It seems that many of our planners and designers continue to be stuck in the past and don’t learn from previous mistakes, even when starting with a blank slate. Take a look at this video promoting Marsden City, a new town being built near Marsden Point that is expected to eventually house 40,000 people. Lots of comments in the video relate to how much parking there is, many buildings are set back quite far from the street to give cars more priority over pedestrians while many of the shots show streets filled with cars and trucks. All up it looks like the same type of auto-centric crap we have in places like Albany, Botany and Manukau. I wish we could get some real urban planners designing our towns rather than traffic engineers.
Marsden City is an exciting new development located at Marsden Point – 90 minutes north of Auckland and just south of Whangarei. It’s spread over 135ha and will include a major commercial retail centre, a large industrial development, residential areas, schools, as well as urban parks, cycle paths, stunning surf beaches and more. And while it’s expected to become the home for over 40,000 people, strong community values that really give people a sense of belonging will remain.
And what’s the bet they will want the motorway from Puhoi to Wellsford carried on so people can get there from Auckland 5 minutes faster.
Processing...
OMG
Who are “some of NZ’s leading urban planners”? It looks like Wairau Park with less soul.
BTW Do they mean 90 “earth minutes” from Auckland?
A few of those images are horrifying. And the whole ”loads of parking everywhere all the time” mantra is maddening. I also love how all the infrastructure is in place……….except for a railway line which might come in the future. Great.
I wonder how many cycle lanes it has? none?
Just mention the words ‘cycling’ and ‘rail’ once, and thats it! Job done! now those car hating hippies can be quiet 🙂
“Plenty of parrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrking!”
Ain’t gonna happen. Maybe in Dubai, but not next to an oil refinery south of Whangarei.
Hideous! Absolutely hideous!
Anyway, did a little searching to see who the ‘top urban planners’ are.
Apparently it was from Terra Nova Planning who appear to design mostly retirement villages and sprawl industrial estates.
Top (ex)urban planners indeed.
“Live, work, play”… three words used in succession that should be banned from all developer PR and planning documents…
Double Tracked Railway, using a picture of a Matangi, and a DX hauled Scenic service. Has anyone mentioned to them this proposed line won’t be for passenger trains? Misleading much?
They are mentioning the railway in the context of attracting industry to Northland, not passenger trains!
Actually, they do have a site in Marsden City earmarked for a passenger station, with a tentative plan to run a commuter service between Whangarei and Marsden. Whether it ever happens, that’s another story.
Well, the railway line runs right through the “mixed use” town centre, so they might be taking it pretty seriously, even if it doesn’t serve much of the industrial land.
It defies logic why you would be trying to create a “vibrant balance of inner city working and living” on rural farmland?? The plan looks like a pretty good way of destroying what looks like a beautiful setting around the Whangerei heads. It’s also totally out of keeping with neighbouring settlements like Ruakaka. Interesting how the video doesn’t mention anything about sustainability or environmental best practice either, but maybe that doesn’t matter if they’re going to say screw the world, we’ll get our continuous supply of oil from Marsden Point next door ; ).
I am really surprised by the negativity here. Lots of parking for everyone is obviously unrealistic for large cities, but free abundant parking is the reality in every small town in NZ. I’m not sure you guys realise that people move out of cities to avoid parking hassles and having to wait for public transport.
What would you rather see here? High density residential and commercial development centred around a non-existent rail line or busway? If people wanted this they would stay in Auckland.
Kevin – the parking is most likely required due to minimum parking requirements rather than because the developer wants to provide that much. I’m not even concerned about a PT system other than that the streets are laid out in a way that doesn’t make it impossible to easily run services should they need to in the future. My biggest concern is how the parking and buildings are laid out, take a look at the images from about 2:45 to 3:15, all buildings are set back from the road with parking in front which means than any pedestrians or cyclists need to negotiate the car park first before getting to their destination. As an example, at 3:03 you see the image of a bakery but due to the spread out nature of the area anyone more than a few hundred metres away is likely to get back in their car and drive there. It is pretty clear that the first thing the developers have done is prioritise car movements.
Being a nice sized and flat town they could have perhaps done more to encourage walking and cycling through cycle lanes or off road shared paths.
Through roads have lower property prices than cul-de-sacs, so it is a planners obligation to the sharehodlers to provide as many no-through roads as possible.
“free abundant parking is the reality in every small town in NZ”
I was trying to think of any western town that didn’t have parking, cars, and trucks. It all looked pretty matter of fact to me.
I’d rather see it as walkable, and easy to cycle around as well. That’s the model for small towns in my opinion. An settlement of this size shouldn’t need either public transport or huge road infrastructure. We’re talking about a town that might eventually get as large as Hellensville in the long term. You shouldn’t need to drive to get a loaf of bread in a town like that, most people shouldn’t even need to drive to get to work.
I’ve never lived in a small country town (unless you count Whangarei 😉 ), but do people really move there so they can drive and park everywhere? That’s what you get in big city suburbs, I would have though the appeal of small towns is not having to drive and park at all.
I see what you’re saying, and as Stu says further down it’ll likely be very appealing to the target market. However, the point of Matt’s post was more about highlighting the extent to which modernist, autocentric planning rules/planners that base the layout of a place entirely on the car – manifested here in the abundant parking and huge setbacks that remove any definition of space or sense of place.
The view that abundant free parking in small towns is commonly held, yet I think it’s only held because we’re desensitsed to autocentric planning. We’re so used to it we’ve forgotten what small towns are really about. Very easy to forget that while ‘New Urbanism’ is most commonly associated with TOD-style development, it really has it’s roots in the nostalgic view of the American small town as a walkable, sociable place with a mix of uses. This development on the other hand transplants Albany to a beautiful coastal setting when it doesn’t need to, and frankly is worse off for it.
I don’t think it looks that bad. We are not their target market; they’re looking to attract:
1. Noveau riche families with young children who want a coastal, semi-rural/sleepy village environment; and
2. Semi-retired baby-boomer grandparents who like to do a bit of business but also golf/fishing in between babysitting grandchildren
Personally I think the most disappointing aspect of the Marsden City is that it completely downplays connections to Whangarei, e.g. how about a frequent ferry and/or bus connection?
The fact that they do not mention Whangarei much (if at all?) suggests that they are looking to compete with the established city down the road, rather than complement it. And that’s what disappoints me the most.
hmmm, that would be an epic 90 minute drive. Google Maps makes it 106 minutes. Personally don’t think I’ve ever got there in less than 2 hours, but then I find those hills a bit scary.
It looks like a Kiwi version of Milton Keynes.
Without transport.
I’ve lived there… and it was a great place, just by the way. It doesn’t look anything like I remember MK. It reminds me a bit of some of the new Dutch towns. Lelystad or Amstelveen, perhaps.
At least Milton Keynes is soaked with cycleways.
The redways were excellent. I used to get all over the city on my bicycle without even encountering a road except at the start and end of my journey. It was a much better system than I encountered in any Dutch town. That’s the beauty of being able to build something from scratch, rather than have to try to retrofit it later.
I used to work a couple of km from home. There was a redway pretty much in a straight line from work to home, and it was downhill on the return journey. I used to slog up to work in the morning, then fly home after work. Five minutes after knocking off I’d be sitting outside with a book and a cold drink. I’d happily live there again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Keynes_redway_system
Looks fine to me. People aspire to live in nice communities, often away from the city with gardens and space to enjoy. People also aspire to easy commutes.
A prerequisite of future large developments such as Botany/Stonefields should be busway/ metro lines from the outset.
Actually if you asked, most people would say they want to live in a mansion in the inner suburbs. As there are a limited supply of this type of housing the price for it is high. Therefore most people have to compromise. Some people compromise on location ie a house on a large section in the out suburbs, some people compromise on size ie an apartment in the city or inner suburbs. Don’t assume that everyone has the same aspirations.
I can’t see this suburb being a success without a source of local employment. The refinery and port are not goind to support a community of 40,000 and Whangarei has limited job opportunities. A three hour plus return car commute to Auckland would destroy any benefits of living in the suburb. This isn’t the first time a new town has been proposed for Marsden Point and it won’t be the last.
You know most of the insanely expensive places in the inner suburbs are not mansions right?
Just beautiful old villas on small sections…
I know that but if you asked most people where they wan’t to live it would be in one of the few that exist in Epsom or Remuera.
This is the problem with Aucklands amalgamation. The Auckland boundary is now north of Wellsford, with a single TA regulating and restricting development right up to the boundary. So is it any wonder people start thinking about developments outside of this area?
It would be much better for everyone if residential development was in Dairy Flat or Clevedon but, as we know, that has been banned.
This Marsden City main centre apparently has been on the cards for a long time with the roads already built. Also Clevedon’s low lying lands probably aren’t ideal for major development? I like Clevedon being a rural village and small service centre. Karaka is located better for future development.
Why would anybody want to build in Cleveland? It’s got Auckland’s version of the Greendale Fault running right under it! The majority of Marsden City is allocated to industry so I’d say they see the proximity to the port as justifying a Rolleston style development.
“Why would anybody want to build in Cleveland?” I dont know – why did they have to ban it in that case?
It has got Aucklands only active fault, doesnt mean it is of engineering significance.
Strange how the council insists there is only one active fault when its the other two that show up as the source of mosst of Auckland’s historic earthquakes. Even stranger to dismiss a known active fault as of no engineering significance when we’ve recently discovered that even inferred faults can rupture when you least expect it. Maybe we should all move to Melbourne where they never have earthquakes 😉
Active faults are generally only considered to be of engineering significance with a return period of 10000 years or less.
Anyway, I may not have been clear: I was just using Clevedon as a random example. The point is, the council has banned or heavily restricted development across much of the region.
Swan- that is great news.
As Auckland is 300km away from any highly active faultline and expected to experience a quake of 6.5 or above only once every 10,000 years, does this mean we can skip all the Earthquake paranoia that engineers and insurers are spreading?
Pretty much. Auckland gas got a real advantage when it comes to it’s relatively low seismicity. All else being equal, people are better off building in Auckland than Wellington or ChCh.
Note the seismic risk in Auckland is not as low as you suggest, but is still relatively low.
That is good news, thank you.
Do you think people could use info like that to negotiate the insurance co.s back down to regular rates?
The figures should be right- I was quoting Civil Defence supremo Clive Manley from granny harold last week
“Auckland gas got a real advantage when it comes to it’s relatively low seismicity”
But a real disadvantage when it comes to volcanism. My understanding is that new volcanic activity is guaranteed at some point in the future… only the location is unknown. If it’s off shore then we might be okay. If it is large and pops up in the middle of Queen St then the city might be a total loss.
I think it is possible to build structures that will survive any reasonably sized earthquake, although you’d want to stay away from dodgy ground like Christchurch’s eastern suburbs or Wellington’s waterfront. But you can’t build to survive having a new Rangitoto popping up under your structure.
Ten bucks says north of Motatapu. Divers have seen smokers there apparently.
I have no problems with low density expansion, however good CBD connectivity (PT) that mitigates increased traffic volumes is essential.
There’s a certain irony that people who seek a quiet life away from the city often contribute significantly to lowering the quality of life, via congestion, noise and pollution of those who live closer to the centre.
Taupo may be a bigger volcanic threat to Auckland, than Auckland’s own volcanic field. A few cm of ash from a local eruption we could live with, but 2-4m of ash from the Taupo super volcano, and we would be screwed.
Anyone see the TV series “ths is not my life” last year…?
These are the two best sources of natural hazard data for Auckland that I’ve been able to find on-line.
This one has info on volcanic and earthquake risks. Note that figure 10.7 is a 1960s DSIR geology map and the really big historic earthquake shown on figure 10.8 is the 1835 earthquake and seems to have Cleveland as it’s epicentre, so maybe the one in 10,000 year event occured 180 years ago in which case everythings hunkydory.
http://www.arc.govt.nz/albany/fms/main/Documents/Plans/Technical%20publications/Technical%20reports/2009%201-50/TR2009-010%20Natural%20hazards%20and%20their%20impacts%20(part%202).pdf
There was an update of this released as part of volume 5 of the draft Auckland Plan but that doesn’t seem to be online anymore. That showed an inferred continuation of the Wairoa North fault through Motutapu (and possibly as far as Tiritiri Matangi. NIWA has a ship that can survey for underwater faults but nobody seems to want to pay for a survey of the Hauraki Gulf.
This one which is a bit technical and focuses on how soil types and geology will affect damage in different parts of the region:
http://www.aelg.org.nz/reports/critical-infrastructure.cfm