For some reason, many of those that oppose the Unitary Plan seem to think that once it has been adopted, that overnight massive multi-story buildings are going to start going up all over the city. This is scaremongering, plain and simple. The reality is developments will only occur if they make commercial sense and means that in many places, despite being zoned for higher density nothing may happen for 20-30 years, if at all. Further almost all of the zoning that allows for apartments is located in and around town centres so those are the only real locations that will see any change.
The council has released some videos of what a number of centres could eventually look like. They say that they say were initially created to assist internally with planning decisions. There are 19 all up but I will just show one on here.
If developments like these were to occur, many of the metro centres would become much more interesting places. Centres like the New Lynn example above would likely gain the critical mass needed to attract the speciality shops and services that would help to make the place really interesting. Bring it on I say.
If there was one thing I would like though is if there was a way that these models could be put into a web service so that people could look around the entire city rather than be restricted to a set video. Another option could be just a Google Earth file that people could download. Perhaps it could have been tied into the councils housing simulator. While I like the idea of the housing simulator as a way to make the process interesting, I feel if fails in the sense that it makes it appear that all growth radiates out from the centre. If they could have made it more representative of the region then it would have been much more useful.
While on the topic of the Unitary Plan it seems that one of the chief scaremongers, Dick Quax got a little upset the other day after council staff apparently told him to stop handing out leaflets at a community meeting.
Councillor Gagged At Public Meeting On Auckland Unitary Plan
Auckland Councillor Dick Quax is outraged that he was gagged at an Auckland Unitary Plan consultation meeting held in Pakuranga this evening.
Councillor Quax who represents the Howick Ward was attempting to pass out his “save our neighbourhood” brochures when he was approached by Council officials and told to stop handing out his material.
“Council states that it wants to listen to the community and I want the community to know that there is more than one side to the debate on intensification and the official version that is being promoted has downsides”, says Cr Quax.
“The level of intensification planned around the Pakuranga town centre is extraordinary and alien to our cherished New Zealand way of life.”
“The Plan is not based on evidence as required by law but is full of guesswork and miscalculations such as the mayor claiming that there are 15,000 construction ready sites when in fact less than 2,000 are available.”
“My community and the all of the Auckland community should be infuriated that their elected representative is being gagged by officials of the Auckland Council.”
The thing is, it is probably intensification around Pakuranga that will save the town centre. Leaving things as they are will likely result in it just becoming a dormitory suburb for the likes of Sylvia Park. I would be interested to see if anyone has received one of his brochures. Another thought that has crossed my mind is that the AMETI project is largely about solving traffic issues and dealing with future growth. If Quax now doesn’t want this growth to occur, should we then pull the billions in proposed funding and instead use it in areas that will accept growth?
Processing...
no no no ……I learnt something terrible when I watched the movie …..our local mall (apparently the first in Auckland or something which I guess is why) which is in desperate
need of revitalisation and modernisation is a heritage protected building – its still there in the 30+ year shots when all around it is modelled as grown upwards
…..so sad sitting where is was next the train station and main bus line it could have had potential……normally I am all for heritage….. but original 60s condition
50 years later does need a bit of work ……..
Are you referring to New Lynn? the mall definitely isn’t heritage protected and the owners (KIPT) are definitely keen to redevelop and expand it.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10860614
http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/western-leader/8194000/Mall-cinema-planned
Also remember these to make these videos they have just chosen random sites and it isn’t indicative of what would actually happen.
no not New Lynn ..think more South than West – Southmall – was a multimillion pound mall – first in Auckland and
a great source of pride when it opened apparently all those in their 50s or 60s etc that lived in our area then
said it was the place to go. Sadly it is most definitely not the case now – the whole place needs significant investment in my opinion
– if its heritage that will mean more investment as its a fix up rather than a bulldoze and redo job.
I mean at the moment a long with a number of 2$ type shops the mall currently houses a bar too……I note another protected building next to it appears to correspond to the
TAB, a bar (I think) and a video store …………………..
Southmall opened in 1967 according to Wikipedia which is definitely not old enough to make bring it under the heritage protections proposed in the Unitary plan. Make sure you make a submission to the unitary plan to that effect.
I thought you meant New Lynn as it pre-dates Southmall by about 4 years and is supposedly the oldest american style mall in NZ.
Thanks – worth thinking about – I just noted it was in yellow on the video as a heritage protected site along with the
central school ……….I knew the tree outside the mall was protected…..but not the mall
It had a special history I will admit ……
http://manukau.infospecs.co.nz/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll?BU=http%3A%2F%2Fmanukau.infospecs.co.nz%2Fjourney%2Fhome.htm&QF0=TimeLineRef&QI0==22%20February%201967&MR=1&TN=source&AC=QBE_QUERY&RL=0&RF=English
but recent years have not been so kind – no longer does it even have 2 supermarkets – one chain brought the land of the other chain out and did not renew the lease. …..
ohh and I think its not american style ? It was an open air mall once that got closed over at some point …..perhaps that makes it a point of difference I am not sure – it would be interesting to see how the community felt about it being a heritage protected site …….
Is there any definition of what an “american style mall” is?
According to Te Ara
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/department-stores-and-shopping-malls/page-4
While LynMall opened in 1963, it was built around an open courtyard, it was not until 1965 that a fully enclosed mall opened in NZ at Riccarton Christchurch.
I lived the first 11 years of my life three minutes’ walk from Southmall. It was no great shakes in the 1980s and the last time I was in the area it didn’t look like it had got any better. Bowling it and replacing it with high-density apartments that have shopping facilities on the ground floors would be a good use of a large site that has superb access to public transport.
I suspect the heritage protection applies to the two-storey strip on GSR/Station Rd, opposite Manurewa Central Primary, which from memory is early 1900s, and possibly to the strip on the corner of GSR and Hill Rd though I think that’s rather newer.
Ah, I see what you mean. That’s odd. Southmall doesn’t have any attraction as a heritage building, though it’s possible that some of the frontage on GSR is sufficiently old as to quality. The stuff at the back is certainly hideous as only 1960s construction can be.
Yes Matt Clouds in total agreement with you ! Its not improved since the 80s really – its had gone noticeably downhill from the 90s when
I went to school in the area and in recent years when we resettled back in the area. An area crying out for a well designed re-development
taking into account the close proximity of the travel etc ……….
Ok here is an aerial from 1959 showing the site is empty. Perhaps the only building that existed then that is still around is this one http://goo.gl/maps/fSnkw
The tree you see has historical significance and is protected I think …..and there may have been buildings around there pre-1950s
i also thought the post office building on the corner was likely to be of an age to be protected.
The area really burst into development/redevelopment in the late 50s and 60s and the mall would have been built to accomodate that.
I know the school has very good reason to be heritage site – it has a long history – probably 1900s – though of course not all of the buildings
are that old, it also has a ANZAC memorial outside. It is lovely grounds and even retains a tiny patch
of native trees in one corner – its adds great value to the area. However since that school is a great school and very popular – it will be interesting to
see if the heritage status will prevent any development in the upwards direction or not. They might have to close their role to out of zone I suppose
but their catchment will be the central area which from those models is likely to burst forth with in-zone population given the increase in housing density.
Matt what did you get on the Housing Simulator? Just curious as I got this with mine: (sorry have to do a link back as the Housing Simulator share options doesn’t show what you put into the bars – but I did get a Screenie of what I did put) http://voakl.net/2013/04/05/my-housing-mix-in-auckland/
Hmm I wonder if Council has a database that we could view with everyone’s options thus far in that simulator
You appear to be simply proposing uncontrolled sprawl as Auckland’s solution, the most expensive of all options in terms of new infrastructure needed to support it.
Not uncontrolled at all. It is within the maximum 40% of Greenfield Developments allowed possible under The Auckland and Unitary Plans.
If you read my particular post properly you would have noticed the surplus and the flexibility in tinkering with the Greenfield zones it created (could knock off some 10,000 to even 20,0000 homes in the Greenfield zone).
Further more what the housing simulator model came up with after I ran it is consistent to my 60:40 part in my Auckland Plan submission and also in that submission was the MUD infrastructure policy technique for Greenfield development.
So Bbc I am well ahead of you there with the 40% Greenfield maximum, surplus housing stock to create flexibility between Brown and Greenfield developments (or population grow surges higher than forecast) and the alternative infrastructure provision device if we go all out with the 40% Greenfield option.
I call it a more balanced model than some would push for in the old 75:25 provision which got dropped
Given how much supply there already is of large detached houses at the edges of the city, and how demand for smaller dwellings is growing so much faster than bigger ones, and how the market is showing a preference for more central properties, then for balance we surely do need to grow with a significantly greater proportion of smaller, inner properties.
So not just balance in the new dwellings but to improve balance of the the whole stock.
Im looking on a phone so I may have this wrong but what I think Ben has done is to go for a higher concentration in the metro centres, presumably the ones with good PT connections going off previous discussions. This would actually be anti-sprawl and lowers the cost of providing major PT connections and arterials all over the place. Is that right Ben?
I’m certainly not a Quax supporter, but I’m surprised that Council staff would try to stop a Councillor communicating with people at a Council-organised meeting. That’d look like they were trying to suppress alternate views and protest if the leafletter was a member of the general public, but it is even worse when the leafletter is an elected representative of the public.
I agree but it wouldn’t surprise me if his material he was handing out was misinformation presented as fact. I imagine it is hard to tell a community exactly what is being proposed when that kind of material is being spread around to try and whip up the locals into a frenzy. That is why I am keen to see a copy of it so we can judge for ourselves.
If it’s anything like these flyers doing the rounds on Facebook then I don’t entirely blame the Council staff… Not a good look though.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.124100537782740.1073741829.124053097787484&type=1
All claiming that rates will increase is places are allowed to intensify, I guess they think that sprawl will be cost neutral….this is just scaremongering presented as fact.
It’s a shame that facebook page got UnitaryPlan as it’s name. Means that it appears to be official.
Oh, and people on this blog may be interested to know that they’re using a post from here to argue against the UP. This one in particular: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2013/04/16/how-much-upzoning-does-the-unitary-plan-really-enable/
How are they using that- it isn’t really about the UP?- it’s about what you can do now!
Ok maybe I overthought it, because their comment is fairly innocuous on its own, but it the context of everything else on that page…. it just came across as very negative.
“This blog discusses how the Unitary Plan isn’t needed in order to develop capacity in most of Auckland and that intensification is being targeted to the wrong suburbs. The missing factor is public transport”
All, the event you’re referring to was one hosted by the Howick Local Board. The councillor was simply asked not to put his flyer on the same table as the official material for the Unitary Plan engagement, so as not to confuse attendees. He was not restricted from distributing it anywhere else.
Thanks for the clarification Olive and fair enough too. I have no sympathy for Councillor Quax.
That still doesn’t mean you can’t hand out flyers. AFAIK we do have something in this country called freedom of speech..
See above – he wasn’t restricted.
These are great video’s. Good simple communication about how Auckland is likely to look in the future – just what is needed.
Wonder why Onehunga didn’t get a video?
Botany looks scary, all the building – where is the public transport to support it??
Hi Adam – it was done on the basis of one centre per local board.
Quax is an idiot, he tried to have a head to head debate with Len Brown for the Manukau mayoralty on RadioNZ and he failed misserably in a stuttering mess. The council wants to hear concerns and quality feedback from the communities individual voices. I initially thought it was good he wasn’t allowed to hand it out but I think that council officials did right to allow his leaflet to disseminate.