As we have talked about a few times now, there has been some very one sided reporting in regards to the Unitary Plan. Some of it even seems to be scaremongering. So it was extremely pleasing to see a story with some balance yesterday, although not from the Herald but from Campbell Live.
What I really liked is that they talked to a couple of urban design experts at the Auckland Uni and showed some good international examples of density done well. Perhaps importantly, those examples were not from Europe but other “New World” cities. I do feel that there are two things that will be key to changing peoples perceptions of higher density, the first is getting well designed and built dwellings and the second the amenities that come as a result of density increases. Its also well worth remembering what Lachlan Forsyth said at the end of his piece, change is not something to be afraid of.
Good work to the team at Campbell Live and I will look forward to seeing what you do on transport tonight.
Processing...
Good to see some unbiased reporting. I do hope there are some regulations around allowable development.
I note some of the comments relate to Auckland’s population increase. I think it is important to remember that that is government policy on immigration. The council is simply doing its job in trying to accomodate the increase in the city. Perhaps some of the opposition could be directed at the government who have set up the situation and who seem to be largely sitting on their hands on the sidelines.
Personally, I’m all for a vibrant city, but we should grow in a practical way.
I take back my generalisations about the silver hairs as the program shows a number involved in trying to come up with solutions.
Look forward to the transport edition tonight.
The immigration point does not seem to get much focus even though historically 40 – 60% of the growth has come from the central government immigration policy and this is predicted to be around 40% in the future – so 400,000 people of the expected extra million are from abroad. It does beg the question why it needs to be this large? This is a much higher rate than most OECD countries as pointed out previously.
Think this perception of Auckland was pretty accurate:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10880491
NZ’s economy is almost certainly toast without immigration, both for the endogenous growth it brings – more people = more stuff that has to be done, and for the longer-run agglomeration and market benefits of greater scale. There really isn’t an example of an economy on the periphery that is as small as NZ that can prosper. Examples like Switzerland, Finland, Singapore and (for a while back there) Ireland are simply not comparable because NZ is a gazillion miles further from the core of the global economy than those places.
There might be mileage in a high-skills, highly-connected, high-tech utopia, but the political and business classes don’t seem interested in that model either and it’s touch and go whether it will work or not. There might also be mileage in the Aussie ‘dig it all up and ship it to China’ model, but it’s not at all clear that NZers have the stomach for that model, and given how much less land we have then Oz, that’s understandable (you can do what Australia does without having to live next door to it… much harder to pull off here).
So overall, it’s a much safer bet to stick with a ponzi scheme for immigrants (the Auckland property market) which in the long run might as a side-benefit develop enough scale to be a vibrant economic entity in its own right. I don’t think fortress NZ with a population <5 million is viable long-term economically, hence the government policy.
Thats human nature and ultimately why we will fail, we seem to think the only way to a good life is more, nobody is happy with what they have or just improving what they have.
Most likely not in our lifetimes but the happy life we live now is pretty much doomed.
So sad.
Of course you need immigration at some level, but the question is to scale. The housing and transport infrastructure issues present and forecast show the level of competence at dealing with this level of growth for your “average” resident are pretty dubious.
Not sure where you think the core is in a globalised, interconnected future. There are recent basic examples showing “the tyranny of distance” no longer actually needs to be an issue, e.g. http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/8605583/Secrets-of-appiness . Companies such as Xero, Orion Health, Weta Digital, and Gameloft show this potential.
Agree the great New Zealand ponzi scheme will be around for a while yet however, a lack of vision and some important snouts in the trough make change pretty difficult.
I know for a fact that Weta doesn’t do telecommuting. I’m pretty sure Xero doesn’t either although they might make concessions since they are expanding like crazy and are struggling to fill their positions. Yahoo banned it outright, Facebook, Google and Apple all prefer face to face environments.
Most people just don’t want to work from home and most employers don’t seem keen on the idea. But the worst indicator is that the technology has been good enough for the last decade and it still hasn’t caught on.
Just shows what a good story is. Information, good graphics, no hysteria, balance. I like to hear the good and bad things about the plan to know what needs to be worked on.
Just highlights why the heralds coverage has been so irresponsible shameful for such an important matter.
I was pleasantly surprised to hear the council refer to the Pacific North West cities as reference sites/role models (in addition to the Aussie cities), including showing some housing in Portland. Although I haven’t been to Vancouver, I have visited both Seattle and Portland, and I really liked the feel of Portland. It is a good looking city with plenty of greenery, and I would certainly welcome some Portland-like light rail filling in some gaps between the heavy rail lines here.
Non statutory does not sound good!
The statutory side of the Plan has some pretty strong controls about quality of design too though: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2013/04/22/ensuring-quality-intensification-in-the-unitary-plan/
Nice to see some balance, indeed. While a community conversation seems to have been the intent (and, boy howdy, do we have one!), I’ve cringed a bit as responsible and respectable public officials (deputy mayor, chief planning officer, many hard-working staffers) have to play constant defence. Personally, I think there are some things that need a-fixin’– starting with “70/40”, since the plan is remarkably non-visionary in proposing to deliver a status-quo rural/urban balance. (And other things, e.g., a timid approach to sustainable building, even armed with some good numbers/research).
But that aside, what may have been missing from the beginning was a clear proactive framing of what all people– even down to the parcel level– have to gain. Did I miss that? Local government outreach is frequently lacking in impact (at least as I’ve witnessed from the Pacific NW of the US), but I gather there wasn’t a real push to frame the “debate.”
Auckland Council and Mayor should take note, though: it’s clearly not too late! This Campbell Live piece gives them the opportunity to recalibrate and pivot on a clear set of positive messages they should be repeating patiently and calmly at all opportunities. They should be points that undercut the selfishness, fear and NIMBY-ism and, instead, grease the wheels for a much more sophisticated community conversation about our future– as I think was initially intended.
It was good that they pointed out that there was nothing in there to stop us building the crappy developments we currently like to make.
Thats one of my greater concerns on the cities plans.
Yes, Penny Hulse appeared to be in dream land saying developers wanted to build good quality and the non statutory guidlines would help them…. Therefore it will be ok most of the time. Scary.
Agreed
Balanced? It seemed very pro indeed, the wrap up was super positive.
The yellow boxes in Portland- just after the heritage co-existence mention were frightening.
And Penny, claiming statutory when the show’s just shown it’s not,- where was the reporter challenging her on that?
Still, educational piece should get some folk talking..
Here is how the infill project in Portland interfaces with ‘heritage’.
It’s flawless. I can’t believe it’s a new building!
But seriously if they think this is a good example we are in trouble…
Yes, we need more beauties like this … http://is.gd/BM3MEI … bloomin’ gorgeus!
I didn’t express my opinion just though that you would appreciate seeing the image you were talking about. I think it’s time for you to find an example of what you think would work in your neighbourhood.
Hi! Do you know if they make any plugins to safeguard
against hackers? I’m kinda paranoid about losing everything I’ve worked hard
on. Any tips?