Back in May when the last group of special housing areas were announced the Council also announced that they would be holding an apartment building design competition in conjunction with Ockham Residential – builders of The Issac and a number of other developments – who would then build the winning design.
“This competition will be open to an architect, or architectural practice that will compete to design and document a high-quality medium density residential housing development on the land. Architects will be offered the chance to propose medium density housing prototypes that illustrate the possibilities and advantages of urban living, in recognition of the excellent opportunity that the Accord offers to create more modern housing options in Auckland,” Mr Brown says.
The competition will open on 21 May with details soon to be posted on the NZIA website at www.nzia.co.nz.
The is a small 321 m² site at 11 Akepiro St in Kingsland and is bounded by the Western railway line and near the pseudo motorway like Dominion Rd Flyover – although the latter is partially blocked by three large Norfolk Pines.
The judges have picked out the top five designs out of the 64 entries – all of which are on display at the Auckland Art Gallery from today till Tuesday. The top five are below
Just by looking at the pictures I’m not sure exactly which one is my favourite although I’m leaning towards the top two. Obviously there are other factors that need to be taken into account too, like the layout of the apartments themselves.
As you can expect not everyone is happy though with anti-intensification group Auckland 2040 ranting about them in the Herald the other day.
But Richard Burton of anti-intensification lobby group Auckland 2040 doubted the scheme would work and said the council had only acted because it was suffering a public backlash against the Unitary Plan.
and
Mr Burton said he doubted Auckland would get masses of stylish units and fears monolithic blocks rising in low-rise suburban neighbourhoods.
“The council asking for trust is like a crocodile smile. Auckland is replete with badly designed apartments and to suddenly say ‘trust us, we’re only going to get high-quality designs’ flies in the face of Auckland’s history.”
Quite why a group set up on the North Shore to try and lock the area into some kind of suburban dark age is commenting on development in a mixed use area that already contains a number of apartment buildings I don’t quite know. I also find it insulting that a group made up of people who for the most part won’t be alive in 2040 are telling those who will be how they should live. That’s not to say they shouldn’t have a say but far more weight should be placed on the opinions of those who will have to live the positive and negative consequences of how the city develops.
Processing...
It’s not so much the spoutings of a group set up on the North Shore that’s the problem, it’s more that the New Zealand Herald sees fit to give the oxygen of publicity to the hysterical opinions of yet another minority interest group (think ACT, etc) at the expense of sensible, reasoned, debate.
Thoughts on this proposal for the site? https://www.facebook.com/881805661845085/photos/pcb.921398697885781/921351397890511/?type=1&theater
Nice, however I think you may need to look at how it would work in winter and strong winds. I like the separation and the mirroring of the pines.
Great work from all the designers, and this is a great way to further the debate. Like anything its important to get a good airing of the different sides so instead of reacting to ,or taking offence to others views there should be positive engagement of the issues to get some agreement. Personally I really like apartments and like the designs offered and I have lived in an owned several apartments. However equally I wouldnt want one next to me where I live now because I would lose privacy ,sunlight, have increased noise ,traffic etc. I agree with intensification for a lot of reasons especially if it is done well. But I think the transition and the way it is handled is critical and needs to be thoroughly debated so that existing neighbourhoods feel comfortable with the change.
My suggestion is that very small hot spots of intensification around transport are rezoned first and get as much development going in there in a limited time frame,ie buy everybody out and get on with it. These model urban hot spots will start a trend because they will be best practice design and build and provide people with options and convince people they are viable options. A big factor in many peoples mind is the randomness of development . A high rise can pop up next to you or on your street and then nothing else for another decade. So straight away you are forced to sell because your amenities are reduced, this would be at below value, and any upside is lost because the street is now a mixed use with none of the advantages of either use.
If my property was in a hot spot then I could choose to sell or negotiate to trade into the redevelopment thereby getting either capital gain or enjoy the advantages of increased amenities from an urbanized environment.
The present mass zoning proposals in the unitary plan have diluted good urban intensification but spread the net so that opportunistic developers will garden grab and compromise existing amenities of established suburbs.
I have just noticed a Herald article on intensification that may also be of interest in the debate
.A French urban planning expert is in New Zealand this week, courtesy of think-tank the New Zealand Initiative.
Alain Bertaud, a global urban planning expert, disagrees with the compact city planning model being used in Auckland and Christchurch and is visiting those cities and Wellington.
He is formerly a planner for the World Bank and has worked in Tehran, Hong Kong and St Petersburg.
Bertaud says compactness cannot be created by planners.
“The urban village model exists only in the mind of urban planners,” he says, adding that mobility and affordability suffer.
Auckland Mayor Len Brown wants to contain up to 70 per cent of urban growth within existing boundaries.
– NZ Herald
Think tank = played lobbyist by the way, they work for both sides so don’t get caught up.
What does he mean by affordability and mobility? Apartment blocks create cheaper housing, that’s really well understood and why they exist. Given Auckland’s miserable housing its certainly a good thing. And mobility? Does he mean transport? Isn’t lack of density the reason anti-pt fighters use every time.
Agree with your comments – particularly about “the randomness of development”. People need to be allowed to have some reasonable expectations that their environment will not be destroyed by developers with deep pockets who override planning controls, make a quick profit, then move on to another profit opportunity leaving the community to deal with the problems and true costs. The National Government is very pro-developer and has been weakening rules which had been put in place to protect communities. Auckland Council should allow local communities to plan the where and how of intensification so it doesn’t destroy vibrant communities with execrable sunlight blocking structures. Intensification must be managed so it is not only pleasant to look at and live in and around. It should also be planned to foster functioning communities. The intensified housing stock should be amenable to all ages – so that families who need space for kids can find it – either in suburban gardens or generous parks – and older people can move into apartments with adequate facilities and access.
“Auckland Council should allow local communities to plan the where and how of intensification”
Except that you write this as if it wasn’t already happening – due to fear-driven local politicians not wanting any intensification, the Unitary Plan has reduced proposed intensification massively from the original draft, in quite a few areas even below what was previously already allowed! Local communities should not have the right to override the need of new people to live in Auckland. This isn’t a museum, it’s a growing city! We can’t all live in Helensville or Pukekohe!
Really like design 1. Not so much the others. Auckland 2040’s hysterical rantings would be comical, except that their ill informed blather gets some traction. Disappointing.
Apparently 3 storeys is considered two tall for Mixed Housing Suburban. Under that proposal two storey, high stud villas would be banned.
They all look great. I may prefer 5 as it appears to be the most practical in terms of light and outdoor living space.
I can understand the concerns of people objecting to intensification. I’m in no means anti intensification but I can just see developers aren’t such a noble group as one would hope. Most look to do things as cheaply as possible and cram as much housing as possible on site as they can. Alot do not care about the look as long as the material used is cheap and durable for less maintenance. This is especially the case perhaps in lesser areas where people aren’t as vocal or in the early days when people will push what they can get away with. You may think the market will decide if they’re crap but people will take any rental accomodation in some instances. I can see alot of horror minor dwellings around Auckalnd that are now perfectly legal but none the less eyesores. South Auckland is full of converted garages.
I can see your point. I live in Te Atatu south and there is a development about to commence near us off mcleod rd. It’s a huge piece of land backing on to a park. Due to the size of the development we’ll have little say in its development.
The development is a completion phase of half a development already built. The previous development just replicated 40-50 dull stand alone homes in the same size and colour as it is the cheaper option for more profit. The next part of the development will be the same dullness no doubt and I’m sure they won’t allow public access to the park and shops/ bus stops as they can cram another house in.
I can see developers ignoring these types of practicalities which in the end encourage people to drive and help create uninspiring neighbourhoods. Sadly profit rules and not all developers are design connesuiers.
My preference is the 3rd apartment block. Looks sculptural.
Can understand your concerns when you see poor design taking place in your neighbourhood and there’s little you can do. Walkable neighbourhood design criteria should be crucial in new developments but I find the council is failing on this.
This is the councils dilemma they want to speed up developments and reduce costs but perhaps with less consultations and perhaps letting things slide. Developers also want less constricitive design criteria. It’s finding that balance and ensure design criteria and public amenity criteria are up to scratch.
Hi Sarah that development will be a mix of 2 storey standalone housing around the outside and 3 storey terraced housing in the centre. A ring road round the development will include frontage to the park. There will be a ped connection to Te Atatu road but no through road.
It’s an absolute disgrace that their is no pedestrian access to the Atatu road and the park. It would be something very easy to include and benefit 150-200 households. Te Atatu road has bus stops and shops that will be easy accessed by walking instead of encouraging people to drive and hid in their cars instead of meet their neighbours walking. Another case of Auckland planning and design years backwards.
Just read this again now as was in a hurry before. Glad to see their will be pedestrian access. A through road would be unnecessary.
I like the exploding cubes of number 3.
And agree with you Matt that these 2040 people should really just crawl back under a rock as they will be either dead by 2040, or in a high density retirement village (the irony).
Thr judges clearly have a very particular style that they favour..
Good on Mr Burton for reminding people of what happens when developers are allowed to run riot. The council needs to introduce some sort of good taste rule. The neolib clowns would have us believe that market forces sorts out the quality from the junk and that the developers of junk wont be able to sell them. History tells quite a different story. No5 for me.
Developers will run riot. They are already trying to water down controls. One wonders if the people pouring scorn on the 2040 group have actually read the submissions from the Property Council and the other developers? The developers lobby is trying to reduce sunlight provisions. This is not in the interests of the environment; nor in the interests of the residents.
Great post.
The top 3 look the most interesting. In reality, in any could work given use of good quality materials, sound space-planning within the apartments and careful attention to design details…..and oh yes, don’t cheapen the development during the construction phase – we don’t want to end up with New Lynn style concrete pillars in the middle of the room.
I think the council, and their key planning staff perhaps need to take on a joint custodianship role with developers on apartment ventures. I know that this type of supervision isn’t popular but apartments are one area where it may be necessary.
Council have everything to gain from successful apartment developments and everything to lose, if they are not done properly.
Is there a place to look at floor and site plans. No parking requirements by the look of it so that’s progress!
The first three designs show exactly why people oppose intensification. They all look like something my cat threw up.
Post modernist architects seem to revel in designing buildings with no symmetry and which therefore look bloody ugly. Like these ones.
I support intensification, but not at any cost. In a dense environment it is the buildings which determine whether a pleasant or dire street environment are created. Whoever these judges are, they need the sack.
You are right. We should bulldoze all the villas from Parnell to Point Chev. None of them are symmetrical, look like cat sick.
Had a good chuckle at this.
Think number 1 is it.
When it comes to beauty and proportion villas are in a league of their own compared to the cat sick represented above. How on earth do you reach the conclusion that Id want them torn down? Talk about a red herring!
Missing irony & and claiming your aesthetic viewpoint is the only valid one. Two for two, mate.
Well whatever, I still stick to my point that in dense environments we need beautiful buildings. Imagine Auckland littered with buildings like this one.. Oh wait it already is.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I love #3 and #1 – lots of visual interest. IMHO #5 is boringly symmetrical, looks like a stumpy version of the ugly boxes littering the CBD.
Well, I like No 4 best and particularly the way the base brick visually anchors the building to the ground – an excess of concrete facades really turns me off.
Design No 1 gets my tick.
The secret of any intensified design planning is to leave a bit of space around the building. This is where the infamous
“Cardboard Towers” went wrong. It is better to incorporate recreational land around the building for tenants use rather than have often unusable minidecks for each apartment. Then the tower can be as high as you like. And please, no more seagull droppings down the side of the building (design No 2) like the ASB Blob at the Wynyard Quarter even without the seagull on top.
Where are the Cardboard Towers? Seems like an interesting building material to use? Did they use reinforced concrete to build then and then clad then on concrete, or is the Cardboard structural?
The council did well to get the architects to spend thousands of hours working on these designs for free.
compact city good idea. small apartments large developer margins bad idea. Council needs to lead quality intensification proposals not profit driven developer looking to maximize gfa with seductive image they received gratis. The density proposed is town center TOD density not mixed use cul de sac. Interesting all render views taken from roof of train. What do the projects look like from the street ?
No.1 for me, but then 4 and 5 are “safe” designs which are prominent in, and serving well, the Wellington CBD.
I prefer 5. Why? Because it has non-clear balcony sides. Here in London, the visual asthetics of many apartment blocks with glass balcony fences(?) are ruined by people trying to increase their privacy and putting that fairly untidy roll out bamboo material on the inside of the glass.
I think most people who don’t want apartment buildings object to the scale of them rather than the outward look. Only one of these designs bothered to show the neighbouring building being developed to a similar height so perhaps the architects don’t like large buildings next door either. Just saying.
I’m not sure if any of the designs stands out for me as a clear winner. However I think Ockham deserve to be commended for trying to lift the standard of design in medium-to-high density developments in Auckland. Auckland has been poorly served in the past on this aspect which I think has put people of higher-density developments both as places to live in, or live next to. We need more companies like Ockham targeting the mid-market between small cheap apartments and the luxury market. I think it’s unfortunate that prices in many of Ockham’s developments are still quite high. (Once visited the open home for a two-bedroom apartment in the Isaac in Grey Lynn that the owner was trying to sell for $1.2 million – the mind boggles).
An interesting thing about no. 1 for me is how the use of horizontal rectangles makes it appear much shorter than its six stories. I don’t dislike height per se but some people do and clearly there are design ways to disguise it
These designs are all variations on the same themes and the austerity of design is typical of architects today, especially in NZ. I guess I don’t like piles of cubes. The critical thing about these kinds of designs is the materials that are used. If they’re good quality and attractive these designs – which are pretty much devoid of the kind of aesthetic appeal that ordinary people like – they’ll work. If poor quality, cost-saving materials are used, they’ll look like hell. I wish there had been a couple that picked up some of the lighter design elements in multifamily that you see in other cities, or design cues from New Zealand’s architectural heritage. But based on what I’ve seen going in the ground, I’m not impressed with NZ architecture in general. It’s not the 70’s anymore, guys.
What is the “kind of aesthetic appeal that ordinary people like”? Ticky tacky little Hardiplank boxes that the ordinary people live in out at Papakura and Ranui? The ’50s weatherboard state houses that the ordinary people live in out at Otara and Te Atatu? The big red sheds that the ordinary people shop at? Make them look like the hoodie and baggie trackies that ordinary people wear?