A few weeks ago we saw a report by Studio 4/Jasmax on the Auckland Plan looking at just how much growth can be accommodated within the urban area. This has sparked off quite a bit of debate both here and on a number of other sites. Now a review of that report has been prepared and contained this:
Udale, of Essentia Consulting Group, also questioned the wisdom behind the plan and raised the prospect of just 15 new houses built on each hectare of land, many small-lot suburban housing and townhouses, and showed how the city would need an extra 20,000ha.
But if 25 houses were built on a hectare and terrace-style residences were a big part of the mix, 12,000ha of land was needed. If 100 dwellings were built on each hectare, just 3000ha of extra land would be needed, he calculated.
Yet the Auckland plan proposed that two-thirds of all new housing development would be low-rise in the form of attached dwellings and low-rise apartments of four storeys or less.
So Udale posed the question of where all the extra land would come from and calculated that an area about half to two-thirds the current area of the Auckland isthmus could be needed.
I’m not going to to make this a post about the merits or not of higher densities but just wanted to give an indication as to the just what kind of densities and developments are discussed in here.
First up 15 houses per hectare, I have measured the area including the access roads within the area and the tennis court in the middle. Not including those other things the average property size is just over 500sq m
As you can see below this is your pretty typical new suburban house
Next 25 houses per hectare, both these two boxes combined along with all of the roads and the park included equal 25 houses per hectare. Average property sizes on the houses in the left hand box are over 300sq m while the units in the right hand box vary from about 150sq m up to 250sq m.
The houses in the left hand box are mostly detached single homes which the ones in the right are mostly town houses, here is a sample of what some of these houses look like:
The image on the left is one of houses from from the box on the left while the one on the right are from the right hand box.
Lastly 100 units per hectare. This building is up on Symonds St by Khyber pass, as you can see in this example I have included the wide footpaths, commercial buildings at the front of the apartments and the park beside the building yet it still about 100 units per hectare. Most of the apartments have two bedrooms and are in the 70-80sq m range so are very liveable (I used to live there myself). As a comparison if you just look at the area of the green roof – the apartments and the commercial building only – there are about 200 units per hectare so the amount suggested above could be achieved in just a 2-3 story apartment building.
While these places may not appeal to everyone aesthetically, that is something that could be improved, what is important is to understand just kind of densities are being discussed.
Also bonus points to the first person who names the commercial filmed in one of these streets 🙂
Processing...
Quote: While these places may not appeal to everyone aesthetically, that is something that could be improved, what is important is to understand just kind of densities are being discussed.
That be rather true there – our urban design has not quite matured compared to the rest of the world just yet 😉 but I say we are getting there 🙂
Wait you said two bedroom apartments for 70-80sqm would be quite liveable? Errr who for exactly? If I was reading the Overcrowding article properly it is the fact we are lacking 4-6 bedroom houses at the 250-350m2 range for our extended families which we seem to be getting more of especially as this city becomes more multicultural.
Which begs the question – who are we trying to house here? Singles, Couples with no kids, the typical European Nuclear family or the Eastern and Polynesian family of mum, dad, the kids, grandma, anuty and uncle and maybe some cousins or grand kids.
I don’t quite think that question has been answered yet with housing in Auckland.
I’ve recently hunted for apartments in the city and I can tell you it’s mostly young singles and couples. Only once did I encounter a person over 40 and I understood that she was single too.
And as for the living space size, 2 bedroom 80m2 is plenty for a family of three and enough for four if a little bit cramped. Most people in Europe live like this and I should know since I’ve lived there for 28 years. This doesn’t even approach the much feared ‘overcrowding’ effect. The plain reality of living in a large city is a smaller dwelling. That is compensated by a lively city buzz that keeps you out of said dwelling for most of the time.
People who want a large house (>150m2) and land shouldn’t look for it in the middle of a thriving city. Auckland is special because of it’s legacy but that will inevitably change if it keeps growing at such a pace.
“People who want a large house (>150m2) and land shouldn’t look for it in the middle of a thriving city. Auckland is special because of it’s legacy but that will inevitably change if it keeps growing at such a pace”
Paragraph of the day 🙂
Ben I don’t think you realise just how big 70-80sqm actually is. Sure you aren’t going to fit a large family but is big enough for mum, dad and a few kids. The apartment I was in had two large bedrooms (each big enough for a king sized bed, desk, draws and TV cabinet, also had a built in wardrobe). There were two decent sized bathrooms, each with a toilet, vanity and full sized shower. The lounge was in the middle between the bedrooms and was easily big enough for a 4 seater dining table, a two and three seater couch and a TV cabinet.
As a comparison town houses are often about 120sqm over three floors but the bottom floor is mostly carparking and there is extra space is taken up stairwells etc. so the actually living actually about the same.
When people came over they didn’t realise just how big the place was because of preconceived ideas based on the bad examples set by many buildings and the anti apartment groups, the same ones pushing for us to sprawl all over the countryside.
We lived very comfortably in a 2 bedroom, 80 sq/m, cottage in Panmure for 5 years. I would think a 3 bedroom, 80 sq/m building would be too small though. We are now in a 140 sq/m, 4 bedroom house, which seems huge. The current fascination with 200 + sq/m houses for the ‘average’ family is mostly created by the need for ‘capital gain’ when they sell the house, hence high house prices. Most of our parents lived in 80 – 140 sq/m houses and did quite nicely.
Don’t forget, the floor area of new houses includes 35-40m2 for the internal access double garage.
Living in a smaller house does require controlling the urge to collect stuff (like books!) over the years. 🙂
Singapore housing leaves a lot to be desired aesthetically, but some of the planning rules are incredibly sensible. There is a mandated minimum size on bedrooms, and each floor of a development must contain a mix of apartment sizes, from studio/1 room to 3-4 room (‘room’ refers to the number of spaces classed as a bedroom). The theory is that families can purchase larger apartments, and the grandparents can purchase smaller apartments nearby, or even on the same floor.
“…who are we trying to house here? Singles, Couples with no kids, the typical European Nuclear family or the Eastern and Polynesian family of mum, dad, the kids, grandma, anuty and uncle and maybe some cousins or grand kids.”
Good point.
The problem, which I’m sure has been raised numerous times on this post, is that medium to high-density housing in Auckland is mostly ugly and undesireable. We need developers who will take a risk and offer Aucklanders an alternative to the unsustainable 1/4 acre villa dream.
I know it’s a commercial premises, but I’m thinking of the Ironbank building on K road as a good example of a visually exciting medium-high density building that has added real character to its immediate area. Surely, developers can take this as a cue for future residential developments.
Have a look at the household composition reports from Statistics NZ. Currently less than half our households are large family groups with parents and children. The majority of Auckland households are singles, couples with no children and small single parent families. In fact just under 50% of households have two or fewer people and only 16% of housholds have five or more people. The average houshold size in Auckland is 2.9 people.
That trend away from nuclear or extended families has been going on for sometime and will contine to shift toward smaller households.
So why the hell would we need a lot more 4 to 6 bedroom homes of huge sizes like 250-350m2 ?! If anything out existing housing stock is oversized for our housholds. Auckland needs a lot more compact 1, 2 and 3 bedroom places for its small housholds. Forcing singles and couples to buy 4-6 bedroom homes because they are the only thing on the market would be terrible for housing affordability, and terrible for land consumption.
To meet the need from (largely) migrant communities that retain an affinity for living as extended families. Many Asian and Polynesian families retain these cultural preferences, and they are amongst the fastest growing sectors (by either birth rate or migration).
True, but you can’t stereotype too much. There are large Maori and Samoan households in Mangere and Papatoetoe (such that it has a significantly higher population density than you’d expect based on unit density). And then there small families and households in other suburbs composed of singles, couples, and couples with 1/2/3 children. It’s a mixture, and will continue to become so.
The number of large households is still small compared to small households and is expected to stay that way. The 2006 numbers are here showing that, out of 434k houses in the auckland area about 60k of them are 5+, less then even number of 1 person households (83k). Households of all sizes are increasing at roughly the same rate with a slightly quicker increase at the smaller and larger ends.
I’ve also heard that extended family living in parts of Asia is often catered for by having multiple small houses operating together. This could work well here too.
Exactly most people seem to think that traditional households of Mum, Dad and 2-3 kids are 90% of the households yet they are actually a remarkably small percentage. If you assume that all 3-5 person households are tradional families, 6+ are extended families and all 1-2 person households are singles/couples/flatties (simplistic I know) you have a traditional families become a minority next to childless households. Yet all the rhetoric seems to be around what to do to house traditional families. No one talks about singles, childless couples and flatties as if we are an important part of the equation.
In fact doing the percentages one and two person households are 49% of the total households and this is 2006 data. By now it must be more than 50%.
So what? Auckland has hundreds of thousands of large sized houses suitable for large families in its housing stock, houses that are no longer actually occupied by large families. The number of large housholds may be growing, but from a small base. Conversely the number of single a couple housholds is growing much faster, from a much larger base.
What is lacking are homes suitable for those 1-3 person housholds, not more 4-6 bedroom houses being occupied by 1-3 person households.
“People who want a large house (>150m2) and land shouldn’t look for it in the middle of a thriving city”
Well, they could if developers provided them, and I think we might see that in more established areas where a decent footprint, minimum floor-area limits and height restrictions combine to create a development with a limited amount of apartments but with big floor areas.
In KL, I live in an apartment that’s roughly 175m2 all up – I don’t see why similar apartments couldn’t be built in Auckland in the above circumstances.
There’s no reason the granny flat concept can be extended to terraces, townhouses or apartments. In fact the ‘dual key’ concept could be quite effective. This is where you have a larger family apartment with a separate smaller one next door, each is a separate dwelling but they often share utility areas like laundries. The smaller place can host grandparents, extended family members or unruly teenagers, and can be rented ou if not required.
I’m surprised that no one has got the commercial yet, it was on TV and I think it was quite popular
“V” jetpack Ad…?
No, its for a building product.
This is the ad
That first pic (15 houses per hectare) looks familiar, I just got home a couple of hours ago from taking the dog for a walk there.
Anyway, my comment: Something often overlooked in density arguments is that regardless of how much space you live on, the actual land use and environmental impact per person across all desnsities will actually be similar.
For example, if you live on a large section you may choose to grow much of your food right outside your backdoor. Apartment dwellers however, will have their food grown on a distant patch of land that they will never see or visit, but their impact on the land is just as real.
Environmentally, a person with a larger section who chooses to grow food, and perhaps have some chooks for eggs, will have less reliance on oil guzzling supply chains. Apartment dwellers instead get their food brought to them on trucks, planes and ships from all around the country, and the planet. Their environmental impact on the planet is probably greater than somebody living on a larger patch of land who chooses to make good use of it.
Lastly, a larger section with grass and trees also acts as a carbon sink, whereas apartments don’t have that ability. So whether everybody is crammed into one dense area surrounded by more countryside, or everyone spread out over larger sections with lawns and trees, but surrounded by less countryside, it probably works out fairly similar either way from an environmental point of view.
Health-wise, low density is better. I will always live in low density areas, or the countryside. Your health is better off that way, than living with higher levels of air, noise and light pollution that comes with high density living. In Auckland alone, 400 people die every year from air pollution, and that is strongest in the high densoty areas.
My health is better now I have moved into an apartment near the city. Why? Because my commute is now so short it affords me more time for exercise. Noise and light pollution are annoying but unlikely to cause illness unless it is related to loss of sleep which I don’t really have a problem with.
I have always had some doubts about that figure of 400 people a year. How was it measured? Was it in a peer reviewed study? Has the study been repeated? Is it 400 people from straight air pollution or are the counting it as a contributing factor? What diseases have been identified as being affected by air pollution? What is the background death rate for air pollution?
Also you state that air pollution etc is less in low density areas therefore you have better health but there are other factors to consider. Lower density areas mean more driving/travel therefore raising your risk of being in an accident. Gardening accidents, chemical fertilisers or pesticides (even if you don’t use them your neighbour could). Without taking into account the full range of risk factors we cannot know who is healthier, individuals in high density or low density suburbs.
“Health-wise, low density is better. I will always live in low density areas, or the countryside. Your health is better off that way, than living with higher levels of air, noise and light pollution that comes with high density living. In Auckland alone, 400 people die every year from air pollution, and that is strongest in the high densoty areas.”
The reason it’s ‘strongest’ in the high density areas is because of all the air pollution from people living in the suburbs who demand (or perhaps are forced) to drive their SUV into the city. Certainly, dense cities I’ve lived in in Europe had better air in the city than Auckland in part because everyone was able to walk, cycle or catch the tram/train/bus where they wanted, whereas those living in rural areas didn’t have the freedom to clog up the innercity streets with their cars.
“Europe had better air in the city than Auckland”
Not to mention those that do drive, drive modern compact fuel efficient vehicles with far less emissions than your typical tired old kiwi medium to large car.
“Lastly, a larger section with grass and trees also acts as a carbon sink, whereas apartments don’t have that ability. So whether everybody is crammed into one dense area surrounded by more countryside, or everyone spread out over larger sections with lawns and trees, but surrounded by less countryside, it probably works out fairly similar either way from an environmental point of view.”
There’s also something to be said about the social aspect of sharing public space rather than privatising it all by dividing it up into tiny lots for people to fence off and park their cars in. Personally I’d rather interact with other people in public gardens and parks than attempt to isolate myself from the rest of the world.
Geoff – do you have any evidence on what proportion of people with sections in Auckland actually choose to use them to produce food? Or what proportion of their own food they produce? I have a backyard veggie garden that is probably as big as most in Auckland and it produces a TINY proportion of what I eat – probalby around 1% – maybe less. I love gardening but I don’t kid myself that I am reducing my environmental impact much (if at all) by doing it.
Most of the low density houses in this example look to me as if a huge proportion of the section is being taken up by the house and there is little land left to grow food – this is quite different to the old state houses we used to build where the houses were quite small and the sections were big so there was enough space to grow a (fair) proportion of your own food. Also, do you have any evidence at all that the positive environmental impacts of growing some food in your back garden (or having a life style block) are not considerably outweighed by the negative environmental impacts of driving significantly more because you live in a lower density neighbourhood? Or using more energy because you live in a big house rather than a smaller apartment? Or simply buying more possessions (and a car) because you have space to store way more stuff?
I have seen a study which showed there is a strong correlation for children between living in more high density areas and lower rates of obesity. The researchers were pretty certain it was because the children walked more.
Finally @ Bryce – you said “To meet the need from (largely) migrant communities that retain an affinity for living as extended families. Many Asian and Polynesian families retain these cultural preferences, and they are amongst the fastest growing sectors (by either birth rate or migration).”
I would like to see some evidence for this statement, like, for example, a survey of say 1000 Pasifika NZers and a 1000 Asian NZers to see what type of housing arrangement they would prefer. I have seen plenty of stories in the paper about how low income families in South Auckland are living in extended families, but in almost all cases it sounds as if their reasons for doing so are poverty, rather than by choice.
Huh? False accusation 🙂
What’s interesting about the houses above – and this applies all over NZ – is the wasted space at the front of the section, between the footpath and the house, usually to the side of the driveway.
It’s no doubt to provide some degree of privacy from the footpath, but I’d guess that in most houses it’s rarely actually used.
Agreed – nice theory about the back garden produce; in practice, a relatively insignificant factor in today’s food economy.
I would also question the overall position of suburbs being healthy. Great theory, weak in reality. ARPHS recently asserted this in their submission to the Productivity Commission’s housing report. To quote (para 47 in the below document link):
“When considered solely from the public health viewpoint, sprawl delivers poorer health and well-being outcomes.”
http://www.productivity.govt.nz/sites/default/files/Sub%20010%20-%20Auckland%20Regional%20Public%20Health%20Service%20Submission.pdf
“What’s interesting about the houses above – and this applies all over NZ – is the wasted space at the front of the section, between the footpath and the house, usually to the side of the driveway.”
Front lawns are not “wasted space”. Personally I think green space is more valuable than built on space, and the more of it, the better. Nothing more satisfying than finishing mowing the lawns, and looking back at your tidy yard and garden.
Geoff there often tends to be large setbacks from the road but it is wasted space as about the only thing most people can do with it is mow it. It would be far better to have the house moved further forward on the section and have a bigger back yard.
“Front lawns are not “wasted space”. Personally I think green space is more valuable than built on space, and the more of it, the better. Nothing more satisfying than finishing mowing the lawns, and looking back at your tidy yard and garden.”
Each to his own, personally I consider mowing a lawn a waste of my time and would much rather have the house fronting onto the street directly with that space incorporated into a yard at the back or simply pooled to allow the construction of an additional house. The amount of land wasted on these berms is significant and only acts to further drive up purchase costs. Besides, people such as yourself Geoff who love their lawn are in no way being harmed by providing more choice for those of us who’d rather spend that time doing more productive things or relaxing, so stop railing against it. You start to sound like George Bush who stated that the Texan way of life was the best in the world and everyone else should adopt it.
@bbc, you misunderstand – KLK declared front lawns are wasted space. I merely pointed out that most people would disagree. Land does not have to be built on to be regarded as not wasted. Most people like green space, and city dwellers often seek it out, because they miss it. They flock to parks in their lunch times.
As for your George Bush comment – where did I say everyone should have a front lawn?
Well, how about “not an efficient use” of that space…
I am really targeting the first house shown. That’s a huge bit of lawn in front thats just there to be mowed. It looks like you could park 2-3 cars on end between the front boundary and the closest part of the house, the garage.
For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t like to build right up to the footpath and have the neighbors watching me fall asleep in front of the TV after one too many red wines, but I reckon I’d be happy with about half of the space that’s shown in that first section. Kind of like the other two shots.
Geoff the problem is that under current regs everyone does have to have a front lawn, or technically, a ‘set-back’. And in many places this is indeed a set back to quality of life in our city. Leading as it does to insipid and defuse land occupation and therefore dull and lifeless suburbia. And, crucially, further auto- dependency:
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/01/30/intensification-and-heritage/
“KLK declared front lawns are wasted space. I merely pointed out that most people would disagree”
You might disagree, but most people? I’d like to see some evidence for that, just as i’d like some evidence for “Nothing more satisfying than finishing mowing the lawns”.
If mowing grass is the most satisfying experience in life, how can Vienna, hardly a city of lawn mowers, be consistently ranked one of the worlds most liveable cities? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_most_livable_cities
“Most people like green space, and city dwellers often seek it out, because they miss it.”
I’ve yet to notice a trend for people flocking to their streetside front yard. The space would be far more useful in the place the people do actually hang out, their back yard, or pooled into communal park space.
KLK, the house photographed is in Western Heights, which is my neck of the woods. As with the house in the photo, pretty much all the residents there have landscaped, tidy gardens. It’s what they want, and enjoy having. I don’t see why that is a problem. Let people live as they want to live. As it is, Western Heights is medium density, not low. The houses have front and back lawns, but they are not huge, and sideways, the houses are very close together. I can’t believe anyone would think it needs to be more tightly packed.
Patrick, may I suggest you visit Western Heights so that you can see how wrong you are. Lifeless suburbia couldn’t be further from the truth. On the contrary, it is a suburb that works extremely well. The people all have tidy properties, there is strong community, and a friendly atmosphere. The streets are also quiet, and most evenings you’ll find residents out walking in their park, Paremuka Reserve.
Each to their own Geoff, I agree. As I struggle to get too excited by the degree of thrill on offer in Ponsonby I think I’ll have to take your word for the joys of Western Heights. The point of the post, as I see it, is not so much that existing places should change but the rules should not proscribe this model for every new place. Expressly because there may be demand for more intensive living by others. So I think we agree; lets allow for every type of habitation.