A couple of days ago there was a somewhat hysterical blog post by David Farrar about the Unitary Plan and the higher height limits it proposes in metropolitan centres:
Len Brown and his city planners seem to think that you build a city to fit in with your transport plan, rather than build a transport system to fit in with where people want to live.
Their master plan is to force as many people as possible into apartments. But not just CBD apartments (which I am quite fond of), but massive apartments everywhere – up to 18 stories in height.
Yes Len and sidekick Penny have not just proposed 18 story suburban apartment blocks, but are demanding that the Government fast-track their plan to do so. Labour seem to be backing them.
Perhaps for the first time ever on Kiwiblog, the comments are generally saner than the blog post was. But let’s also have a look at the extent to which 18 stories in height will be allowed “everywhere”. As we know, this is the proposed height limit for the Metropolitan Centre zone – which is applied in Albany, Takapuna, Westgate, Henderson, New Lynn, Newmarket, Sylvia Park, Botany, Manukau and Papakura. These are the Metropolitan Centres identified in the Auckland Plan.
I guess an important question is how much of these areas is actually zoned Metropolitan Centre. Looking at Takapuna as a fairly representative example of the centres, we can see that actually it’s just the existing core business area:
The area of the metropolitan centre is actually fairly small – around 0.3 square kilometres. Even the largest area zoned Metropolitan Centre, (Albany) is only 0.93 square kilometres, while the smallest (Botany) is just 0.23 square kilometres in size. Adding together the size of all ten metropolitan centres gives a total area of 4.62 square kilometres. So an average size of 0.46 square km.
Given that the size of Auckland’s urban area is around 531 square kilometres, this means that the Metropolitan Centres take up around 0.87% of Auckland’s urban area. Not quite the ‘everywhere’ scaremongering is it?
Another interesting thing to think about with regard to these centres is how what’s in the Unitary Plan compares to the existing height limits. In places like Henderson and New Lynn there actually is no existing height limit – you could build up as high as you like (subject to other controls and a consenting process). In Takapuna the existing Sentinel building is higher than 18 levels. In Manukau I’m pretty sure there are a number of existing buildings close to 18 levels as well. Same with Newmarket.
I really don’t know what all the fuss is about.
Processing...
David Farrar’s post probably reflects the frustration of a high handed right wing government and the bitterness of the local political right at their collective failure to control the transport/urban development agenda or gain any popular traction in Auckland’s local politics more than it does a realistic appreciation of the facts in the real world.
I was thinking the same myself. More interested at taking cheap shots at centre left politicians than proposing any useful solutions for Auckland.
i don’t have a problem with apartments, with the usual disclaimer – if they are done well – Auckland’s history with apartment quality is not great which is why it is so easy to scaremonger to Auckland about ‘high rise slums’. What concerns me is whether the planning and consenting process will be straightforward – the Milford high rise development for example spent ages in consent processes before finally getting dramatically scaled back. Was that an exception because they were asking to build higher than the bill allowed or is it conceivable that every 18 story building in any of these centres is going to end up fighting long and costly legal battles with local NIMBYs before they can ever lay any concrete. If that is the case some of the buildings will just never happen because it’s hard enough to source capital for such a large project when its straightforward but if investors are expected to pay a massive and unknown legal bill up front and still have a degree of uncertainty about it proceeding they’ll just choose to put their money elsewhere…
Milford project is a plan change to go way outside existing rules rather than a normal consenting process.
If they were not ‘done well’ no one would want to live there or the developer would lose a lot of money.
Heaps of people live in apartments and the white middle class sits there and says ‘oh no’ I wouldn’t want this. If you don’t want it a) don’t live in one and b), move to a small village.
“White middle class” is actually not an insult.
Perhaps, but it is still a correct generalisation/observation ja? Probably ‘white upper class’ would be more accurate.
Well if people don’t like the idea high rise in their neighbourhood because they are seldom done right so end up “high rise slums”.
I’m sure they’ll find there are plenty of low-rise slums in existence around the place now, and that these all fully conformed to the design standards of the day.
But it is critical that the AC enforces good design without exception once the UP is operative.
The only problem is that with the ever likely delay between plan publication and becoming operative in 2016 or whenever
– a lot of the crap developers will run rampant with their crappy designs and get them rammed through under the old rules – especially if they perceive the new rules will be too tough for them to live with.
Thats why the UP needs to become operative sooner than later, or there will be (medium rise) slums built in those metropolitan centres instead as thats what they’re able to get away with now.
And AC will have to rubber stamp them if they comply.
Greg it is your right to locate where you please, it is not your right to force your ‘view’ of nice looking buildings on everyone else. This is the sort of rich, tyrannical rule is what got us here in this mess the first place. And it is the same problem with height restrictions.
Tell me, is it bad to have a location of ‘slums’ where poor people can live and reap the benefits of agglomeration economies (save huge costs)? If they choose to live in these ‘slums’ instead of the the suburbs is this bad? If the purchasing power of 500 poor people is greater than 100 rich people is this wrong?
Or should we force these peoples to locate in the suburbs where they don’t want to live? Don’t you see the hypocrisy and injustice? Is this social justice?
The UP is George Orwell’s 1984.
Albeit, the UP is probably better than what the previous planned ‘social justice’!
I have read through the draft plan (I wonder if Mr Farrar has?) and it looks fine to me. However as I am not in the properties owners club why should I have a voice? That last bit was meant to be pointed as it does seem that most of the opposition is coming from people who seem more worried about property value than anything else.
It is also sad that after talking to a number of people and over hearing the odd conversation a lot of the housing issues in Auckland do seem to be related to school zones and other social factors.
There are a lot of holes in the rationale behind many of the provisions within the UP, some links also just go straight to dead ends and others have no mandate through the objectives and policies of the plan. Most of the zoning/ overlay provisions appear to have been determined by looking at an aerial photo rather than looking what is on the ground, what has been there and what kind of development is taking place. Combined with some heavy handed blanket controls on non-complying and discretionary activities (regardless of scale/ effect etc) the UP will make some development prohibitively expensive and risky. It needs to go through an appropriate consultative and democratic processes before existing development rights (by way of the various operative plans) are extinguished.
Yup. In the unitary plan, very little is completely prohibited, and very little is completely permitted. Most development, even minor, will need resource consent, with all the delay, expense, uncertainty and unfairness that comes along with that. On the flip side, no-one will ever be sure what their neighbours might be able to get permission to do.
“In Manukau I’m pretty sure there are a number of existing buildings close to 18 levels as well. Same with Newmarket.”
Maybe in Manukau – but not in Newmarket, the highest there now is about 8 levels not 18.
There is a few apartment buildings behind the Newmarket train station that seem higher than 8 stories, could be wrong though. I think these ones are hidden away a little bit down in the ditch so are not so intrusive however.
Absolutely, one of them of Joseph Banks Tce is ten levels of apartments on three levels of parking, that is 13 stories. It’s immediate neighbours are only 1 and 3 stories shorter respectively.
Manukau has height restrictions as it is close to the airport flight path.
Personally I can’t wait. Revitalised urban centers and less reliance on the gross malls. What’s not to like?
Why can’t people mong good things, instead of scaring? I aspire to be a happinessmonger.
Does anyone else find it ironic that neo-lib laissez faire types are arguing the council shouldn’t allow developers to build to the height they want?
Planners arent forcing developers to do anything except limit the height of their buildings. So why is DPF against the council allowing the market to provide more density?
Personally, I would prefer medium rise across more of the city, say 4-8 stories. I’m not a huge fan of buildings above 10 stories. They’re more energy efficicent and allow better light to the whole area when they’re medium rise. Not so dependent on lifts and climate control, more human scale. Europe does this very well.
Julie Anne, would you be kind enough to define neoliberalism? I ask because it often appears to be used in a pejorative way (although I’m not suggesting you meant it in that fashion), but dictionary definitions differ. I do wonder if the meaning has changed over time, eg to become synonymous with “free market”, or even “laissez-faire”, in which case you are guilty of tautology! :).
From Wikipedia “Neoliberalism is a political philosophy whose advocates support economic liberalization, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation, and decreasing the size of the public sector while increasing the role of the private sector in modern society.”
I don’t think it’s a tautology, however… a tautology is a logical fallacy. It’s simply a redundant use of adjectives. I threw in laissez faire to further illustrate what I meant by neo-lib (as I wasn’t wanting to use it pejoratively).
Thanks for that – although I don’t see how tautology (unnecessary repetition) can be the same as a logical fallacy (illogical argument), but never mind.
However, if the modern definition of neoliberalism is small government and free markets it sounds good to me (ie pretty much the opposite to socialism). So I agree that one would not expect a neolib to oppose free markets, but I doubt that DPF is a neolib anyway. I also agree that developers are unlikely to invest in 18 storey buildings if they perceive that the market won’t accept them. There are 8-10 storey apartment buildings quite close to me and they work fine. But the top floors are mostly penthouses valued at around $5m so I won’t be buying one anytime soon.
There are a huge number of logical fallacies used in argument. A tautology is just one of them. (Sorry to be a pedant. My undergrad was philosophy which involved a lot of logic…)
Tautology
Tautology in formal logic refers to a statement that must be true in every interpretation by its very construction. In rhetorical logic, it is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. Typically the premise is simply restated in the conclusion, without adding additional information or clarification. The structure of such arguments is A=B therefore A=B, although the premise and conclusion might be formulated differently so it is not immediately apparent as such. For example, saying that therapeutic touch works because it manipulates the life force is a tautology because the definition of therapeutic touch is the alleged manipulation (without touching) of the life force.
But perhaps in everyday conversation people use tautology to mean unnecessary repetition…? I don’t usually.
The fact that penthouses are valued so highly suggests there is a market for dwellings in higher story buildings, I would say.
Fair enough, one meaning of tautology is circular reasoning which is itself a logical fallacy, so I’ll concede that one!
The penthouse market is probably largely independent of the general housing market and commands a premium due to shortage of supply (as well as views).
I am constantly amazed by that. Especially when the comments are about cities like Atlanta and Houston which are held out as a “free market” because there is no zoning or urban limits and a suggestion that this is what all cities would do without evil Socialist (gasp!) urban planners. Demographia and Wendell Cox is the classic example of course.
Of course, as you will well know, those US cities are heavily regulated to ensure that density is still very difficult with setbacks, minimum lot sizes and minimum parking requirements. On top of that spending on transit has been non-existent until very recently.
I am happy to see the urban limits lifted as long as Auckland does away with all the other controls. Heights limits may be appropriate but that shouldnt mean no multi level developments are forbidden anywhere. There also needs to be a level playing field on spending for non-car dependent travel.
Only then can the laissez faire crowd really say that the people have voted with their feet and that intensification naturally leads to higher housing prices and greater congestion.
Definitely agree. Not sure why right wing politicians seem so opposed to intensification.
“Planners arent forcing developers to do anything except limit the height of their buildings.”
If only that were true.
With respect to the height restriction that is being objected to. High restrictions are not MINIMUM height requirements. As I understand it, the market could provide two or four stories buildings in those zones… but they are allowed to provide anything up to 18.
But are they really laissex-faire neo-liberals? Unfortunately Julie, they are the ones who wreck it for true liberals. They’re schmuck so please don’t put us in there 🙁
From the other side of the room you lot all look the same to me – and I suspect everyone else.
So socialists truly are visionless? 😉
I would pay far more attention to the local business sector’s views than to a shrill toady from the Thorndon bubble who is paid to conduct the National party’s weekly polling, and shows his fundamental ignorance of planning beyond what he’s been fed by Act loonies stuck in the 1970s. Maybe sustained logic is getting his mates all a-flutter?
“…I would pay far more attention…”
The trouble is I am yet to hear Julie Anne Genter as a guest on Jim Mora’s panel, whereas a certain shrill toady is a bit of go-to guy for the same show.
Posted that before I read Julie. Yes, the lack of logical coherence to their position is telling. The fixation on height is interesting too. What’s the fear driving that?
Perhaps late to the party on this, but someone drew my attention yesterday to the Unitary Plan online simulator where you can play with the general distribution and height limit of the extra 400k dwellings across the region:
http://shapeauckland.co.nz/shape-auckland-housing-simulator/
I had a crack at a zero-sprawl design without busting local centre height limits, and it’s interesting to see how much extra residential housing that requires:
http://shapeauckland.co.nz/shape-auckland-housing-simulator/?solution=5164c34cdea68
Just found this today as well. Scarily cartoonish simplification in my view. Yes, Council should use graphic representation much more to communicate the issues and potential effects of the plan, but this really is a ridiculous presentation tool. Adding 120k-160k houses in as greenfield expansion barely registers as expansion visually…. What is this tool trying to achieve apart from obscuring reality?
The excellent post-quake Chch TEDx event highlighted some great ideas about future city design. I was struck by one speaker reminding us that tall trees get to about 7 storeys, and any more than that feels subconsciously uncomfortable. Maybe it’s 8?
The main problem with the unitary plan is the crude use of zones to define urban development. Julie identified light and personal scale as key factors and I agree. The problem is that the boundary of the zone is where the isuues start happening where light and privacy are lost. The same happpens within the zone where adjacent buildings create issues of privacy and light. There is nothing wrong with 18 storeys but because we have a free market and inherited lot sizes we end up with rubbish developments. The council needs to think beyond design standards as the fall back . My view is that the council needs to promote a master plan for each development zone that is negotiated with the community. Eg Takapuna HAS an existing centre plan with towers up to 30 storeys but with controls graduating the height down to the beachfront and to neighbouring residentilal zones.. The unitary plan suggests a blanket 18 storeys right uo to the beach. Of these 2 options If prefer the existing senario however there are still problems with wind ,privacy and sunlight. Alot more work needs to be done on these issues. I think the council need to engage with each community to get the right answer.
Absolutely the council needs to consult and your point about 18 storey apartments on the beachh is a good one, though I cant see how it could be worse than the bland commercial buildings that currently front the beach. Remember the buildings dont have to be 18 storey, it is a maximum not a minimum.
And people in the area also have to be realistic about change and how much they fight that change. I know for older people it is hard to accept change but the area would have changed a lot already in the last 50 years. If we dont allow chnage, we are not providing for future generations who also want to enjoy living in these areas at a realistic price and with a variety of options. Some of those people arent even born yet so who is going into bat for them at community consultation?
Baby boomers hold so much power right now that they have a disproportionate control over change while they will not be required to live with the consequences if that change doesnt happen.
Also, as the area on the other side of the road is very steep, and is public land I sincerely doubt they will be able to get any more than 12 storeys on the beach side of the block closest to the beach.
takapuna is in great danger of having a forrest of 18 storey towers right up to the beach but it is not the height that is the issue . The issue is the wind ,lack of privacy and lack of sunlight. The community need to be looking at these 3 issues not get hung up on the height thing. Heres my suggestion. Put all the high towers at the back of takapuna down by the bowling club through to esmonde road and the other way to killarney. . make the streets wider here to allow light to the lower levels. Across these new roads allow 10 storeys then allow for another narrower road and then allow 8 storeys and so forth till be get to the beach with 1 or 2 storey. That way every one gets sun, the buildings if arranged properly give wind protection from the south west and by having wide roads where the taller buildings are we get better privacy. With a comprehensive area plan we get the best out of the space available. However if we are stuck with the present land ownership structure then I think Julie option of 6 to 8 stories is the only realistic option across a broader area. Beware the planners they havent got a clue how to do this properly and Takapuna is in great danger far worse than Milford.
be sure to check out the overlays and recession planes. I think you’ll find that these will seriously restrict the height of the towers adjacent to the beach.
Indeed, an 18 story limit (thats a limit by the way, not a minimum) for the zone doesn’t override all the other things like heritage controls, sunlight access and shadowing the beach. I can guarantee you couldn’t build 18 stories right up against the beach to cast it in shadow.
I don’t think you will be finding many 18 story buildings in Newmarket, most are in the range of 4 to 6. A few around 8 and then those apartments by the train station that are about 10.
May be a “Levels of local resistance to development” map is needed. So priority for infrastructure spending is where local people want growth and places where there is resistances to growth get a lower level of council spending.
I do like the way http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/the-problem-with-anchoring/#comments Explains intensity.
“development intensity is a result of high land prices justifying high density, and in an urban area high land prices come from proximity to other urban land. …. the CBD is always near the center of the metro area …. Major secondary nodes usually arise in areas close to many suburbs, often the richer ones, and there’s travel demand to them from all directions: see for examples La Defense near Paris and Shinjuku and the other secondary CBDs in Tokyo. Some of those nodes happen to be near the shore (UBC, Santa Monica and Long Beach, Coney Island) but most aren’t. Any newly-built anchor will sprout further development around it unless there’s very strong local resistance.”
Robert- Negotiating with the community is a great idea. There are figures (in the AK plan?) showing how many new bods are required to be catered for in each of the 7 former Aucklands.
But nothing at any smaller detail level. I for one would like to know the “budget’ for my area and negotiate with the Council on where in my area that might work best. Auckland Planning doesn’t work like that unfortunately, “top down” is the only way. “Bottom up” could get them allies, but they seem to prefer opponents. Odd…
Luke and Nick; The controls you mention are no substitute for Design . The contols are primitive tools and most times do not lead to a great city. So fare it gasnt worked and one only has to look at a city designed by planners Manukau city ti see why. Planners do not seem to understand the design process they jst love to impose their controls. There is tons of literature talking about how top down planning produces disasters. Similary the grassroots up has also had its fair share of disasters. usually with internal politics and under resourcing. If Auckland Council was smart they would look to empower each community and ask them to design their own community as I suggested. It appears Penny Pirrit has done that with the Milford community and I am very interested to see how that works out. Congratulations Penny. I hope your fellow planners can resist taking over and will let the community lead.