OPINION: As yet another Garden Place rehash is proposed, there is a desperate need for public discussion on what we citizens, not planners, actually want.

Do we want an "active" space for noisy crowds on hard paving, or a "passive" space for relaxing on a lawn in the shade of trees. Given that the frequent and expensive remodels have failed according to the general consensus, what does success look like? Answering this question is the starting point for any new design.

In the last year, I made urban design pilgrimages to "successful" public spaces such as New York's Times Square, which isn't actually a square. Famous for being famous, its major attraction is to look at all the other people it has attracted. The tourist numbers would be great to have in Hamilton, but the locals go out of their way to avoid it. That's not what I want here. Realistically, it will never happen because we just don't have the population to support it.

SUPPLIED In the 1930s, a hill was removed from the middle of Hamilton to create Garden Place.

Times Square, New York. Successful urban design or unpleasantly crowded?

Let's start with a brief history.

Garden Place began life 10 metres higher up in the air. It was a hill named literally after the place where the garden was for Kirikiriroa pa. When the village of Hamilton was founded in 1864, the east side was expected to be dominant, and a village green, now Steele Park, was established. But commerce grew more quickly on the west side, starting around the Ferry Bank and spreading along Victoria Street.

Soon the Garden Place hill became a problem as an obstacle in the middle of the retail heart of Hamilton. This story is told brilliantly in Michael Switzer's play, One Hill of a Fight, leading to the digging out of the hill in the 1930s. The concrete Wintec embankment on Anglesea Street opposite the council building shows where the cut was made.

The Garden Place name remained, but was a misnomer, as the vacant land became an asphalt car park. With plentiful free parking, the central business district took off, and Victoria Street either side of Garden Place became known as the Golden Mile.

By my childhood in the early 1970s, the car park was gone and Garden Place was turned back into a garden, with lawns, trees, and fountains. Wanganui had beaten us to the title of River City, so Hamilton took a punt on Fountain City, and a handful of fountains sprouted to little acclaim. Whanganui has now added an "h" after much debate, and the Laird McGillicuddy brilliantly suggests we should keep up with them by adding a "w" to create Whamilton.

The demise of the central business district began when council planners crippled urban regeneration by setting minimum parking rules. Old buildings with 100% site coverage would need to be demolished for any change of use. Investment money started flowing elsewhere. As the council hiked parking charges and introduced one-hour limits, shoppers and movie-goers moved out. The homeless moved in.

New York recently solved its homeless problem with a clever solution. Its council gave out one-way tickets to the much-warmer San Francisco. Having been to both cities, I can confirm it was very successful for one of them. Perhaps we could do the same to sunny Tauranga.

Victoria Street's south-end revival began when planning rules were finally relaxed. Council chipped in $6 million to do not very much with Hood Street. At the same time, a similar amount was spent on Garden Place with the latest fashions in urban design. A road was put through it, and the goal of slowing traffic was achieved by mixing pedestrians and cars. Nobody has explained why slowing traffic is a goal, but most drivers avoid the road because it is so well disguised that people wander dangerously across it without looking. I am one of the few to play on the petanque court, and last time I passed the outdoor chess board, the giant pieces were locked in a box "until further notice".

That brings us up to date. Architect Brian White, and property developers, Matt Stark and Steve McLennan have come up with a new proposal. The trio have a very good record of great design, business acumen, and civic responsibility. They have offered to put in their own money and time, but it is still costed at nearly $4 million for ratepayers. Rather than adding to the double-digit rates hike, the council should remember it could easily pay for the work by noting that Tauranga has 20% fewer council employees per capita for the same services.

Brian Squair has put up an alternative, but has not costed it yet. I haven't seen enough detail yet of either option to comment on their relative merits. The council has voted to put the White-Stark-McLennan one up for public consultation, so I encourage all readers with an interest to look out for the detail when it comes, and make submissions.

For my two cents, I think we need to be realistic about our expectations. Garden Place is never going to be busy 24 hours a day. Even Auckland with nearly 10 times our population struggles with public spaces like Aotea Square. We need to be clear about Garden Place's purpose. It does well as a location for office workers and Wintec students to eat their sandwiches on a sunny day. If it is busy at lunchtime, then that is a success. It serves as a central meeting place for groups to get together. If it is busy on a Saturday night, then that is a success. If there are drunks staggering around at 3am, that's not a failure – you will find that in all cities. The occasional performance and function is nice. I would be happy if we can work out a way to attract the good buskers while keeping out the bad ones.

The only other thing I want from Garden Place is a fountain for kids to get their feet wet, like I did in the old one and like my kids do in the new one. Despite its failings, perhaps doing nothing is the third option.