An article in Wednesday’s NZ Herald confirms the worst-held fears of many: that Auckland Council is shifting away from mostly focusing on growing the city over the next 30 years through intensification to putting a larger number of people on the urban edge.
Auckland Council has eased up on its vision of squeezing residents up closer by keeping 75 per cent of new housing on existing land and just 25 per cent outside the limits within the next three decades.
Instead, it is now discussing a 60/40 split, which the development sector is hailing as a victory after intense opposition and lobbying and independent reports which criticised the original scheme as unworkable.
Admin did quite a few posts on the sprawl/intensification split in the draft Auckland Plan, highlighting that even that plan actually provided for a significant amount of urban sprawl. While the yellow boxes look fairly small, put them together and you get an idea about how much current farmland is proposed to be turned into housing over the next 30 years – even under the proposed plan!
One does wonder how much bigger these boxes must be to accommodate an even greater proportion of population growth in areas outside the current urban limits. Plus, of course, the 60/40 split is not actually a split between greenfield and intensification, but rather a split between development inside the urban limit and outside the urban limit. There are still significant areas inside the urban limits that haven’t been developed yet, like Long Bay, Flat Bush and Takanini. There’s room for around 30,000 dwellings in these areas – a not insignificant amount!
So, let’s take a look at the numbers in three scenarios, known generally as 75/25, 70/30 and 60/40:
So if we put percentage values on this we actually find that the 60/40 split, for example, is much closer to 50/50: 
By way of comparison, in 2006 there were 145,000 dwellings in the whole of the former Auckland City. Less than the number of “Greenfield outside the MUL” dwellings proposed over the next 30 years.
At the very least, I suppose, we can hope that the planning for these new greenfield communities would be done well and perhaps they could become excellent urban areas where we put all our learnings of the past 50 years about how not to do urban development into practice and actually, for a change, build new areas that aren’t mind-numbingly depressing like Dannemora, Albany and what’s been built of Flat Bush so far. But, it seems that won’t happen either, as much of the urban sprawl will be rushed in during the first decade (which also undermines all our efforts at intensification during that time). Back to the Herald article:
The image of high-rise hell in heritage waterfront suburbs such as Birkenhead and Northcote caused an outcry and Property Council chief executive Connal Townsend said yesterday he was pleased about the apparent relaxation in the council’s policy.
“The really interesting thing is that the 75/25 split was due to kick in at the start of the plan. I understand the new arrangement places high emphasis on greenfields development in the first 10 years, with a requirement for high quality dense development to get the market used to it as an approach.”
So we build sprawl like mad for the first decade and maybe do some intensification later. Sounds a bit like our transport policy: build heaps of roads now and maybe some public transport later.
It seems like the Auckland Plan is turning into a transformational shift – transforming us right back to 1950s planning and transport policy.
Processing...
This decision has not yet been made so it is important that anyone who disagrees with it contact their Councillor and let them know that more intensification is crucial.
Good point David. Hard to work out who the “on the fence” councillors would be – perhaps the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor in particular as it seems quite a few people take their cues on what to vote for according to what the Mayor and Deputy Mayor are saying.
I am guessing a 60/40 split will lead to continuous urban development all the way to Pukekohe in the south and to Huapai in the northwest.
And weirdly, because it is the anti PT councillors that are pushing this, those thousands on the perifery are going to really need a high functioning RTN network as we know that low density suburbs offer little employment opportunities. These new suburbs are based on the old fashioned dormitory or commuter model. Well good luck with that this century.
Cameron Brewer is also worth talking to. As chair of Council’s Planning and Urban Design Forum, his opinions are likely to carry greater weight. I’d be interested to know what his current position is – as a strong advocate of Newmarket he’s been one to stand behind intelligent intensification, but he’s aligned with a faction that loves their sprawl.
Except Cllr Brewer did a royal Bollocks up with Newmarket Station which is now hamstrung and a total bottleneck in the rail network. The Station was built in the wrong location and from what I heard needs a rebuild to allow for growth in rail traffic regardless of the CRL or Southdown/Avondale Link. The Track Layout for Newmarket also stinks with pinch points at all ends which causes delays in an out of that area.
How much did Cameron Brewer really have to do with Newmarket being put where it is? I wouldn’t think much, even when he was the Newmarket Business Association spokesman.
The CRL should ease pressure on Newmarket as there won’t be any need to reverse trains there anymore.
With the motorways in the transport plan and a complete back down on intensification, it looks like there’s been a complete cave-in somewhere.
Wonder if Mayor McKay is behind it?
I guess we’d have to hope that the development costs of greenfieds sites outside the MUL are expensive enough to make it difficult to develop.
A compromise could be allocating land within a walking distance of ~400m of the new RT stations for high density. These developments would then not have to contend with nimby’s.
Yes, excellent, a condition of ex-urbian developments should be that the RTN connections are put in first. It’s how they do it in Germany…. if they also got permanent green belt areas and really good town centres then they mightn’t be half bad, but not just just endless, heartless low density sprawl like we have been doing.
But James have you seen that the sprawlers are also lobbying for motorway and services to be provider for them by us…. I forget the link, it’ll be around.
Yes this is the theme of a post I have been meaning to write for some time
And hefty developer contributions to extension of the RTN to service their development, too. Oh, they can’t make a profit if they have to do that? They can always build on brownfield land, or increase the density of some of their other developments.
The Council doesn’t have to make it cheap to sprawl, and shouldn’t given the significant ongoing costs to the Council that sprawl incurs. Allowing growth outside the existing MUL should come with big expectations on the developers to make it cheaper and easier for the Council and taxpayer to support the residents of the development in the future.
I saw a comment in the herald arguing that we should make every household a quarter acre section. To provide some context this would require nearly 600 km2 of land not including roads, parks commercial areas, industrial etc. Just a house and the backyard. The current metro area of Auckland including all those things is 637km2. I don’t even want to think how much land those things would need. Probably double that. Coatesville, Riverhead, Kumeu, Whitford, Karaka, Maratai would all be suburbs. All that land just so you can look at the grass grow.
Don’t say it too loudly or the Professional Firefighters Union will start supporting the idea. Auckland currently has 28 fire stations with paid crews, 26 of them 24/7 the others 0700-1700 Monday-Friday (so-called Yellow Watch). At a minimum, the kind of sprawl being suggested there would require another 15 24/7 fire stations, possibly more. A single-crew 24/7 fire station costs about a million dollars a year to run. So to support this wet dream of suburban hell, we’re talking at least $15m annually just for fire protection, never mind all the other associated costs for doubling the land area that Auckland occupies.
Also, since I’m sure that the person who suggested it was an advocate for “choice” in housing, what the hell kind of choice is there in only being able to buy/rent cookie-cutter pavlova paradises?
No she didn’t mention choice. She just came out and said it was the best form of housing so therefore it is the only housing we should provide. Basically she wanted a minimum lot size of 1/4 acre.
I really think something like this might work in Auckland.
http://maps.google.co.nz/maps?q=san+francisco&hl=en&ll=37.747989,-122.47288&spn=0.002552,0.004128&hnear=San+Francisco,+California,+United+States&gl=nz&sqi=2&t=h&z=19
and street view
http://maps.google.co.nz/maps?q=san+francisco&hl=en&ll=37.747955,-122.473891&spn=0.002552,0.004128&hnear=San+Francisco,+California,+United+States&gl=nz&sqi=2&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=37.747955,-122.473891&panoid=NsnYEDuqBtXPx6hDMnkkDA&cbp=12,266.52,,0,-0.12
No space wasted on setbacks, gaps between houses are eliminated, backyards and houses are still large, houses still look unique from the front.
Just when I thought Auckland might actually be getting somewhere.
Bryce et al, we are to remain a backwater in both global location and thinking for many years to come unfortunately. The ship is sinking and we need to evacuate now.
This is why I wasn’t persuaded to uproot myself from London to Auckland back in 2004.
Don’t despair, remember what Ghandi said: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
We’re at the fighting stage, so nearly there really!
Admins can you delete the other post of mind above this please – errr HTML tags and me do not go – sorry guys 🙁
Patrick your title for the article is entirely misleading and I would not believe the NZ Herald as they are misleading even worse as well.
Last I looked Chapter 8 – Urban Auckland is up for deliberation THIS MONDAY at the Future Vision Committee. The very same chapter which spells out the RUB, and ratio split between 75:25 and 50:50. Now I have read the very same deliberations report that is to go in front of that committee (in fact I have it open on the other screen in adobe) and while I saw a strike out from the 75:25 split – I noticed it was asked to give consideration to both 75:25 and 60:40. I also know through Chapter 7 Rural Auckland that the RUB has been softened slightly after the deliberations of that particular chapter (the one where Cllr Lee throw a wobbly and walked out) as was pondering the 75:25 and 60:40 split. SO what I am getting at is nothing is final until Monday after Council finishes its deliberations and decides whether to go 75:25 or 60:40
Also your tables Patrick have me head scratching? Outside the MUL with Greenfield? I thought it was the RUB and no “urban” sprawl could occur outside even a softened RUB which includes around the Satellites as well. I was under the impression that Council would set the RUB to include Greenfield areas and release the Greenfield rural land inside the RUB as demand needed it over the next 30 years – no growth on a high scale was meant to happen outside the RUB. Which means 240,000 houses in Brownfield Land and I would say strictly speaking including the Satellites 160,000 in Greenfield land INSIDE the RUB. Any development outside the RUB and Satellites would be bugger all according to Chapter 7.
As for what is up on the plate on Monday for deliberations – The Left wanted 75:25, The Right 50:50 or free for all, and some of us (me included) went for 60:40 with a softer RUB. As quoting from a post of mine:
I personally advocated for a 60:40 ratio (Draft Auckland Plan is 72:25) in Brownfield (Intensification) : Greenfield (Development). So out of the 400,000 new residential dwellings needed; rather than the 300,000 as set out in the Draft Auckland Plan for Brownfield development, it would be around 240,000 (out of 400,000) dwellings needed in the Brownfield zones. Now looking at the report, the maximum plausible was 270,000 and even my 240,000 is pushing the barrow up the hill – with the 50:50 (200,000) split being advocated by the centre-right in Auckland Council also pushing it
Cited from VOAKL here http://wp.me/p266na-5Y
Seems to be where the deliberations agenda on Chapter 8 were heading which for me was something to be happy with but still and issue with the Centres Hierarchy and how on earth this is going to be executed although the Draft Long Term Plan might give us clues there.
Nothing is final with Council choice until Monday and I have been advised that The Auckland Plan and Long Term Plan can under go rewrites every time a new council is elected – ratification time next year folks.
Also I will not pass final judgement until final decision is made from Council – would be jumping the gun somewhat especially if Council swings a way no one expected
Ben I don’t think you read the Chapter 8 report in very much detail, because it specifically says that issues relating to the RUB have been shifted to Section D – the development strategy. This was deliberated upon on Friday (week before last), which seems to be what the Herald article was going off.
Not sure why you’re confused by the tables either. It seemed pretty clear in the post that there are areas which aren’t yet developed but also fall inside the urban limits (the RUB). Places like Flat Bush, Takanini, Long Bay, some areas out near Sturges Road in West Auckland and so forth. As these develop they will be greenfield areas (that is, not an intensification of the existing urban area), but they still are within the urban limit as it currently stands. How hard is that to understand? What’s quite staggering is how those 30,000 dwellings are consistently ignored in all the calculations. If you really want 60% to be through intensification, then actually you’re promoting something close to a 70/30 split.
Your final point though is well made though as the Auckland Plan has not yet been fully adopted. So there’s always the opportunity to change it until that time.
I’m wondering if it even matters what proportions they decide to employ today. If the effects of more expensive energy appear as soon and as significantly as many think they will, then very few people will be wanting to detached homes in far-flung suburbs with no useful public transport. The sprawl strategy may work if they build it in clusters of industrial, commercial and residential which are effectively self-contained economic units….but doing that reduces the economies of scale available to a larger city that is better integrated and dense.
We may find that in 5-10 years this strategy will be reversed by reality biting….and the developers who command the attention of government ministers today will not command the same influence. They may even have gone bust when they built homes few can afford and more don’t want to buy anyway.
If we aren’t right about the consequences of peak oil, then it won’t really matter. Traffic will be messy and we can all move to New Christchurch to find some peace.
Well that’s sort of my view too, except by choosing sprawl and especially continuing to build motorways we are wasting valuable time and scarce money to help get Auckland, and the country, in a better shape for a more resource scarce future. The only reason petrol isn’t way over $3 dollars a litre now is because of the unsustainably high NZ dollar. A combination of the dollar falling and oil rising would have a sudden and intense impact on society and the economy, $4+ at the pump. And we are taking the absolute reverse of any precautions for this. Yet it is more than possible, it’s likely. Especially if the idiots prevail and Iran gets attacked. It will be called an ‘oil shock’ and the public will be surprised and angry but probably at the wrong people… so it goes.
I am very disappointed that these things are not even discussed at government level but you know what it is?; they can’t even begin to admit the possibility, they are clinging to the last century’s certainties with the power of faith, the RoNS represent a determination that nothing is changing, nothing will change in the world. Nothing about the policy is rational, it is about asserting a view of the world onto the country. This is a very ideologically driven yet unsophisticated government, their actions and policies are not fact based but culturally based. It’s certainties were forged in a time that has already gone. And unfortunately we will have to pick up the pieces. Interesting times.
I was listening to a Middle East policy expert from one of the UK think tanks, and he predicted that if Iran got serious about closing the Straits of Hormuz (which would lead to near-immediate annihilation of its military at the hands of the US Navy, but that’s not the point) the price of oil would break through USD200/bbl. Even with military might assuring the reopening in short order, the instability would ensure the price would stay exceptionally high for at least several weeks.
Similarly, if the hot-heads in Israel get their way and conduct a pre-emptive strike on Iran, the price of oil will doubtless jump significantly.
The real policy that will affect developers is what development levies the Council will charge for greenfield vs brownfield land. We know that for Melbourne, the costs of State-provided infrastructure were about $100k per dwelling for greenfield development, vs about $44k per dwelling for infill development. There needs to be a project within Council to collect the evidence and recommend what these fees should be. If this is not evidence-driven, it will quickly become a policy driven by vested interests. There is already a policy of supporting in-fill intensification in certain areas, so these are the areas that should be cross-subsidised with lower fees. Perhaps brownfield and in-fill fees should be related to the number of parking places rather than the number of dwellings, because dwellings without parking won’t require additional road infrastructure. If greenfield development fees are too low, the rest of the populace will eventually have to pay for their infrastructure.
You cannot construct a building and not have it connected to the road network. Even if the occupiers don’t drive, there are legitimate, non-negotiable requirements for vehicles to be able to get to the house: emergency services, utility services, delivery vehicles…
Good point. But apartment residents without cars in areas that already have good public transport would place much less burden on the road network than if they did have cars. When apartment prices include a “bundled” car parking space it pushes up the total price of the residence, represents a cross-subsidy from those who don’t have a car, and increases the potential burden on the road network if they choose to use their cars for commuting. These cross-subsidies are reduced if the parking spaces are sold separately.
There should really be 4 factors built into the developer charge
– per parking space (to cover the additional costs of road capacity to cover commuting)
– per residence
– per person (because even people without cars need some additional Council-provided infrastructure)
– per hectare
If up-front levies are too high, the costs could be “hidden” through a rate levy imposed just on those developments. While less visible to the market than up-front fees, it would reduce the need for the rest of the city to subsidise their infrastructure.
Excellent point Malcolm. If the development contributions for greenfield developments were 2-3 times those for intensification I suspect things would change quite a bit from what we see now. Most current policies just have a uniform per unit charge which incentivises building the biggest house possible.
Yes let the market decide- but set rational regulations and levies that reflect the true cost to the city of each development site. But beware that the sprawl advocates not only want the right to build out there but also expect subsidies to do so…. Not handouts of course, but all the infrastructure paid for by us. And still they will be arguing, as they are now, that it’s all in the interests of affordable housing and ‘only’ supplying what everyone wants.
Yep that is something that I have long thought. We know that sprawl is much more costly in terms of the amount of new infrastructure required as well as the pressure placed on existing infrastructure. There are also increases in costs of providing services etc so if costs were properly reflected in the development contributions then it would likely naturally limit sprawl. As you say though, the costs would have to be backed up by solid evidence otherwise it would be open to being changed with every new council.
Auckland Council is required by law to base the entire Auckland Plan upon emperical evidence. The law says that:
Section 79 (4) (c) of the LG (Auckland Council) Act 2009 require that the spatial plan must “provide an evidential base to support decision making for Auckland, including evidence of trends, opportunities and constraints within Auckland.”
Auckland Council is not permitted by law to plan a city that it cannot deliver. It is not permitted by law to set aspirational targets because what is written in the plan leads what is delivered in the Unitary Plan and subsequent planning decisions. Thus, the emphasis is upon the need to prove deliverability through emperical evidence.
The intensification target is set very high. Council is saying that all of the 400,000 can be accomodated within the MUL. However they have not proven where the land is that will be made available for that retrospective development to occur.
Council are required to undertake a two step process (1) prove theoretical capacity under zoning provisions and (2) prove that land as capacity can be, and will be converted to supply, allowing therefore the development community to develop it.
The development community does not favour one type of development over another if all development can be profitable.
The industry is concerned about where the land is to undertake this development.
Whilst I could write more, I challenge each and every one of you to prove where the land exists, vacant and allowing for development to occur. Almost all land in Auckland that would be needed to accomododate growth is already occupied by businesses and buildings and houses and families. How is Council going to prove that any of that will be made available for redevelopment.
Sydney is a great example. They achieved a 60/40 intensification target because there was vast amounts of land within their MUL vacant. There was masses of portside land vacated in favour of Botany Bay that created significant opportunity. Large amounts of land sat undeveloped. For 30 years they have enjoyed development of intensification because they had the land to do it on.
In Auckland we are entirely dependent upon redevelopment. As history has shown us, converting that is difficult and slow. This is because neither Council nor developers control the land and niether can tell the land owners to sell their land and buildings, to redevelop, to maximise their development opportunity or to vacate. So how do you suppose 400,000 houses can be built if the land is simply not available for that purpose?
Mr Insider, thanks for your comment however I think the key to your problem is your assumptions: 1. You seem to be only able to imagine ‘houses’ not dwellings [ie detachted houses not apartments or town houses], and 2. similarly you also only seem to be interested in big continuos development sites. In other words the model you have is what we have been doing. That’s the thing about transformation; it explicitly means doing things differently: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/02/26/what-does-transformational-actually-mean/
Here is an example also from across the ditch. You will note that it is called Transforming Australian Cities: http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/AboutMelbourne/Statistics/Documents/TransformingCitiesMay2010.pdf
If you carefully look at this plan you will see that it doesn’t involve tracts of low density detached houses on the periphery, but rather intensification of brownfields and underutilised sites along transit corridors, as outlined in the proposed AK plan. Why is this preferable? First we know from current dwelling prices that many do want to live in the city not on the edge of it. And because a higher density pattern is the only way to provide a much more affordable dwelling, especially in areas that do not condemn the occupants to additional and unaffordable transport costs. While also saving the city and the state from having to spend vast amounts on spreading infrastructure out to the newly destroyed countryside. These include everything from roads, water, and electricity, to schools, firestations and policing. You will also note, despite the panic from sprawl advocates like Dick Quax that this plan is expressly designed to protect the current nature of existing lower density suburbs and complement them with the kind of density at their edges that makes for a vibrant city.
Can it happen here? Yes, it is starting to despite little help from city regulations, see here:
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/01/27/auckland-density-illustrated-i-the-inner-city/
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/?s=intensity&submit.x=0&submit.y=0&submit=Search
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/01/30/intensification-and-heritage/
Can it be done? Well that too is in the council’s hand as they will need to facilitate the development of these sites through changes to their regulations and other measures such as partnering with developers. Good detail on this in the Melbourne doc. above.
Can you, as some kind of insider, explain why change if we actively seek is not possible, or is it more that you just don’t want it?
Firstly I am an advocate of intensification. Let’s not get threatened by someone posing the question about deliverability and lets not assume that when someone does they are advocates for green-field sprawl.
Secondly, and with all due respect, I don’t believe you know what you are talking about when you say that higher density dwellings are affordable because they are not.
Unlike you I have developed apartment buildings, terrace houses, town houses, lofts, commercial buildings, town centres and I have developed in the city and in green-field areas. I can empathically state with absolute conviction that you are talking utter nonsense. Whilst I could argue the rationale for my comment, I suspect you won’t be interested in listening so I will focus on your questions and correcting a couple of your assumptions.
The industry doesn’t have an issue with developing intensification because any profitable development is worth doing. The issue however is about capacity and supply. There are other issues however those issues fall outside of the responsibility and control of the Council.
You missed the point of my earlier comment on your site – that Council is obliged by law to base the plan on empirical evidence. The various links you make to reports for instance in Australia do not constitute evidence because they are opinions. Evidence has a structured basis, and relate specifically to disciplines of qualified practitioners. What constitutes evidence is well tested in the Environment Court, High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of New Zealand not to mention the Privy Council and everything outside of that is opinion.
Good evidence is contextual. Drawing comparisons to overseas is only useful if contextual settings are similar.
Focussing on evidence, and capacity and supply analysis Council is required to indentify the land that can and will be developed. The issue with Auckland Council’s analysis is that it made gross assumptions about capacity that when subjected to more onerous fine grained analysis proved to be wide of the mark.
Capacity however has proven historically to be a bit meaningless. Whilst underlying or projected development capacity can be indentified by a simple evaluation of zoned opportunity that allows an equation to be formulated, it makes no attempt to prove how that zoned opportunity will be developed. The assumptions are erroneous because capacity is only capacity if it is realised. Council has to prove that capacity will become supply. Auckland theoretically has sufficient existing zoned opportunity to realise capacity for the 400,000 dwellings required but not much of it is being developed. Thus capacity is meaningless.
Auckland contextually is very different to many of the cities around the world that have transformed through intensification. Auckland requires significant retrospective redevelopment because there simply is not the bare land within the MUL/RUB to allow for intensification to occur as it has happened in other cities. Many people, (yourself included) have erroneously assumed that there is sufficient land within brownfield areas, and around town centres. Actual studies have demonstrated that in those locations the actual capacity is substantially less. Thus, Council have over estimated capacity.
The reality is that more land is required to be zoned than Council first estimated and that will be reflected in the Auckland Plan. The trouble with that is many places around Auckland will resist re-zoning. Do you think the business owners in their brownfield areas might resist having to move? You bet they will.
Perhaps more significantly Council has not proven how capacity becomes supply. How does a Council prove that when a site is sold it will be developed? How does Council prove that the land will be put up for sale? As developers we are entirely dependent on land becoming available, with the right zoning and at the right price and in a place where we can sell the product we are developing. If those planets don’t align we can’t develop. The most significant issue is land becoming available. Most of the places we need to develop are simply not available.
Nobody can force a land owner to sell or redevelop or redevelop a specific building. Despite that being unlawful, it is also a facet of our society that it has the fundamental right to determine what it does with it’s own property. Property rights are cornerstone of our society.
The alternative to letting the market decide what it does is to force change upon land owners.
Forcing land owners to sell, redevelop or develop in a specific manner is to essentially adopt the principles of fascism The essential characteristic of socialism and fascism is the denial of individual property rights. The right to property is the right to use and disposal. Fascism, leaves ownership in the hands of the private individuals but transfers control of the property to government. Forcing land owners to do what you want by dictating what and how they can deal with their properties is a step too far.
So Auckland Council can’t force change in land use to happen, the question still remains… how can it prove it will?
It is appropriate for Council to plan and zone for opportunity, but it is not appropriate for a Council to intervene by controlling what property owners do with their properties.
As an analogy I suggest that you consider this. Imagine that the Council was entirely supportive of Greenfield development and that they had aspirations of one character for the entire city, thus imposing change to suburban environments so that the existing suburbs convert to brick and tile houses to match the Greenfield areas and then imagine that Council forced land owners to change. Would you be offended if you were being told to demolish your house and replace it with a brick and tile house? I bet you would. Don’t be surprised therefore that people will be offended by the suggestion that they be forced to develop their property they way you want it, as intensified dwellings. Don’t be surprised if people resist living in it.
So if Council cannot force change, then how does it suppose change will occur? Specifically – how does Auckland Council prove that capacity will be realised and supply will be created allowing for the massive wide scale level of development it is planning? The answer is it can’t. Thus, it must sensibly plan for a city that is deliverable. That is the core of the issue for the development community. Deliverability. There is no point planning utopia if there is no way it can be created, whether we want it or not.
Here is a question for you? You live happily in your GV$1.9m house at Livingstone Street, Grey Lynn with 612 sqm of land and nice renovated villa. You live in a house but are telling everyone else in the city to live in an apartment. Where do you get off on that? Doesn’t that make you a hypocrite? Perhaps rather than bleat on about what the city should be and how other people should live, you could do your argument some credibility by living it.
Thank-you again for your reply.
I am puzzelled by your focus on ‘force’. The council has a huge amount of ability to incentivise change of land-use without recourse to force, through regulation, and indeed regulation waivers. As a developer you will of course be familiar with working these sorts of opportunities. This is the point, along with restricting unregulated spread the council needs to actively facilitate redevelopment on brownfields site. A lot of change is needed here, and the Melbourne doc is useful for that. And of course with enough incentive plenty of business and commercial property owners will be happy to see the repurposing of their properties.
My point about multiunit being more affordable is true if you compare building types IN THE SAME market. A detached house half way to Hamilton will be cheaper than a St Mary’s bay apartment but that is a useless fact. My point is that the only way to add any kind of layer of more affordable dwellings in desirable areas [yes like where I live] is to up the density on available sites. And to take my area, that means the commercial sites on Great North Rd, and Ponsonby Rd rd itself. The council can do a lot to help make this happen through zoning, and other ways to facilitate these changes, which should also help developers make money [if they’re any good- and if the new rules are smart].
As for your childish jibe at the end, crazy isn’t it? That these old Victorian shacks keep going up in value is a big part of the problem, but it does tell you which areas people want to live in. I couldn’t buy into this area now, I’m [unfortunately] old enough to have seen what’s good about inner suburb living and to have got on the property ladder before things got crazy around here. Anyway, whatever, I have many friends and family members with fewer resources than me who do live in apartments because living centrally is more important to them than mowing lawns [examples in the comment above]. It does take all types and no one is suggesting destroying the vast existing detached housing stock but rather it is an argument about how we should grow from here.
I’m not clear what you really are suggesting anyway, what is your answer? What should the council do to facilitate the development of the sites indentified on the transit corridors? Tell us how the council could set things up to help you build good quality medium and high density dwellings on those many transit routes and make a decent return off them? Or are you more interested in hiring a QC to mandate ever more sprawl through legalistic tricks?
Good questions.
Firstly I live in an apartment, having the luxury to do so.
Secondly I don’t advocate for sprawl and you can be sure I agree emphatically with your sentiments about greenfield development and the necessity to change. Thus I have no desire to engage the wig and cloak brigade on such escapades. I have no desire to develop houses in the ‘suburbs or in any Greenfield locations. I couldn’t think of anything more boring and repetitive.
However what I can’t ignore is that it is virtually impossible to sell apartments. Last year Auckland Council approved building permits for 217 attached dwellings in Auckland. Consistently since 1991 less than 1000 attached dwellings have been built and in the peak of the market in 2004 it reached the lofty heights of 5300 dwellings. But that boom was artificially created through excessive debt fuelled lending. It wasn’t a real boom in the way economically we consider them.
By comparison the housing market has delivered in excess of 11,000 stand alone houses per annum, dwarfing the volume constructed by those of us developing intensification. Most of those houses were developed by sole traders – the small builder with 0-5 staff building one or two dwellings per annum. There were less than 30 developers in Auckland building more than 30 attached dwellings per annum and most of them have gone broke, reinforcing the point that apartments are troublesome.
There are issues with apartments. Apartments are unit titled. They are expensive. Unit titled property have a historically volatile record in New Zealand where values are concerned. This is in part because almost exclusively all unit titled developments are owned by investors rather than owner occupiers (who add stability to the market). Thus the banks don’t like them and expect much larger deposits to from borrowers (40% in most instances). The reason for this is that banks typically cannot loan over 70% of the value of the asset unless they can obtain insurance for the ‘at risk portion’ of the loan (which is anything over 70%). The insurance companies in assessing their risks are adverse to the odds on unit titled property because of the volatility and that it in essence translates to high risk of default on loans and insurance payouts. Where has houses are stable and increase in value more substantially over time due to the land component attached to fee simple titles.
So as such when the market can’t participate in acquiring apartments due to the deposit demands of the banks, we end up with a product that is purchased predominantly by investors. Those investors are typically borrowing against the equity they have in their family homes. When the market isn’t rising they are not buying.
So unit titled developments are not a sustainable development form. There is no way anyone can simply rely upon them to be built year in year out.
What is more, the market is awash with sole traders developing houses. These people have no way of participating in the development of multi unit dwellings because it is outside of their experience, skill base, capital funding capacity and risk profile. That leaves the dependency upon a very small group of individuals to develop intensive housing and that’s a big ask.
A responsible Council would understand those dynamics and plan for them. Getting the small sole traders to participate in the market place developing more intensive housing typologies is paramount because we are dependent upon them more that we are dependent on the big developments and simply because they typically develop 80% of all dwellings period.
The Auckland Plan is striving for a level of intensification that is almost exclusively apartments. That’s not possible unless Council can resolve a manner of issues as explained above and those matters are outside of it’s responsibilities or influence.
What I prescribe is working to develop a series of intensive development forms that rely on fee simple titles. For example fee simple terrace houses are a fantastic alternative. But the problem with that is the density will be much lower and thus Auckland by default will have to accommodate the balance in Greenfield areas.
Yet despite my enthusiasm for terrace and town house developments (New York town houses for example) there still remains the fundamental issue of land supply. I can tell you I have been out trying to buy land for this typology for 2 years and can’t find anything that stacks up or is available. Most of the sites have built form on them that are worth too much and so the overall purchase price is too high.
So my issue isn’t with the intensification of Auckland, bring it on I say. It is with the fact there is no land available to do it. Sure there is New Lynn and Wynyard Quarter but those places have their issues and that is why they are not working.
Council incentives are not really what makes development work. Many of the suggested regulation waivers are unlawful so Council has no right to implement them. the range of incentives left are almost meaningless.
What makes it work is a market that can afford it, and available land.
As for the childish comment, I make it merely to get you thinking. Often these arguments about intensification versus sprawl are viewed as being an argument between the two extremes – sprawl advocates versus intensification advocates who put themselves out on the fringe and won’t concede to any compromised position. Living in a democracy is all about compromise as we balance out all the needs and wants of society.
In all my experience I am yet to meet an advocate for intensification who actually lives it. And I find that appalling.
It is more helpful a debate therefore if we are willing to find middle ground between the two extremes and to be accepting of the position that our city arrives out, and if we really want those things to get out there and live it. the change that needs to occur, needs everyone to participate in it, not just new people turning up in the future.
Plainly put, banks and people are wary of ‘intensification’ because developers have done such a shit job of building them over the past 20 years. End of story!
As for land availability, both councils and developers are guilty of poor use of land over the past 30 years. Case in point is Rosebank Rd. All the business developments are hugely wastefull of valuable land and still have way too many carparks. Look at Botany. Greenfield development but absolute rubbish result. Huge carparks and virtually no access to the town centre by foot. I have lived in a terrace house in Onehunga. Great spot but ruined by poor design. Due to this insistence of a ‘med stlye’ house you can’t leave any windows open when it rains (oh and the basement flooded, NZ post moved in next door and customers parked their cars in the driveway etc etc). Who’s fault is that? The banks? The owners?
Industry Insider, you make some good points about how challenging intensification can be – at a practical level that you obviously have good experience in. This is really helpful and informative for all of us who haven’t been quite so “at the coalface”.
However, I have a few questions though:
1) Your key point seems to be that the ‘unwillingness’ of existing owners to sell is a huge constraint on the extent of intensification that’s possible. This is a fair point, but what could we do to encourage that to change? If these areas were upzoned hugely would that effectively “price out” existing uses. I’m more thinking about car yards along Great North Road and panelbeaters in Onehunga being priced out – creating large sites that seems quite suitable for intensification. We are seeing existing uses progressively priced out of Wynyard Quarter as it being rezoned.
Other cities around the world often get the council much more involved in redevelopment. The new outer ring of Paris’s Metro system is largely being funded by the local government’s redevelopment of land around all the proposed stations – which includes massive upzoning. In Perth we have seen a lot of PPPs between council and private developers – which seem relatively successful. What about that idea?
2) You suggest that planning rules are a relatively minor impediment to intensification, yet this seems strange – especially at the lower intensity level. The district plan rules actively stop small-scale intensification such as town houses and terraced houses through the “minimum lot size” density rules. Take those away and only control building height, lot coverage and maybe one or two other things and you could see a lot of small-scale intensification become commercially viable. Or do you disagree?
3) For widespread terraced housing, what about areas like Glen Innes/Tamaki? Here the average lot size seems to be around 800-1000 square metres, whereas good terraced housing could probably work at around 150 square metres per unit. Those are some pretty amazing development multiples. Obviously the market attractiveness of the area is problematic, but that can change over time.
I’m sure I have plenty of other questions. Will think about them.
If you asked a real estate agent or developer about ‘market attractiveness’ of Pt Chev or Grey Lynn 35 years ago they would have laughed at you. The developers and the council are the ones with the power to make an area attractive enough so that people ‘want’ to live and work there. There are great chunks of Onehunga that would benefit from some good development.
Also, just freeing up land outside of the MUL does not assist developers with more land in the more central parts of Auckland.
I see the Herald has an article today about how hard it is to find a property to list in Grey Lynn. The only way this will ease is with more intensification. With the pricing of the villas going up, it will make ‘industrial’ land more econmical to build on – ie people really want to live there so will pay more for quality apparments / terrace houses.
As a side note: what do 99% of people do with the 800 sq/m property they just bought? Yip, cross lease down to 400 sq/m. Why are people pushing for 1/4 acre properties? So they can sell them off for a profit. Would capital gains tax make a difference?
@Peter
Yes, GI and Panmure would make a great spot for housing intensification. I think Housing NZ and Auckland Council should get together with known, quality, developers and re-construct these areas as mixed state and private terrace housing, as they are doing at Hobsonville.
Bryce- which page in today’s Herald? Can’t find it anywhere.
I don’t understand your comment “The only way this will ease is with more intensification.”
Do you mean in Grey Lynn? GL has been mostly intensified already, we live on a huge section and it’s 470m2. Very little of GL is bigger than that.
You’re right about the 1/4 acres sections- just more selfishness.
And seeing as the love affair with villas just gets more and more intense; would building a bunch of villas on 300-400m2 sections get people excited about GI and Panmure?
Oops, it was a side link from todays house price article back to the beginning of Feb
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10782837
What I meant is that there are obviously a lot of people wanting to live close to the CBD. The only way to accomodate that is for higher intensification in the areas around the CBD (pref on RT routes). That supply / demand equation is what is driving up the prices. Grey Lynn, Ponsonby and Pt Chev etc are only going to keep rising in value at ever increasing rates as demand for houses there continues.
And no, I don’t mean Grey Lynn per se, but there is plenty of scope around the ‘old’ Auckland City area for quality terrace house and low rise apartment developments to give people opportunities to live close to the CBD. It’s not just villas as I think many people would be interested in living in developments as has been suggested but the quality must be there in order for the banks to ease their restrictions.
Oh, and they have to be designed with NZ’s climate in mind. We are not in the Med.
Here is an interesting read:
http://www.chranz.co.nz/pdfs/improving-the-design-quality-affordability-residential-intensification.pdf
Bryce- Thanks for the pdf, some good stuff in there.
Highlights include; Apartment dwellers more likely to be renters than owners (p10)
Distrust of body corporates- I guess bodycorp-less developments would solve that.
Interesting that the first 5 things people list about not wanting to live in apartments (Characterless, drab, monotonous, cramped, leaky) are all components of bad, or at the least unimaginative, design.
Although Heritage and such is not mentioned (even once I think), this paragraph on p33 caught my eye-
“Another reason for limited progress may be the strength of resistance from existing residents faced with a transformation of their current environment and their expectations for its preservation. This resistance may be most effective in the long-established medium to high income suburbs with high levels of amenity, suburbs attractive for intensification because they are often relatively close to and well connected with the central city (e.g., Perkins, 1988;
Vallance et al., 2005). Successfully introducing medium density housing into these settings potentially requires even higher qualities of specification than sought by potential residents.”
This is exactly the neighbourhood I live in, (and spend way too much time defending), building to match the existing style would probably alleviate many of the residents concerns, but as usual, is not even considered as a possibility.
Interesting reading though, thanks for the heads up!
There is a 12 unit appartment / terrace house development in Takapuna that covers just 2,000 sq/m. This is reasonable density (166 sq/m), and the buildings have been built to a good standard (I know an owner). From memory each unit has 4 bedrooms, open plan kitchen lounge and a 2 car garage underneath (3 storey) and there are 4 spaces for visitors cars. Replicate that in a few places around Auckland and I’m sure it will take off. The prices of these are of course quite high being Takapuna and a very short crawl to the shops and beach but if you started somewhere where the land was much cheaper, it would make for affordable, comfortable city living.
“In all my experience I am yet to meet an advocate for intensification who actually lives it. And I find that appalling.”
How about me? Or anyone who lives in Ponsonby, Grey Lynn, Netwon etc. Plenty of advocates come out of those areas and they have the sorts of density we’re advocating.
You can add me to that list. Between late 2004 and late 2010 I was a variety of apartments.
The one in Newton overlooking the North-Western was ok. Sound proofing was good unless you opened the ranch slider.
Next one was in more studenty accomodation in K Rd above Lim Chour a little cramped with huge bedrooms, huge bathroom but a shoebox lounge/kitchen.
Last one though was the best – flatmate at the previous place’s parents purchased just off K Rd at the Symond St end – decent sized bedrooms, and fairly decent amenities, and most importantly didn’t seem to be leaking 🙂
Currently I’m in an old villa in Newmarket – fantastic location, but the house is slumlord crap. I’d actually be quite keen to go apartment living again – least I wouldn’t be freezing my butt off every winter with skyhigh power prices – also wouldn’t have to be the only one who does any looking after of our (jungle of a) garden.
Industry Insider – I think someone has already asked this, but how would removing some sprawl inducing planning issues such as minimum parking requirements help with developing smaller scale intense developments (I’m thinking a post-modern version of a Brooklyn rowhouse here – I’m sure there is a technical term for that).
“In all my experience I am yet to meet an advocate for intensification who actually lives it. And I find that appalling.”
I live in a great apartment in Grafton (after having lived in an OK apartment in Nelson Street for several years), and have been advocating for intensification on behalf of Cycle Action Auckland for years, including on various District Plan and Auckland Plan submissions. I wouldn’t want the Nelson Street style to spread, but they type of 5-storey building I live in now, I have no issue with advocating for Aucklanders to live that way.
As an interesting element of my new apartment buildings, about 40-50% (including mine) are owner-occupied. Which is the way it should be.
Sorry about the typos. In any case, planning rules can make apartment development easier, and thus more realistic. Also, developer-led apartment buildings need not be a failed course, if the quality of the resulting units is good enough that people are attracted to the idea of buying them. In Germany, I lived in an apartment block that was constructed by a rich medical doctor. She eventually sold off most of the units, which is how I bought mine there.
As for making apartments cheaper, one of the key changes I’d like to see is a reduction in the minimum parking. I had to buy two car parks with my apartment, even though I only “use half” (on the days my girlfriend visits). Yet I didn’t have the option of NOT spending all the extra money those two car parks per units cost.
Sigh – I meant “only use half of ONE car park”. 4-5 days out of 7, I have two empty spaces in my basement.
For intensification: tick
Live in high density area: tick (4 of us and our company office on 113 m2 site in Newton- great!)
The converse is possibly true: people who have never tried it are convinced it doesn’t work…
Well, there’s enough negative examples around Auckland that the naysayers have SOME basis in their belief that the current apartment stock isn’t all that great – it was unlucky that the first (?) Auckland apartment boom coincided with shoddy building practices & cookie-cutter design becoming the norm. Even my building, built to higher standards at the very tail end of the leaky homes crisis, is constanly having minor (and one major, so far) leaky remedial work done. And you can’t look at Nelson Street or Broadway in Newmarket and realise that some things went pretty badly urban design wise too. It will take some more time to overcome that stigma.
Exactly, council needs to lead the way.
Kingsland apartment/townhouse here. I love it no lawns to mow, close to everything I need, only half an hour cleaning required every week. Now if only I get a mortgage without needing a 30% deposit.
So what is coming through loud and clear are two things: abolish parking minimums, and somehow sort out the banks! Proving yet again they are only fair weather friends. All profit and no risk. How about a government agency then….?
Good responses and ideas.
I agree that reduction of carparking will make apartments more affordable but it will only be possible if Council invests in localised carpark buildings. Whilst 11% of the population works in the CBD the balance are still reliant on cars to travel to work place destinations like East Tamaki, Albany, Takapuna, Penrose, Wiri etc where direct public transport access is not provided (now or in the future transport plan.
Peter you raise good questions.
PPP’s have been approached by the development industry however it is Council’s reluctance to be involved that impedes it. One PPP that is underway is the Glen Innes project with Housing New Zealand and it will be an impending disaster. I agree that Tamaki and GI are good places with potential but how do you convince Council and HNZ of that?
The minimum lot standards are not minimums in the way you think. Yes if one is simply subdividing they cannot develop lots smaller than 200sqm for town houses unless they are applying for a Resource Consent for the built form and activity then they can. A lot smaller than 200sqm is a discretionary activity and could trigger notification but the main reason the minimum lot standard exists is to allow Council the discretion to be able to ask why the lot is being subdivided smaller. If a good explanation and plan can support that subdivision then there is no reason for it not to happen. Still, it is the land price that is the issue and the availabilty of land.
I’m interested in the reasons why you think the GI project is an impending disaster?
But Inside man the Council are all over GI as a site for transformation- perhaps you haven’t looked at it in detail. HNZ are more of a problem because they have to do what an anti social programme gov wants. Remember the Council can regulate, things can change, but only if we change them. So, again, what zoning laws, and other planning rules do see as impediments to developing more intensively along the identified transit corridors?
‘Industry Insider’ – I guess my next question(s) would be – succinctly (needs to be, I’ve got the attention span of a 4yr old hyper on too many jellybabies), what do you think that both central and local government could do better to make intensification possible? And we’re talking both things that are inside and outside of your control.
This web site Is Truly wonderful and amazing information maybe there is and looking so captivating.. I look and feel good to generally be here.. Keep sharing good things with buddies.. Thanks meant for sharing…