One of the things that prompted me to write a post explaining why I want intensification in my neighbourhood was due to the seemingly one sided debate coming out of our major newspaper. It seemed almost every single article that discusses the Unitary Plan had a negative slant to it and I can only recall seeing one story even slightly balanced. Since that time this negative trend has continued and I’m interested to know why. Is it just the herald pandering to its readers who are more likely to be the type of people opposing the plan? Is it the reporters and editors pushing their own personal views through the stories? I have even some of them asked through twitter to provide some balance but so far all we hear is silence then more one sided articles.
@bernardorsman can we get a story on the unitary plan from the other side of the argument, young people who want a better city
— AkTransportBlog (@AkTransportBlog) April 8, 2013
@shaynecurrienzh @tmurphynzh Why can we not get some balanced articles about the Unitary Plan. Everything appears to be scaremongeringa
— AkTransportBlog (@AkTransportBlog) April 25, 2013
Here are some examples of what I am talking about:
Today:
Luxury homes picked for infill plan
Planning rulebook pinpoints future land to contain urban sprawl and where thousands more can be housed.
Billionaire Graeme Hart’s clifftop mansion is among luxury homes, schools, churches and golf clubs being set aside for possible infill housing and apartments in a new planning rulebook for Auckland.
Schools, including Kings Prep in Remuera and De La Salle College in Mangere, were unlikely to be replaced by houses, said council chief planning officer Dr Roger Blakeley, but it was still a possibility.
You would almost think from reading this that the council was actively eyeing up these properties to force houses on them yet it isn’t till halfway through the article that it is even mentioned that this is based off the Capacity for Growth Study which looks at what would be possible under the existing rule books. In other words the owners of Kings Prep could develop the site tomorrow if they wished.
Wednesday 24 April:
Kiwis still crave slice of suburbia
The “suburban dream” of living in a standalone home is still alive and well – a finding that could harm Auckland Council’s push for more terraced housing.
As the council looks at how to deal with the city’s growing population and housing crisis under the Unitary Plan, a study it commissioned on current housing intensification could be damning.
Residents from medium density developments in three city suburbs were interviewed about their living conditions as part of Auckland University’s Future Intensive: Insights for Auckland Housing.
We will cover this study in more detail but from having a quick read of it, it appears the herald have been very selective with what they have reported on. For example the report also says this.
Overall, the case study developments indicated a reasonable level of satisfaction with the experiences of living at medium densities, and meeting a range of household needs that included bringing up children and caring for the elderly. In part, this positively supports proposals to increase the supply of higher density housing promoted by the Auckland Plan. However, we also recognise from our research that complex interactions between urban planners, developers and potential buyers (owner-occupiers and investors) profoundly influenced the physical characteristics of medium density developments. these interactions produced a specific built form that may, or may not, exhibit good design elements and may, or may not, promote long term ‘successful communities’…
Despite the positive responses to living at higher densities, for whatever reason, the aspiration of living in detached suburban housing remains strong for both New Zealand born and ‘new’ New Zealanders. However, this aspiration needs to be understood in relation to the reasons given for living in their present accommodation: such as ‘proximity/location’ and ‘affordability.’ In this respect, the suburban ‘dream’ might simply be unrealistic and unaffordable. thus, keeping in mind the low national median income of New Zealanders and Auckland’s high house prices, it can be surmised there is a disjuncture between the desire and aspiration to live in a standalone home and affordability considerations. Nevertheless, the aspiration for suburbia (no matter how unrealistic) is a barrier to the promotion of visions for a compact city that needs to be better understood.
Well I want to drive a Ferrari but that doesn’t mean I can afford one.
Unitary Plan deadline will stay – Brown
Some councillors say timetable is too tight and council is playing ‘Russian roulette’
The Auckland Council is sticking to a tight timetable on a new planning rulebook, despite claims it is a rushed process and misgivings about high-rise apartments and infill housing on more than half of the city’s residential land.
A group of councillors, led by George Wood, yesterday tried to extend the timeframe for the rulebook – or Unitary Plan – beyond the local body elections in October.
Most councillors voted for a compromise solution that will include further engagement with Aucklanders after the May 31 deadline for feedback on the draft plan.
So if the majority councillors supported a compromise solution why report so much on the minority that are opposing it?
23 April
Review for four-storey Orewa limit
A controversial decision to cap Orewa and Browns Bay apartment living heights at four storeys is up for review during debate of Auckland Council’s new planning rule book.
The Hibiscus & Bays Local Board put forward the limit in its area plan.
However, the council’s draft Unitary Plan proposes heights of up to six storeys in the seaside centres, with adjacent terrace housing and apartment areas at four storeys.
Who decided that the height limit was controversial and what were the reasons the council rejected the local boards suggestions? Presumably council officers had looked through the local board proposal but the whole subject is presented as if the council is just forcing its views through.
11 April
Four-storey rule sparks congestion fear
It will not be possible to drive to Devonport if plans to intensify neighbouring Belmont proceed, a public meeting heard last night.
About 100 people turned out at the Devonport RSA for a meeting on heritage provisions in a new rulebook for the city, but questions quickly turned to Belmont and the effect that four-storey apartments would have on Lake Rd – the congested route into the seaside suburb
These are just a few examples and unfortunately there are many more. About the only article even remotely balanced seems to have been this one on 15 April.
Intensification plan accepted, with concern.
Lynette O’Brien supports intensification of Papatoetoe so long as it is not like the “concrete jungle” of stucco townhouses in Shirley Rd.
The two rows of featureless townhouses will deteriorate into a ghetto, predicts the local pharmacist, who believes in the future of the once-bustling middle-class suburb of Papatoetoe.
“I support the model of change, but the crux is quality,” said Mrs O’Brien, who wants Papatoetoe to build on its heritage.
She was one of about 20 locals at a community meeting to discuss a new rulebook for the city that asks Aucklanders to adapt to high-rise apartments and infill housing to squeeze another one million residents into the city.
Seriously what will it take to get the herald reporting some balance, like people who want intensification. Showing examples of where it has worked and where people are happy with it as well as issues like intensification for the elderly.
Edit: And almost on queue they are at it again this morning. I have been to a number of local events where the vast majority of people attending don’t object to the plan but there is no reporting on that
Council plans to allow multi-storey buildings over half of Auckland have run into a brick wall of local opposition. Super City reporter Bernard Orsman surveys opinion in a typical suburban street, where locals are horrified at the proposed changes.
Poronui St hardly looks like a battleground. It’s a quiet cul-de-sac of middle-class suburbia, tucked behind Mt Eden’s self-styled shopping village.
There are dozens of streets like it around Auckland, in character if not in property values. Apart from a few apartments and townhouses, it consists mostly of well-kept villas and bungalows, whose pretty gardens benefit from rich, volcanic soil.
But in a sign of the discontent spreading across many suburbs, the residents of Poronui St are now mobilising to save their homes, sunlight and views of Maungawhau (Mt Eden) against plans for intensification in the new rulebook – or unitary plan.
The plan is a 30-year blueprint for the city that sets out to squeeze a further one million residents into the city over the next 30 years. Instead of urban sprawl, the model is for a “compact” city, with 280,000 new homes in the existing urban area and 160,000 new homes in rural areas.
Processing...
Good point. Interestingly the balance of letters to the editor in the Herald have generally been a bit more balanced on the topic of the Unitary Plan.
Is it because controversy and sensation sells news papers? If the truth got out that a lot of people actually support the unitary plan, well, that could make for tremendously boring reading.
For what it’s worth I think of the Herald as more of a tabloid than a source of open, balanced and objective news.
Agree. The Herald is a tabloid.; not worth bothering about because it’s just an echo chamber.
Even worse we have Radio Live, here is some twitter excerpts from this afternoon
-RadioLIVE Newsroom: There are concerns the elderly will be pushed out of Auckland or into retirement homes through rezoning in the Unitary Plan.
-Luke Christensen: source?
-RadioLIVE Newsroom : Councillor Dick Quax
Wasn’t Quax an Act Party candidate? If so why is he so against the Unitary Plan’s proposals to deregulate development. i.e. allow for more intensive development? I’m confused.
yes many in the Right Wing (esp CitRats) are very confused over the Unitary Plan. They are using it to try and sink Brown (even though don’t have a candidate) but at the same time showing themselves to be mischievous, and lacking any principles. Right Wingers should be supporting allowing more property rights, however they al have shown themselves to be 1950’s conservatives wanting to preserve an Auckland that never existed.
Luke, CitRats (although I think they’ve given themselves a new name) are hardly right wing! They’re more like RINOs (or NINOs in NZ). The dilemma is that while the UP appears to confer more property rights, it does so under an authoritarian model with increased bureaucracy, eg more resource consents required, which is a left wing approach. Hence the confusion on both ends of the political spectrum. Having said that, I see the UP as being reasonably well balanced in its objectives. But I had to laugh at the video that included my street – right next to me were two multi-storey apartment blocks. Mind you, my neighbour’s house is leaky so he might be quite happy to sell out to a developer. I guess I would too if the price was right.
Others on this thread have suggested that the NZ Herald is right-wing too! I hate to think what they would consider left wing. Stu got it right when he said it’s a tabloid, targeted at the lowest common denominator and best ignored.
I feel the need to point out that the writing is disjointed, confusing, and just bad in those articles.
Well the Herald has the right to publish whatever articles they want. If you don’t like them than best to just ignore them.
Question: Have you tried sending an editorial to them?
Oh yes… wouldn’t run it.
Yes multiple times. Was blocked by John Roughan who has a history of editorials promoting sprawl and anti PT based transport planning
Reinforcing that: I posted a comment on the Herald website in response to John’s article. Checking back today I was amazed to find just one comment – and certainly not mine. John appears to be quite happy to skew the debate using his position.
Yes, the Herald has the right to report what they want. And we have the right to complain about their poor reporting. What’s your point?
well we could talk about journalistic deontology, but this isn’t journalism.
Brilliant word Gian, I had to look it up. And nothing to do with teeth.
So did I, at first I assumed it must mean undoing ontology, undoing being, but then that didn’t really make sense in the context….
First of all very disappointing that the Herald wouldn’t run an editorial..
@Stu I’m just saying that they can choose what they report (as you said), If we don’t like it than the best a consumer can do is boycott & try to right them (in a fair way).
Don’t you just hate one sided articles.
Advocacy is fine. What is not good is campaigning dressed up as reportage. And that’s what the Herald is doing.
It’s a shame to see our major newspaper sell the Auckland region’s future short. On something as complex and important as this, residents deserve a better spread of stories. They cannot be hard to source, as anyone who follows this blog knows.
Yes and maybe the complexity is part of the problem; they are repeating shrill and one-eyed readings of the plan but not putting the effort into checking with the original data. Which is all there. So are they pushing an agenda, or just lazy or unskilled journalists?
Happens in other areas too. See the first section of this blog post by the CEO of TUANZ:
http://tuanz.org.nz/blog/2013/4/22/lost-opportunities-and-hypotheticals
But you must admit those wires are vile. Seems like very retrograde tech too….?
Overhead wires are insanely cheaper than digging trenches.
However the idea is that when a trench is laid in the road for one thing (power, telephones, new sewers) then multiple services are buried and ducts are laid for future services. Sadly some councils have only recently come to understand understand this wisdom of this.
So in theory the overhead wires would only be in places where other wires were already overhead.
Also 10 years ago the advantages of fast and cheap Internet were even less appreciated than they are now.
Retrograde compared to what? Fibre is infinitely scalable, as opposed to copper, and it’s got a proven long-term history and future as a high-speed mass-distribution-of-internet technology. Wireless simply isn’t even in the same city, never mind the same ballpark, in terms of reliability and certainty of delivery speeds. For every person who points to some version of wireless as the future of domestic internet, I’ll point to a person who doesn’t understand wireless networking’s serious limitations.
It’s government policy to increase immigration. If Auckland’s population is increasing through this policy why don’t they legislate for urban sprawl? Oh that’s right, opposition to the reduction of farmland through prominent organisations such as Federated Farmers.
Much easier to keep the policy and just sit back and criticise the council for trying solve its effects.
(I’m for immigration).
It’s very simple. Most people are against the UP, and the Herald reporting reflects that. Intensification is really only supported by the new urbanist movement, a relatively small minority, and they are not even bothering to show up at all the UP meetings. If UP supporters want to be heard, they need to pull finger and get themselves to the meetings.
Source Geoff? A claim like “most people are against the UP” needs some evidence to back it up.
Geoff just means Geoff is against it. Or at least what has been described to him in the Herald.
Right-thinking folk of the eastern suburbs.. 🙂
What sort of rubbish comment is that. You did realise you are poking at the very people whom are paying for whatever the council agrees with…
I thought the council paid for projects with rates from the entire region, silly me.
I guess my rates must evaporate into thin air…
You mean my rates evaporate? Say it ain’t so?
Most voices at the UP meetings, as reflected through the media, are in opposition to the UP. What more evidence do you want?
The supporters are silent, so they cannot be expected to get equal air time. It doesn’t work like that.
Sorry I was mislead when you said most people. That is a very different thing to “most voices at the UP meetings”.
Most voices at the UP meetings simply reflect the demographics of the attendees.. not I would suggest remotely representative of Auckland’s population as a whole.
At the end of the day, those who show up are the ones that the reporters will write their articles about. Those with a different view, who don’t bother to show up, are in no position to expect articles reporting their alternate view. You can’t expect 50/50 reporting of a 95/5 attendance.
Maybe the meetings are organized by those anti the Unitary Plan, and they encourage other people against the plan to turn up. People who are generally supportive or ambivalent won’t turn up, apart from a hardy bunch of us planning nerds that do. The bigger issue is the articles that report misleading truths that are spread by certain councillors that should know better. If they don’t know better they are incompetent and not doing their job properly by reading up on their work.
Luke, the UP meetings are held by Auckland Council. They are holding dozens of them, all over Auckland, over a period of a few months. Most attendees are against the UP in its current form, so the reporters who frequent these meetings, write articles that reflect the public opinion expressed at these meetings.
Geoff I have been to a few meetings where most people supported what was discussed, or at least only one or two out of dozens actually complained about it yet that was never reported on. The herald have only been attending the meetings where they know there will be large levels of opposition. I am aware that at those meetings with large reported opposition, many of those that do support the plan have been shouted down and not allowed to talk again so there is actually a lot of bullying going on from opponents.
Yep, there’s that bullying that occurs at such meetings that I mentioned in another topic. It’s a disgrace. Unfortunately certain groups have the numbers at these meetings.
Well, Mr Blackmore, there’s certainly been a preponderance of older folk at these meetings. The younger people are probably more inclined to comment online. And there’s plenty of pro-intensification talk in a lot of places online, e.g.:
1) Here
2) Eye on Auckland
3) Skyscrapercity
4) The actual Unitary Plan feedback website, http://shapeauckland.co.nz/
5) Comments on Herald articles, where the Herald actually allows them
A balanced newspaper would presumably give some time to both sides of the debate.
Reporters are unlikely to browse the internet looking for things to write about. They go to the meetings, and report the issues being raised at them. If supporters are staying away from the meetings, and therefore not having their view reported enough, they have only themselves to blame.
Geoff you really do not seem to have much clue how journalism works. On a big ongoing topic like this, turnout at neighbourhood meetings is not the main driver of coverage. Maybe in was in the 1920s.
Actually several reporters read this blog regularly, hence it being cited in the NZ Herald just today in fact.
You’re putting a lot of weight into these local meetings, I’m pretty sure reporters, the council, AT and everyone else realise exactly what happens and weight their views accordingly. It’s not like these people haven’t been through consultation before, they know if you hold a community meeting you’ll get a few noisy opinionated locals who try and own the discussion and bully out anyone else. Happens every time, and you’d be a fool to think they represent the community at large.
Geoff – Except they aren’t going to the meetings, only the handful that they know will have controversy to report on. I haven’t seen any reporters at the meetings I have been to where the Unitary Plan was generally accepted.
Never heard of the movement Geoff got a link? I’m born and bred here in Auckland and very much a layman when it comes to town planning but the “vision” matches with what I have privately thinking for a long-time.
New urbanism is essentially about returning to the 1920’s, before the car changed how people live. This blog is essentially a new urbanist blog, even if it doesn’t describe itself as such.
I don’t know, I don’t consider myself particularly smart but I doubt you understand the technicality in some of the posts
I think urbanism is a little more complicated than just returning to the 1920’s, more saying that the trajectory we were on in the 1920’s re transport maybe wasnt wrong and we need to look at where that route was taking us. The 1920’s were a boom time for street cars all over the world. What would Auckland be like if we had kept our street cars rather than just building motorways? Maybe a better city?
Pro sprawl supporters often appear to want a return to the 1950’s (usually the time of their childhood), when cities just sprawled out because oil was cheap and there were few cars anyway, so everyone could drive wherever they wanted with minimum congestion. That doesnt seem any more tenable than trying to recreate the 1920’s.
I agree with the last article, if that site is she is talking about is where there used to be a 3Guys supermarket – I can’t believe the council let that get built.
Here’s a start, Jeremy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism
Thanks, but I was wanting him to give me a link to WhaleOil or something similar, but looking at the wiki page it sounds like a common sense approach that I support and although a multi-disciplined approach which requires a higher level of thinking the principles were probably thought-up after a ‘WTF’ realisation moment.
Talking of cities, thought some of you might be interested in some of these books, http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/apr/26/leo-hollis-top-10-books-cities
Right now on the Herald website, the top story is ”Crash Causes Major Delays”
and below that
”Auckland Harbour Bridge Lane Closures”
”Heavy Traffic In and Out of Auckland”
What is the message the Herald expects people to take away from this?
Their pro car/motorway/sprawl editorials and their reportage about heavy traffic and crashes seems completely schizophrenic.
Yes would be nice to see a story out of the herald of how balanced and thoughtout the draft plan actually is. An article actually describing its benefits and the public transport benefits. The herald never seems to mention that public transport is set to vastly improve to help move people. This goes hand in hand with the plan.
That herald story about not enough consultation is madness. This consultation has been going on 2 years with half of auckland! Plus there’s still a month to get in feedback. No mention of that in the article. Does woods want face to face consultations with the whole of Auckland.
Some journalistic balance is stories would be nice.
Speaking of the Herald, is he for real?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10879979
Add another 1 million people to the mix and am sure the amazing traffic light solution will solve all the problems…….
One starts to wonder if the OPEC payroll has a few people in NZ!
Yes the NZH has a lack of balance, but balance does not sell papers now it seems.
I do agree with him on the point that there is room for a more intelligent traffic lights system.
Sitting waiting for the lights to change for some minutes with no traffic seems an inefficient use of time and our imported fuel.
Also, maybe using the system in other countries where the lights change from red-amber-green so that those at the front at an intersection have some warning to start and don’t sit there for about five minutes before they realise what is happening.
Might help to reduce red light running too. This often occurs when only five cars get through a light change.
They use this system from the UK to Egypt. Sorry, off main topic, I know.
I have noticed that some traffic light phases are poorly designed. I think some money on some ‘smarter’ systems is a good idea though it can’t replace new infrustructure.
AT are actually working on improving like syncing and have being doing so for a while but my understanding is that it isn’t a quick and easy job. They can only do a few corridors at a time and each required detailed study to see how things work. I remember seeing a report on the roads they had done which was showing some good savings being made.
The old “why don’t they just fix the traffic lights?”… As always, XKCD has an apt strip: http://xkcd.com/277/ 🙂
I still maintain that many intersections (for example the Dominion Rd/Balmoral one). It’s also relatively cheap so should be looked into & its good to see AT doing it.
Why look that far afield? Christchurch has an excellent short phase, coordinated traffic light system. I know Auckland is magnitudes greater in its traffic problems but still if Chch can do it why cant Auckland.
Ditto with the integrated ticketing system. The Chch system works so well for the buses and encourages more use.
I think a large part of peoples aspirations to detached housing comes down to kiwis treating housing as a status symbol. Intensive housing just doesn’t have a high enough status value in NZ despite the lifestyle advantages it offers.
I think it’s simple enough. The NZH is on the side of the National Party, and therefore backs their line. To build more roads you need places for them to go. Thus suburbia from Wellsford to Pukukohe is their dream.
What they don’t have is the guts to actually declare their allegiance.
I see the Herald is at it again today, loftily declaring that as a result of it’s own scare mongering the council is “losing the fight” to sell the UP to the Auckland middle class. Of course, the National voting and property owning middle class is, as far as the Herald is concerned, the A-Z of worthwhile opinion in Auckland.
It seems to me that it is entirely understandable that a site called “Auckland Transport Blog” doesn’t understand the Herald’s bias against the UP. To understand that, you’d need political scientists and sociologists, not transport experts.
First of all, the motley collection of old men, silver spoon opportunists and fellow travellers that passes for the political right in Auckland – Banks, Brewer, Quax, Wood, Roughan, O’Sullivan et al – have been in utter disarray since Len Brown won the supercity mayoralty. Such was their rout it looks like they’ll be unable to even find a half decent candidate to run against Brown. In the UP the Auckland right hopes it has found something to beat Len Brown with, and the Herald is metaphorically rolling itself up to provide the weapon.
Why? Because the Herald is is by both inclination and reasons of practical survival the voice of the Auckland right-wing establishment. Let’s be honest, the only reason it is available online is because almost no one would read it if they had to pay for it, and it’s influence would fade away to nothing. The sole group of people who pay for the Herald are those with more money than sense in place like St. Heliers, Remuera, Takapuna and Milford.Therefore only a fool in the Herald HQ would adopt an editorial line that would upset it’s core readership.
Therefore generally speaking then the Herald represents a farily reactionary Auckland elite that by and large got rich from property speculation and property development. A sort of genteel Tea Party movement. Insofar as I am making a case, one glance at the people leading the charge against the UP – mainly middle aged Pakeha aligned to the political right and who have or plan to make money in the business of land speculation pretty much provides the first exhibit for the prosecution.
It is a pity that the only daily newspaper in Auckland is basically a Tory red-top masquerading as a newspaper of record.
First of all if it really is a right wing tea party tory newspaper than why isn’t there a lefty alternative. Especially as you claim that only folks in ‘St. Heliers, Remuera, Takapuna and Milford’ read it.
Secondly in Todays Herald there was a 4 page article which pretty much affirmed what this blog wants in terms of transport policy. This left-wing blog was quoted numerous times in it!
I wish I had the the resources to run a second newspaper for Auckland. To get some balance in the media commentary.
With our population increase, is there now a model for the Star to run as a slimmed down compact through the week as well as just sundays.
This must be one of the benefits available from our growing population: being able to economically run a second newspaper. I realise many gain their news on-line now, but I think there is still a place for ‘rags. Even just a metro rag, as in London, as urban life grows (Get me a printing press!).
A bit over the top maybe. To be fair some herald stories do have balance, while some the balance is pathetic. Case in point is the balance they try to provide in todays mt eden intensification story by dragging up that idiotic blog against nimbys. Get an intelligent counter story, not that crap.
I’ve noticed that left wingers seem to think the Herald is right wing, and vice versa. Quite interesting imho 🙂 I personally wouldn’t call it either, although I am frustrated with the precedence that is given to anti-intensification and anti-PT viewpoints.
“Statements like this provide little comfort to Gosney and others. In fact, they confirm her worst suspicions that the council is paying lip-service and acting like the Government of Cyprus to steal property rights for a bankrupt agenda.”
“Hate speech is coming to a street near you – if you live in a quiet piece of suburbia, like Poronui St in Mt Eden, and object to your neighbourhood being rezoned for apartments and infill housing.”
I think characterising the Herald as ‘scare-mongering’ seriously understates what they are doing. Hate speech? Stealing property right? Really?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10879982
“Super City reporter Bernard Orsman surveys opinion in a typical suburban street”
Ah yes of course – Mt Eden streets full of million dollar houses are indeed ‘typical suburban streets’. Says it all, really.
I suspect the irony of the title of that article is lost on the author and the Herald’s readership
Good point, a typical million dollar street with volcano view shafts, heritage overlays to contend with. Renters on the street wouldn’t have been surveyed because they’d love the idea and their opinions wouldn’t matter. If I was a journalist I’d be embarrassed to be associated with the Herald some days.
The other irony is NZH are generally very pro immigration as it tends to prop up those house prices in the grammar zones very nicely, but assume all those extra people will just live somewhere else in Auckland….
Wow, and that dude was a senior planner? So where would he plan for the increased population to live? Don’t say greenfields, you’re picking a fight with Federated Farmers!
Anywhere other than where he lives, of course, just so long as it doesn’t affect his property value. You can be certain that he’ll be one of the first to bleat about the increased rates required to support the sprawl that will allow him to retain his Pavlova Paradise, too.
The title of that (atrocious) article says it all, really
The stakes are big, so the Unitary Plan process understandably reveals spectrums of views about who our city is for and what it will be like as it evolves. Community or landowners. Drivers or riders. Owners or renters. Current residents or future ones. That sort of thing.
Councils are charged with balancing those perspectives in consultation with citizens and other stakeholders like businesses and advocacy organisations.
Understanding all the views and deciding what to do requires better storytelling than we are seeing, deeper appreciation of the beliefs that drive various positions, and knowing whose voices are not being heard. We can help with that.
The problem that most people have with intensification is the street scape transition from a sole dwelling to mupltiple dwellings and the impact that has in the interim stages before the street is fully devloped. A typical street , Poronui street or browns road in manurewa it doesnt really matter the problem is how to find a way for the traditional dweller to co exist with their new neighbour ( a multi storey apartment ) . How do we preserve the light ,privacy and amenity of the traditional dweller. I think a lot of the opposition would dis appear if the debate shifted on this blog to how their concerns could be addressed. Personally I think the biggest problem for efficient intensification is the current land subdivision and a lot more work needs to be done around land amalgamation so that development makes the most of the available land between existing streets. I suggest some sort of urban authority be set up to amalgamate land ,call for a community design competition including architects and planners and then call for tenders for construction. This way we get good urban design, the community gets input and those you sell their land get first preference to buy in the new development. Almost 90 % of your opposition would fade away because the issues have been addressed. Calling them names and getting nasty is not going to help.
The urbam authority I propose could be made up of architects/planners/ urban designers / local community memmbers and council staff. and even some of you guys who are so vocal about how it should be done.
Shifting the responsibility to the community to develop thier own city has many advantages over leaving it for developers to determine who are driven by commercial concerns not community concerns.
I do not think anyone would have any problem with this approach except those motivated by self interest.
Anyone who sells their land can ask for a first right of refusal on the development. People seem to think that developers can just come along and force you to sell your house, they can’t! If you want to sell up then you can write whatever clauses into the deal that you like,
I’m quite keen on the community developing their own city. For that reason I don’t like the idea of large land amalgamations or having some urban development authority run the show. Why not let people develop their own land independently. What Auckland needs is terraced houses, townhouses and low rise flats, stuff that is easily done on a site by site basis. The missing middle density. We don’t really need jumbo apartment blocks in the suburbs.
Why do you continue to insist that the community has a say in individual property sales? They don’t!
The best way for a community to protect its way of life, is to have the council zone their community accordingly. Just as has happened in parts of Auckland, like Waitakere. No developer can do anything there out of character with the neighbourhood, as that’s what the community wanted, and the area was zoned accordingly.
Ideally, the UP would go to local referendum in areas where major zoning changes are planned. The zoning change would come down to a majority vote, and only existing residents would be eligible to vote.
Geoff settle down, I said the person selling the property has a say (every say, entirely ) on the sale of their property. They chose to sell or not to sell, they set the price, the terms, the caveats. If they want to sell with a clause that it cannot be developed more than one story tall they are perfectly able to do that. No developer can come along and buy a property unless the owner chooses to sell it to them.
But I’m interested to hear what your definition of community is if it doesn’t include people who own their own home. You seem to be suggesting that community is a group of people who don’t own land and don’t have property rights to exercise their wants. Or are you simply concerned that people in your community don’t agree with you and would actually be very happy to develop their homes or sell them for development. So you want to tell part of your community what they can’t do with their land. Because they don’t agree with you you want laws to stop them exercising freedoms over their own property, just so that you can force them to build housing in a way that you like and makes yours more enjoyable?
The community is everyone who lives in the neighbourhood. If the majority of those people want the neighbourhood to stay a certain way, then there needs to be protection to prevent the minority from changing it. That’s the main purpose of zoning. What I’m describing is not theory, it’s fact. Waitakere for example, is protected from development.
Ok so it is the latter, you want to force part of your community to surrender property rights for your benefit and only be able to live in the sort of housing you like.
So everyone who lives in a neighbourhood. How often you you hold that vote, every year is it, or just once and you forget about it? Or do we rely on you and your community to take the interests of the wider city to heart, the interests of the next generation, considering where my children will live and how much they have to spend on housing? I seems you not only want to tell everyone else what they should do with their property, you want to stop future generations having the freedom of choice too.
As opposed to your preference for the minority to force change on the community at large. Better for the majority to be protected, as is the case with most zoning laws throughout NZ. You keep saying it’s my view, when in fact it’s the way things are already. The whole reason the UP is getting up people’s noses is because it plans major zoning changes whether the community wants them or not. That isn’t what should happen in a democracy.
I say put the UP to a community vote in each suburb where major zoning changes are proposed, and let the democratic outcome prevail.
What change is being forced? How exactly are they going to force you to change your house? I didn’t read anything in the plan about forcing people out of their homes for redevelopment. If you sell your house to a developer then sure, but that’s your choice. If the community doesn’t want change then you have nothing to worry about. It’s a zoning modification that allows you a little more freedom to do what you like, not a compulsion to demolish everything.
And please, “its the way things are already”. What kind of argument is that? If you like that reasoning then we can simply implement the plan and say “its the way things are already” about the opposite!
Anyway, you’ll get your wish for a majority vote on the plan. The coming council election will no doubt be a defacto referendum on the unitary plan. If people want the plan they’ll vote for the mayor and councillors who devised it, if not they’ll vote them out. There we go, the Auckland community voting on what it wants for it’s community.
Of course it forces change on communities. Do you not understand what zoning changes enable? If a community wants to remain a lefy suburb, and the UP allows for the trees to be replaced by apartment buildings, the community can then be changed by a minority. Zoning is supposed to prevent that sort of thing from happening, and is usually carefully drafted according to the wishes of the community. The UP makes major changes in areas, against those community wishes. It’s undemocratic to push through zoning changes against the wishes of the majority. If the council tried that somewhere else, like in Napier, they would be turfed out at the next election.
Let’s put it to a community vote Nick – let the residents of each affected suburb give the yay or nay to the proposed changes via a local vote. You don’t object to a democratic outcome representative of the majority now do you?
Enable is the key word. Enable, not force, require or compel. If people want change in their community they can, if they don’t want change then they don’t have to change anything on their land.
Where does it say the UP allows for trees to replaced by apartment buildings? Does the UP change anything to do with the schedule of protected trees? Are there particular species you are allowed to replace with apartments that you’re not allowed to replace with houses?
Yes lets put it to a community vote, let the community of Auckland decide how it want’s its city to be. Like I said above, that vote comes on the 12th October.
Geoff, you’re in for a life of disappointment if you think democracy means the majority getting whatever they want – especially about things that affect future generations as well as current ones. The world is a bit more sophisticated than that.
What does tree protection have to do with anything Nick? You keep trying to change the subject.
Rather than bicker about it, let’s agree that the best way forward would be to put the UP to a vote in the affected communities. You have nothing to fear in that Nick, as the UP changes will pass if the community is in favour of allowing the change.
Let’s encourage democracy to shape the UP, so as to ensure that vested interests and minority groups don’t gain the ability to force change in communities in most people don’t want it.
In Pollyanna-ish theory, we elect a council so that they can use their judgement about what’s best for everyone, voting, non-voting, or not yet existent. In practice, the job they do is always tilted towards (among others) current residents, the middle-aged, the rich, property owners, the educated, and the well-organised. The people who are most likely to vote. If you wanted to label people as minority groups or vested interests, you could start there.
For once, in the Unitary Plan, a council seems to be making a bit of an effort to consider the interests of everyone, rather than just the privileged few who own houses right now. Though of course the plan is great news for plenty of property owners, as well.
There will probably be more than two million people living in Auckland in 20 years time. The majority of them haven’t been born, or are too young to vote, or haven’t decided to move to Auckland yet. Of those who do already live here and could vote, plenty of them don’t yet have strong ties to a particular area, and plenty more don’t know that they’ll still be in Auckland at all. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people who live in Auckland today, and might vote, won’t be here. They’ll have moved away, or died. Some people will stay right where they are, but will change their minds about what they want.
So I don’t think a suburb-by-suburb vote should be how we decide on zoning changes. You can call it “the community deciding”, or “bottom up planning”, but I call it raising the drawbridge behind you.
Luckily, we don’t do things that way. The acid test will be in October, when some slightly more real democracy will happen, and Aucklanders choose whether to keep the current mayor and a pro-Unitary Plan majority of councillors. I think we will.
Please Geoff, don’t scold me for changing the subject, you are the one that said “the UP allows for the trees to be replaced by apartment buildings”. I was just wanting to know where you pulled that little nugget of gold from, I can’t seem to find its source in the Unitary Plan document myself.
Yes a vote, like I’ve said a couple of times now the Unitary Plan will no doubt be at the forefront of Aucklanders minds when we vote for mayoral and councillor elections in October. I’m perfectly happy to accept the results of that vote (not that I have a choice either way). If the people of Auckland want the UP then so be it, right? We’ll see how far the vested interests and minority groups actually go, will the St Heliers and Milford residents association sway their minority interest over Auckland or not, only time shall tell.
“you are the one that said “the UP allows for the trees to be replaced by apartment buildings””
Correct, when the front and back yards of a former house are replaced by an apartment building, the trees will be chopped down. The green neighbourhoods will gradually transform into steel and concrete jungles. Now is the time for residents to stand up and ensure this doesn’t happen in neighbourhoods where the majority don’t want it. The whole point of zoning is to ensure development is of a type that the local community wants.
I share youtr committment to community however most residential sites are small and are difficult shapes that reflected historic cultural values. By the time all the height to boundary and other town planning requirements come in we get more infill developments with a lot of waste space around each development. I am suggesting a different approach to get the sort of large scale savings medium density can give us including pocket parks shared communal spaces and facilities and mixed developments with a range of studio to 6 or more bedrooms with perhaps cafes.creche and communal kitchens and a range of small retail. Sure a developers can do this and do but if an urban authority is rooted in the community reflecting community aspirations and can access capital then quality devlopments can be built where the community dives it as opposed to having it inflicted upon them by developers who can easily buy large areas of land by a number of devious techniques and not have any consideration for what the community wants or needs. The unitary plan at the moment suits developers and allows them to rape the community. What I suggest will prevent the worst excesses and leave developers to tender for projects that the community has initiated.
I disagree, it would be very hard for developers to “rape the community” because in existing suburban areas land amalgamation will be a difficult and time consuming process. Commercial developers will focus on metropolitan and town centres where large sites already exist, which is lucky because that is the best place for large developments to go. In residential communities development will be owner-operator led, people turning one house into three terraces, that sort of thing.
Having worked for the Herald for many years as a paper boy… I can say intensification should be in their interest. It was much much easier dumping 30 papers on an apartment buildings doorstep than scooting between mailboxes and individual houses.
Developers have already proposed developments in residential zones and were turned down under the current scheme.Under the unitary plan they would pass. I work with developers everyday and for them it comes down to the economics so I promise you residential zones will be a target and soft pickings as they prey on individual owners. With regard to 3 terrace houses up to 10m high on each site seems an awful waste of potential ( see my previous comments ) when there are better alternatives.
Land amalgamation is not difficult or time consuming because the profits at the other end are huge. So if I offered you 10% or even 20 % over market for your existibg house through an agent not many would refuse. Those that did would not even know it was a developer and those who refused would quickly realise that thye may be surrouned by a massive development. .
owner /operators would more likely be small time developers after the quick buck. Why ? because most owners are not confident with the build process and be unwilling to find the capital to take on 3 buildings ( ie $1.2 million ) on top of their existing mortgage. Cash flow becomes a major problem. So Nick unfortunately the city you want will not happen and you will get what the developers decide and what the quick flick builders give you.
The community will get no say and will have to put up with the strain of more people using existing facilities shops/schools/doctors etc.
I want to see intensification but I think the current UT is very flawed in allowing dvelopment without getting the best result.
There are many models available to solve the problem especially if they are community based and lead. There are already some great iniatives being trialled by innovative community boards with some great results The partnership between community and council together with a housing authority will give us the intensified city we want.
Orsman strikes again: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10881932
” What has the reaction been?
Communities have voiced concerns and put forward alternatives. North of the Harbour Bridge, the suburbs of Browns Bay, Milford and Orewa have opposed apartment blocks; the suburbs of Devonport, St Heliers and Mt Eden have rallied to protect their character; while Helensville residents want more attention paid to boosting the population of the rural town.”
Yes, and more of the same on the op-ed page, where a Warkworth resident takes the “but we don’t *want* another one million line” and suggests we keep the pressure off by requiring retirement villages and universities to relocate to the provinces, punishing people who have too many children, preventing student migrants from gaining residency and barring *all* migrants and refugees from bringing their family members to New Zealand.
Slightly balanced by a more positive piece below on intensification, but the loony fringe argument is at the top of the page with the big picture and headline. Again.