 Welcome back to Think Tech, I'm Jay Fidel. This is Catching Up with Kaka Ako. And it's a particularly appropriate, in this case, because Scott Wilson, who was an architect, our excellence joins us, and an active member then and now of the AIA. And we're gonna talk about, first, we're gonna talk about his familiarity with Kaka Ako-Makai, because he and I had many engagements over that issue back 20 years ago. So Scott, welcome to the show. Thank you, Jay. Good to be back. Thank you. So let's talk about, I mean, we couldn't spend the time with all your rewards and achievements, but we don't have the time for that. Suffice to say, you have a lot of them. And suffice to say, you're very familiar with Kaka Ako-Makai, you studied it. You've been part of the urban planning group in the AIA, a little over that. So the question is, what is the level of familiarity then and now? Well, I was really, I kind of was prodded into this originally because my wife, who was born and raised here in Honolulu, always would tell me, oh, what's happening in Kaka Ako? It's horrible. It's making me wanna leave the city. And this is the city that she grew up in. And I realized there was a lot of apprehension when Kaka Ako was first starting really to get going, even in the 80s and 90s, and the tower started arising. There was a sense amongst a lot of locals that this was a horrible development and it just did not seem Hawaiian or even Honolulu. So I was chair of the Urban Design, Regional and Urban Design Committee, and I commissioned some students up at UH to build a model of all of Kaka Ako. And it was like 15 feet by 15 feet. I mean, it was a scale model with all the current building just and it even included the rail line. You know, this was the projection. So back in those days, I started holding public meetings where people could listen to the designers and the landscape architecture and all the professionals that were hired by the city to design Kaka Ako. And through that, I finally realized that it was a very thorough program. It was, they had come up with some innovative zoning for that part of the city. It was really gonna be a separate city within Honolulu. And now you're seeing it get built out. And unfortunately, Kaka Ako Makai did not receive the same thorough planning that Kaka Ako Maoka did. That's what I discovered. You remind me of a visit I made to the old IBM building and then became the Howard Hughes headquarters back 10 years ago or so. And they had a model of everything they anticipated would happen in Kaka Ako. And Kaka Ako was bristling with condos in every corner of it. And it's really interesting how they saw it perhaps differently. Anyway, so it's a special area, isn't it? Can you talk about the special quality of Kaka Ako and thus the special quality of Kaka Ako Makai? Yeah, from the documents that I reviewed, what was really clear was that the Kaka Ako Maoka, everything Maoka of Alamora Boulevard was basically gonna be high density residential and commercial mixed use buildings. And there were no new parks really projected to be in that part of Kaka Ako. So, you know, there's always a rule in urban planning about two acres of park for every 1,000 residents. And Kaka Ako was projected to have something like 30,000 residents. So clearly there was something was out of line from an urban planning point of view because there were no new parks. There were Mother Waldron Park was a little one and there's a very small park over in the Howard Hughes area. And that's it. And so the understanding was always that Kaka Ako Makai was basically gonna be the park for Kaka Ako. It had, you needed some open space where people could enjoy the views, they could enjoy the fresh air and the ocean front. And, you know, there are 30,000 of them eventually gonna be in Kaka Ako and they need a place to just get out of their condo and walk around. Can we zoom up a little bit and look at Kaka Ako vis-a-vis the fact that it's, you know, she half a mile, quarter mile from downtown which by definition doesn't have a lot of parks and which is, you know, a business district. And this would be what the closest residential district and it would be the closest recreational district too. So in terms of urban planning, I know you focused on that, you know, for years and years and still do now. Where does it, where does Kaka Ako and Kaka Ako Makai stand in terms of developing out the center of the city? Well, as you know, if you walk around there, basically Kaka Ako Makai is developing from either end from the downtown end with all of the Kamehameha school's properties and then at the Alamoana end, the Howard Hughes projects are pushing ahead. And as you can see, once they complete an area that in this new vision, it's very high density. There's, the streets are all landscaped and they have furniture and trees and so forth but you are looking at towers all around you. So clearly if you could use the analogy of New York City, you need a place to get out of those high rises and just enjoy some open air nature. And the only real option you have is to go toward the ocean which happens to coincide with a longstanding lay of green concept that was supposed to extend all the way from Diamond Head to Aloha Tower. So that lay of green was the idea was that along the ocean front, there would be open space where anybody, visitor or tourist alike could stroll along the ocean front and enjoy the views up to the mountain. Yeah. So at one point there was a plan for Kakaako, especially Kakaako Makai. It was not a plan of HDDA, but it was a plan. Can you talk about whether HDDA, your knowledge had a plan and what this other plan was about and who did this plan and what it was like? Yeah, and I can't speak to all the history of HDDA on this, but basically, there are some major landowners in Kakaako Makai as there are in Kakaako Malka. And because the vision was always... Aloha is not the only landowner in Kakaako Makai. So if the legislature and its wisdom gives the green light to Oha to build its project, and it would seem that would like... You can't have special legislation affecting only one party. That would affect all the landowners in Kakaako Makai. So it wouldn't just be one project, am I right? That's correct. You couldn't constitutionally allow special zoning for one set of parcels and then borrow the other parcels. Kamehameha schools own some very prominent parcels right on all the water boulevard. And they would almost inevitably say, well, we want to exercise our development rights here too. And they would want to put towers on their parcels. Which would be Kakaako Makai. Yes, right. And so getting back to your other question, HCDA did not choose to actively design Kakaako Makai other than just generally setting it aside for public use because they saw some conflicts with the different landowners in that area and they just basically kicked the can down the road. And so there were citizen planning advisory council was formed back in the early 2000s. And they spent several years having community meetings and deciding what is the vision for Kakaako Makai? More and more specifically, we know it's general use, it's a gathering place, it's for public amenities. So they crafted about a five page vision for Kakaako Makai. And I think that came out in about 2009. And shortly after that, there was a planning group from California that was hired to then create a master plan, a preliminary master plan, a physical plan that embodied the principles of the vision. So the vision just talks about it as a Kakaako Makai as a gathering place, community gathering place, a place to celebrate Hawaiian values and Hawaiian culture and a place to enjoy the Malka Makai views and the ocean front and the fresh air. You know, basically kind of a park-like principles. And so a lot of that, the land that was owned out right by the state was they did create a gateway, so-called gateway park. And that's the park that you see today. It has a little sliver of land that goes all the way to Alamora Boulevard. And then as you head toward the ocean, it fans out and becomes a wider parcel all running along the very ocean side of Kakaako Makai. I've spent many happy hours in that area myself. And it, yeah. And as you know, it was originally, it was a trash site. So they just decided they would put a huge kind of filter and a covering over all that and just make a big hill and put a methane vent at the top of it. And it's worked fine. I remember when it was first opened up, it was lovely. And, you know, nice little street furniture and lighting and hills, grassy hills. So this is, you know, what didn't get completed was some other state-owned lands more fronting along Kuala Basin. That's kind of really the rub right now. So, you know, this plan you talk about, this did not include residential and it did not include high-rise, right? That's correct, yeah. Always from the start, and you see it in the principles, the guiding principles of this vision, it was for community use, it was for public use. It had museums, it had performance centers, it had Hawaiian culture demonstrations. It even had a few restaurants facing the Kuala Basin, obviously like the old fisherman's wharf. So there were, you know, the emphasis always was on sort of open space, maintaining the views, you know, just kind of as a set of lungs, really, for the high-density kakako that we'll eventually have. That's a great expression. So, you know, there has been discussion over the years and it's not just about, you know, the toxic aspect of the refuse that's buried under the topsoil there. But in general, we have climate change and sea level rise and all that. Are you familiar with the environmental considerations in building a 40-story condo in that area? Yeah. Well, just theoretically, you know, all of most of coastal Honolulu is, you know, just a few feet above sea level. And that includes Waikiki, that includes parts of downtown, and even kakako mountain. And so if you walk along Kamake Street and, you know, Awahi Street, you see that the latest towers that are built are all raised. They're up on big podiums above the street level between three and five feet. So right now our approach has really been to just elevate the buildings. There's, technically, they move some of their key electrical equipment up on the second floors. And they're basically, those bellies can still function even if the streets are flooded. So this is the sort of first kind of pass at climate change response. I don't think it's a great long-term solution. I think long-term we're going to have to manage a very slow retreat from our coastlines. And it's going to cost billions of dollars and it's going to take years and years. But yeah, tech- We're going to have to change the specifications for permitting, right? In other words, if everybody agrees that this is going to be an area where you have a sea level rise and issues about flooding and exacerbated by the fact that the floods may include toxic materials, then you've got to make requirements for a building permit. And those specifications would be different. And the existing requirements for a building permit. And so if you would have to raise the building, if you have to change the specs around the building in the pathways between the building, if you'd have to build up the soil or raise the level of the infrastructure around the building, this would have to be documented somewhere. And you've got two issues over that I'd like to ask you about. Number one, you want to make these profound changes in the building permit requirements, that takes time and it takes transparency. It takes a public access to make those changes. And the second question, sorry to ask you two questions at the same time, but for the architect and the engineer and the developer and the contractor, it all means gobs more expensive. And thus, feasibility is at issue. And the unit which costs X dollars in the market won't be X dollars anymore. It might be 1.5 X, 2.0 X or three, right? The cost will be astronomical, right? Well, yeah, there's really two parts to climate change response. As I say, the first pass at this is just to jack up the buildings. Because, I mean, you can't literally raise all the streets. You can't, this would be impossible. We have to, we can't fight sea level rise by literally trying to lift all of coastal Honolulu. That's just not gonna happen. So there would be a colossal infrastructure cost, as you say, to try to raise all the roads, raise all the utilities. The more sane and physically responsible responses just to literally gradually phase out coastal properties that are in immediate danger and that are being constantly flooded. And sea level rise is gonna take 100 years. And so I really think that Honolulu will change over the next 100 years. And the properties very closest to the ocean are just gonna gradually have to be abandoned and rebuild inland. And fortunately, we're a high island. We have a lot of high ground. We just need to gradually move that way. It's a profound change in the look of the city, obviously. It's gonna take many generations. So I don't think we need to lose any sleep over how our city's gonna change overnight. It's nothing like that. Yeah, well, sea level rise is inevitable. And depending on who you talk to, we'll have a foot or more by 2050. And the question then is when do we begin this process you're talking about? If it's a leasehold building, say 99 years or 100 years and the problems that will arise arise long before that lease is over, which is likely. I mean, inevitably likely. When do we start working on this? I think there have been, you know, student teams up at the UH architecture school who have already created new visions for Waikiki, for Kakaako. But, you know, the short answer is we don't wanna be building high rises close to these areas that are susceptible to sea level rise. Obviously, we've got a downtown that's practically at sea level now. And we're gonna end up being like, you know, cities in Asia where that have a rainy season and flood. I mean, if you've ever seen pictures of Bangkok in November, you know that basically people are walking on these sort of elevated temporary walkways that are like three feet above the street because the streets are flooded for weeks at a time. And so that you can function, you can function but you just need to recognize that long-term you shouldn't be doing things, you know, you shouldn't be starting new projects in areas that you know are gonna be subject to flood. Well, that's the critical point, isn't it? So taking all this into account, taking the history, taking the expression of public sentiment over the citizens group you talked about, which was very broad-based including a lot of native Hawaiians. Taking into account its urban planning aspects, its proximity to downtown, the lack of parkland in Honolulu and in this area, taking into account the environmental considerations you've described and the cost considerations and the reorganization of our building permit system. What are your thoughts about whether this could happen? I think it has to happen, Jay. We can't bury, you know, we can't stick our head in the sand, this is coming. And I think department planning for the rest of Honolulu and then HCD, I think HCD is very aware of it. And that's why they always earmarked you know, Kakaako Makai as a public use area because that way, if things get flooded, it's not a major calamity that you see around the world. Now, a lot of waterfront parks are being designed in a way that they can actually flood and then drain out. And they can function, you know, they can recover very quickly. And I think Kakaako Makai has exactly that same potential. And you know, frankly at this point, nothing has been built. So there's, you know, we're not in an immediate danger because we've kept that area barely clear. Well, let me go back to the, you know, the initial question is, should we be building or permitting the building of 40 story residential project, not one, but probably a number of them in Kakaako Makai? That's the question before. Yeah. Well, as I say, I'm not taking issue with OHA per se, but they're a state agency. They have a mission to provide for their constituents and they're certainly absolutely entitled to that. But in my, you know, based on the history of the planning of the area, it seems completely incompatible both from a park and an open space point of view and from a sea level rise point of view, it seems incompatible to be putting 40 story towers in Kakaako Makai. Are you familiar with how other architects and for that matter, engineers feel about this? I mean, you're a fellow who is, you know, engaged with lots of architects and probably a lot of engineers. How does the planning, the design and planning community feel about this? Are you the only one who feels this way or is this huge generally held? Well, I mean, architects have to follow law and they have to respect politics. And I mean, don't forget, Alexander Baldwin hired local architects, you know, 20 years ago to put in a series of residential towers on lands in that area. And there was a huge public outcry and the whole project was just shelved. And I just think, you know, architects are looking, we need our work too. And these are potential projects, but they always have to occur within, in respect to our laws and our public sentiment. And from a planning point of view, I just don't see it being compatible at all. So, Chapter 343, the Hawaii Environmental Protection Act requires an EIS on state land. And in the case of Kakako Makai under HDDA, that is state land. Furthermore, OHOP, for example, is a state agency, no question about that. So it would seem to me that, and many others that I've talked to, that an EIS, a full-blown EIS would be necessary for any permit, any approval of the OHOP project. So, query, what in your perception, what would that involve? What are the factors that the EIS would have to take into account? Yeah, I mean, I think they have to go right back to fundamental planning principles, because we're not talking about traffic impacts or necessarily environmental impacts. We're having to go back to open space and community gathering functions. So, this EIS, I think it would be really pointless. I don't think it should ever get to that point, frankly. I think a way more interesting question is, when in 2021, when the legislature- What do you mean pointless? What do you mean pointless? Well, it's like, we never trigger it because we're not gonna do the project. Is that what you mean pointless? Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I just think it's a huge waste of research and expertise on a project that should never even come up. That's all I'm saying. I just think if you have that kind of effort involved, you should be going back to the original deal between the state and OHA and saying, we need to find another set of parcels of land to give to OHA in exchange for these nine that they were given in 2012, because that was the resolution that was brought before the legislature in 2021 because they were getting so tired of this yearly debate. Should we do high-rises and Makai or not? And there will be public demonstrations and so the legislators are just getting drawn into this debate every year and then it's gonna happen again this year. And a far more productive thing would be to say, wait a minute, let's go back to the original exchange in which OHA got these parcels and let's find them some parcels that are currently sold for uses that they can actually take advantage because it just wasn't fair to make this deal with them and then just give them that somehow this hope and expectation that this land was gonna get rezoned and become much more valuable. It's like handing somebody a big block and saying, here, this is 10 pounds of copper, but if you can turn it into bronze, it'll be worth three times as much. And that's kind of what they did to OHA, which was to me, grossly unfair because it puts OHA in a bad light that like, oh, they're being greedy or something. And it was a deal that should never have happened, in my opinion. There's so much more I'd like to ask you about, honestly. Okay, any final thoughts? If you were standing in front of the legislative committees, it's funny because this is a planning issue, right? It's an AIA or an architect or an engineer issue. It's not a legislative issue, and yet the legislature is being asked to make these decisions. It doesn't seem like an appropriate use of legislative time, effort, or authority, but that's just my view. Brewery, if you're standing in front of a committee in the legislature, saddled with trying to figure out whether to do, whether to make a plan that would allow this, what's your advice to them? Well, again, I go back to their 2021 resolution in which they were going to form a committee to search out other state lands to give to OHA. There were, you know, that would satisfy that original 2012 sort of debt that the state owed to OHA, as you know. And give them, in good faith, some lands that are of the value that they were promised back in 2012. And then reclaim those nine parcels in Kakako Makai so that we can move ahead with the real master plan that's consistent with Kakako Malka. Yeah, we haven't moved ahead with that. We need to move ahead with that. We need to have it realize it's true destiny. It's been held up by this issue. That's what it seems like to me. Yeah, exactly. Well, Scott, Scott Wilson, did I mention that you were an architect par excellence? Did I mention that? I am so close to retirement, Jay, that it's good that you got a hold of me now because maybe in the future, I'll be off traveling around and I won't even be available. No, but you'll be thinking about this and so will I. And I'll be thinking about you. Thank you so much, Scott. You're welcome. Aloha. Mahalo.