Some of the houses in Renall St in Ponsonby. These would be impossible to build in the suburbs today, even with the Unitary Plan. Among probably many other reasons, the houses are on sections less than 200m², there is no setback from the boundary and there is no off street carparking. Yet due to their position on the site they actually have quite decent sized back yards, probably bigger and more usable than houses on sections twice their size.
Photos is copyright to Sydney
Processing...
Nicest street in Auckland? Planning is surely fundamentally broken if this is illegal while Dannemora complies with all the rules.
It’s all because these were not designed with the automobile in mind. Dannemora was designed, well it feels like it anyway, to only be accessed by private motor vehicle. As is pretty much all of Auckland outside the old tram suburbs.
It’s not just that though. Literally you could not build Renall Street’s fantastic urban form today because it breaks planning rule after planning rule. Yet the same rule book lets Dannemora fly through meeting all the rules.
+1
A great example of “Density done well” even before it was fashionable.
Could we make building like this legal in the UP?
But we need to protect the character of these suburbs by ensuring they can never be built again. (sarc)
The Unitary Plan stuffed this up when it included a 4m front yard setback.
Nope. Almost every aspect of these buildings make them impossible under both current and proposed UP regs.
-Too close to the front boundary [ie no set back]
-Too close to the neighbours
-Too high at the boundary [height in relation to boundary]
-Too big [site coverage]
But most importantly of all:
-No off street parking [won’t someone think of the Traffic Engineers?]
Thank god we’ve got the Council to save us from this hellish and impossible form of habitation; pity the poor souls forced to live in such vile close proximity to their neighbours; they probably even talk to each other!, oh the horror. And imagine; nowhere of your own to lovingly store your SUVs…. Perhaps we could set up a support group to help these tragic people?
There are a few more Patrick including
At least 30% of the front facade has to be glazing
At least 50% of the front yard (which doesn’t exist (has to be landscaped).
Each bedroom has to have at least 20% of floor area as external glazing.
Next one probably not an issue but at least 40% of main living area has to be glazed.
There are others too like minimum master bedroom sized, minimum living area size etc.
Minimum section size incase no one brought it up, side glazing does not have sufficient depth to next building.
Perhaps a better satirical line is:
These substandard Council unapproved slums must be so cheap – surely no one would pay to live in such squalor?! Pass a hat round so these poor people can be moved to a proper cul-de-sac 30KM away with proper set backs, a good driving distance from any shops, employment, or culture, and somewhere, please somewhere, for the cars!
How the automobile changed the houses? All of a sudden local residents would have complained about people parking on the street so then there would have been setback to allow for garaging. Then people decided that garages out front are ugly so it needs to be beside the house so the sections needed to be wider…and so on.
Also, the fact that the auto dominant sprawl left streets like this as very low cost housing in the 1960’s to 1980’s gave the impression that no-one wanted to live in town when in fact Ponsonby and surrounds were, as I understand it, highly occupied by bands, artists, film makers and unemployed etc.
Most planning rules, as I see it, are other people’s standards written down as rules. This whole glazing thing is ludicrous. Why have glazing on the south side of a wall if there is an opportunity for a blank wall but include a Velux style roof window? Other people’s rule sand standards not allowing, or making it expensive, changes from how they think everyone should live.
We have an unconsented bungalow with 2 small windows on the south side of the house. Is it dark and dingy. Not even close thanks to good ideas that do not meet council regulations (hence the reason it’s not consented). The place just sold and we got lots of positive comments about how nice the place is. Looking directly at the hose next door is not as nice as looking at the moon while sitting on the loo 🙂
Maybe the AKL rules have changed again the past two years, but when I applied for consent in 2011 for an extension to my 1920s bungalow, the architect went to a lot of trouble to maximise glazing to the north, minimise it to the west and eliminate it from the south faces – rather than a certain % per room. Perhaps he managed to fulfil both requirements simultaneously.
Obviously there are architects and there are architects :-). It just seemed too hard, and looked like the costs could blow out by a large margin, so just went “screw it”.
Looking at this, it’s kinda hilarious how density restrictions are claimed to protect “character and amenity”.
And I bet these were built as affordable houses back in their day.
I’m not an architectural historian, so I am happy to be corrected, but yes I believe the cottages were (cheap) workers cottages.
From what I have read, Freemans Bay was considered a slum at one point, and some areas were cleared (and terraced houses built in their place) but the council took so long that it basically caused the community to collapse (as all the houses were designated to be demolished, and many residents moved/were forced out). Finally a residents association got the clearance designation removed. In fact.. (just looking this up in a book).. Renall Street was declared Auckland’s first urban conservation area.
Most of this info is from the book ‘Urban Village’ by Jenny Carlyon and Diana Morrow. A very good read!
All summarised here: http://unitaryplan.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Common/Output/HTMLtoPDF.aspx?e=n&hid=48647
Are there any exceptions amongst recently developed streets (or parts of streets) that, despite the planning rules, have somehow managed deliver the same kind of outcomes?
Parts of Stonefields or Hobsonville? Hmm..
Only if a developer, as in the case of Hobsonville Point, manages to get their own plan for a big development. That’s how Kensington Gardens in Orewa managed it as well. The average person doesn’t have a chance.
Or as in SOHO where the developer can set the rules within their large lot as to setbacks or lack there of.
Move aside 2040 fakies, I’m going to start a real group with a right to rant. It will be called Auckland 1840. No more villas threatening the kiwi way of life and taking away every property owner’s right to have Auckland restored to its roots of the odd shanty in the bush and a half dozen drunk whalers.
Like!
Sounds like it would just be another bloody bunch of NWIMBYs (No Whales In My Backyard) getting all up in arms about any attempt to improve the damn place.
Oddly enough, Auckland never went through the ‘shack in the bush with half a dozen pissed whalers’ phase bing planned from the start. Felton Mathhew’s 1841 layout of Auckland envisaged grand swooping boulevards and avenues – a fragment of the scheme survives as Waterloo Quadrant – but it was stuffed by the actions of land speculators (apparently, mostly Australian) buying up the overly generous subdivisions and splitting them up. A grand scheme thwarted by the usual cowboys: nothing really changes.
Perfect street! Perfect Urban Planning! The Auckland dream. But the whole thing requires a commitment to less cars. In fact only one picture in your Picture of the Days actually has any cars . It’s achievable for Auckland but it means government getting their act together on the CRL, bike lanes, walkable neighbourhoods, less giant parking lots and mega malls. Bring it on.