Milford oppose intensification because there aren’t enough residents

A couple of articles in the Herald the other day about caught my attention.

First up is this piece on the environment court proceedings in relation to the proposed residential development above the Milford mall. It seems like his is a battle that has been going on for forever and the article covers of the views of one long-time resident that appear to be fairly common in not just the Milford community but elsewhere – as we saw with the Unitary Plan. I’m going to give my views on some of the comments

The spectre of more than 500 people living in a cluster of towers rising up to 16 levels around the North Shore’s Milford Mall has dismayed an opponent.

William McCandless, a Milford resident since the 1950s, told the Environment Court on Tuesday that he was “gobsmacked” developer Milford Centre would propose 64m-high towers when the height trigger was only 11m.

“I am not comfortable with 500-plus new residents living on the same site as the shopping mall that is closed at night and in a town where there is no entertainment, sports fields, infrastructure or a police station to police them,” he said.

Bronwyn Carruthers for Milford Centre told the court the suburb was identified as a prime location for intensification, developing 250 units was appropriate and negative effects could be managed.

To me this highlights quite strongly one of the key issues with the debate about intensification and that is some see more people as just a problem, not an opportunity. Almost certainly the extra amenities that Mr McCandless quotes don’t exist due to there not being enough people in the area. The comment about the mall is especially intriguing as these residents will be living right on top of it so there is probably a much greater incentive for the mall to be open later. I do find the police station comment a bit odd though, it perhaps suggests a bias that he thinks the only people who would live in apartments are trouble makers. Moving on.

Mr McCandless said the apartment scheme contained nothing for the community and potential adverse effects were plainly obvious and would be significant.

Milford Centre is appealing against Auckland Council’s rejection of its plan.

Mr McCandless said if surrounding shore suburbs had many two- and three-level apartment buildings, he might be convinced of the need to go higher at Milford. But until then he could not see the need for such tall towers on the site.

“I definitely do not support the huge quantum leap to five, eight, 12 and 16-storey as proposed by this plan change,” he said, raising concerns about wind effects on houses nearby, the spectre of flooding and aesthetic issues.

“There will be significant adverse effects. Good Lord, it is 16, 12, eight and five-storey buildings crammed on to one allotment. You can’t screen such buildings out with 64m shrubs. Visible is visible as far as I am concerned, no matter what design it is,” he said, challenging the very concept of intensifying Milford, which he described as a flawed strategy.

“There are other ways of preventing traffic congestion and carbon pollution without giving up our business land and airspace above it,” he said, decrying residential uses for business land.

Once the area was rezoned, it was “gone for good” and so were the potential employment opportunities, he said.

The part that most intrigued me was the suggestion that if there were more low level apartments around the area that it might justify higher height limits in Milford.  This is an issue as these types of developments have largely been prevented from being able to occur either because the zoning requirements that mandate single houses or that the zoning hasn’t been sufficient enough to make developments commercially viable i.e. a developer might need three or four storeys to be able to make a profit so if he is limited to two storeys there is no point in doing the development in the first place.

Sadly this will continue as the unitary plan primarily only allows for single houses or Mixed Housing Suburban, both of which still only have two storey height limits. There is a small amount of mixed housing urban in the town centre but I think there isn’t enough to make much difference. There really should have been some THAB in the area like what was originally proposed in the draft. In effect what Mr McCandless is saying is this development shouldn’t go ahead because there aren’t lower level developments in the area but then the local community have also prevented those from happening too. Further as I think Stu pointed on of his posts (can’t find it sorry), the more we restrict more widespread but lower level intensification, the higher and more concentrated any developments will have to be in areas that do allow intensification.

I think his comments also hint at another major issue that I have had in general with some of the arguments surrounding the Unitary Plan. I remember hearing both local board members and councillors talking about progressing upgrading to the city. By that I mean suggesting that they can zone an area for the two storeys Mixed Housing Suburban zone then upgrade it to the three storey Mixed Housing Urban later when needed. Same again in going up to the Terraced Housing and Apartment zone. The issue is that in market desirable areas the best development sites may still have some viability and so the developer will maximise what he can on a site. Once that happens the site (often split up) becomes unavailable for upgrading to a higher density as no developer is going to be able to afford to buy all of the properties and undo what has happened. As such it’s important that we get the zoning right based on how we want the city to look and feel in the future than getting a half arsed and compromised solution.

There are more images from their website however here is one of what one of the towers may look like.

The second article that caught my attention was this one which talks about the future of the city and how it may look with Ludo Campbell-Reid. The first part talks a lot about how the city may feel in the future

The Auckland City of the future is no Blade Runner fantasy, says Auckland Council’s urban design guru Ludo Campbell-Reid. It’s not all gleaming glass towers and sky-high elevators; technology and vertical living.

“That’s an unimaginable city, it’s an horrific city where people are part of the machinery,” he says. “I like a bit of chaos. Chaos is more exciting. People like intimate spaces. People like to walk. People want to see the church at the end of the road they are walking along. They want to see the city around them. They want the city to be about them. That Blade Runner type of modern city scares me.”

What is planned for Auckland over the next two to three decades is more Back to the Future than Brave New World, he says. A place where pedestrians and public transport rule. Where alleys and open spaces take precedence over cars. An inter-linking set of walkways lined with shops and restaurants, joining old and new city parks, creating people spaces above our motorway junctions and evolving a Kiwi urban lifestyle where residents can see the beautiful buildings and distinctive surroundings that give Auckland its character.

Difficult to imagine? The beginnings of this Auckland City of the future is around us now. Take the shared pedestrian/car spaces of Fort Lane and Elliott St. The family-centred parks and promenades of Wynyard Quarter, the rebuilt Auckland Art Gallery, Britomart and Te Wero bridge with its steps enticing children to dangle their toes into the Waitemata Harbour. Auckland City has been undergoing a transformation over the past seven years. Expect to see more of the same over the coming decades.

That sounds great but the reason why I’ve associated with the first article is the end of be next bit:

There are plans to transform the inner-city roads already housing whole communities into narrower traffic lanes with green spaces for children, such as Hobson St which is already home to 10,000 people. He would like to see a new downtown school, Quay St to become a tree-lined boulevard on the waterfront, with room for some cars and light rail heading up Queen St.

He points to the Vinegar Lane project, currently underway in Ponsonby, as a game-changer for urban living. Built with a supermarket below, surrounded by individually-designed terraced homes and apartments with rooftop gardens, courtyards and offices, it is a village of its own all in the same block.

“In many cities now the space above the ‘big box’ stores and supermarkets are filled with apartments. Those big retail stores need people in them, and we need space.”

In a way, malls are a kind of big box type development and building above them has a lot of potential which is exactly what is proposed to happen at Milford. While most of us probably aren’t huge fans of big box type developments they may end up being hugely important from a land-banking situation. Particularly if we can deal with the minimum parking requirements.

The comments about some of the changes in the CBD are very interesting too. Narrowing Hobson and Nelson St has been on our list for a while a downtown school will likely be needed with the increasing number of people choosing to live in the CBD. Catering for children in the city centre is probably going to be one of the most important and essential things we can do to make the area liveable for everybody.

As for Quay St, it has been talked about for a while now so surely it’s time for Auckland Transport to get some sort of design out to the community so they can see what’s planned. The comment suggests there will still be cars on the street and I don’t have too much problem with this providing AT reduce the number of lanes from what we currently have as we don’t need 6 -7 lanes (when you include medians and parking). Fewer lanes along with upgrades to make it easier for pedestrians to get around will make a huge world of difference to how people use and perceive the street.

As for both articles, let’s just get on with it.

Share this