The Herald today reported an upcoming and inevitable battle over new residential development in Milford on top of the current shopping centre.
The first test for the Auckland Plan’s push for high-density living has started, and 3800 submissions are offering views on how the North Shore suburb of Milford should grow.
Milford is one of only four town centres marked in the Auckland Plan as “most market attractive” for intensification because of its existing amenities and bus service.
Yesterday, a developer began putting a case for changing the district plan provisions to enable high-rise apartments at the Milford Shopping Centre.
Planner Peter Reaburn, for Milford Centre Ltd, told a council hearings panel that many Milford resident were “happy with the area the way it is and do not want significant change”.
But, he said, the “village character” would change, because it was marked on statutory planning documents for a high-density centre.
The Auckland Plan’s directions meant the character of 200ha around the Milford shops would change over the next 30 years from its low-density residential nature.
Three- to four-storey homes would be built to give a further 3500 units sought by planning documents in the town centre.
Current zoning in the area did not allow for a doubling of dwelling densities.
The development actually looks pretty good, with a couple of images noted in this previous post (which focused on how it hides the parking around the mall): 
By way of comparison, this is what things look like at the moment:
And from another angle:
As the article noted, the importance of Milford is that this is a market attractive place for intensification to occur. Far too often there has been a misalignment between intensification strategies and where the market actually wants to go – the classic example being Auckland City Council only ever having the guts to allow intensification in Glen Innes, Panmure and Avondale, even though there was little actual demand for intensification in those places compared to elsewhere.
I’m normally reasonably sympathetic to “NIMBYs” because many of Auckland’s planning/transport failures are the result of ignoring their impact on existing neighbourhoods (hello spaghetti junction!) but as there has been agreement at the strategic level that Milford is an appropriate place for intensification, plus there is market demand, this is the kind of proposal that simply must be allowed to happen. If not, those 250 apartments proposed in this development will end up as urban sprawl on the edge of the city and everyone will pay the price.
Plus, I struggle to see how what’s proposed is worse than what’s there at the moment!
Processing...
“If not, those 250 apartments proposed in this development will end up as urban sprawl on the edge of the city and everyone will pay the price”
Given the choice of living in a concrete and glass people barn, with no lawn or garden or trees, surrounded by cars spewing out toxins shortening my life span, OR living with space and peace and fresh air out on the edge of suburbia, I would choose the latter hands down. Each to their own!
That’s right Geoff and no one is forcing you to live there, as you say; each to their own, so this expression of personal taste has no role in a debate about the existence of this typology…. although fine to hear your view all the same!
Yes presumably if nobody wanted to live in such places the developer wouldn’t be trying to get consent for the proposal.
Sprawled housing is what’s caused the “cars spewing out toxins”/
Geoff you clearly haven’t seen most new suburbia being developed in NZ. Most of these are big houses on small sections, so no garden or trees, and maybe token bits of lawn. Also Ponsonby and Mt Eden are suburbs, but they are close to jobs, amenities so negative effects are lowered substantially. So they are part of the 1% you talk about! The real issue here is about resilience of suburbs. While petrol continues to get more and more expensive suburbs on the edge of the city will become more and more expensive to get, and as are often poorly laid out, difficult to serve with high quality public transport.
Then perhaps you could move to a village with no cars? As you say, each to their own. There are many houses, together with their lawn directly on our arterial roads around Auckland. Having apartments vs single story houses on main roads makes no difference to peace and fresh air…
This looks good to me and having some apartments or townhouses around the regional town centres where you can easily walk to your local cafe, dairy, restaurant, grocer/supermarket is exactly what we need.
Hi Peter, Thanks for this post. When I saw the article in old granny Herald I hoped someone would bring it into the conversation. And, Geoff, although I agree with your sentiments I remember a post on this blog sometime ago featuring a photo essay of plenty of others who like urban living. So let’s give those people the freedom to live the way they want while they allow us to make our choices.
My comment was in relation to the “and everyone will pay the price” bit, as though somehow suburban living has a higher cost to society, when in fact it’s the other way around, with suburbanites shouldering more of the cost of their lifestyle than city dwellers, who tend to benefit more from a socialist approach to amenities and services. Higher density living is about externalising the costs of your lifestyle.
It costs far more to provide sprawl with infrastructure than a development like this, plus sprawl also generates more and longer vehicle trips per person, creating more congestion.
Plus the need to build all those new schools, hospitals etc.
Um, no, that’s a myth. Living in suburbia does not mean longer distances to travel at all. As you spread out suburbia, you also spread out the shops and schools and medical centres. Distances remain proportional. Traffic volumes also spread out with the suburban growth. Congestion comes when you try to limit the spread of the shops and schools and medical centres, so that everyone has to use the existing ones in ever increasing numbers.
The only people who push that argument are Joel Kotkin’s New Geography bunch. Everyone else realises that sprawl doesn’t make economic sense.
Geoff, there are a whole heap of amenities that don’t/can’t/shouldn’t spread. Uni, hospital, major employers.
Suburban living uses more resources
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_01cities/#
Geoff, where’s your evidence?
Let me give you some ideas about why you might be wrong:
1. People who live in suburbs travel more by car. They do not pay for the costs of congestion nor parking, and they contribute sweet nothing to building the highways that they use (which were paid for by levies charged on central city areas nonetheless). 2. People who live in suburbs do not pay more for police/ambulance/fire/schools even though these costs tend to be higher per capita in the suburbs.
3. A big chunk of the rates take is covered by businesses located on high-value properties downtown.
From where I’m sitting what you’ve just said seems implausible.
1. People who live in suburbs (or rural) are 99% of kiwis. If they travel more by car than the other 1%, it’s because the other 1% have chosen to live a very localized life, which I suspect most kiwis would find too restrictive.
2. People who live in suburbs (or rural) are 99% of kiwis, therefore I don’t see how they can underpay, when the people you insinuate overpay are a very small portion of the population.
3. Good reason to relocate to outlying suburbs surely?
Sorry Geoff but 23.9 per cent of Aucklanders live in an attached flat, apartment or townhouse, not 1%. So actually quite a large proportion don’t live in detached suburban houses.
If you want to look on a geographic dimension, then 36% of people in the Auckland region live on the central isthmus. Again it’s not 99% of the population living out on the fringe.
Geoff,
1. Incoherent argument. The fact that a lot of people live in the suburbs does not prove that they pay their way.
2. Incoherent argument based on an incoherent argument (I call this the “Fake Russian Doll” school of debate)
3. No, I went from rural lifestyle block to inner-city apartment and love it. My parents recently followed.
On that basis, I conclude that a) you have no evidence to support your claim and b) you’re fond of making ignorant statements.
A study in Charlotte, North Carolina, found that a fire station in a low-density neighborhood serves one-quarter the number of households, and at four times the cost, of an otherwise identical fire station in a less spread out neighborhood. William Fulton on the dangers of America’s sprawling cities:
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/31/the-cost-of-americas-inefficient-sprawl/
Thank you, wonder if Geoff has the wherewithal to click that link and learn something?
Hi Geoff, regarding the costs to society of inner and outer development have a look at this recent australian report: http://www.earthsharing.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Curtin_Sustainability_Paper_0209.pdf. It was covered in this blog bost a few months ago: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/03/31/building-our-way-to-affordability/.
In terms of overall economical costs (using the figures from that study) the cost to society for a house 20km from the CBD (ie Albany) was 16% more expensive than a house 10km out (ie Milford).
Appreciate that this is an Australian study, though I would expect the concepts to translate to NZ conditions. Didn’t I see a post somewhere with a table developed by Auckland Council related to Auckland conditions?
WRT to the actual costs paid by buyers/developers (your claim that higher density living is about externalising the cost of living), similar research seems to show the infrastructure costs of outer city development are in the order of magnitude of twice that of inner city. This predominantly due to the higher costs of providing services over a larger area as well as providing more roads and parking. So it would seem to me to be the other way around, suburban housing doesn’t pay its way?
Appreciate that everyone has preferences about where and how they want to live, but I’d rather development like this in a pretty ripe suburb for intensification than chewing up our rural and bush on the edges of the city.
Haha, I wasn’t going to click on your link cateye because it included both “earthsharing” and “sustainability” in a single link, so had to be dodgy. Then curiosity got the better of me and sure enough I found it was the same paper that has been discussed previously – you know, the one that’s about 75% focussed on CO2 and health etc and only marginally on topic. Paid by the page I guess (and/or funded from a “green” budget).
But putting aside all that BS, it still fails to address many of the issues surrounding greenfields development vs intensification. One very significant example: the major cost of upgrading ageing water and waste-water infrastructure in Auckland City to cope with increased load. Sewer separation is far from complete in the older areas; often the developer has to fund at least some of this which is fair enough, but it’s a substantial part of the cost of intensification. Not far from where I live a developer is having to relay a 2m dia. council SW sewer across his own property because council got it badly wrong less than 20 years ago (sharp bends leading to water hammer and basement flooding). Other costs are reinforcement of power and telecom networks, although the latter is getting easier with UFB and mobile technology. Oh, and traffic management which has got completely out of hand.
OTOH, greenfields infrastructure development is relatively cheap and easy with common trenches or drilling, ducting for future-proofing, ease of securing sites for substations, telephone exchanges and other public services including open spaces, lack of existing obstructions above and below ground, minimal traffic management; I could go on.
All I’m really saying is that each form of development has its part to play, including “halfway house” projects such as the Milford proposal.
I think the submissions process is flawed — those who may be negatively affected by the development, ie existing homeowners in Milford, will be well-informed and motivated to make submissions against it. Those who may be positively affected, ie people who would like to live in a nice suburb like Milford but cannot currently afford to do so, will be less well-informed and have a much weaker incentive to make submissions in support. When evaluating the submissions, the Council should weight them accordingly in this case, ie less weight on negative submissions by local residents and more weight on positive ones by non-residents, accounting for the probable selection bias in the submissions received.
I agree. Previously, Auckland had a problem with developers that were allowed to get away with anything, and so they typically externalised a whole load of costs onto the community. Now however we place so much emphasis on community consultation that we lose sight of the fact that developers are trying to meet some form of socio-economic demand now and in the future (otw their development’s would not be viable).
That means that we get too much of the Milford “not in my backyard” crap, which results in not enough backyards for everyone.
I can very much understand the Milford locals beings gun shy about letting developers get into this too easily. If I had a million $$$ property in Milford and liked my day to day life, I too would be submitting until the developer came back with a plan I liked. I know a family in Craig Rd and I can bet he has made several submissions.
I have some friends who just sold a place in Takapuna. A developer wanted build a new 4 storey apartment block next door but they went back and made submissions to try and limit it to 3 floors which is in keeping with the other developments in the street. Unchecked, developers just keep pushing for higher and higher as they then make more money at the expense of the locals.
And it’s not the terrace housing that the locals have issue with. It is the 12 and 19 storey apartment blocks they do not like. These will dominate the skyline and I for one would not like to see that there.
The part of the development that Peter has outlined in red, the nice looking terrace housing / retail, already has consent I believe. It is the tower blocks that the fight is over.
How is it at the expense of locals exactly? Surely it increases the uniqueness and value of their detached property…. Anyway the higher buildings are above the mall [perfect] across the road from the existing houses…. I know people fear change and imagine the worst but read jonno below, things change, perhaps when some the local families are older they may see the attraction of staying in their local neighbouhood but downsizing to a secure, lower maintenance apartment with spanking views…. My parents did in their area.
But still what cost to locals? Ok probably some more traffic, but that has more to do with wider auto-dependency policies [that are changing] and surely these are exactly the type of places that will require much less driving; shops in the building, the marina right there, regular buses on the main street.
I predict higher property value and much better and more vibrant shops and amenity on the back of higher demand…. A higher quality of place for Milford and desirability as a result.
In the Takapuna example it would have cast the existing properties into shade. That is a downside – no?
As for Milford, the only reason the high rise towers exist is to give as many people as possible a view of Rangitoto, which makes the devlopers more money. The developers don’t give squat about the locals. It is all about making money. Maybe if they came back with 2 x 12 floor blocks the locals would be happy? Who knows?
Bryce,
The Milford fight is ridiculous. The mall has virtually no residential neighbours. It is bounded by commercial properties carparking and an estuary.
The thing that really gets me is they try to define the suburb as a village. In no sense is a suburb firmly within metropolitan Auckland a village.
Why shouldn’t developers make money? How else do we get more dwellings, perhaps you would like Housing Corp to do the job here? I see no problem for neighbours, why shouldn’t more people have a lovely view? Don’t they then become locals too? Or is that it; ‘I’m in close the door’? A view doesn’t get used up by someone else seeing it, it’s not a finite resource.
Really if this doesn’t get past the NIMBYs we really are in trouble.
Heh, Patrick, we seem to be agreeing a lot lately. We need to get back to discussing the CRL. 🙂
Why is it all or nothing around here? It’s not your community that they are playing with. Why should the residents not get to make objections without being called NIMBY’s? Good development must take in local needs / requirements to work. This is why so many developments are viewed as a joke in Auckland because developers got the nod over the locals. I would love to see the reaction if a developer just pops up and decides to build a 19 floor tower in Grey Lynn amongst the Villas.
That’s a bloody good idea Bryce, they should do a Milford style wrap around and tower development with the Countdown on Richmond Rd.
Bryce is only teasin, Nick.
That would only be a good idea if the result you wanted was alienation of a whole new bunch of people. They’d become Nimbys in a second. As it stands Grey lynners are Imbys- in the right place. Specifically the G N R ridge, but council is dropping the ball on that one- big time
Fine with me, I don’t share Geoff’s fetishisation of old piles of wood…There are already apartments across the road; bring ’em on….. in fact reminds me of what happened when the old Sleepyhead factory on my street was about to be turned into the Countdown and associated apartments it now is, one of my neighbours fought long and hard to stop it, only to guiltily admit to me later how great it now is…. We have new apartments of 5 or 6 stories going up further up the road. Fantastic, across the road from an earlier block, on the ridge line with great views I’m sure, and, horror!, next to a primary school. I can imagine them both being designed much more to my taste, but hey, it’s not my money they’re gambling with…
So it is my community too, and we are seeing see the advantages here everyday. More residents makes for more and better local amenity. The supermarket now has proper competition from both a vege store and a big new Farrow Fresh has just opened. There are more people on the streets, which is what community actually is…. this is the reality of agglomeration or intensification or some other big word; basically more life and vitality. It is what it means to live in a thriving city, the alternative is stagnation, it really is. If change and growth is not to a person’s taste then I guess they ought think about whether the county’s biggest city is the right place for them to live.
Perhaps what this is really about is for a number of people the growth of AK from a provincial town into a city doesn’t appeal to them. I understand that, but I don’t think that they will succeed in stopping it happen, but maybe they will be able effect the quality of that growth, but not in a good way, by forcing it out….?
Patrick, I love the idea of the apartments in the Milford development. There is a big difference between 5 and 6 level apartment blocks and 18 don’t you think? I too feel that Auckland needs more intensification, and I have said so before on this blog, but I have a big issue with tower blocks placed spuriously around town in the name of ‘intensification’. As I have mentioned, the developments need to suit the site. If they didn’t have plans for the high rise towers, or if they lowered them as to be more unobtrusive, they would probably already have consent.
I lived in an apartment in Onehunga 11 years ago. It was great until they pulled the pub down next door and built a full wall along the front (north) side of the apartments and blocked off the outside view. Do I have a dim view of developers? You betcha!
Bryce, problem is your definition of “locals” includes only the people who can afford to live in Milford now, whereas I like to think more broadly about the potential new residents as well who would benefit from this development. The trade-off you mention (shading) is an interesting question. My question to you is how much do you think people are prepared to pay for sunlight? My hunch is that people will pay a bit, but nowhere near what many other people are prepared to pay for those extra apartments.
So that suggests to me that society is better off, even when you account for the loss of sunlight. I’m not denying that light is worth something, just that it’s not worth as much as 5 storeys of houses. If it was, then why don’t the residents of Milford get together and pay the developer to not build higher? Truth is they’re not prepared to pay, not because they don’t have money (obviously they have oodles), but because they’re not prepared to pay as much as potential residents.
Moral of the story: The presence of a small and localised negative externality (shading) does not development should not proceed – it is still likely to be socio-economically worthwhile.
You just suggested that the locals should pay the developer to not build higher in their own local area? I don’t believe I read that.
As for high rise, well Takapuna has already started down this road so wouldn’t it be obvious to carry on there? What next? High rise on Mairangi Bay beach? Why not according to people here?
Oh and Stu, a lot of the Milford locals are people who have lived there for 40 years and are struggling to pay their rates as it is. They are wealthy only if the definition is property prices.
As a life long resident of Mairangi Bay, I second that one also. Actually my ageing baby boomer parents are looking to downsize from their large family home in Mairangi, but they desparately want to stay in the community where they have lived the last 25 years. An apartment in the village with nice sea views would suit them to a tee!
That’s fair enough Nick but surely you are not suggesting 18 storey towers in the Mairangi Bay shops? Been to the Gold Coast? Damn fine idea on how not to do towers. 8 / 10 floors around Auckland suburbs would soak up a lot of people without casting shadows too far. If someone suggested building in front of my property where the development would put my property into shade I would jump up and down as loudly as possible. Maybe I just like my daylight and sunshine more than others here but high rise towers, where they shade other buildings, just add to energy use during winter months. How can a developer have more rights than existing locals? That would lead down a scary road.
No I’m not suggesting 18 story towers for Mairangi, but perhaps six or eight or whatever is appropriate for the context. Something like 18 stories is more appropriate at Milford where the towers sit on top of a concrete box mall covering 7.5 acres. There the only thing getting shadowed it the roof of the mall. In Mairangi there might be scope to do that sort of thing above the Countdown supermarket or the municipal carpark, although those site are only 1/8th and 1/6th the size of Milford mall respectively. A place like Mairangi Bay village (without a large site like that mall) appears more suited to a number of medium sized buildings.
I do agree wholehearedly with the proposed development. The problem is that NIMBYs oppose almost all development, good and bad, and thus may have been good 20 or 30 years ago when many proposed devlopments were bad, now that many proposals are good they are now an obstacle. I definately agree this is exactly the type of development we want across Auckland
I agree that it’s a real issue balancing local vs regional interests but while this is an interesting idea I don’t think it would work for many reasons:
1) As you say it is a probable selection bias – how can you be 100% sure there is a bias, you’d have to prove this to get it to stand up in court
2) What is the extent of this bias – you need to know this before you can give the weighting to the submissions
3) What is local, where do you draw the line – is it the neighbouring streets, the suburb, the distribution area of the local paper? Do overseas submissions count even more?
4) How can you be sure a person isn’t taking a local point of view – once this policy/rule was in place people could easily get their friends in other areas to submit from their addresses.
Instead I would suggest the way to do this is by ensuring the proper weighting balance between submissions and other matters such as regional plans and policies. Tricky yes, but I’d say easier than trying to weight submissions based on where they’re from.
Anyone have an idea about when this “rusty panel” fad will run its course?
Mt Eden prison tower, Ironbank, the Allendale House extension on Pons rd, plus another half dozen just in my neighbourhood…
The 2nd picture seems to show even more of the same!
I’m not going to get into the urban/suburban/rural debate as it’s clear that positions on this blog are entrenched one way or the other, so may I introduce another aspect: demographics.
There’s been recent discussion on baby-boomers, of which I am one, and I’ve become aware that I’m part of a trend! We started in a 90m2 house on a kiwi quarter acre in the ‘burbs, enlarged it over the years, then moved to a city townhouse on a small section. There’s still beautiful landscaping etc (but no grass), probably greater privacy than we had in the suburbs, and certainly much better facilities. But our next step might be to an apartment such as those proposed at Milford (BTW they don’t all appear to be high-rise). The other potential demographic might be young professionals (DINKSs), as I’m assuming this will be fairly high-priced real estate.
So I’m agreeing that this a good thing; I’m all for choice of life style (one of my sons has a rural “life-style” block – not my cup of tea) but choice requires a variety of options to choose from.
Yes it is about choice and currently Auckland has an oversupply of one type of dwelling only; the standalone 3+ bedroom house generally at driving distance from amenities. So to increase choice across the board there is a need for other options to be supplied.
At a glance it is hard to see what there is to object to here.
Agreed Patrick. Unfortunately neither town planners nor developers have done their reputations any favours with monstrosities such as the box apartments behind Newmarket Station (L&Y Holdings), and the Scene apartments on Beach Rd blocking off harbour views. Of the two groups, the planners must take the greater blame, as at least the developers act commercially (albeit in their own interests). And of course without developers taking risks nothing would ever happen!
It’s interesting that you talk about demographics. At the last census nearly half of all households had two or fewer people living in them. This segment of the market of has been increasing every census for quite sometime. It is likely that had the 2011 census been taken we would have seen this type of household become the majority in Auckland. It is also fair to assume that these households are mostly child free (some no doubt are solo parents with one child). What this means is that childless couples, retirees and single flatting scenarios will more or less be the most popular household types in Auckland at present. Yet the debate seems to revolve around the provision of family homes. Whilst it is important to provide housing suitable for families I think ignoring the growth of childless households will be detrimental to the city.
I think this will be a very interesting test case for the integrity of the Auckland Plan (and subsequently the Unitary Plan). This kind of proposal, in placing an emphasis on urban design, liveabiltiy etc, seems pretty rare in a planning environment dominated by the mantra of avoid, remedy, mitigate. If this type of development can’t get through, I don’t really see how many of the objectives of the Auckalnd Plan can be fulfilled.
The developers proposal for Milford is indeed consistent with Auckland’s plan for intensification but in my view needs some tweaking. It is unacceptable in this instance to allow a developer to build a tower/towers so high that they preclude winter sun as far as two streets away(Frieston Road). He is taking something from existing residents thereby profiting at other peoples expense, but it doesn’t have to be that way. There appear to be one or two other deficiencies. Sometimes the devil is in the detail.
“It is unacceptable in this instance to allow a developer to build a tower/towers so high that they preclude winter sun as far as two streets away” – this probably needs to be qualified a bit, looking at the shading analysis and diagrams it indicates that the majority of properties would only loose winter sun for the last hour or so of daylight during the winter solstice. Almost all of the shading impacts appear limited to commercial properties and the estuary. On the balance of effects this doesnt appear to be a significant issue worthy of undermining the profitability, and therefore feasibility, of the development.
@ Patrick, I don’t object to the development of high density, but I do object to the fact that everytime this blog raises the topic it does so by infering that high density is “right” and suburbs are ‘wrong”. The vast majority of kiwis prefer suburban living. Does it cost more? If it does, it’s not because of the choice of location, but is probably the fact that most kiwis like to travel. People who live in suburbs simply like to get out more, whereas city dwellers tend to seek a more localized lifestyle with less travel. It’s the people that determine the difference, not the location.
@ cateye, you say the cost of living in Albany is more than the cost of living in Milford. Albany has what, 20,000 workers? The closer to Albany they live, presumably the cheaper their transport costs will be. If they were in Milford, it would be more expensive. The problem with these sorts of studies you refer to, and the pro-high density crowd in general, is that they always assume a central point (Auckland CBD) in everyone’s lives, then argue the further away they live, the higher the cost. Personally, I don’t know anyone who works in the CBD. It’s not a place that features in my daily life, and all my needs are catered for locally, in West Auckland.
No Geoff what I say is that we already have a lot of thinly spread detached houses, more than enough for those that want them so in order in increase choice AND to grow the city cleverly and more productively it is other types that should be encouraged. Exactly like these above. There is nothing about this development that is a threat to suburban life. Live and let live.
And this majority argument is just bullying and insecure. So what what the majority do; does that mean that all minority tastes must be stamped out? If the developer gets the market wrong he losses his shirt, that’s enough incentive to get peoples’ tastes right isn’t? Also are you sure you aren’t just generalising from your own taste here? I think we understand that you like the ‘burbs; that’s great, but why is it important that everyone shares your preference?
I didn’t say otherwise…
Hang on Geoff, in one breath you’re arguing that outer suburban dwellers like to travel and do travel more and city dwellers* live locally, but on the next breath your saying that all your needs are catered for locally and you don’t need to travel to the rest of the region. So which is it?
Are you assuming that people who live in Albany all work, study, shop and entertain themselves in Albany? If not they’ve got a hell of a long way to go to get anywhere else.
People talk about the central city not because it is the CBD, but because it is the centre of region, more or less. The centre of the region is the place that’s closest to every other point. A suburb on the urban fringe is the point furtherest away from any other point. That’s just simple geometry. If you like to get around the city and suburbs like I do, then the middle is the best place to be.
*Since when was Milford ‘the city’ by the way?
Despite the differences in transport, infrastructure and the like there isn’t really any right and wrong to it from my perspective. What really grinds my gears though is suburbanites who demand that nobody live any other way apart from the way they like to live, unless of course that’s tucked away off in some CBD which they never ever visit. That’s fine if they want to live a suburban lifestyle, there’s huge swathes of Auckland built that way and more planned for that sort of development. But why do the greyhairs waiting out their days in Milford feel they have the right to stop me living the way I want to live? Is anyone going to frog march them out of their house to replace it with flats, no. So why stop people living in flats above a mall FFS? Just in case they catch a glimpse of an apartment building while driving to the supermarket underneath it? I don’t gripe because I can see houses from the balcony of my apartment!
I actually talked to one of these folk at their scaremongering stands they set up in front of the mall in Milford. After a long chat I established that I had lived in Milford before and quite liked the place. I told here that would like to live there again and would really like to live in a compact and efficient apartment that I could actually afford to buy, unlike just about any house and land property in Auckland. I also told her that I didn’t care much for driving so would like to be within a short walk of all the village had to offer, including the beach and park down the road. Well, after a few words back and forth she basically called me a liar and accused me of making stuff up to anger her. Yep, she just couldn’t comprehend the fact that I might actually prefer to live in a cheap, compact apartment in a pleasant town centre where I wouldn’t have to drive.
Recreational travel Nick. Not travel out of necessity. Most people I know get in the car and go places. Your average city apartment dweller doesn’t do that as much. So the additional transport costs born by suburbanites are by choice for their lifestyle, and not a necessity.
Regarding Milford, I didn’t say it was the CBD. It was stated that transport costs would be less for someone living in Milford than living in Albany. That’s a false logic, as it assumes Milford is somehow closer to a mythical “somewhere” than Albany, and ignores the reality that tens of thousands of people work and study in Albany, and therefore Albany would be closer as a home than Milford.
Geoff, I thought the point of having a house in the suburbs has that you didn’t have to travel. Isn’t the stereotypical suburban dweller supposed to spend the weekends pottering in the garden or playing backyard cricket with the kids.
The difference is that in more dense areas you don’t need your car to do everything. You can walk 5 minutes to the coffee shop, supermarket, bakery or takeaway/restaurant. Kids ( meaning, anyone under approx 16 ) don’t need their parents to drive them *everywhere* since at least some things like their school or friends place might be within walking distance (I wish I could say biking but probably not realistic to do so).
Most people in higher-density areas will have a car so they can go on trips to the beach etc
With 3500 apartment units and perhaps 7000 residents within a short walk of the shopping centre, the centre should be really humming with cafes. It would become like New Farm in Brisbane, which has lots of cafes and only a few supermarkets in its shopping centre. Apartment dwellers tend to eat out more than others, including for breakfast. Less of their income is required for running cars, so there is more for other purposes.
Not too far off topic-
Fairly recently on the blog was an explanation of what the vague terms in the Ak Plan (most change, moderate change etc) actually translate to on the ground, so to speak.
Someone explained that such and such wa 1-4 stories, 4-8, 9+ etc
I can’t find it in the search on the blog, and the Ak Plan search is next to useless.
Anyone remember?
Nick, I said 99% of kiwis. People do live outside of Auckland!
Yes of course, but this is the Auckland Transport Blog where we are talking about Milford, a place in Auckland. If you want the figures for all of New Zealand, it’s actually 81% detached and 19% attached housing. But obviously you weren’t quoting any actual research or statistics. When anyone says “99% of something” what they usually mean is “I have no idea so assume everything is exactly the way I wish it was”.
Geoff, you are simply making stuff up: “most kiwis like to travel”…”[Suburbanites] simply like to get out more”…”99% of kiwis live in suburbs” etc.
You are also missing the point that is made on this site over and over that our current cities are the product of past investment, not by the simply by the free choices of the masses.
Everyone I know gets out in their car for leisure routinely. Around the city, out into the country, off to the beach, up the coast, or to another part of the country. A lot of city apartment dwellers just don’t do that so routinely. That’s not made up David, it’s fact. Claiming one of these ways is “wrong” and one is “right” is what is wrong. If you want to live with freedom of movement, or stay put in one area all the time, it’s a matter of choice, not one of right or wrong.
Citation please Geoff. Claiming that people who live in CBD apartments travel less is just hearsay and no reason for it.
Car ownership by CBD apartment dwellers is much lower than suburbanites.
Car ownership is a measure of dependency on cars for basic transport, not their use for recreation. You may need one car per adult to get by in a suburban area, but you don’t one per adult to take a Sunday drive.
Not a citation, but a real world example for Geoff. Anecdotal, but real.
During the four years that I lived in a ‘high rise’ apartment I only owned a car for the last two of them. The first two years I got around the country just fine – I hired a car regularly, and it cost me significantly less than owning. Great way to travel – low cost, virtually new car every time, lots of fun driving loads of different cars. Eventually bought a motor so that my wife could learn.
If i was living in central auckland I would join the CityHop club for casual, short-notice travel – eg trip to pick up large retail purchases – and hire as needed.
Having just shelled out several $k’s for an engine rebuild I kinda wish I was living centrally again…. There just isn’t the choice of family-suitable terraced/court houses closer in for us to buy. Terraced house in Milford? Yes please.
Geoff, that reminds me that as someone who works from home, I sometimes forget to get out at all! Today I was a bit stir crazy so got into my car and went to Burger King for lunch (big mistake). I suspect that most commenters here also work from home or are business owners, based on the timing of posts.
So another aspect of changing demographics is professionals working from home. In fact, with high speed broadband and a smartphone, you can work anywhere. Case in point – my son who lives in London and works in finance does this, so whether he’s at home, in New York or here he can simply log onto Bloomberg using some fancy security gadget thingy.
But I’m not sure that townies overall get out less than those living in the suburbs. Maybe less driving to cafes and shops etc, and maybe own one car not two, but no less overall. Several of my friends who are apartment dwellers also have a beach-house where they chill out on the weekends (Piha, Whangaparaoa, Pauanui etc). Actually, as I think about it, quite a few do this.
@Bryce – There are also important economic considerations as 5 or 6 storey apartments blocks may not be justifiable in terms of the return for the developer on the entire development (and planning process) as opposed to 18. Without having seen all the background detail I would have imagined the developer had already assessed alternative configurations featuring towers both higher and lower than 18 storeys. Considering central government isn’t interested in seriously addressing housing shortages in Auckland, there has to be an incentive for private developers to do it, and do it well. Im sure it would have been easy to whack in a 5 or 6 storey tower with blank concrete facades that contributes nothing to the urban environment of Milford.
Nick, I think most people prefer to have their own car. It’s about being able to go where you want, when you want, without having to co-ordinate with someone else. You say you don’t need one per person to take a Sunday drive. Different members of a family have different interests and different social circles, so trying to use one car wouldn’t work.
You drive around by yourself for fun?
That isn’t what I wrote, so not sure of your point.
Actually Geoff, I know very few people who actually want to own a car, at least people in my age group. Most people would rather use a car share system when they really need a car and have the freedom of not flushing their cash down the toilet in maintenance and petrol. We get that you love your car and suburban house but I’m not you and to be honest the thought of living in the suburbs sounds awful to me. People with such fixed views who appear to lack the ability see the world through other people’s eyes is one reason why young people leave NZ to move to cities where they’re not being forced to move out into a single family house. Freedom is not having to drive a car for every single chore and having to live in a suburban house.
I guess it comes down to whether or not you want to structure your life around the transport options on offer, or structure your transport around your life. I firmly believe those who do the latter have more freedom of movement, and that it best suits the average kiwi lifestyle. I grew up in places like Hastings, Gisborne and Napier. PT is not a part of anyone’s lives there as it has little relevance to everyone’s lifestyle. If you’ve always been a big city dweller (as I suspect a few here are), my points are probably lost.
Geoff, you do realise this is a public transport blog? You seem to have got lost somewhere in cyberspace? You may be astounded that around the world people get by without cars. I even enjoy a leisurely walk. Scandalous.
Yep, I walk 10k daily myself. Correct it’s a PT blog, but that has nothing to do with this repeated claim that living in the suburbs is somehow “wrong” and living in apartments is “right”. That’s a matter of opinion, not a statement of fact, and that is the point I’m making.
Hold the phone a second Geoff, there some pot kettle black business going on here. People are arguing that low density suburban living requires more expenditure on infrastructure and results in longer travel distances. Whether you agree or not, that isn’t a judgement of right or wrong. In fact the common theme here is that people can live how they like as long as they pay the way for their choices and don’t force their desires on others.
However it seems that you’re perfectly happy to make value judgments about how other people chose to live saying things like “concrete and glass people barn” in places that “shortening my life span” and “suburbanites shouldering more of the cost of their lifestyle than city dwellers, who tend to benefit more from a socialist approach to amenities and services. Higher density living is about externalising the costs of your lifestyle”
If this isn’t you calling non-suburban living wrong I don’t know what is.
BTW, although people get by without cars, their freedom of movement is severely hindered. That’s a significant price to pay, and not one most kiwis would accept.
of course everyone without a car is hindered – there’s no bloody public transport left !
we end up forced into owning and using a car because all the other options are implausible – too far to walk from milford ( or laingholm, or botany, or glen eden, or howick, etc etc etc) to town, or the nearest shops ; a bus every hour at peak times that takes six times as long as by car; last bus in the evening leaves at 6; motorists who aim at cyclists; and no trains because the various authorities ( here’s looking at you, gerry) can’t see any benefit accruing to themselves from it and, basically, can’t see the point of them.
its called a self-perpetuating circle.
Yes, my Sunday rounds take 7 hours on the buses instead of 3 hours in my car. That’s because freedom of movement can never be met by fixed route transport modes, and it’s why it will always be a supplementary travel option for kiwis, and not a primary one. As I wrote earlier, you can go without a car, but the price to pay is a big reduction in freedom of movement, at least in a timely manner.
Really?! Bus, Train, Car club, hire car, taxi, plane. Is that combination limiting?
The value of depreciation + maintenance + WOF + license + insurance goes a long way, even before you get to paying for petrol and parking. I’m pretty happy with my $50 / week train fare for commuting compared to the cost of a car just to get to work….
Well yes, all those options are limiting. None of them offer the convenience of your own transport, ready to go, 24/7, sitting in the driveway, with unlimited routes and destinations across NZ. But we have gotten away from the topic….
Geoff you miss TimR’s point: By choosing to not own a car, he frees up disposable income to spend on other things, like taxis and flights. So your definition of transport “freedom” is different from his and mine. The point is that there is no objective definition of transport freedom; so please stop stating your own personal preferences as universal truths that apply to the wider population.
Anyway, the Milford development should proceed is the overwhelming point of the post and the subsequent comments. I think even Geoff agrees with that.
Well thats the issue, cars are convenient for an individual. However once you have a million of them in one city they get in each others way! Also lots of things that cost tens of thousands of dollars are convenient, however it is about priorities. Many people forced to spends many thousands on a car each year due to scattered low density land use and poor public transport, when they could spend that money elsewhere. Economy would improve too as money spent locally, instead of on imported fuel with very low wider economic benefits.
Feet. They’re a great invention that stop you getting fat and get you places. Walk, bike. Easy convenience, low cost. For longer destinations there is everything else, including Taxis for all-but-instant action.
You know what geoff, the time I felt I had the most freedom in my life was living in Switzerland where everything was easily accessible by PT. I could wake up and catch a train to go skiing, hiking, whatever and never have to worry about being stuck in a traffic jam. The freedom of being forced to drive a car to do simple things within a city let alone to get out of the city as is the case in NZ is not freedom.
I never worry about getting stuck in traffic jams either, but then traffic jams are not inherent to cars and roads. They are inherrent to people all choosing to go on the same particular roads, to the same particular place, at the same particular time. I’ve always kept myself outside that sheep track, so despite living in Aucks, and driving regularly around it, I rarely encounter any difficulty in doing so. I find driving to be the best option for getting around Auckland, and the only option for going to the surrounding environment.
That’s because so much in Switzerland is concentrated into corridors (many along valleys).
Maybe visit Switzerland once and you’ll find that that is not in the slightest bit true. It’s because the country has always invested in PT modes as well as roads, rather than like in NZ where the country only invested in roads at the expense of all else. There’s nothing special about Switzerland that makes intercity or interregional transport better suited to trains c.f. NZ. If they had followed NZ’s path then they too would be stuck with a mono-modal transport system.
An interesting comment Julie (and Geoff). I was under the illusion this was an “Auckland transport” blog (based on its title), of which PT is but a part. Other modes are bicycle, motorcycle, private car, feet, horse & cart etc.
If I choose to pop out to the beach, I can go immediately. None of the other modes mentioned offer that freedom. I would describe transport freedom as being the ability to go to any street in any town at any time, in a timely manner. Only your own car can give you that freedom.
But getting back to the Milford proposal, if you look at the houses around there, they are normal houses on normal sections, with a beach nearby. I’m guessing that character of neighbourhood, and lifestyle, comes to an end if someone builds a 19 story bohemoth overlooking it all. Existing residents have a right to challenge such a big change to their neighbourhood.
Well West of Milford is a lake, the South and West are other shops, so only normal houses are to the north-west. Interestingly most of these are units of some sort, and a reasonably high density. Barely none of the sections are their original quarter acres, with then either being subdivided or multiple units put on one
The local residents will benefit from having more cafes, shops and services within walking distance, and better public transport.
No Geoff, dont worry – they are not concreting over the beach nor are they blocking access to it.
As for character, (a) is that a valid reason to restrict someones land use, (b) that has been changing constantly in Milford for the last 50 years. Greenfields – subdivision – infill – units – mall development etc.
Try popping over to Brisbane in your car. Like I said: The mobility you value is not the mobility I value. That’s all there is to it this incredibly boring discussion. Please stop your droning inane comments. We accept that a majority of people live in suburbs; but you need to accept that a lot of people don’t want to live there either. Hence the need for developments like the one proposed at Milford.
I’m not against the Milford proposal, so I’m unsure of your point. I take exception to the ongoing insinuations that suburban living is “wrong”.
Luke, by “scattered low density land use” you mean the typical kiwi lifestyle, which is a preference to live in the suburbs. There’s nothing wrong with low density.
scattered low density land use actually doesnt refer to residential however to offices, commercial and retail. In ‘Old Suburbia’ like Dominion Road one can live in a ‘suburban’ style house , and have access to a full range of amenities without a car. However this is not possible in newly developed areas like Albany, Flat Bush. Jobs are often in industrial parks which have high employment offices mixed with low employment warehouses so Public Transport difficult to make work. Also retailing is not so much in town centres but big box malls that may be close proximity, buy very unpleasant to walk between. Botany and the separate malls at each edge of the the Ti Rakai/Te Irirangi intersection are perfect examples of this.
However, once you are at the mall, you’ll find shopping within it to be easier than wandering around independent shops on a street front, and having to cross roads. Malls reduce the number of roads needed in a shopping district. So while they may have a road and lots of carparks around them, the internal design is essentially a roads-free town. A good thing no?
ah not quite Geoff! http://goo.gl/maps/Vodld Take a look at Botany Town Centre and surrounds and try again!
Within malls I can answer yes to your question. However at Botany if you want to go from one shop to another, instead of a quick walk you will have to drive, probably taking 5 minutes, plus another 5 mins finding park and walking to shops. Clearly not an easy or stress free experience! It would of been much quicker to walk had the design been not so auto orientated.
Geoff’s last comment shows his game is up: He is a troll.
So liking suburban living makes one a troll? I don’t think so….
The first comment on here closed with ” Each to their own!”, which seems like the key point – not one that is closely adhered to in the following 81 comments, but the key point nevertheless!
It doesn’t seem unreasonable for at least some parts of the Auckland region to densify given changing demographic preferences, increasing fuel costs, overall population growth of the city, and hundreds of years of experience that tell us that urban density has many good and beneficial economic and social side-effects.
I wish you’d stop commenting as though you represent all Kiwis. You’re entitled to your own beliefs, but don’t try and stump them up by trotting out the old “Kiwis will never go for that” argument.
Contrary to what you believe, some Kiwis – myself included – would prefer to use a private vehicle as my “supplementary travel option”. Having recently lived in London, and based on my visits to Tokyo, Singapore and throughout Europe, when done right PT can easily become the #1 mode of transport for the vast majority of an urban population.
And rather than the reliance on PT being a hindrance compared to driving a car, I find it far more freeing knowing I can go out for a night and not have to worry about being over the drinking limit, I can avoid road congestion, I don’t have to worry about parking and I can arrive right in the heart of bustling shopping/dining/entertainment areas (e.g. Covent Garden or Oxford Circus in London).
Further to that, some of us enjoy being in the company of other people, even strangers and life on PT is so much more colourful and varied. Sitting by myself in my car is incredibly boring. Not to mention the fact I enjoy all of the walking you do compared to driving, where the longest walk is from lounge to the garage!
Sorry the comment above was directed at Geoff. I thought I clicked reply on one of his posts, but oh well…
@bbs & Geoff – I agree totally bbc. When I lived in Prague (a city with about the same population as Auckland)I never needed or wanted a car and I could travel much more easily than I can now in Auckland. In fact to be honest, I feel almost trapped in Auckland with no access outside. I have a car but to get anywhere is so stressful.
I suspect that Geoff has never lived outisde of auto dependent Auckland/NZ. he may have read/watched TV about Europe and the PT networks but until you have lived and breathed it, I think it is hard to appreciate just how awesome and liberating it is.
In Prague I used to often jump on a train to a village, walk through the forest/hills to another village and then get the train back to Prague. Try doing that with a car! You would need someone to pick you up.
I lived in an awesome apartment near a mall and metro station. I could be at work in 15mins in the centre by tram/metro. With no motorway roaring past, the apartment was dead quiet except for the ringing of tram bells, a very relaxing sound. Wow I miss that! Much quieter than my “suburban” house in Ellerslie with SH1 as a dull roar 24/7.
Anybody know the details of this item in today’s Herald: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10836099
Sounds like the proposal described in the blogpost may be getting cut down in scale (and mostly height)