With the Auckland spatial plan finalised, the next few years will be a really challenging process of figuring out how to implement the plan – particularly in relation to how we achieve the level of intensification envisaged by the plan. I noted in this previous post how it will be challenging for Auckland to build its way to housing affordability, but that’s only a part of the challenge. Perhaps the biggest challenge will be to gain public acceptance for more intensive forms of housing than Auckland has generally seen in the past – so that it’s possible to achieve the level of intensification required by the Auckland Plan.
A relatively recent post by Matt highlighted that high-rise and high-density are not necessarily the same thing, with the key point being that we don’t need to build more stupid Herne Bay towers to achieve the level of intensification the Auckland spatial plan requires. In fact, the Herne Bay towers are even that dense, because they’re enormous dwellings and because (at least with one of them) there’s a massive amount of land at its base which is used for parking, a tennis court and so on. So not only do buildings like those towers scare people shitless over the prospect of intensification – they actually don’t even provide much intensification themselves. It’s like an enormous ‘lose lose’.
Auckland is, of course, not the only city in the world facing this vexed issue of how to intensify in a way that’s acceptable to existing residents. Vancouver, San Francisco, Melbourne, Sydney and many many other cities face dire housing shortages and/or housing affordability crises – leading to a pressing need to build more housing. Yet at the same time, rising petrol prices, changing demographics and environmental concerns are making many cities, including Auckland of course, look at finding the best ways to intensify.
A useful blog post from Better Cities and Towns highlights this issue – with some useful proposed solutions. Let’s start with the pressing concern, which sounds very similar to the Auckland situation:
The mismatch between current US housing stock and shifting demographics, combined with the growing demand for walkable urban living, has been poignantly defined by recent research and publications by the likes of Christopher Nelson and Chris Leinberger and most recently by the Urban Land Institute’s publication, What’s Next: Real Estate in the New Economy. Now it is time to stop talking about the problem and start generating immediate solutions! Are you ready to be part of the solution?
Unfortunately, the solution is not as simple as adding more multi-family housing stock using the dated models/types of housing that we have been building. Rather, we need a complete paradigm shift in the way that we design, locate, regulate, and develop homes. As What’s Next states, “it’s a time to rethink and evolve, reinvent and renew.”
The post highlights a key collection of housing typologies that can help achieve this shift, but in a way that’s more likely to be acceptable to residents than the ‘high-rise hell’ envisaged by hysterical journalists writing for the NZ Herald. These are known as “Missing Middle Density” housing. Examples are given in the diagram below:
With some exceptions (generally terraced housing) Auckland hasn’t seen much of these “missing middle housing types” built in the past 20-30 years. At least since the death of the “sausage flat” when density controls were more strictly enforced from (I think) the 1980s onwards. Yet these middle density housing solutions could work really well in Auckland – particularly in areas where large-scale redevelopment is likely (such as around Tamaki/Glen Innes).
The post goes on to identify a number of key characteristics of this ‘middle housing’, including the following:
- A walkable context
- Medium density but lower perceived densities
- Small footprint and blended densities
- Smaller, well-designed units
- Off-street parking does not drive the site plan
- Simple construction
- Creating community
- Marketability
The article actually has some really useful advice (it’s written by a principal of an architecture and urban design firm – Opticos Design) for avoiding common mistakes when building this kind of housing. Some handy examples are also provided:
If I was a developer this is the kind of typology I’d be looking at really closely. While screaming at the council to sort out their damn planning rules so they can actually achieve the level of intensification wanted by the more high-level strategic documents.
Processing...
Right I have dug up something from my submission and also from the City Simulator Game of All Time – Sim City Four.
It is apparent we are missing true Medium Density Housing, now using SC4 medium density housing is defined as (actually here is the lot):
• Low Density Zone: Mostly single family homes to be built (would allow small scale infilling as well)
• Medium Density Zone: Smaller Apartments and condominiums (terraced housing and “walk up” apartments would be built in this zone)
• High Density Zone: This allows your towering residential blocks to be built
Now for some pictures:
http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p5/Palpatine001/Auckland-Jan19011197787182.png <<< an example of medium density
http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p5/Palpatine001/Auckland-Jan19011197787294.png <<< example of low density
Now those Herne Bay Towers strictly SC4 speaking would be medium density rather than high.
Some would be questioning why SC4, the reason is and the reason why I used it is with planning and urban development in Auckland ADOPT THE KISS MODEL – Keep it Simple Stupid. Or to put it more finely read this from Mr Arbury: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2011/10/23/taking-a-fresh-look-at-planning-regulation/ (Accessed October 2011)
Also from Peter's post: [Yet these middle density housing solutions could work really well in Auckland – particularly in areas where large-scale redevelopment is likely (such as around Tamaki/Glen Innes).] Already with you there Peter, I advocated for it in my submission quite "vocally" as Tamaki got a special mention for Medium Density Housing as I had done a Post Grad research piece on it in 2010 while at Auckland Uni. My planning class mates thought I was 'Nuts' while they focused on Night Markets and low density housing for the Tamaki Community – Transformation Project assignment. that the class got issued with (as an urban design paper).
Ah well – let's see what happens with medium density in Auckland
As a pretty avid Sim City 4 player myself, I think that the comparisons aren’t quite accurate to the Auckland situation or what the post linked to above is discussing. We’re probably more talking about typologies that fit halfway between “low” and “medium” density in Sim City.
Most likely – although granted using SC4 there was a bit simplistic that I will admit 😛
But Josh’s post on planning rules had some merit to it though?
We could get those sausage flats back :O
More like the typologies in the latter part of this document?
http://www1.ccc.govt.nz/council/proceedings/2011/february/regplan2nd/8.Attachment.pdf
Work that Jasmax did a couple of years ago, very specific to areas of Christchurch, garden city ideas and ChCh architectural ontentdownlad. Most of the work was done pre-Earthquake, but I gather it’s becoming pretty useful now. We also did some work for AC housing people for the Plan discussion document last year, tailored to Auckland lots and preferences, but that work isn’t on the web.
Whoops.
…architectural context.
Type too fast on iOs…
Jasmax, the same group along with StudioD4 that drew up the intensification report for Auckland Council after the Auckland Plan went for deliberations.
Tim you assist what that document that got “leak” and went feral in the press?
Problem with looking at North American models is you get that awful McHeritage typology of building design. Agree with your argument Peter but but can’t be having those examples much, still got prissy set-backs and no little obvious environmental sophistication.
A quick look across the Tasman and I found the following, a bit gee-whiz but what is interesting is that it’s right on a rail line, all bike parks, solar and vege-garden roof, and integrated retail [cafe]….
http://www.ecocitizenaustralia.com.au/the-commons-melbourne-apartment-florence-st-brunswick/
Sort of thing I reckon there’d be a market for along our new electrified and frequent rail lines. Smaller units and no carparking lowers cost for young first owners or renters. There is in Melbourne where it is being built- we ought to look at their planning regs to see what we can change to encourage this sort of use of the transit corridors, where there are heaps of low use sites.
Here is a good example of contemporary terrace house living. They are reasonable expensive but that has more to do with the location than the design.
http://www.fgarchitects.co.nz/project_files/centro.html
This kind of stuff is world leading……….NZ tend to be followers. We start opening up our waterfront in 2011. We dont have a well functioning rail network yet (maybe 2022). Maybe will get stuff like this in 2030. Thats when we’ll catch up.
Yes medium density is a good model to work on than the scaremongering.
I love to know what the heck we are following…
We seem to be following alright, 1950s and 1960’s America with the roll out of the sprawl and the motorway/car based on cheap fuel at $84c/litre rather than cities of the 21st Century.
If we were to lead then now would be it with The Auckland Plan.
A mix of sprawl in the fringe and urban renewal in the existing city, roll out of a transit system that works and still allows choice between car, train, bus, walk, cycle, ferry. Urban design that would make you go WOW and not HOLY —- that is fugly. A port that is moved out of the road to a better location allowing industry and commerce to spring up from it. A water front that is opened up and redeveloped to become The Auckland Water-Frontier that would rival Sydney hands down. And all this was written about and to Council in mine and other people’s (from this site – Patrick we submit one?) submissions… oh who am I kidding – The Auckland Plan go approved, was give a C- pass and it seems we are off to another 30 years of Mediocrity?
Melbourne isn’t perfect, of course. But because of the late 19thC intensification that occurred due to an influx of people and cash (intensification from low-density that would never be allowed under current rules, but which is celebrated by those same people) there are different conceptions about what’s acceptable in inner and corridor suburbs.
It also helps that they have a proper rail system and the most extensive tram system in the world. Unsurprisingly, the central city revived itself in the years after their loop was built.
I think you’re looking at it the wrong way Patrick.
Until I read your comment my contribution was to be-
Very interesting looking at the Opticos site and 2 of the 3 pictures shown. They seem to be of the “new heritage” variety.
Perhaps it’s time we posited this option, could it be that people have such a low opinion of apartments and higher density because of the ugly, banal crap thrown up all over Auckland that they’re forced to travel or walk past every day.
If “McHeritage” is what it takes to sell people on up-zoning, we would be utterly foolish to ignore it.
What is more important- stopping sprawl or “inauthenticity”? In this example we can only choose one…
Check this out, clever graphic showing the retreat from the far burbs:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-04-05/sprawl-census-urban/54007292/1
Those actual building pictures tell an interesting story in more ways than 1.
Most people seeing those large white buildings in an Auckland context would say “McMansion” i.e. one large house for one family. Not one large building with many people living in them.
Also one thing thats strikes me is the amount of detail and subtle colouring in the houses (especially the older one).
Compare with Stonefields, where the houses are all required to be painted a horrible muddy grey or green/grey colour and are convenanted to stay that way.
A rich urban environment is one where building colour is as much a part of the built form and comes with a variety of styles as the rest of the building – not simply one thats legislated to be a uniform single colour for the “good of all”.
As far as those SC4 pictures go, the Medium density photo shows two things immediately.
1. No cars on street and nowhere to park them off site either, so its a “car free” design, its not an Auckland option currently. There is a railway line in the bottom corner to imply PT is available.
2. Pictures tell a thousand words – and a bad picture will misinform a thousand people instantly.
Those two high rises in your SC4 shot undo the good work of the rest of the photo. Most people in Auckland would look at that picture and see only the 2 high rises (one is 7 stories the other higher – 9 or 11?) and focus on that and assume “thats all that we’ll get” and that the lower rise stuff is merely “high rise” in-waiting to grow up and become high rise as well.
The second thing is most people look at those high-rises and all they can think of is that they wouldn’t want to live in the shadow of that thing. Again end of discussion.
Example of this:
I’ve been AMETI open days on Panmure road changes. Each time the planners undo their (somewhat) good work by trotting out crappy “sketch” pictures showing 5+ story ugly building “blocks” everywhere in the Panmure central area showing the scope of the potential redevelopment that could eventuate.
Of course the existing residents who live in Panmure which is low density, take one look at and recoil in horror at the pictures.
You can then see that for all practical purposes the discussion on the actual transport planning ends then and there. “Not having that” the people say, leaving the planners frustrated not knowing why the work is unacceptable and both parties end up further apart that when they started.
Would be better if someone took SC4, built an existing Panmure to show “what its like now”, then “improved it” showing some of the new buildings with colour, size and scale and rich detail which is in a human scale and keeping all the wall to “ghostly white” sketch buildings less in your face.
Thats the kind of image people can relate to. And any picture needs a context of whats there now. Too often these picture show just the planned stuff, never including whats already there. This is important as it gives people a way to place the image into the existing environment.
Also, those pepper potted high rises like those in Herne Bay and Remuera are the exact thing what people think of when you say “high rise”.
“Big ugly monsters they say, blots the skyline and my views. Maybe great if you live in one of those (until the next one gets built right in front and blocks out your views) not so good for everyone else.”
Also be aware of selling the idea of having tall high rises separated by lots of low-density/green land. Doesn’t work.
Thats what the sold the public in the UK after WWII – they were given the stark choice then of low-density (terraced houses) for Africa all over the UK or occasional High-rises with lots of “green” land left between them. Of course the public accepted the latter over the former – wouldn’t you?
– but it ended up with the former as well anyway. Developers built the high rises, then in-filled the land between with terraced houses making the worst of both options come true.
What is needed is for AC and AT to actually take its own medicine – and grasp the nettle, take a large area of Auckland (Tamaki/GI) and do a fully co-ordinated proper medium density redevelopment, with fully integrated PT, shopping, transport, employment – all from day 1, and make it a “showcase” to show the public and the developers exactly how it can be done. And this should be a “gold standard” development, not a shitty “Housing Corp conversion job”.
One that can be used to show how to do it right and to prove that it can be done properly (make it a PPP if needed, but Council drives the development not the developer).
Then the council can say to developers – see, it can be done, and furthermore Mr Developer if you want to get approval to build, you need to plan to exceed the rules like we did here and not just aim to meet them. Leaving it to developers and the markets to do the right thing by a set prescriptive rules is a recipe for nothing but the “do minimum”/more of the same that we have spades of now.
Thats what the old Auckland City Council tried to do in Freemans Bay decades ago. So take a new leaf from and old book and get to it.
Interesting analysis there Greg
Err although I did not chose the best screen shots I could
http://s124.photobucket.com/albums/p5/Palpatine001/Auckland%20Plan%20Shots/ <<<< shows some more wider array of Medium Density housing from pepper potting with low density to straight out all medium density.
Although the last one I just put in there for the pure S & G's value 😀 . You could say that last one is Dick Quax's nightmare come true 😀
Hi Ben,
This text from page 105 of the Christchurch City Council document TimR refers to as follows and summarise the kinds of details you don’t get now with medium density developments: (I’ll try to include the link below, but refer to TimR’s post above if it doesn’t work for the link.
What this says is either:
1. Mix it up and don’t use the same cookie cutter design everywhere.
2. If you do go for the cookie cutter approach then make each house visually attractive, and design it to allow (and encourage) personalisation of the buildings by the occupants.
Current prescriptive rules encourage (2) but not the personalisation aspect, so the houses all look the same and have no visual appeal from the street.
We can do medium density well in New Zealand, take these examples for instance: http://www.rogerwalker.co.nz/multi-unit-houses/
The important thing is that they have to be well thought out, i.e. done by an architect. Yes, visual interest is key and that can be done with differences in colour, building scale (i.e 1-4 storeys), and naturally by getting architects with differing ideas involved.
The bonus is that these housing options must be able to get something like twice as many families living in the same amount of land that current stand alone houses provide. All of your outside space should be livable (in the form of a terrace or courtyard). But in single-storey suburbia how much of your outside space is actually livable? You have a front lawn that you don’t use, the sides of the house are jammed against a fence, so the backyard becomes your only outdoor livable space anyway, which could just aswell be a courtyard or terrace. It really is just a perception that in a stand-alone home you have more outside space.
I agree St Nick. Single detached housing works well on really big sections because you do have a huge amount of space to provide a great backyard plus everything else.
But most detached housing these days is built on 400-500 square metre lots – and is often really huge itself. Plonk that house in the middle of the section with a useless frontyard (often leading to either high fences to make it usable or no fence meaning it’s not used at all) piddly sideyards and you aren’t left with much backyard anyway.
You could probably turn the same area into terraced houses, whack them right up on the street and have bigger backyards at 1 unit per 200 square metres of land.
The Walker examples are pretty much the opposite of the ones in the pictures above.
Perhaps an experiment? Two developments;- one contemporary looking, one like photos 2 and 3 above.
All other things being equal, it would be fascinating to see which sold fastest and which appreciated in value the most.
Public perceptions are an important consideration that doesn’t seem to be considered very often. It could relate very strongly to marketability?
I know of a current housing development and the sections are all around that 500 sq metres – half the size of the standard 1/4 acre section. The silly thing is all the houses will be detached.. What gets me is you have say bedroom windows on the side of the house, a concrete path beside it, butting up to a tall fence a metre away. Then over the top of fence you see into the neighbours window. I imagine you could get better views from out of a prison cell..
Hopefully with good mid density developments that get built, they will get some good press. Then ordinary folk can see that they aren’t missing out on much by not having a detached bungalow. Maybe it won’t suit people with big families, but if they get to live closer to the city, aren’t ruled by their car all the time, and have good recreation facilities nearby I can see it being popular.
Sounds a lot like Grafton, especially looking through the lense of the key characteristics above. I suspect due to its heritage and historical context, the neighbourhood was inherently walkable, with houses constructed simply, generally being small or dense. Notably, the older site plans were clearly not determined by car access and parking. Building this sort of housing in Auckland seems more lost art than future invention. (But of course, a reformulation taking into account environmental impact, sustainability, new materials and smart tech would be a logical progression today.)
“What gets me is you have say bedroom windows on the side of the house, a concrete path beside it, butting up to a tall fence a metre away. Then over the top of fence you see into the neighbours window. I imagine you could get better views from out of a prison cell..”
Yeah, it really sh!ts me that. I just don’t see the point. You end up having to have the curtains/blinds drawn constantly for privacy, so why not just extend to the boundary line and share a common wall with the property next door. You then have a bigger gap on the other side of the house, meaning a larger side yard and some decent distance between you and the next house. They in turn share a common wall with the next house down, and so on and so on. That is, the semi-detached model.
Has anyone seen the new/reconditioned state houses in Glen Innes. They actually look really nice and I would love to see more of them. They remind me a little of Europe http://maps.google.com/maps?q=glen+innes&hl=en&ll=-36.883294,174.856648&spn=0.000586,0.001316&sll=-36.905837,174.743608&sspn=0.009368,0.02105&t=h&hnear=Glen+Innes,+Auckland,+New+Zealand&z=20&layer=c&cbll=-36.883294,174.856643&panoid=ZHoYeF_d4Iwvb-ynU5p6Wg&cbp=12,33.62,,0,-0.55
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=glen+innes&hl=en&ll=-36.883724,174.857673&spn=0.00059,0.001316&sll=-36.905837,174.743608&sspn=0.009368,0.02105&t=h&hnear=Glen+Innes,+Auckland,+New+Zealand&layer=c&cbll=-36.883724,174.857673&panoid=E7mGbO7pCYk_7PG14s4w8g&cbp=12,313.5,,0,-10.18&z=20
but … Hate to sound like a snob but just pity about the neighbors (disclaimer teacher at a low decile school). Why can’t developers build more of these?