From what I can tell, during the week it appears that our councillors tore up the idea of a compact city and instead pushed ahead with opening up greenfield land. Next week when they become available, I will publish all of the relevant voting records of the various amendments that impact on development so people are well aware of who voted for what. However one of the common arguments that people opposing density have pushed can be summed up as “Will someone think of the children“. One such example of this was a push by Dick Quax to increase the minimum size of backyards from 40m² to 80m².
Cr Quax moved the following amendment to replace d) seconded by : Cr Stewart
d) development controls mixed housing suburban – that 7.13 be amended to require an outdoor living space of 80sqm.
Division
A division was called for, voting on which was as follows:For:
Councillors: Cameron Brewer
Mike Lee
Calum Penrose
Dick Quax
Sharon Stewart
Wayne WalkerAgainst:
Councillors: Anae Arthur Anae
Len Brown
Dr Cathy Casey
Alf Filipaina
Hon Chris Fletcher
Michael Goudie
Ann Hartley
Penny Hulse
Des Morrison
Richard Northey
Noelene Raffills
David Taipari
Glen Tupuhi
Penny Webster
George Wood
Thankfully the amendment was lost however many of those agreeing with the change – both councillors and the general public – often put forward arguments that more space is needed for kids can play in. Perhaps it relates back to their childhood of living on a large section when Auckland (or in the country) and they want kids to grow up like them, perhaps they are trying to impose what they personally want out of a property or perhaps they are just wanting to derail the Unitary Plan process because they don’t agree with the direction the city is going. Whatever the reason the issue of kids and families is an interesting one.
Below is one of the graphs that councillors were shown as part of the debate and is based off the Statistics New Zealand projections for household and family types out to 2031 using medium population growth projections. Behind the numbers are some key trends like that couples are having children later and that people are living longer. This means that within the next decade, there are expected to be more couples without children than those with them. The other area that is increasing sharply is expected to be the number of people living by themselves.
All of this presents an interesting situation. There will be far more people living without kids than with them and as such what they need out of a house will be very different. Many people might not want a backyard to maintain and instead prefer a smaller section but with access to a nice neighbourhood park that they can use. It also means that a big 3/4/5+ bedroom houses might not be ideal and instead smaller 1&2 bedroom places might be more suitable. This isn’t to say that all couples or even individuals will want smaller places but the important thing is we give people the choice and having the Unitary Plan allow for diversity is critical to that.
Further I have even heard that developers are starting to wake up to this trend. One I was talking to recently told me how he decided to put a handful of small one bedroom places into a development he was building and they sold so fast to a huge variety of people (including a guy who brought one as a place to go where his wife couldn’t find him) that he is changing the mix of housing types he is will build in future developments to include more smaller dwellings.
Of course for those that do want a larger house and land the good thing is there will still be heaps of it available. We already have hundreds of thousands of dwellings in that category. Just because a site might be zoned for higher density it doesn’t mean it will ever be developed any further than what it is now. Perhaps instead of asking “will someone think about the children” we should be asking “will someone think of those without children”.
Processing...
Regardless of the types of buildings, the other problem is that suburban sprawl actually takes away the freedom of children to roam, walk to school etc. Distributor roads, arterials etc. These all provide a degree of severance that force children to be driven everywhere. These back yards. In a real community they’re simply not needed but while we allow residential roads to be designed with traffic flow as the key objective, they are essential. Fix one and you’ll fix the other.
Bryce 100% agree with you.. our suburban roads are way too big, and there are way too many cars on them, and this adversely impacts on our kids’ quality of life. So, in the context of “will someone think of the children”…
…there’s a great comment from Pippa Coom over at CAA where she quotes the Freemans Bay Girl Guides wish list for Ponsonby Road: “1. A playground. 2. Bikelanes (and hire bikes) 3. More trees. It really could be this simple.”
It is that simple. The single minded focus on moving motor vehicles in a timely fashion has reduced 99% of our streets to roads for cars. I read some replies to a post about new urbanist developments and why they are so expensive. The one that most rang true was that there simply are not enough of these developments and people will pay more to live in a quality urban area with a strong focus not on cars but people / community. I know I would pay more.
Maybe they should ‘think about the children’ and have a chat with the kids about how they’d like to live. It’s their future as well. Listen to the Girl Guides!
Future voters don’t vote yet. It’s that simple. Few of our politicians have the moral integrity to advocate strongly for the future against the loud voices of the present, because the future doesn’t vote while the present does. It’s emblematic of the selfishness that pervades our society that “Me! Now!” wins most debates about planning in this country.
Matt, that’s a good point well made.
Can we turn the “will someone think of the children” argument on it’s head?
If we keep too many of Auckland’s larger houses and sections, the availability of smaller houses is restricted. But the trend is clearly for households with fewer people. So on the one hand, these people are poorly served by the market, as illustrated by your example of the developer quickly selling out of one-bedroom units. But on the other, the relative lack of smaller houses and apartments forces those who don’t actually need the space (or even want it?) but want to live in the isthmus to buy over-sized places, with the perverse effect that those who really value a decent sized backyard have to pay over the odds, so the mortgage sucks up more of their disposable income.. and there’s less left over for the family holiday, kids’ activities and so on. Either that, or they have to live further out, which means increased travelling costs, and commuting time.. and less time at home with the kids. So, “will someone think of the children” please?
This is all very dysfunctional. The chart is compelling, but it begs the question.. most people understand these trends, they’re not unique to Auckland, far from it, and they’re well known not only to anyone involved in planning or infrastructure development, but more or less everyone with any business interest in demographics or consumer trends knows this stuff. It’s actually quite basic and the implications are very obvious with a moment’s thought. So why (really, why?) do Brewer, Lee, Quax and co vote as though they don’t get it? They’re from left and right and they’re not stupid. Neither are the people who vote for them of course.
When you add in the numbers of the retiring population who will no longer need the ‘family home’ the requirement for smaller dwellings increases.
Yes, that’ll be me in the late 2030s.. what choices will I have?
Papamoa 😀
LOL actually 😉
Square Metres of back yard is a stupid measure. It doesn’t necessarily relate to the usability of the yard. Houses are typically positioned towards the middle of the section (in fact not sure whether that is also mandated by council with the whole height to boundary thing), so you end up with the situation where there is a little strip of grass running along the back of the house, a little strip of grass along the front (often fronting onto the street), and a little bit around the sides. I’d much prefer a house fronting directly onto the street with a decent square, flat 6x6m lawn out the back than a house with twice as much grass but nowhere to play. It astounds me how prescriptive these stupid rules are – this is mostly the right wing councillors who are backing these stupid nanny state regulations – I thought they were supposed to believe in letting the free market decide…
interesting situation, if couples without children are increasing in numbers faster than those with, how is natural population increase affected? does it sit with those whose cultural tndencies point them towards bigger families? are these families taken into account in the housing mix?
another point is that we should be designing for community, with slow narrow roads and neighbourhood parks that aren’t hidden away by a surrounding fence of houses (very much thinking North Shore here) and places where people can sit and pass the time of day
Will someone think of the kids…
– when they’re looking of a place to rent in their early 20’s, and there’s little choice but sharing a 3-bedroom house and owning a car ?
– when they’re in their late 20’s and looking to purchase a residence of their own, and all residence types are so expensive ?
– when they’re in their 50’s and mum or mum and dad are still in the huge family home but beyond looking after it themselves, and have to employ home help ?
– when they’re in the 60’s and mum or mum and dad are in a retirement village far from services, no longer able to drive, and entirely dependent on family members to take them around ?
My mother, born in Auckland, now lives in Adelaide, has just purchased a unit in the same suburb. For many years she has wanted to downsize, and when a suitable unit put an offer on it quickly. The price differential between the 3-bedroom house and 2-bedroom unit was not large (~$100k), even though they are less than 1 km apart. It is right next to the doctor’s surgery and an easy walk to shops. So in a suburb with otherwise quite uniform conditions, there is a premium of space in units that are accessible to services. There are simply so few such units.
Interesting that the waste of space John Walker did not vote. He is pathetic. The irony of the free market right-wingers wanting to dictate minimum section sizes. But the free market solves everything, according to them.
Excellent point, Matt. It’s like this, and councillors please take note: we need to provide up to 400,000 dwellings in the next 30 years. This is because of Auckland’s population growth, and the additional households that will create. A quick look at the projections tells you that the kinds of dwellings we need to create are smaller ones – for one or two-person households. More of whom will be empty nesters, incidentally, than young people who haven’t had kids yet. So why the need for such large outdoor areas in all homes, and the flimsy justification that it’s for the kids?
Planning shouldn’t be regulating home typologies to this extent anyway, and if councillors simply can’t stop themselves, then surely they can at least stop to look at the facts first.
You would hope.
timely post. As Ed Glaeser noted in his recent talk in Auckland, regulatory barriers to density, such as minimum backyard sizes. are likely to do more to undermine housing affordability than barriers to sprawl, such as the metropolitan urban limit.
Would be nice if someone would tell these right wing councillors to stop taking their hypocrisy pills and let the market have a larger role in the configuration of the housing supply.
Good to see Chris Fletcher having the fortitude to buck the trend.
P.s. Not all bad news – almost three times as many councillors voted against the motion.
Fletcher voted against this motion but supported a lot of other density restricting amendments
For some councillors, quarter-acre memories seem stronger than any amount of evidence about future needs. Auckland deserves better leaders.
The Quax stance comes off as a rebuke to younger generations for daring to have different lifestyle priorities for themselves and their kids. If he wants to emotively escalate further, the next step would be to describe intensification as “un-New Zealand”
Euch. I’m travelling through Europe at the moment and wondering why so many politicians are screaming blue murder about this. Have any of them left Auckland before? Intensification is synonymous with beautiful urban form and allows for more efficient, vibrant cities where people can actually be housed. Is it that hard to understand?
Apparently it is 🙂
It’s a great way to ensure all the vibrant young minds stay overseas. After experiencing any decent international city, why would anyone want to return to a traffic-addicted snorefest?
What the likes of John Walker and Sandra Coney (and even Mike Lee, which surprised me somewhat) have forgotten is that the Unitary Plan is a framework for the Auckland of the future, 30 years down the track, and how we get there from where the city is now. It will be a city for the people who are currently in their twenties and younger. They need to be questioning these people and making their decisions based on those answers, not their own views.
When you jpob depends upon not understanding something it is very easy to not understand it.
I have a (perhaps naive) hope that that mindset isn’t the one that those councillors have adopted.
“Have any of them left Auckland before?”
Funnily enough, Dick Quax was born in the Netherlands. Go figure..
With the elections approaching I’ve been pondering a tweet by Dave Roberts (drgrist) and how it applies to this woeful situation….. “10. Politics is about power far more than persuasion; all activism, advocacy, policy should be focused on shifting balance of power.”
Power in this case = voting block. National were quite happy to trample all over the CRL until they were told it would cost them votes.
I agree we can’t prescribe quality and I feel that more often than not prescribed design standards lead to poor outcomes. But I really don’t know how we can create the certainty so oftern demanded by residents, communities and developers, without rules prescribing minimum expectations. Without minimums, development can often be a race to the bottom in terms of community outcomes (i.e maximise return on investment). The result is residential towers containing entirely one-bedroom apartments. Or medium density housing developments of all three or four bedrooms (i.e. familzy-sized housing) but with little private space, next to no practical communal open space and a very far from any public reserve or park with usable open space. One alternative is to not have prescriptive rules and instead have each development subject to individual assessment, but nobody wants that because it is seen as too subjective and slow. I don’t have an answer to this but hopefully the debate and forthcoming submissions on the notified UP will find the right balance between certainty and quality. The same problem exists for parking minimums.