Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. [Volume 39, Number 2. 11th March 1976]

Michael Fowler — The Architect of a City's Future?

page 17

Michael Fowler

The Architect of a City's Future?

Seldom does a day go by when Michael Flower, Mayor of Wellington, does not hit the headlines of the local dailies, whether it concerns the $5 million Town Hall, a $27,000 car, or yet another plan for the streamlining of Wellington streets. Some have called him far-sighted, some have called him foolish. In this interview Salient tries to find the real Michael Fowler, the man behind the robes. We failed.

Photo of Michael Fowler

An editorial in last weeks 'Dominion' said that your style of leadership provided a refreshing change from the style of leadership that Wellington had grown accustomed to in recent decades. What is this new type of leadership and how does it differ from previous styles?

I said prior to the election that if I were elected Mayor there would be a different type of mayoralty. It was inevitable that this would be so, for I am a very different man to my predecessor, Sir Francis Kitts. Indeed I've got a very different situation now. For most of the 18 years of Sir Frank's mayoralty he was a Labour mayor with a Citizen's majority on council.

q This time it's a Citizen's mayor with a Citizen's majority. For the first time since I've been involved with Council, the Citizen's group wrote a policy on what they would do if they were in a majority group, and this is what we refer to each month.

Do you think that this style means that you press straight ahead and ignore any opposition that comes in your path? This seems to have been the case with both the Victoria St extensions and the new Town Hall project.

I would think that was quite incorrect. One of the main features of this triennium is the constant referral to the electorate on major issues.

The Victoria St extension was referred to the citizenry of Wellington in the mid-sixties. A determination at that time was made that a road linkage was required to parallel Willis St. It was then incorporated on the district scheme. The Council could then have called it a day, but under this triennium we have called public discussions of considerable length, prepared discussion papers showing five basic alternatives (of which one is to do nothing), and held two forums. Many of the views presented here have been taken into account and the Council finally accepted a modified version of the original plan, widening Herbert Street and easing the corner from Parish to Manners St. I don't think that anyone in their right mind could say that the Council didn't heed the comments made, or that the Council didn't encourage participation and the free flow of ideas on the alternatives available.

In the case of the new town hall, there was a suggestion of having a poll to decide whether the citizens actually wanted to go ahead with it. Why wasn't this suggestion taken up?

It's not relevant. We have't received a formal request for a poll, there has been some noise created by one or two parties suggesting that there should be a poll. We are not in a position to acceed to that request because we haven't even got authority to raise the money. A poll is relevant to the raising of money. That is the issue.

The Council seems to be trying, but people still feel that when the crunch comes the Council will make the decision that serves the interests of the business sector. Do you think the Council has the attitude that what big business wants goes?

No, I disagree. The Council isn't a puppet of the business sector. What an extraordinary thing to say. It is very conscious of advocacy whether it comes from Johnsonville North Progressive Association, the Seatoun and Island Bay Progressive Association, a group of retailers in Courtenay Place, Action for Environment, or an individual. I don't think that anyone could instance anytime when the Council doesn't willingly hear such advocacy, particularly at committee meetings, in this office, or at Council meetings.

What pressure groups do you take the most notice of?

I take no more notice of any one group than another. But I must admit I, as would any elected person, have to exercise some judgement in regards to the clout which can be accredited to particular groups. By clout I don't mean political clout, but clout as to the weight of evidence or advocacy they are presenting.

Is the Council doing anything about the spread of the university and the haphazard development that has taken place because of this?

There is property around the university designated for university use before it is available. But that is proper planning. Personally, the university is a very welcome sector in the Wellington climate and the Wellington economy. I say that because Wellington is regarded as a commercial centre, and I think it is very good that it should be a place of light, liverty and learning.

It is good to have the university dominent on the skyline, just as I thought so in Auckland when as a member of the student executive I helped put up a tremendous battle to retain the university on the Princes Street site against outrageous odds. It's very good for the community - that symbol of an alternative way of life and learning should be so physically dominant in a commercial or government sector.

'Outrageous odds' - could that be a good description of your chances of saving the university's Hunter Building?

No, they're pretty good. There is a liaison committee between the university council and this council which will meet on 24 March. I'm sure we'll have some fairly rational talks.

I wish to discuss these matters rationally with Chancellor O'Brien rather than conducting the discussions through the news media, which is not his wish nor is it mine. I think the university council, with this council, share a desire to retain the Hunter Building if it is physically possible, and economically possible.

Would you be able to list for me what you believe are the four major problems facing Wellington at the moment?

The major problem is finance. I have long advocated that there must be recognition by central government of the need for additional finance for local government. It is necessary that cities remain financially viable and good places to live. And if that requires subsidies from central government then that's as necessary as subsidising farmers. Nearly 70% of New Zealanders are now living in metropolitan areas and that will rise to 90% before another 30 years are up.

Secondly there is too much autonomy to various planning authorities within Wellington. There is the Crown, its numerous agencies and such authorities as the Harbour Board. Some rationale must be introduced into Wellington.

The third problem is that because of Wellington's typography there is an increasing demand for central space in which to build offices. This means that the city of Wellington is becoming more and more an employment centre rather than a place to live in. That brings us into problems of the commuter coming in from the Hutt Valley and the Eastern Bays - which generally accentuate our transport problem.

Lastly, we have to many people in this city who don't owe allegiance to it. It lacks a parochial feeling. We haven't got enough people who feel that they owe some allegiance to this town and want to involve themselves in it. That is because we have a number of very large education establishments in Wellington. People come here for in-service training and then go out again. They stay here for three, five, or ten years and then their ambition is to get out. We are trying to create situations in Wellington with which people identify.