spinofflive
Teau Aiturau (L) and Ropata Welwyn (R) and a couple of the Mangere BikeFit kids who biked all the way from Mangere to town for the K Road Open Streets day in May 2016. Photo: Bike Auckland
Teau Aiturau (L) and Ropata Welwyn (R) and a couple of the Mangere BikeFit kids who biked all the way from Mangere to town for the K Road Open Streets day in May 2016. Photo: Bike Auckland

AucklandNovember 23, 2016

On cycle lanes, ethnicity and class: Why nothing screams missing the point quite like slamming safer cycling

Teau Aiturau (L) and Ropata Welwyn (R) and a couple of the Mangere BikeFit kids who biked all the way from Mangere to town for the K Road Open Streets day in May 2016. Photo: Bike Auckland
Teau Aiturau (L) and Ropata Welwyn (R) and a couple of the Mangere BikeFit kids who biked all the way from Mangere to town for the K Road Open Streets day in May 2016. Photo: Bike Auckland

Leftwing blogger Martyn Bradbury claims that ‘nothing screams white middle class privilege quite like cycle lanes’. Tell that to the increasing number of Aucklanders from all walks of life who are getting on a bike, says Kurt Taogaga.

For a long time, cycling was something that just didn’t occur to me. It was too dangerous in this car-saturated city, for starters. But more than that, it just wasn’t something that someone like me did. Growing up a league playing, Samoan-Māori slacker in a modest household, I didn’t know a single person my age who cycled beyond early adolescence. By the time my friends and I had our driver’s licences, our bikes were leaned up in the garage and forgotten about. From then on, cycling was associated with the infamous MAMIL – “middle-aged man in lycra” – someone that people like me just didn’t want to be, to be perfectly honest.

Teau Aiturau (centre) and some members of Mangere BikeFit, who biked all the way from Mangere to town for the K Road Open Streets day in May this year. Photo: Bike Auckland
Mangere biking advocate Teau Aiturau (centre), flanked by members of Mangere Bike Fit, who biked all the way from Mangere to town for the K Road Open Streets day in May this year. Photo: Bike Auckland

Yet, as I grew older, cycling started to make more and more sense. One day, on my way to work, I watched a guy who looked just like me struggle his way up the hill to Kingsland. It’s a fairly tough gradient: long and steep, but very doable in the right gear. He was mixing it with the impatient morning traffic; there were no buffers to protect him, not even a coat of paint to signal to motorists that he might even be there. Right then, I decided – this was normal.

On K Rd, unlike New North Road, cycling is fairly routine. Now protected cycle lanes are in the plans, providing a safeguard for people on bikes through one of Auckland’s most important thoroughfares. In my circles, the support seems overwhelming, though I understand there is trepidation around on-street parking and concern that these cycle lanes symbolise the nail in the coffin for the ‘old’ K Rd, once home to the city’s marginalised. And the depictions of their users in the project documents seem to prove just that: the images suggest the lanes are a privileged, white, middle-class endeavour, a classic sign of gentrification.

At the launch of Mangere Bike Fit, October2015. Photo: Mangere Bike Fit/ Triple Teez (via Facebook)..
At the official celebration of the first stage of the Te Ara Mua/ Future Streets Project in Mangere, September 2016.. Photo: Mangere Bike Fit/ Triple Teez (via Facebook)..

But of course, claiming the artist’s renditions as precisely representative of the people who will actually use the cycle lanes is simplistic in the extreme. All types of people will use the cycle lanes, just as all types of people drive vehicles and use public transport. Cycling is increasing in popularity throughout Auckland, so inevitably, the face of cycling is becoming much more diverse. The people I encounter cycling every day, often through K Rd, are an eclectic bunch: blokes that look as hard worn as the bikes they ride, millennials aping their contemporaries in Copenhagen and office workers commuting to the CBD – sometimes forgoing lycra for their business attire.

For better or worse, there’s nothing sacred about the identities of our neighbourhoods. They are in constant flux. Before K Rd was the grungy preserve of alternatives and a safe space for the LGBTQ community, it was Auckland’s premier shopping district. This is just the latest iteration in the story of a cherished part of our city.

screen-shot-2016-11-21-at-5-17-26-pm

This newest version will include cycle infrastructure and it will benefit many more than just the “privileged, white middle class”. Inequality and the obesity epidemic are some of the key issues facing our country today. Who suffers the most from the necessity of owning a private vehicle? The licensing costs, the insurance, the high and volatile cost of petrol are burdens are borne most heavily by those who can least afford it. Similarly, obesity has hit certain sectors of society harder than others. In this country, they tend to be poor and they tend to be brown.

Beyond Auckland’s upmarket inner city, we need only look at the Te Ara Mua project in Mangere to see streetscapes designed to be beneficial for pedestrians and cyclists alike. Here cycling will have a far broader impact than simply embodying the bourgeois transport mode du jour that people like Martyn Bradbury think it is. Public transport has a role to play, sure, but there are few other modes of transport that can tackle the twin problem of obesity and the increasing cost of transport more effectively than cycling. Cycling, and the infrastructure necessary to make it a safe and enjoyable activity, offers that choice to both rich and poor, with outsized benefits for those lower on the socioeconomic ladder. In the past we have gravely underestimated the effect that the design of our cities have on our wellbeing. No longer.

screen-shot-2016-11-23-at-11-41-38-am

An essential step in the realisation of a better, healthier Auckland is protecting those who currently cycle and enticing the many sitting on the fence to try it out. Cycle lanes do not scream out the privilege of the white middle classes; they scream out that our city is attempting to re-balance a transport equation that has remained out of kilter for far too long. Instead of criticising them, we should be pushing for infrastructure proven to get a wide range of people out on bikes to be rolled out to the more underserved parts of our city. That guy struggling up the hill in Morningside normalised cycling for me, by stripping away all the class or ethnic hang ups I’d long associated with the act of getting on a bike. There are thousands of other would-be cyclists out there, just waiting for a push to give it a go. Let’s do everything we can to help them, no matter where in Auckland they might live.

Bike Auckland has a number of stories about the successful ongoing efforts to encourage cycling in Mangere, particularly amongst kids.

Keep going!
Photo: Getty Images
Photo: Getty Images

AucklandNovember 17, 2016

Calm down, NZ Herald. The new Auckland slogan search was fine

Photo: Getty Images
Photo: Getty Images

Why is everyone hating on the Council’s latest attempt to sell Auckland to the world? Actually, is it everyone, asks Simon Wilson – or just the Herald and the other usual cynics?

No subject is more guaranteed to provoke ridicule than a city slogan. No ridicule is more likely to be attended by outrage than a slogan that cost too much. And no council is more likely to cause public offence for waste and stupidity than Auckland Council. Why is that?

The Herald reported last weekend, in that tone of weary scorn it adopts whenever the council spends any money on anything, that the council has wasted $500,000 on a new slogan for the city. The slogan is: “Auckland: The place desired by many”.

Quite why the Herald, and its Super City reporter Bernard Orsman in particular, seems to feel it necessary to sneer at everything the council does is a mystery. There’s lots the council does that’s wrong, but if the paper was able to discern a difference between valuable and truly wasteful spending it would be far more effective in helping to shut down the latter.

Photo: Getty Images
Photo: Getty Images

So, what really happened? First, it’s the job of ATEED (Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development), the council’s promotion arm, to sell the city to the world. Auckland wants businesses to set up here and investors to help them. It wants migrants ready to help grow the economy and events that attract visitors who will spend money. It wants tourists.

None of that will happen as much as we need it to unless the city promotes itself abroad. So the city needs a marketing strategy. That’s what the half a mill has been spent on: developing a campaign to attract people and money into the city. Is kneejerk complaint really the right response to that?

This is no rogue CCO operating independently, either. The governing body of council charged ATEED with the task and reaffirmed that instruction as recently as July this year. ATEED has kept the governing body and its relevant committees informed of progress and councillors have supported that progress.

ATEED’s campaign used to be called “Global Auckland” but that became “The Auckland Story”. Personally, I find it a bit loathsome that advertising people have become so obsessed with “telling our story”. Such stories are designed to make us feel sentimentally attached to a product while distracting us from whatever undesirable qualities it may have. Stories used to have a higher purpose than that.

It’s not the only way to sell a city, or anything else. “Absolutely Positively Wellington” didn’t have a story. But these days stories work, clearly, because they keep producing them. We all now live with the stories of coffee, telcos, jeans, even charities.

Because of that, ATEED would be stupid not to create an Auckland Story.

So how did it spend $500,000? Not on a slogan, but on the whole project. It was a two-year spend. They surveyed 55,000 people. Did a lot of research with public and private sector groups with an interest in the city. You know, the “stakeholders”. My suspicion? Maybe too many focus groups, but I’ll cheerily admit I have an aversion to them. They ran a successful social media campaign with the slogan LoveAKL. And they developed the story – that is, employed people who know how to write a narrative and create the audio/visual communication tools to present it.

Was the cost too high? I don’t know. The Herald doesn’t, either. It made no attempt to benchmark the spend against any other similar campaign. But, for the record, when the current New Zealand government went through a similar exercise to create the “New Zealand story” it spent $2 million.

Was Global Auckland a good project? We don’t know that either, because we don’t yet know enough about what’s in it.

Should the council engage in projects like this? From time to time, of course it should.

There was more. The Herald complained 115 people had worked on the project, which was simply untrue. There were, says ATEED, three people, and a bunch more staff turned up to a “one-hour brainstorming session”. Anyone with even a glimmer of understanding of modern business will know that was a good idea. When you invite staff to contribute creatively to projects, rather than assuming the bosses and the specialists have all the good ideas, it’s productive for the project and for the organisation.

Since the Herald story broke it’s been disheartening to watch the response of some of those close to the project. Michael Barnett, head of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce and a member of the Global Auckland advisory committee, said, “We don’t need a bumper sticker strategy”. Instead, he suggested, we should create “a compelling Auckland story”. Dear god. Was he asleep at the meetings or did he just not turn up?

The Ngāti Whātua Trust Board complained “a lot of time and money could have been saved by simply engaging with iwi and the community”. Perhaps Ngarimu Blair, representing Ngāti Whātua on the advisory board, was also asleep, or absent, or both, because that’s exactly what ATEED did.

As for Cr Rent-a-Quack, Dick Quax, he called the whole exercise “an outrageous raping of the ratepayer”. Listen, Dick. You can’t talk about rape like that. And you were on the council when it voted for the project. And you believe in business development, don’t you?

New mayor Phil Goff has distanced himself from the project, which he had no part in creating. His response is understandable but also disappointing, and he must feel like he got whacked on the back of the head when he wasn’t looking. Understandable because this is not a fight he needs to pick so early in his tenure. Disappointing because overseeing the way Auckland sells itself to the world is an important part of his job, and he can’t hide from that.

Whacked on the back of the head because it was his introduction, if he needed it, to the reality of being a mayor or council in this town. Which is this. Whenever you try to do something there will be a whole bunch of people, some of whom you thought had helped you do it, who will stand on the sidelines and just keep shouting “Bullshit!” The Herald will be conducting them.

As for the slogan itself, sadly, it’s not great. But there’s no such thing as a new city slogan that everyone will like. It does have the advantage that it invites the curious to find out why the city is popular. That’s good.

But it isn’t snappy so it won’t be memorable. And it isn’t distinctive: all good cities are desired by many. What distinctiveness it does have is buried in its origins, as the supposed translation of Tāmaki Makaurau, the Māori name for Auckland. That is disingenuous.

“Desired by many” is a new meaning for makaurau. Makau is a word for lovers, or sometimes favourites, and rau means a hundred, or more loosely, an awful lot.  ATEED’s own website gives the translation as “Tāmaki desired by many lovers”, and Te Ara, the official New Zealand encyclopedia, refers both to “numerous lovers” and “a thousand lovers”.

The city of a thousand lovers is a brilliant slogan, which in its innocent form totally conjures a city the whole world would want to live in. Alas, we are not innocents. A city defined by everyone cruising for sex? Not so good. Besides, “city of lovers” doesn’t quite have the breadth of purpose the council needs. Not to mention, there’s the small matter of our being the city whose former mayor gave lovers everywhere a very bad name.

So, basing the slogan on a Māori proverb? Good. Sanitising the proverb in translation? That’s a flawed way to build a reputation, especially as the new version is far less evocative than the real one. #Desiredbynotmanyifany

The tricky thing about developing a slogan is that you could put 100 overpaid advertising geniuses in a room for a week and they still might fail to come up with a single good idea. But a clever person might think of the perfect line in the shower tomorrow morning. Creativity, damn it, is fickle.

The fact is, though, the campaign isn’t dependent on the slogan. Auckland needs to sell itself, ATEED is the right body to lead that process, and telling a good story is a good way to do it. Back to the shower cubicle for the slogan, please, and for Christ’s sake don’t get a focus group in there with you.

But as for the project itself, let’s be having it. Because Auckland, we know we need to compete and we’re down here at the bottom of the Pacific but we’re not really, are we? Because aren’t we going to become the leading edge?