The Auckland Plan’s development strategy highlighted 10 metropolitan centres across Auckland: Albany (emerging), Takapuna, Westgate (emerging), Henderson, New Lynn, Newmarket, Sylvia Park (emerging), Botany (emerging), Manukau and Papakura. They’re shown on the Auckland Plan map below:
The Unitary Plan’s job is to give effect to the Auckland Plan, so each centre has effectively become a “zone” – with rules applied to those centres. If we look at New Lynn, for example, we can see that it’s actually just the “core” part of the centre (the pink/purple striped area) which is given that zone – the same thing is repeated across all the metropolitan centres:
While in places like New Lynn the 18 storey height limit seems pretty appropriate, and it’s a sensible limit as development of around that height is currently proposed, I think it’s a valid question as to whether this somewhat arbitrary number makes sense across each and every one of the ten metropolitan centres.
For example, in Takapuna and Newmarket 18 levels seems potentially a bit too limiting – both are places where you could have market demand for higher, where in some selected locations higher buildings might be appropriate and are also very well developed centres in terms of the existing amenities available. At the other end of the scale, in places like Papakura, Botany or Westgate, 18 levels seems light-years away from what’s likely to occur in these areas for quite a long time and would be extremely different to what’s in those locations at the moment.
Furthermore, I think it’s also questionable whether the entire centre should have the same height limit. If we look at somewhere like Takapuna, there’s part of the Metropolitan Centre zone which is pretty close to the beach – where it might be desirable to have a lower height limit and avoid the buildings shading the beach in the afternoon sun, but then areas further to the west where higher limits than 18 levels would be appropriate:
What seems to potentially be behind a bit of the angst over the Unitary Plan at the moment is a feeling that it’s a little bit too “one size fits all” in its approach – not quite nuanced enough to take into consideration the often subtle variations across different parts of Auckland. Of course there are advantages that come out of a greater level of simplicity and uniformity in terms of making the planning documents easier to understand, plus a more consistent planning framework across Auckland is one of the key drivers behind the Unitary Plan replacing the myriad of old plans.
But overall it does seem that perhaps this drive for simplicity has perhaps gone a bit too far. Takapuna and Newmarket do seem fundamentally different to Botany or Papakura – and perhaps always will be. Similarly, some bits of the Metropolitan Centres seem like they’re likely to be suitable for greater levels of intensity than other parts. A more nuanced approach doesn’t necessarily mean winding back on the proposed zoning of the Unitary Plan – it might well mean greater levels of intensity are possible in places like Newmarket and the western parts of Takapuna, to balance out lower levels elsewhere. Because ultimately I don’t think all Metropolitan Centres are created equal in terms of their suitability for growth, just as not all areas within each centre is equally suitable.
Processing...
Transportblog, bringing the fact to the people because the Herald won’t. Seriously, would it kill them to publish this as a feature?
Far too much panic about building height-‘is this because it is the only change that people can imagine?
There certainly is some odd assumption that by allowing a limit immediately leads to the construction of a whole lot of buildings to these heights, clearly it will take a long an gradual process for anything to occur and perhaps there will be a need and desire for 10- 12- 14 story towers in Papkura as there is to be New Lynn in 10 or 20 years?
Gradual change down here Patrick in Papakura. Seeming I am only 100 metres to the north of the Papakura Metropolitan Centre proposal – sitting in a mix housing zone 😛
Still Matt has made a point – and also missed one as well about Metropolitan Centres are not all equal indeed. However, the UP for the looks of it treats them as such – at the moment…As for the point missed err Matt any reason why you left the Manukau Metropolitan Centre out?
That would of been a perfect case of:
1) Expanding that particular zone south
2) Removing the height limit and allow “unlimited” height – subject to the airport flight paths.
Manukau can easily take the brunt of this high end Metropolitan Development but again we are being treated as second class down here (nothing unusual too when you listen to Southern Auckland residents (the Twitter convo yesterday on Decentralisation….)
As you quite put it: “But overall it does seem that perhaps this drive for simplicity has perhaps gone a bit too far. Takapuna and Newmarket do seem fundamentally different to Botany or Papakura – and perhaps always will be. Similarly, some bits of the Metropolitan Centres seem like they’re likely to be suitable for greater levels of intensity than other parts.”
Yeah well – enter the May 14 presentation to the Auckland Plan Committee
I’m sure a lot of people feel the same about this that the heights are inappropriate in some centres. I like how they tried to keep things simple but I don’t think it works. Yes takapuna, newmarket should perhaps be more.
I guess the reasoning is maybe that there will never be demand for 18 stories in papakura but this enables the possibility.
I feel 18 stories in places like Henderson is too much. I would rather see the density zones increased.
Did you know that under current rules there is no height limit at all in Henderson?
Yes I did. I also am aware they reduced the density zones around train stations.
Very good summary on the future trends for cities by Enrique Penalosa that focuses on the dividends of increased density at street level. Recommend:
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/design/2013/04/coming-bold-transformation-american-city/5437/
There might be overlay or precinct rules which override the broad zoning heights. Plan is so complex to understand that I couldn’t be sure though.
from memory I have stumbled across some for Takapuna at least (but cant seem to find it anymore), where it is broken down further. 18 storey buildings will only be possible in the block around the Sentinel and Spencer on Bryon, building height is progressively lowered as you get closer to the beach.
On a different ‘track’ to the main thrust of this post, but I couldnt help notice a bit of pink line from New Lynn down the isthmus Se towards the airport.
Does the unitary plan discuss rail expansion to the airport AND across the isthmus? The most logical and cost effective way to get trains to the airport would be from Onehunga, but did I really spot a Mt Roskill branch line extension joined to this as well?
You’ve got it back to front I think. There is an old freight railway designation that joins the Southdown railyards (between Penrose and Onehunga), to the North Auckland Line (aka the Western Line) between Mt Albert and Avondale. It has existed since the 1920s and is still there.
It has been proposed that the western end of this would be a cheap and effective suburban rail extension nominally called the Mt Roskil branch line. That’s because the western end if more or less flat and has had several bridge crossing built at the same time as the new motorway works. Meanwhile the eastern end of the designation is less useful for passenger transit travel patterns, isn’t next to the motorway so doesn’t have any pre-built infrastructure, and a lot more expensive due to grade issues and dozens of level crossings to overcome or avoid.
So not so much an extension of the Mt Roskill Branch, but rather the Mr Roskill branch is one part of the longer route.
I understand that there is information missing from the maps and urban design overlay – (ie a legend interpretation of where overlays A-E apply) that explains that the apartment and terrace area immediately around Takapuna is 8 storeys, slightly further out it’s 6 and then beyond the hatch is 4. Area C, which is the business area to the west of Lake retains its current unlimited height (see 4.4.9.8). I suspect that Takapuna is generally more resolved than some of the other town centres as there’s been a lot of work done in recent years in preparation of the Takapuna Strategic Framework.
Unfortunately, confusion resulting from both the sheer size of the plan and all the maps, not to mention omissions makes it hard for punters to understand, and the scaremongers to wind the stories up.
Why do we keep hearing about 18 story buildings? Any number limit is going to be somewhat arbitrary, but 18 just seems such a strange number for the limit. Why not a round 20? Is there some science behind 18?
As Christina says below it can be found here (pdf with map): http://unitaryplan.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Images/Printable%20PDFs/Part%204%20-%20Rules/4.4.9.8%20Takapuna.pdf
7% of the UP is being re-zoned 4-6 storey apartments (Milford is all 6 storey) However the Nth Shore as a whole I believe has a higher % of that zoning than many of the inner CBD areas such as Pt Chev & Dominion Rd, Mt Roskill etc. These areas have good PT & have a variety of arterials to choose from. Nth Shore is extremely limited in comparison.
In 18 years the bridge will be at it’s full capacity. No concrete plans for a new crossing! Or more importantly for the widening of the Northern Motorway. Most afternoons the motorway is stuffed going SOUTH.- due to the 3/5 lanes on the bridge which happens about 3.00pm.
Lake Rd to Devonport is gridlocked by 11a.m. on Sat & Sun. & every other peak hour & more intensification is being allowed as -far as Belmont! Onewa Rd is the same.
I think this UP as it is is a recipe for disaster on the Shore
Where do you get the figure that in 18 years the bridge will be at full capacity? Traffic levels on the bridge have been declining for years. The busway certainly has decades of capacity left.
The reason there is more provision for higher density development on the Shore is that its a market attractive area – i.e. people want to live there because of the associated amenity from views, beaches, schools etc. This means that developers are more likely to get a profit from a 4-6 storey apartment building close to a beach rather than one rammed in the middle Otara or Papatoetoe. If you actually look at the plan, AC has been overly cautious with the Shore, much more density should have been provided in this area.
Also, please look up the definition of Gridlock. I travel along Lake Road every weekend and it is far from “gridlocked by 11am”. A trip from Esmonde Road to Devonport on a bad day still only takes about 15 minutes.
Plus the life of the bridge (NZTA 2011) unless alleviated of most of the heavy transport. Relying on the ring route over the Upper Harbour!!
That’s not true. NZTA state on their website the bridge and the clipons will last indefinitely with routine maintenance and management of heavy trucks on the clip on lanes.
The operative word is “management “
Yes, like all our major infrastructure it needs ongoing management. You do realise that the same restrictions of heavy trucks using the clip-on lanes existing from 2007 to 2010 right? Did you notice at all?
Single house zone in Sunnynook Rd adjacent to walk up station.
No high rise near Constellation Station on Sunset Rd. Little near Smales Farm station. Did someone give an 8 year old a coloured pen?
It’s not perfect by any means, but land use planning is a bit more nuanced that “stick all the high rises next to stations” Kate. The only places identified for high rises on the North Shore are the Metropolitan centres at Takapuna and Albany… both of which are already zoned for high rise, both have excellent bus access under the Regional Public Transport Plan network, but more importantly both have a strong balance of employment, commercial activities, education and civic amenities (Takapuna existing, Albany planned).
There is mid rise Terraced Housing and Apartment Buildings zone within metres of Sunnynook station. The Sunnynook Rd sites are single house because they share their back border with a large retirement village. The 8 year old might indeed have just whacked down whatever zoning next to the station, but it’s not that simple.
Constellation is a light industrial zone next to a high voltage power distribution yard, an garbage transfer station and sewerage treatment plant. Not the ideal place for lots of people to make their homes in my opinion. Smales farm is an buisiness park zoning, zoned for intensive office development. Maybe some mixed use housing and office would be a good idea, but what is the problem with have a bunch of large office buildings there? Next to a busway station is an excellent place for a high concentration of jobs.
Have a drive around the Shore sometime with the e-plan. Sunset Rd is near a lot of retail including Farro Fresh & Nosh – hardly near Rosedale Lakes & 5 minutes from the busway could well do with 4 stories. The whole of Sunnynook Road does not border the retirement village. The right of Sunnynook Rd before the motorway is the walkway to the station.- buses every 30 seconds at peak time & sll coloured white – single house.- bordering onto 4 stories
Where there is little PT (one bus every 40 minutes)& only one real road in & out is Milford-All zoned for 6 storeys – highrise when you are living next door in your single height dwelling.
Milford will have buses every 15 minutes all day down Shakespeare and Kitchener/Hurstmere Roads when the bus routes changes in the Auckland Regional Public Transport Plan take effect in mid-2015.
http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/improving-transport/plans-proposals/IntegratedTravel/Pages/regional-public-transport-plan-2012.aspx
You’ll see plenty of 4-6 story buildings close to single dwellings around Auckland. Not unusual. Most the 6 story buildings are in vibrant town centres. The pluses of these kind of developments.
How interesting!! Please give some directions where I can see these!!!!!!!!!
Ah, well there is a source of confusion. You are calling 4 stories high rise!
Indeed, under the new bus network Milford will benefit from not one but two top tier Frequent Service Network routes, one leading directly to Smales Farm and the busway, the other running between Takapuna and Constellation and Mairangi Bay. That means one bus departing every 7.5 minutes at minimum all day, seven days a week, with more frequent arrivals and departures during peak times.
Yes I do call 4 stories high when I am living in my family home trying to get my washing dry and losing the winter sun at 12.30p.m..
How many cars parks per unit?
Built with double glazed, fixed, windows so I don’t have hear 4 stories of loud music or air conditioning units?
How much back yard space will there be in order to dry their clothes?
. Where will the 3 wheelie bins per unit be stored? Have you guys got any answers to the way this plan is ignoring the NZ way of bringing up families.
Bet none of you were brought up on 300sm of land in NZ or in a 30sm apartment.
Parnell Rd/ Cracroft St
You know Kate I took up your challenge and looked up the unit I grew up in, 96A Nile Rd in Milford. The land area is 288m2, my family of four lived there quite happily for several years. Take a look around that area on Google Maps, the whole neighbourhood is already like that, and has been that way for decades. Large parts of the north shore are like that too, big swathes of Browns Bay, Glenfield, Birkenhead, Takapuna. Oh and for the record I also lived for several years quite happily in a 33m2 apartment, which I still own and rent to very happy long term tenants.
The number of car parks per unit will be up to the people that want to live there. Those that don’t want a car could choose a terrace or apartment with no parking at all. That may sound abhorrent to you but just over ten percent of Auckland households in the 2006 census didn’t use a car, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that proportion is much higher by now. The whole point of locating these new terraces and low rise apartments close to town centres with public transport links is so people don’t have to drive to go to the supermarket, or shopping, or to get to work, or a large part of their daily activities. That is why somewhere like Milford is idea. Walk to the main street shops, walk to the mall, walk to the beach, walk to the restaurants, catch the frequent bus to work in town or Smales Farm or Albany on the busway, catch the other frequent bus to work or shop in Takapuna, only drive when you want to or when you are going further afield, not drive always because it is the only way to get around.
The wheelie bins will be stored in the same place you store yours, in the garage, back porch, round the side of the house, in the basement or wherever is suitable. In my four story apartment building we don’t need three bins per apartment, we have about a dozen for the whole lot in the basement next to the parking.
There are regulations in the unitary plan on outdoor space, a minimum of 8m2 for any dwelling, while those with principal rooms opening to ground level must have at least 20m2. Plenty of room for a clothesline! Likewise with losing winter sun and shading, this is prevented by the controls in the unitary plan. Check out section 4.4.2 Yards and building setbacks at upper levels. It describes the additional controls for when a Terraced House and Apartment Building zone is adjacent to a SIngle House zone, and requires extra set back at ground level plus further setbacks of anything at level three or four. It describes the purpose of this as: “Purpose: manage the bulk and scale of buildings at side or rear boundaries to minimise adverse effects on neighbours (i.e. dominance and shading) and reduce the overall visual dominance of buildings at upper levels.”
Your concerns about winter sun are perhaps a little unfounded. Currently any house can build up to 9m tall only a few metres from your boundary, so these new controls where terraces or apartments are next to single houses are actually more constrictive and better for preventing shading of houses and yards.
I’m sorry if this sounds a bit nasty but I think you haven’t actually had a look at the plan itself and have only clicked around on the zoning map. There is a lot more controls and regulations than just the basic residential zones.
And one last thing before I drag this out any further, I might suggest that you are actually ignoring, or perhaps ignorant of, the way Aucklanders actually live. The simple fact is that a little more than half the households in Auckland have only one or two people in them. While the concerns of families and ensuring the right sort of housing for them is very important, it is also important to realise that when it comes to housing they are actually just into being a minority. As you say yourself it is only 7% of the urban area being rezoned for terraced houses and apartments, the vast majority will stay as traditional single housing. You might easily argue that 7% is no way near enough when it represents the sort of dwelling that are most affordable to over 50% of Auckland households.
My ageing baby boomer parents are a good example of this. They still live in our large family home in Mairangi Bay, a five bedroom place that was great when we had six people living there, but not it is far too large for their needs and too hard for them to keep clean and maintained, an expensive to manage on a fixed income even with the mortgage paid off. They desperately want to downsize but likewise don’t want to leave the community they have lived in for 27 years. They’ve looked for options in Mairangi Bay and nearby for a quality apartment or compact townhouse, but can’t find anything suitable. There are a handful down by the village itself but otherwise such dwellings are basically illegal to build under the current regime. Needless to say they are looking forward to the Unitary Plan going through with glee, so that they can spend their retirement where the want to live, in the sort of housing they want to live in, without the large ongoing costs of maintaining a full size house on a large section.
Nick – in 2006, only 7% of Auckland households said they definitely didn’t have a private car, and some of those may have had a work car instead.
About 5% of people didn’t answer that question, and 88% of people said they had at least one car. The number of carless households was dropping – it was 9% in 2001, and the number of cars each household owned was growing too.
It’ll be interesting to see the results from this year’s census and see whether the number of carless households has risen again, in line with falling traffic volumes.
http://profile.idnz.co.nz/default.aspx?id=418&pg=8460&gid=10
Kate, you are living in a city of 1.5m people. I didnt grow up in a city of 1.5m so no I never lived in an apartment. However, overseas almost everyone I know who grew up in a city of over 1m lived at least part of their life in an apartment, including my wife, and none of them seem too psychologically damaged.
In your lifetime this is likely to be a city of over 2m people.
Things have to change. The “NZ way of bringing up children” (if such a thing exists) began when this was a city of 500,000. I dont know how old you are but that may be the city you remember. So basically it was Greater Wellington now but more spread out. Auckland is no longer the same city, it has changed.
If it no longre suits you, there are lots of small cities in NZ that still over that same lifestyle. But I imagine you enjoy living in Auckland precisely because it is a large city with lots of amenities.
Welcome to the 21st century.
I lived overseas for many a year with no car or need for it. Surprisingly I wasn’t also psychologically or socially scarred. Amazing what a good public transport system can do. No need for carparks or fear of roads getting jammed. A car would just be a burden.
While it might take time to build out to the new heights on average, the areas that are the most valuable to developers will be developed quickly, while those that have less profitability will take many years and may never be built to the limits. Ideally, what we want is that the most suitable areas get intensified first. Most suitable might include proximity to transport hubs, proximity to jobs, where the environmental impacts are least, where the impact on existing communities is least, a match to housing requirements (low cost family accommodation is probably the biggest need right now and for the influx of new migrants), etc etc. Instead, what we will get is that the only criteria will be developer profit. That means that, for example, the eastern bays of Mission Bay, Kohimarama and St Heliers will likely see 4 story developments along Tamaki Drive very quickly. This area has poor transport connections, will not provide low cost housing for families, has virtually no local employment meaning residents will all need to commute, and has a special character (due to the beaches and foreshore areas) that would be destroyed by over development.
The Plan should drive development in the most appropriate places first, not the most profitable places.
Any increase in housing supply will help to contain prices, which will help those at the bottom of the market. Right now we have a situation where finance for these types of developments is difficult to come by. Allowing some profitable developments to go ahead will be a very good way of increasing confidence amongst financiers and investors.
The council can’t (easily) force development, they can only stop it.
“Ideally, what we want is that the most suitable areas get intensified first. Most suitable might include proximity to transport hubs, proximity to jobs, where the environmental impacts are least, where the impact on existing communities is least, a match to housing requirements (low cost family accommodation is probably the biggest need right now and for the influx of new migrants), etc etc”.
Don, the areas you mention have high amenity thanks to the beaches etc, which I would argue would be a good reason to develop there so people can enjoy it. These beaches are already well patronised from around Auckland so I wouldn’t think a few more people would make a difference.
Those locations are actually quite close to the largest concentration of jobs in Auckland, i.e. within around 10 km of the CBD, so I’d say they meet the “proximity to jobs” criteria.
The transport links aren’t the best but I’d expect pubic transport linkages here to improve over the next few years and decades, hopefully with light rail and certainly with better cycling connections.
Besides, how would the Plan drive development in the most appropriate places first? This would be decried by a large number of people as socialism.
One point worth reiterating is that zoning allows people to build to whatever standard, it doesn’t force them. It is market forces that result in things being built.
No point in going off and only zoning some bits that you think are the most suitable. The market will tell you whether people want to live there or not. Case in point is Albany, it has had unlimited height controls in some sections since it was created, but not high rise because there is no demand. Same with parts of Henderson. Manukau has a few but not so much yet.
HAve a look at GRattan Institute Report on cities and agglomoration
http://grattan.edu.au/static/files/assets/85eb185c/188_productive_cities.pdf
Very good on how decentralisation risks ruining the knowledge economy