1.       Executive Summary

This report forms part of the Give us Space one year project funded through the National Science Challenge contestable fund under the Better Homes and Cities Programme of MBIE. The overall project started in early 2018 and involved three case study areas; Sylvia Park in Auckland, Naenae in Wellington and this third case study area of inner city Auckland.

The Sustainable Development Goals and SDG11 recognise the importance of public spaces for cities. Research has shown that public space plays an important role in fulfilling social and cultural needs by providing places for dialogue and intercultural exchange (UNESCO, 2017). A 2005 study by CABE in the UK found that the majority of people – 91 per cent – believe that outdoor spaces improve people’s quality of life. In New Zealand, indicators of wellbeing are set out in the Living Standards Framework first released in 2011 (Gleisner, Llewellyn-Fowler, & McAlister, 2011) and reviewed in 2018 (Treasury, 2018). Informed by the OECD (2017) How’s Life wellbeing work, public space and semi-public space has an impact on 4 of the 12 domains: health, social connections as well as cultural identity and safety and security.

Working with community development worker, Mik Smellie the action research project set out to document spaces identified as important for the well-being of inner city Auckland residents. The research built on course work carried out by students at the University of Auckland 2016-2018. A web-based map featuring over 30 spaces and social infrastructure has been created to make public the information. This is available on the following link: bit.ly/AKLCityCentreMap and has been publicised through events including the Inner City Network and Myers Park Medley 2019 (https://1drv.ms/v/s!AgJZrEIOptcd9mF034rJpNhVE3Ig) as well as social media. INSTAGRAM was used as a pilot to increase awareness of the map. In addition a simple observation tool was designed and piloted for use by residents.

This research has led to the production of a valuable set of resources for inner city residents and Auckland Council and has resulted in a proof of concept for an online application. It has strengthened the relationships between inner city representatives and researchers. During the life of the project there have been more than 3000 views of the map. The jury is out as to whether and how INSTAGRAM could be an effective means of raising awareness. Nonetheless, there is anecdotal evidence that residents have been empowered in their engagement with the issues facing Auckland.

Subject to availability of resources, future work will involve developing the map based material into an app to allow for more functionality and interactivity between users. It will also involve the creation of additional layers of information. Future profiles of spaces need to include accessibility ratings from expert access consultants. They could also include women friendly and child friendly ratings. Further research could usefully trace the link between resident’s wellbeing and spaces.

2.       Acknowledgements


  • NSC11 Contestable Fund

Partners and co-creators:

  • Mik Smellie community development worker
  • Brodie Johnston, Department of Internal Affairs, Community Unit
  • Auckland Council Urban Design Team
  • Waitematā Local Board

Maori expertise:

Dr. Becky Kiddle, Victoria University Wellington


  • Ashley Adams
  • Joel Cayford
  • Meredith Dale
  • Mark Guieb
  • Miriam Moore
  • Alex Tai

Research advice and support:

  • Melanie Milicich

Postgraduate students from the class of 2016, 2017 and 2018.

Undergraduate planning students from the class of 2018.

Social media advice:

  • Many Zhu

3. List of Figures and Tables


List of Figures



Description Page number
1 Programme of work 6
2 Auckland’s location within New Zealand 8
3 Inner City Auckland 9
4 Inner city Auckland – Areas of multiple deprivation 9
5 How Auckland is expected to accommodate growth in existing, greenfield and rural and coastal towns 13
6 Rating of a sense of community in Auckland 13
7 Distribution of spaces in inner city Auckland 15
8 2016-2018 Project spaces 16
9 Screen Shot of the Google Map 17
10 Screenshots from INSTAGRAM posts 18
11 Myers Park Medley 21

List of Tables

Table number Description Page number
1 Street connectivity index Auckland compared with other cities in Europe, North America and Oceania 14
2 Auckland Coucil Open Space Typologies and Associated Provision Metrics 42

4. Introduction

Give us space was a one year project funded through the National Science Challenge contestable fund under the Better Homes and Cities Programme of MBIE. It started during the first quarter of 2018 and reported in  June 2019.

The original goal of the overall project was to co-create and pilot a digital toolset to provide access to quasi real time information on the use and perception of semi-public spaces in three case study communities in Auckland and Wellington.

The following section describes the Auckland inner city case study and its component parts:

  • Establishing the goals through dialogue
  • Development of the Survey Monkey based observation tool
  • Development of Google Map information source
  • Activation of Google Map using INSTAGRAM


Below is a summary of the work programme.

Figure 1: Programme of work

Activities Semester 1 2018 Semester 2 2018



Project set up


Review of student assignments


Commissioning of specific literature searches and reviews: deprivation and gender


Resource Consent archival work for 3 spaces to establish planning history


704 course work


204 course work


Development of Google Map


Development of Observation tool


Activation of map using INSTAGRAM


Compiling case study



 International Context

The need for open space in our increasingly urbanised world has been recognised in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) agreed by the UN in 2015 and reflected in the New Urban Agenda which provides a framework for action for SDG11 on cities (UN, 2016). This was endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly at its sixty-eighth plenary meeting of the seventy-first session on 23 December 2016 and adopted at the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III) in Quito, Ecuador, on 20 October 2016.

Para 100 of the NUA states:

‘We will support the provision of well-designed networks of safe, accessible, green and quality streets and other public spaces that are accessible to all and free from crime and violence, including sexual harassment and gender- based violence,  considering the human scale, and measures that allow for the best possible  commercial use of street – level floors, fostering both formal and informal local  markets and commerce, as well as not – for- profit community initiatives, bringing people into public spaces and promoting walkability and cycling with the goal of  improving health and well-being.’

The New Urban Agenda recognises those spaces which complement formally designated public spaces. Semi-public spaces can be spaces on private property and which the public is allowed to use, although the signage and design may not always make this immediately obvious.

UNESCO (2017) offers a definition that encompasses a variety of types and purposes of public space:

“A public space refers to an area or place that is open and accessible to all peoples, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, age or socio-economic level. These are public gathering spaces such as plazas, squares and parks. Connecting spaces, such as sidewalks and streets, are also public spaces. In the 21st century, some even consider the virtual spaces available through the internet as a new type of public space that develops interaction and social mixing.”

Research shows that public spaces represent an important part of the social infrastructure of a city. Lost opportunities for interaction and socialising lead to a decline in social capital (Semenza & March, 2009) – the social networks and relationships that make up a community. The Project for Public Spaces advocates that the quality of life for people in cities is directly related to the state of its public spaces which foster social cohesion. Public space is where city dwellers can gather and connect, providing a place to “see and be seen” (Whyte, 1988).

The idea of building strong communities in Aotearoa New Zealand is not new. A cabinet paper in 2000 (CAB 00 M42/4b refers) sets out some broad goals for government departments. The link with well-being was recognised in the 2002 discussion paper prepared for the DIA (Loomis, 2002) discussing the importance of community and well-being. A number of enablers were identified including:

  • Community identity, pride, participation and self-determination
  • Skilled leaders and capable organisations
  • Access by communities and community groups to resources, including funding,

skills, services and technology

  • Access by communities and community groups to information about innovative

approaches developed within their own and other communities

  • The capacity to build partnerships and develop bridging linkages both within

their own community, and with other communities

  • Access by all parties to advice, information and research
  • An appropriate regulatory environment and a sustainable approach to


  • Necessary local administrative infrastructure.

Loomis (2002, p. 23).

5. Methodology

Auckland is New Zealand’s largest city, and located in the North Island, (see Fig 1).

Figure 2: Auckland’s location within New Zealand

Inner city Auckland is generally taken to be the area inside the arterial motorways and bordered by the harbour edge.

Fig 3 Inner City Auckland

Source: Auckland City Centre Resident’s Group.

Co-creation of goals

Although the area includes the University of Auckland, this would not have been a sufficient reason for selecting the area as a case study. Parts of the inner city have deprivation scores comparable to South Auckland.

Fig 4:  Inner city Auckland – Areas of multiple deprivation

Source: http://www.imd.ac.nz/NZIMD_Single_animation_w_logos/atlas.html

The Waitematā Local Board and Plunkett published their own research reports on issues facing residents. In addition, the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) Community Unit supported the first inner city network to provide a forum to discuss ways forward. It was clear that the area needed attention from a social planning perspective, given the population trends and diversity, high rise living and increasing numbers of parents with children.

The Give us Space project created a unique opportunity to provide a focus for student work during 2018 and drawing on work which had started in 2016 and 2017.

The project goals for the Auckland inner-city area were co-created by lead researcher Dory Reeves and community development worker and researcher Mik Smellie. (Mik worked with SPLICE until January 2019 and since then freelances as a community developer.)

At the start of each of the academic years 2016-2018, Dory Reeves and Mik Smellie sat down to map out the mutually beneficial and achievable goals that could be achieved during the coming year. Initially these conversations included Brodie Johnston from the Department of Internal Affairs Community Unit. Course assignments were developed to meet the learning outcomes of the courses and the needs identified.

Meetings took place with Auckland Council to understand the policy context and work already in progress. Specific links were developed with the Urban Design Team including George Weeks and Olivia Haddon.

Through discussions we established:

  • What spaces are important for community well-being?
  • What makes a space work well?
  • Which spaces could be better used if people knew about them?

Course assignments were developed to meet the learning outcomes of the courses and the needs identified for the inner city.

Mik Smellie summarised the issues facing inner city residents as follows:

  • “Auckland wasn’t planned with the intention of people living in the city centre”
  • “There isn’t a lot of open space in the inner city because historically the city centre was not intended to be a place of living”
  • “Living in apartments means the street becomes your living room”
  • “If you are going to be squashed inside, you need outside space to compensate”
  • “People living in apartments often become isolated”
  • “There are a lack of indoor spaces that can be used”
  • “Families can be constrained to the apartment if there aren’t public spaces available”
  • “Using public space in the inner city Auckland has a lot more restrictions than in the suburbs”
  • “Accessibility is an issue – good places to meet but inaccessible to some people”
  • “Throughways become really important when you live in the city – they link places without using roads”

Mataurangi Maori

Throughout the project, cultural landscape has been a focus. Each literature review sought out information on the cultural landscape. The Observation tool contains 2 questions on cultural landscape. During 2018 Olivia Haddon, as part of her Auckland Council Urban Design Team work programme has been documenting aspects of the cultural landscape in Auckland with local iwi.

The components which complement and feed into the Give us Space project include the literature searches and reviews and the development of the observation tool. Over the 3 year period, searches and reviews addressed the questions:

  • What is public space and semi-public space and why is it important?
  • What evidence is there for the claims being made about public space and semi-public space?
  • What are the issues and needs of young people and seniors and what inter-generational tensions and opportunities exist?
  • The lessons to be learnt?
  • Examples of international better practice?
  • What are the pitfalls in applying global design guides?


Profile of Inner city Auckland

As of 2018, the city has an estimated population of 1.6 million, rising from 1.3 million in 2006 (Statistics New Zealand). A large part of this growth has occurred in Auckland’s inner city. Inner city Auckland is generally taken to be the area inside the arterial motorways and bordered by the harbour edge.

The city centre area, is a subset of the Waitematā Local Board (WLB). It consists of three census areas – Auckland Harbourside, Auckland Central East & Auckland Central West – that form a unique population when compared to the rest of Auckland.

The following demographic data is drawn from the 2013 census and relates to the city centre and wider Waitematā Local Board Area area (RIMU, 2014):

  • 66.6% of residents in WLB were employed, which is above the Auckland average of 61.5%.
  • Median personal ($34,700) and household ($80,000) income for adults in WLB were greater than the Auckland median incomes ($29,600 and $76,500).
  • For education, 94.3% of adults in the WLB area have a formal qualification. Of those, 28.7% had a bachelor’s degree or an equivalent Level 7 qualification. In Auckland only 17% of adults had a bachelor’s degree or Level 7 qualification.
  • Home ownership in Auckland (including properties held in trust) is 61.5% on average. WLB home ownership is 39.1% (16% who owned it in a family trust) and 19.4% in the city centre area.
  • Home ownership in the WLB area declined from 44.2% to 39.1% in line with long-term trends, since the 2006 census.
  • Households in WLB are predominantly one-family households (51.5%), compared to 69.8% of households across Auckland. (This includes single-parent families.)
  • The second most prevalent household type, one-person households, was 30.7% for Waitematā, and 36.0% for the city centre.
  • Other multi-person households, such as flats, were more prevalent in Waitematā (16.5%) and in the city centre (22.9%) compared to Auckland (5.2%).


The number of residents increased from 19,000 residents in 2006 to around 53,000 in 2018 (Auckland City Centre Residents’ Group, 2018). This inner-city Auckland population stands out as younger and ethnically unique in relation to the rest of the city with 70% of residents aged between 15-35 and more than half of residents being of Asian ethnicity (Auckland City Centre Residents’ Group, 2018).

The target set in the Auckland Plan 2050 is to increase the resident population in the city centre from 23,000 in 2006 to 57,000 in 2040. Alongside this the aim is to increase the proportion of residents who feel a sense of community in their local neighbourhood from 61 per cent in 2010 to 90 per cent by 2040.

The Auckland city centre is a dense and rapidly growing urban neighbourhood: rising from 18,000 residents in 2006 to more than 26,300 in 2013 (Social and Economic Research Team, (RIMU), 2014). A large proportion of this community live in apartments; a relatively new housing situation for New Zealanders (Carroll, Witten, & Kearns, 2011).

Pressures for growth and implication for space

On top of the ongoing development of commercial buildings, the continuing and growing demand for housing in Auckland’s inner city has created pressure on space. With limited land available, intensification is identified as the most common solution where an estimated 7000 new residential apartment units and townhouses will be introduced to Auckland’s City Centre and Fringe by 2024 (Emerging Auckland, 2018). This contributes further to the inner city’s population while dedicating more land and floor space to private development, and putting pressure beyond housing and onto Auckland’s inner-city amenities.

Public space is one of these vital amenities, providing residents with a place to gather and connect. Especially with inner city apartment living, the lack of public spaces can lead residents to experience social isolation, reduced outdoor activity, and a lack of community (Carroll et al, 2011).

Auckland expects to accommodate the vast majority of new development within existing urban areas.

Figure 5: How Auckland is expected to accommodate growth in existing, greenfield and rural and coastal towns

Source: Auckland Council (2016) Open Space Provision Policy, page 8

Within Auckland’s inner city, spaces include streets and pavements, parks and squares, parklets and private owned public spaces or semi-public spaces which include through routes and foyers many of which were created through the bonus floor provisions. Auckland saw the potential for itself, beginning a study of the scheme in 1965 and enacting its own version in 1974. Auckland used the Floor-Area Ratio (FAR) system, where the developable area is a certain fraction of the site’s land area. The bonus was set at 2:1 – for every extra square foot of public space created that complied with the standards, the remainder of the development would be permitted two extra square feet of space (Dempsey, 2003).

Fig 6:  Rating of a sense of community in Auckland

Source: Irving, M. and Jeffcoat, S. (2013) Inner city residents survey research report. Auckland Council, 34.

Since Auckland has a comparatively low proportion of land allocated to streets (18 per cent), the importance of public and semi-public space is underlined. (see Table x below)

Table 1: Street connectivity index Auckland compared with other cities in Europe, North America and Oceania

Source: UN-Habitat (2013)  Streets as Spaces, p.68

Central Auckland’s streets and land subdivision patterns were described in the report planned and designed, resulting from the 1841 plan that was heavily influenced by the mishandling of Crown land sales followed by land speculation. Though the plan itself gave central Auckland a fairly serviceable street network, it generated a service alley system that was subjected to severe criticism.’ (UN-Habitat 2013, Streets as Spaces page 68).

6. Findings

Our Auckland

Inner city groups including SPLICE supported by the DIA Community Unit identified that many central Auckland apartments lack ‘bumping’ spaces or community spaces that support the development of neighbouring (Grannis, 2009). For this reason, social isolation is a primary concern among the central city community (Smellie, 2017). A 2013 study of inner city Auckland residents found that a sense of community was important to 66% of residents, but only 33% felt that sense of community (Irving & Jeffcoat, 2013).

The figure below shows the distribution of spaces within the inner city. The Domain, Albert Park and Myers Park are the major public parks.

The observed deficit of community spaces in central Auckland has brought into focus the importance of quality public open spaces for this community and supporting social capital (Smellie, 2017).

Figure 7: Distribution of spaces in inner city Auckland

Source: Produced by Mark Guieb and adapted from Auckland Council GIS Data)

Over the 3 year period 2016-2018, students worked on 30 – 40 spaces see Fig 8 below. Appendix 1 provides a brief description of each of the spaces and places. The classes generated a bibliography of over 500 sources. They tested a number of tools to assess spaces including the observation tool.

Figure 8:   2016-2018 Project spaces

See Appendix 1 for a full list of spaces.

Paper maps come and go. Online maps need to be kept up to date to be useful. So how to do this in a sustainable way?

Scoping research for Give us Space showed that Google Maps would be a useful platform to record, update, and share information about the inner city. It also aligned with a platform being developed by Auckland Council. During 2018 – 2019 the Google Map Our AKL Map was developed to provide information about public spaces and other social infrastructure. The content was developed from the research under taken by students for their course work, research by Mik Smellie acting as a community researcher, using baseline information from Vernon Tava’s maps of the bonus floor spaces produced for his work on the Waitematā Local Board.

Figure 9:  Screen Shot of the Google Map

Social media advice was provided by Many Zhu who undertook an evaluation of the INSTAGRAM pilot before the Myers Park Medley. This included:

  • On a macro level, the purpose and outcomes of using various digital tools, with Instagram as a primary tool, to grow audience awareness of the Auckland City Centre Map.
  • On a micro level, the intentions of individual Instagram posts and their results.
  • Suggestions for improvements and ideas to continue audience awareness and engagement.

Google Map https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1F4veNJ8jsBnjOjGA0RDDUxa4M0GomjbQ&ll=-36.85217730691356%2C174.76989105000007&z=14

This online map functions as the main platform for hosting information about lesser known social infrastructure, fruit trees and community gardens, public gardens and through links in the Auckland city centre.

The map is accessible to anyone signed into their Google account with internet access, and enhanced user experience is supported by the categorisation, colour coding and additional details provided about each site.

Bit.ly Link


This Bit.ly link was created as a shortened, customised version of the Google Map URL on 10 January at 11pm. Its main function is to gather data on the audience clicking through to the map.

As of 16 February, the information collected revealed:

  • A total of 433 clicks to the map via the bit.ly link.
  • The top referrer is Instagram with 324 clicks i.e 75% of audiences clicked on the bit.ly via Instagram. Additional referrers include Emails/SMS/Direct (85 clicks, 20%), Facebook (16 clicks, <4%) and unspecified others (8 clicks, <2%).
  • The top audience location is New Zealand with 413 people e 95% of the people who clicked the bit.ly link were from New Zealand. Other locations include the United States (8 people, <2%) Germany (2 people, 1%) and unspecified others (10 people, 2%).



This Instagram account is the primary tool that functions as the main promotional channel for the Auckland City Centre Map, an online forum to grow awareness and encourage engagement with the various locations on the map, and to gather data about the audience via ‘Insights’.

As of 16 February, the information collected revealed:

  • A total of 132 followers, including public sector organisations, private firms, community influencers.
  • The top audience location by cities is Auckland (86%), followed by Melbourne, Sydney, Christchurch, Dunedin.
  • The top audience location by countries is New Zealand (93%), followed by Australia, United Kingdom, Sweden, United States.
  • The largest age group of followers are between 25-34 year olds (39%). Other groups include 13-17yo (1%), 18-24yo (15%), 35-44yo (17%), 45-54yo (14%), 55-64yo (10%), 65+yo (4%).

*It is interesting to note that 45% of the followers are 35+yo which shows that the channel is serving an older audience and this is atypical for Instagram.

  • The largest gender group of followers are women at 64%. Men make up 36% of the followers and no data is collected on other gender groups. This is typical for Instagram.

The Myers Park Medley 2019

The Annual Myers Park Medley was held on Sunday February 17th. Mik Smellie and Dory Reeves offered to provide a stand where we could raise awareness of the Our AKL Map and the INSTAGRAM. The event attracted hundreds of people, including visitors to Auckland and residents.   During the event which ran from 12 noon to 4pm over 100 people stopped by the stall to find out about the map and take part in a moulding your space activity.

(see official video: https://1drv.ms/v/s!AgJZrEIOptcd9mF034rJpNhVE3Ig)

Figure 11: The Myers Park Medley

Observation tool


The observation tool was developed as a simple means for users to provide feedback on spaces as they are being used. As part of the Give us Space project a Survey Monkey platform was used. In future a version of this could be made available as a link on social media or app.

The tool was rooted in the principle that the community is the expert. Here community means the users and potential users of the spaces and in this case the growing number of residents of the inner city. This principle has underpinned the work of people including Jane Jacobs (1969) and Gehl (2013). It was a particularly important principle of the Project for Public Spaces founded in 1975 and still going strong today UN-Habitat (2016).

The tool needed to be simple and short. Given the nature of the observation tool, a link to an online survey tool such as Survey Monkey was necessary to ensure that the results could be readily collated and shared. It needed to focus on the issues which the community had identified as important. It needed to assume that an urban designer may think they have incorporated seats and shelter and other amenities but unless these are useful and practical for users then they need not exist at all. Equally, if users want a place to sit or shelter, they may adapt and use other features that were not intended for this purpose.

Given that public space functions as a physical entity and as a social media arena, the study also wanted to capture the kind of social media activity which was being generated by the spaces. Users were asked to note if they found social media activity (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter or Snapchat) relating to the space and make a separate note about the nature of this activity.

  • Accessibility of the spaces
  • Facilities available in the spaces
  • Activities the spaces could be used for
  • How the spaces felt in terms of safety and whether they were places of solitude
  • Māori cultural landscape
  • Social media presence

Questions relating to each of these aspects were incorporated into the questionnaire format see Appendix 1.

Māori Cultural Landscape

Working with Dr. Kiddle, from VUW, the following set of questions was developed which indicated whether and how the cultural landscape was being recognised and what users noticed or identified with. Mana whenua means people of the land; people with a longstanding and recognised connection with and responsibility for the land.

Note what visual evidence of Māori cultural landscape is evident:

  • There is acknowledgement of the mana whenua histories of the space?
  • There is artwork by Māori artists?
  • There is evidence of native planting?
  • Other indications that Māori or mana whenua values and identity have been considered in this space?

Users were also asked:

  • Do you feel or experience a sense of Māuri in the space? Māuri means ‘life principle, life force, vital essence, special nature, a material symbol of a life principle, source of emotions – the essential quality and vitality of a being or entity.’

The question was asked in the spirit of learning. By asking the question, the user is prompted to think about Māuri and its meaning.

The spaces to be observed were identified by community development worker Mik Smellie. They represented a mix of types of public space; semi-public space created through the bonus floor mechanism, public spaces on the waterfront of Auckland and the space around St. Patricks Cathedral.

Students recorded their own results and they were asked to work in pairs, primarily for safety reasons and were asked to spend 30 minutes in each space. Completion of the observation tool was part of course work although loading the results onto the online platform was not a requirement of the course. Students who did upload their results were not required to provide their names or other identifiers. 33 students loaded their results onto the survey monkey platform. The remaining students completed their observation tool on paper.

During August of Semester 1 of 2018, students observed the spaces and recorded their findings using a pre-prepared observation sheet which they were also asked to critique.

7. Summary and Conclusion

The Auckland inner city case study has been an action orientated research project co-created with community development worker Mik Smellie. It has resulted in a series of outputs including the Google map and INSTAGRAM posts; the planning histories for three spaces undertaken by an experienced planner to validate the work of postgraduate students; an observation tool for use by residents to assess spaces. These outputs can be viewed on line: https://www.drh.nz/give-us-space/.

The Auckland inner city case study was envisaged by Mik Smellie and Dory Reeves as a project about empowering inner city residents through the provision of and validation of information. Although Manfredo Manfridini, who led the Sylvia Park case study, has framed the case study in terms of a tactics for the territorial re-appropriation of spaces, Dory and Mik would contend that the spaces are not being re-appropriated but appropriated for the first time.

The planning histories have been particularly useful for those engaged in providing feedback to the Council about proposals to develop the waterfront. The Google map featuring 30 plus spaces and places has also provided much needed information to inform people about their rights when it comes to semi-public space. The use of INSTAGRAM came about as a result of the Sylvia Park case study work to interpret the years’ worth of INSTAGRAM feeds from the shopping centre. Dory and Mik started to wonder whether INSTAGRAM could be used proactively and strategically as a means of raising awareness of the Google based map information and whether non-users could be encouraged to give INSTAGRAM a go.

The inner city Auckland case study has resulted in a proof of concept for the Google map. The jury is still out on the use of INSTAGRAM. Further work is needed to assess whether other more appropriate customised apps could provide more functionality and usability. Future profiles of spaces need to include accessibility ratings from expert access consultants. They could also include women friendly and child friendly ratings.

8.      References

Auckland City Centre Residents’ Group (2018)

Auckland Council (2018) Demographic Trends for Auckland, Auckland: Auckland Council.

Auckland Council (2016) Open Space Provision Policy.

CABE, (2005) Public attitudes to architecture and public space: transforming neighbourhoods.

Cabinet Paper (2000) Building Stronger Communities, New Zealand, CAB 00 M42/4b refers

Carroll, P., Witten, K., & Kearns, R. (2011a). Housing intensification in Auckland, New  Zealand: Implications for children and families. Housing Studies, 26(3), 353-367. 10.1080/02673037.2011.542096 Retrieved from http://ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=59529806&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Farry, G. (2016). What is Splice? Courage, Compassion, Community. Auckland, New Zealand: Splice.

Gleisner, B., Llewellyn-Fowler, M., & McAlister, F. (2011). Working towards higher living standards for New Zealanders. New Zealand Treasury paper 11/02. Wellington: The Treasury.

Hampton, K. N., & Gupta, N. (2008). Community and social interaction in the wireless city: Wi-fi use in public and semi-public spaces. New Media & Society, 10(6), 831-850.

Gehl, J. (2013). How to study public life. Washington: Island Press2013. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-525-0

Grannis, R. (2009). From the ground up: Translating geography into community through neighbor networks. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7sfcc

Irving, M., & Jeffcoat, S. (2013). Inner city residents survey research report. Auckland Council.

Jacobs, J. (1969) The life and death of American Cities.

Loomis, T. (2002) A framework for developing sustainable communities, discussion paper, DIA. https://www.dia.govt.nz/Pubforms.nsf/URL/SCDframework.pdf/$file/SCDframework.pdf

Marcus, C. and Francis, C. (1990) People Places: design guidelines for urban open space, New York, N.Y.: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

New Zealand Treasury (2018) Treasury Approach to the Living Standards Framework.

OECD (2017). How’s life? 2017: Measuring well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Semenza, J. C., & March, T. L. (2009a). An urban community-based intervention to advance social interactions. Environment and Behavior, 41(1), 22-42. 10.1177/0013916507311136 Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0013916507311136

Smellie, M. (2017) Interview with.

UN-Habitat (2013) Streets as Public Spaces and Drivers of Prosperity (UN-Habitat, 2013) http://mirror.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=3513

UNESCO (2017) Inclusion through access to public space, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/urban-development/migrants-inclusion-in-cities/good-practices/inclusion-through-access-to-public-space/


Outputs from the Inner City Auckland Case study


Reeves, D. (2018) Leading Change: Moving on from the Ninth World Urban Forum, NZPI Quarterly, Issue 220 June 31-35.

Working documents:

Cayford, J. (2018) Planning history reports based on the resource consents for ANZ Centre, Lumley Centre and Princes Wharf.

Dale, M. (2018) A literature Review of social deprivation and access to public and semi-public spaces in the context of Auckland city centre, July.

Guieb, M. (2018) Literature reviews 2016-2018: summary tables.

Guieb, M. (2018) 704 Course work 2016-2018: Combined literature reviews

Moore, M. (2019) Semi-Public space: review of the gendered nature of spaces, Project working paper.

Reeves, D. (2018) Online Observation tool.

Reeves, D. and Haddon, O. (2018) ppt summary of the WUF9 network meeting: Give us Space.

Reeves, D. Guieb, M. (ed) (2018) 204 Course collated assignments.

Reeves, D. Guieb, M. (ed) (2018) 704 Course collated assignments.

Reeves, D. Guieb, M. (ed) (2017) 704 Course collated assignments.

Reeves, D. Guieb, M. (ed) (2016) 704 Course collated assignments. https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/creative/schools-programmes-centres/architecture-and planning/An%20assessment%20of%20bonus%20floor%20spaces%20in%20Auckland%202016%20.pdf

Reeves, D. Guieb, M. (2019) (ed) List of resources from combined literature searches: 2016-2018.

Smellie, M. Neighbourly (2019) NEW CITY MAP on Instagram for Exploration Pleasure, NEW CITY MAP on Instagram for Exploration Pleasure, Neighbourly Auckland Central, https://www.neighbourly.co.nz/message/view/54875528?utm_medium=email&utm_source=transactional&utm_campaign=user-email-notification

Smellie, M., Reeves, D. (2019) Our Auckland Map: INSTAGRAM https://www.instagram.com/our.akl.map/

Smellie, M., Reeves, D.  (2019) Our Auckland Map: Google Map https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1F4veNJ8jsBnjOjGA0RDDUxa4M0GomjbQ&ll=-36.852177306913546%2C174.76989105000007&z=14

Zhu, M. (2019) Evaluation of the Google map activation using Instagram.

Zhu, M. (2018) Semi-Public Space Pilot: Best practice guideline for the use of Online tools.

9. Appendix 1 2016-2018 Project Spaces

Appendix 2: Auckland Council’s Open Space Policy

A key opens space open space policy document is the Open Space Provision Policy for Auckland. This recognises the role played by small areas of public and semi public space called pocket parks. These are spaces between .1 and .15 hecares. (A hectare is 10,000m2 roughly the size of a rugby pitch, and so these pocket spaces are around 1000m2 or 35m by 35m.

Table 2: Auckland Coucil Open Space Typologies and Associated Provision Metrics

Source: Auckland Council (2016) Open Space Provision Policy, p.30