keep prioritising the ability of car drivers to nip into the shop on the way home? Over time, are so many of us really going to continue using our own private motor vehicles in that way?

What about the other retailers – do they need parks right outside their shops? In shopping villages options like clustered parks, parks around the back and so on are invaluable if you’re trying to create a pedestrian friendly shopping precinct.

When I met Nature Baby’s Jacob Faull last week he was worried his customers would not think they could park right outside his shop, and it’s clear that’s how others think too. The liquor store has a sign out saying it wants the bus stop moved away.

But it has another sign telling customers they can park just around the corner. Nature Baby and Siostra, in common with a fast-growing number of shops and restaurants in villages all over Auckland, have signs directing customers to parks around the back. We’ll get used to this, won’t we?

King said part of the plan is to introduce time limits for parking in the village. Not metered charges, just time limits. That shouldn’t impact on shoppers at all, but it will deter shop staff from using the parks, not to mention commuters from elsewhere who park and take the bus for the last part of their trip into town.

She said that when a place works well for pedestrians, and the foot count goes up, that’s good for the shops. She added that she knows many retailers disagree with this but removing some parks from the streetfront does not harm shopping and the evidence all over the world is clear. “Fewer parks right outside does not lead to fewer customers.”

She also said if they had moved the bus stops a little further up or down the street, they would have lost more than eight parks. They did try to minimise that particular disruption.

The floating island bus stop with cycle route running behind.

The bus stop sticks out into the street

It’s called a floating island. The bus stop is on a raised level, protruding into the street. The main value of this is that the cycleway runs behind the stop, so cyclists are not tempted to make the dangerous ride around a stationary bus.

Some people have complained that the floating island means that when a bus is at the stop, cars driving around it are forced across the centre line into incoming traffic.

That’s not actually true, said King. They could wait for the bus to start moving again. These days, with HOP cards, that’s invariably only a few moments.

This goes to the heart of that larger issue: should cars have the right to drive unimpeded through the shopping village, or is it reasonable to ask them to accept an occasional short wait, because the safety needs of other road users now have a higher priority?

Looking back at the same bus stop, with the pedestrian crossing right by it. If a bus is at the stop and a car tries to go around, it will cross the centre line and run straight onto the crossing.

And yet, even if you think the answer to that is clear, there’s another problem with this bus stop: it’s right by a pedestrian crossing. If you’re driving up the road, encounter a stationary bus and decide to go round it, you will find yourself coming back onto the right side of the road at the same time as you arrive at the crossing.

It’s all very well hoping drivers won’t do it, but it’s dangerous to assume they won’t.

Sitting there with Kathryn King last week it was interesting to watch how drivers negotiated the new road. No one was speeding, in the sense that they weren’t going faster than the legal limit. But most of them were up against it. They weren’t going as slowly as they might, given it’s a shopping village with a high risk of unexpected hazards like small children. They were going as fast as they could to get through.

That plays absolutely to AT’s desire to introduce traffic calming to the area. Drivers won’t do it on their own. AT has to make them do it. That’s why, to take just one example, the pedestrian crossings are raised and on each side there is a walkway protruding out to them from the footpath. Drivers are now more likely to slow to get over the bump, and more likely to see pedestrians waiting to cross.

The ugliness of a makeover: this village would be so easy to make so much nicer.

The road is covered in white paint

There are more road markings to come. King said because retailers were complaining about lost business during the roadworks, they put extra delivery crews on and got the bulk of the job done as quickly as they could. They took out the cones and barriers and reopened the road before the work was finished.

Upside: the shoppers are coming back.

Downside: although it’s not finished people assume it is and complain about things that will be improved or fixed anyway.

One example: parts of the road will have the sandy-coloured non-slip surface used by AT near pedestrian crossings and in other places where they want to signal drivers to take special care. Another example: the bike lanes will get their green paint (which can’t be done on new asphalt, which explains the delay on that).

The cars drive at each other

The two lanes on which the vehicular traffic runs (known as the carriageway) are now relatively narrow and have just a single white line separating the traffic going in each direction.

Dangerous? Actually no. King said it was deliberate. When they paint a “flush median” on the road (that section of striped lines, often heading to an intersection) drivers take it as a signal to speed up. Having just a single line of paint separating the oncoming lanes from each other sends a stronger signal to slow down.

But, I asked, why don’t they just reduce the speed limit to 30km/h?

King said that may well happen. New regulations now make it possible for local communities to request special speed limits: local boards, schools, the retailers in a village, community groups and others can all apply to AT for a special speed zone.

A proposal for the West Lynn village is expected, probably from the local board, and there’ll be community consultation before any decision.

Bike rider risking not being doored by a forgetful driver.

The cycle lanes are weird

Despite the supposed priority given to cycle safety in this project, the outcome is very unsatisfactory. The cycle lane on the south side and much of the north side run outside the line of parked cars, so cyclists risk being hit by forgetful drivers opening their car doors without looking.

It’s bad enough when this exists on ordinary roadways; in a shopping village, where drivers are constantly getting out of their cars, it’s very high risk. You’d be safer riding your bike on the main carriageway.

On the north side, during the main part of the village, where there is still a row of angle parking, the cycle lane dog legs around the front of the cars. It feels awkward, especially as on one section the road slopes down to the cycle lane: if you’re riding a bike, you’re almost below the cars.

This dog leg route, by the way, clearly incenses some drivers. Cars have been seen parked with their noses right in at the curb, blocking the cycle way. To do this, the drivers have to go up and over the road barriers marking the front of the carparks. It takes a bit of effort to be that disruptive.

It’s hard to see that the bike route component of the project will please many cyclists, drivers or retailers.

The dog leg in the bike route, around the front of angle-parked cars. Some cars just drive right up to the kerb.

Why is it so ugly?

The argument about the relative priority you give to cars, cyclists and pedestrians may never end. But there’s hardly any disagreement that the makeover of West Lynn is ugly. There are four reasons for it.

The first is that they’ve covered everything in asphalt. King says this is in line with AT policy that when they reseal roadways they “replace like with like”. It used to be asphalt, so it is again.

This is incredibly short-sighted. The makeover of a shopping village happens only every two or three decades: why would you not take the chance to upgrade? The concrete AT uses now to reseal footpaths is much softer on the eye than asphalt and would have added immeasurably to the appeal of the new village.

King says it’s a budget issue. The concrete is more expensive.

The second problem is that they really didn’t think about planting. Yes, there are a few non-asphalted bits with a few brave native grasses in them, but no trees, no shrubs even: nothing to suggest they were thinking they had a duty to plant for the future the way previous generations of planners did in Grey Lynn.

Tell me about the planting, I said to King.

“There is no planting,” she said with a sort of sad snort.

Third, there are lots of white lines all over the road. It will look a lot better when the tan surface goes in, but it sure is awful now.

The fourth reason the West Lynn makeover is so ugly is a thing that links all the other three: they just didn’t think about it. There’s no evidence a designer – a professional place-maker with any sense of aesthetics – has been near the place. This is a little hard to believe, given that AT has shown itself capable of creating aesthetically magnificent projects when it wants to: Te Ara I Whiti, the Lightpath or pink cycleway, and the Taurarua footbridge over Tamaki Drive to the Parnell Baths both spring to mind. But there’s a lot of very routine stuff too. Maybe design aesthetics are only important for the showcase work.

The thing is, West Lynn should be a showcase. Every project they do should be a showcase. Each successful local development leads to the next, because it builds trust, from one community to the next, that council knows what it’s doing.

This is the Len Brown theory of urban development: just make the rules good enough so we can start, the former mayor used to argue, and we’ll show the doubters how good we can be. We’ll make the people trust the council because they’ll see how worthwhile it is to do so.

Auckland Transport doesn’t appear to have got that memo.

How did this happen?

I asked Kathryn King what went wrong. She said the project was created two or three years ago, near the beginning of the period of local community street makeovers we’re seeing now. They did consult, she said, but she accepted the consultation did not produce a constructive outcome. They just didn’t know enough about how to do this kind of consultation.

King herself has been at AT for three years. She’s recently been given responsibility for road safety as well as cycling and walking, but she is not in charge of delivery. Projects like this might begin in King’s office but their construction is in completely different hands.

Consultation is better now, she said, and cited the example of Karangahape Rd, where a community reference group has been fully engaged in development proposals. That wasn’t done in West Lynn. “When we got to K Rd, we learned lessons from here.”

The council has other consultations underway, too, including, right now, over residential parking in Grey Lynn and Arch Hill.

I asked her what else she thought they would do differently if they were starting again now. She said, “We started with a budget not conducive to the outcome people would have expected.”

They did it on the cheap. And now they have to redo parts of it, because it was too cheap. And add planting, because that wasn’t in the budget either.

King also wanted to stress that the cycleway through West Lynn is part of the larger programme of cycleways though Grey Lynn and Westmere, which in turn is party of AT’s very large commitment to developing cycleways in the city. “We’re building a connected accessible network,” she said.

And that’s true. It’s very different from what happened in Wellington, where the council built a section of cycleway in Island Bay that didn’t connect to anything: it created a firestorm of complaint. AT’s strategy is to build out from the centre, and to build connecting networks around schools, so that whole bike journeys will be safer and more appealing.

The thing is, though, West Lynn should be a model for how well all this can work, and it isn’t. The cycleways won’t convert many sceptics and they may not reassure many supporters either. The village is uglier, not more pleasant to be in. The retailers feel alienated and aggrieved. It’s just not how you do it.

Three kids out for a bike ride. One of them, in green top, is negotiating the awkward dog leg to get around the front of the parked cars.

What should they have done?

How do you do it? It’s not really hard to answer that. You consult properly from the start. You create a really good, creative, life-affirming plan to improve the place, so everyone can see and imagine how good it will be. You listen carefully to local concerns and you address them – by changing the plan, adding specific features to set minds at rest, showing them you care. And then you execute with skill, monitoring progress closely so if things go wrong they can quickly be fixed. And while you’re in construction, you help those affected to overcome the disruption. And then you celebrate.

AT has other cycleway construction work going on right now in Grey Lynn and Westmere. Is it also a fiasco, as some are claiming, or have they learned how to do a better job? We’ll report on that very soon.

Keep going!
Illustration: Sloane Kim
Illustration: Sloane Kim

AucklandNovember 17, 2017

The Ponsonby Central mural saga and the exploitative nature of ‘art competitions’

Illustration: Sloane Kim
Illustration: Sloane Kim

It all started with a competition by Ponsonby Central asking for artists to submit their ideas on what to paint on its Brown Street wall. But when criticism over pay started to roll in, the Auckland restaurant complex deleted negative comments on its social media, escalating the whole affair into a full-blown standoff. Illustrator Sloane Kim takes us through the saga.

There’s been quite a bit of noise surrounding Ponsonby Central recently. Artists from all over Aotearoa have been coming together to speak out against their 2017 Summer Art Mural Competition. They’ve discussed the inherently exploitative nature of art competitions and expressed their discontent with New Zealand’s art industry and the systemic issues that have resulted in our hapori’s struggle to thrive. But what began as simple criticism and open invitation to resolve these issues alongside the community escalated when Ponsonby Central’s social media engaged in some questionable behaviour in response.

The Brown Street wall mentioned in the call for entries is pretty famous amongst artists. Ponsonby Central even brags about its history with big names like Gina Kiel, Charlotte Hawley, Kelsey Montague, Jimmy James Kouratoras and Flox in their initial announcement. But what they failed to mention is how those artists actually came to paint the wall.

Gina Kiel was commissioned by FCB, a media agency, and Audi NZ for the launch of their campaign to advertise their new Q2 model, and was paid fairly for her work. Flox and Jimmy James Kouratoras collaborated on a piece of their own volition during a campaign organised by Sam Ryan to launch their new NZ artist showcase Colours Collective.

And Kelsey Montague was invited, commissioned and properly paid for by the Ponsonby Business Association (better known as ‘I love Ponsonby’ on Facebook and Instagram) in early 2015 to help advertise the space through the hashtag campaign #getyourwings #ponsonbycentral. This is how art and projects like these are supposed to be done – either paid or volunteered for another cause; maybe for a charity or even for the sake of further expanding their own artistic experiences.

Charlotte Hawley, however, is the only name Ponsonby Central rightfully invokes in their initial post. While she now objects to it, she actually entered and “won” the Summer Art Mural Competition in 2015 during the early stages of her career. But back then, the prize was $1,000 cash and $500 worth of materials. It was also supposedly designed to target the “up and coming”: fresh graduates or young artists who were looking to break into the industry such as herself. But the original posts in Ponsonby Central’s archived website suggests that the criteria and targeted demographic has remained largely indiscriminate and nearly identical to the competition as it’s presented today.

Ponsonby Central promoting its summer art mural competition on its website.

Since 2015, they’ve dropped the cash prize to $500, before tax. Street artists have come forward to say that they would typically quote about $2,000-$4,000 minimum for a piece about that size, depending on a few variables like the purpose, complexity, materials, etc, so they were never really paying a reasonable rate to begin with.

In fact, let’s think about that for a moment. Let’s say you work a full 40 hours a week at minimum wage; you’d actually make $130 more than what Ponsonby Central is offering. That’s literally below minimum wage, and Ponsonby Central even expects you to put in, at least, a full five day week to complete the mural within the time frame they’ve provided (11-16 December).

On top of that, they invited anyone and everyone to apply and specified that the work submitted must be an original piece referencing Ponsonby and summer, opening up the competition to professionals and amateurs alike. This is all for a promotional piece to help advertise their space in the same way Kelsey Montague did. But she was paid a proper market rate that covered not just her work, but her flights and accommodation.

While all these technicalities were upsetting, it was Ponsonby Central’s reaction and behaviour that has antagonised New Zealand artists and forced us to act. Ross Liew is the co-founder of the Cut Collective. He also curates, produces and programmes all things related to public art for the Auckland City Council along with a few other groups around Aotearoa. He boasts 15 years’ experience as a public artist and represents the Advisory Panel for Art in Public Places as their chair.

So, when the competition was initially announced, he left a simple, cheeky five-word comment pointing out that maybe the prize wasn’t enough to compensate the work people would be putting in. A little verbal nudge in the ribs. I would quote him directly, but Ponsonby Central moved quickly to delete that comment along with my own. Any attempt to engage and explain the flaws of competitions like these to both Ponsonby Central and other commenters, no matter how friendly or polite, were met with the same response.

Once we realised what they were doing we began documenting our own comments to bring artists’ attention to the issue and to use as collateral in case things continued to escalate. They are available to read in a gallery linked at the bottom of this article.

Eventually, word about their behaviour got out to the art community through our own social media efforts and within three days there were about 40 comments from professionals and amateurs alike, including some of the past artists that were listed in the announcement, all criticising and/or condemning both the competition and their behaviour. Ponsonby Central was actively monitoring, deleting and curating these comments through all of this, covering up their efforts to censor artists by removing any mention of it, so it’s hard to say just how many comments there actually were. Regardless, people were making noise and Ponsonby Central made it very clear they were watching.

The activity surrounding the competition was still going strong at the end of those three days when Ponsonby Central made another post on their social media accounts. They thanked everyone who had already entered and encouraged more people to do so with no direct mention or acknowledgement of the feedback they were getting from the New Zealand art community. Instead, they adjusted the criteria for the competition by allowing any subject matter and invited pieces “that you’ve done previously that you’d like to see BIG!” which, admittedly, was an improvement. But it still didn’t address the issues raised by the people in the comments.

Comments on Ponsonby Central’s Instagram post about the competition, many of which have now been deleted.

In the initial post, the community was upset but understanding. We interpreted the competition as the result of ignorance and misunderstanding and wanted to help. People were being constructive with offers to kōrero, negotiate prices, and even help source local artists. Everyone wanted a positive resolution and Ponsonby Central’s active curation efforts let us know that they were seeing everything. So for them to move forward without a single word about this conversation we were so eager to have, it could only really be interpreted as antagonism, and people responded accordingly.

At this point, artists were frustrated and demanded to be heard. But even as people tried to make contact or get a response, Ponsonby Central began blocking accounts from their Instagram – specifically, the ones bringing the most attention to them. All of which made their intentions very clear: they had no interest in actually engaging with artists.

Over 60 comments and four days later, Ponsonby Central posted the competition again. They started off by telling the story of how the Brown Street Art Project got started. It was an attempt to appear in touch with the art community but ultimately irrelevant. Whatever good they may have done in the past had nothing to do with their immediate actions nor did they have the courtesy to mention who those founding artists were. They then went on to finally address, not the issues, but the activity surrounding their social media over the past week:

“This time around there has been a lot of discussion around our project and we feel the conversation about the value of art in our community is always healthy, we have also talked to some senior artists and curators (who we have approached and who have approached us) in the field who suggested that this is not a project for more established artists or designers but more a great space for anyone of any age or experience to have some fun on a larger scale. 

We welcome the conversation that is happening on our social media and we have endeavoured to keep as much of it as possible. All we ask is that it is kept civil and not rude, abusive or bullying to anyone that is applying or wanting to ask about our project or to members of our staff.”

There’s a lot to unpack here. Before a conversation had even started, Ross Liew’s five-word comment had been deleted and any polite and softly worded criticism was met with censorship, which was what led to the escalation in the first place. We were patient and invited them to an open discussion with the community but they chose to meet with anonymous artists behind closed doors to discuss issues that affected everyone. But more importantly, they never actually addressed any of the issues raised by the artists in the comments.

The conversation that started all of this was the inherently exploitative nature of “art competitions.” Professionals in the industry call this spec work: the practice of asking people to work for free for the chance of maybe getting paid. Although it’s a simple concept, artists often find themselves having to use examples through other professions like: “would you ask 10 different dentists for 10 different fillings and only pay for the one you liked best and then offer them the opportunity to do your root canal for no extra pay?”

Indie arts festival Chromacon was blocked by Ponsoby Central on Instagram after a series of critical comments.

The reason we find ourselves resorting to absurd analogies like these is reflected in the sentiment surrounding one of the most common phrases all artists are familiar with: “I wish I could draw.” While flattering, it stems from the idea that being an artist isn’t or shouldn’t actually be a job, because it’s misconstrued as an innate ability we’re born with, no different to breathing. But the fact of the matter is that anyone could draw if they actually wanted to. Making art is just like any other skill or job: you invest your time and energy to learn, practice and improve. And just like any other job, we expect to be reimbursed for our specialised skillsets.

But the argument businesses and organisations normally use to justify morally bankrupt pay rates is that their competition or business practice is for younger or more inexperienced artists and that professionals should pay them no mind. Ponsonby Central uses this same argument in their third announcement under noble intentions, presenting it as a community project. But the bottom line is that it’s harmful to our industry not only because it enforces the idea that artists should be grateful for getting work in the first place, but also because it brings into question just how much anyone’s work is really worth regardless of experience.

The moment someone decides an artist’s work is worth paying for, they stop being an amateur and their work is automatically worth standard industry/market rates. This is because the decision to exchange currency for their goods and services implies that they’ve already gained the necessary experience to do the work stated in whatever contract that they’re presented with, and to offer them any less than other professionals in the industry sets the bar for how much we’re worth as a whole.

But one young artist chimed in on the debate in the third post, pointing out that we all have to start somewhere and pay our dues, and while this is true, we don’t have to start by being exploited and getting paid less than minimum wage. Professionals are all too familiar with jobs that promise “exposure” and constantly warn against them. On the rare occasion when a past client actually passes on your name, it’s always with the reputation that you work for cheap. As a result, people often end up getting stuck working full-time jobs by day and drawing things they have don’t even want to be drawing by night, wondering why their career is off to such a poor start.

In reality, the best way to break into the industry is to get involved with the community. Attend art festivals like Boon Fest or Chromacon, and get in touch with the artists you admire. Show them your work and ask for advice because any real artist worth knowing is going to be happy to foster our community by helping you grow and fight to ensure that younger generations don’t have to suffer exploitative work. Your future as an artist lies with artists, not the people who undervalue your work.

Aotearoa and The State of The Arts (Illustration: Sloane Kim)

It should also be noted that Ponsonby Central uses their history of “supporting” artists and our communities by talking about their involvement with Artweek Auckland and listing the people they’ve hosted in their complex. But by that definition, New World has been supporting artists by allowing us to buy groceries. The artists that have set up shop with them in the past have all paid full price to rent those spaces and the New Zealand Contemporary Art Trust typically approaches businesses and organisations to negotiate and pay for vacant spaces throughout Aotearoa on behalf of participating artists.

No one is angry that they’re doing business with artists, but true support comes in the form of those who have contributed to festivals and organisations that foster growth and development. To dress up regular transactions as “support” is condescending, as if to say they’re doing us a favour by allowing us to exist like any other industry.

We’re not trying to run a smear campaign against Ponsonby Central. In fact, we’d still like to find a positive resolution to all of this. The reason we’re fighting this is because it’s an example of a global issue where our jobs are constantly trivialised and given away like they’re worth nothing, while businesses and organisations deny the promotional value of our hard work in their market.

Crafters Union ran a competition back in July for a wine label with a prize of $3,000 which is about how much any artist commissioned for that same job would charge. This one is particularly upsetting because they had people like Rachel Doughty, the director of One Design, an incredible design studio, on their judging panel.

We live in a strange cultural climate here in Aotearoa. Our community is so small and tight-knit that our actions have huge consequences, which is why we have to look out for each other. This includes how the hapori whānui and artists of Aotearoa interact. The way that our art and artists are perceived and valued by our people plays such a huge role in determining our lives and industry. Our jobs are scarce and competitive. We aren’t unionised and our laws don’t protect us from unethical business practices. So all we can really do is educate and hope that bigger, more powerful entities such as Ponsonby Central will listen and lead by example.

For the sake of full transparency, I’m releasing all the screenshots of our social media efforts and comments that have now been removed. We’ve been accused of harassment and abuse, and as someone who’s been emotionally and physically abused in the past, this is an allegation I am, personally, taking very seriously. We weren’t aware of any physical or emotional violence enacted on our behalf and we certainly don’t condone it.

For more information about artist’s rights and the events surrounding Ponsonby Central, you can go to Chromacon’s Facebook page to read Allan Xia’s open letter and some more details that have since been removed from Ponsonby Central’s Instagram.

Editor’s note: an earlier version of this article referred to a poster competition organised by the Wondergarden music festival and incorrectly stated that the competition winner’s artwork or design would become the festival’s promotional poster. This was not the case as the festival currently already have an official festival poster designed by their paid, in-house designer. It also incorrectly stated the value of the prize on offer. The total dollar value of the prize was $800, not $200 as the article stated, and with the prize came an additional VIP experience at the event itself. We apologise for the error.