One of the last vacant lots in Mount Eden is currently under development. It’s a big section on the corner of Mount Eden Rd and Kelly St – formerly occupied by what seemed to be a slightly feral orchard. It’s large enough to fit three or four old-style Mount Eden villas with generous backyards, or several blocks of walk-up apartments with space for shared vegetable gardens (and possibly even garages)
While I liked having the empty lot and the trees in the neighbourhood, I thought that development could have been a great opportunity to contribute to Kelly St’s unique character. Here’s a picture of what’s across the road: an elegant art deco building on the corner, built out to the site boundaries and joined up to a row of cool brick buildings hosting various businesses.
But the developers didn’t (or couldn’t) build something in a similar style. Here’s what’s going up across the street. It’s completely uninspiring, completely out of step with the rest of the neighbourhood, and completely within the rules.
What the Kelly St site is getting is a dull cul-de-sac with eight or ten two storey boxes. They have the superficial aspects of a traditional Kiwi home – the pitched roof, the setbacks from the edge of the site, and, of course, the two-car garage out the front – but they’re packed in densely with no yards to speak of. As I’ve written before, this should not be surprising, as when land is expensive people try to use it efficiently. But it is a bit disappointing.
Aesthetic judgments are slippery and subjective, but I think most people would prefer more buildings like the ones in the first picture, and fewer buildings like the ones in the second picture. My question is: What can we do to get good buildings to happen more often?
Processing...
Terraced houses like across from the domain in Grafton would be perfect here.
first step: Get rid of any rules that prohibit the first building, e.g. minimum parking requirements and building set-backs.
second step: Don’t buy bad buildings.
Step one: definitely.
Step two: I think this is overly optimistic, the function of price, demand and availability mean that at some point there will be a buyer.
Agree this site is a big disappointment. Site zoned 7a under old Auckland Isthmus Plan. This is one of the higher intensity zones, but height limit of 10m and density control of 1 per 200m2. Developer could of done something else, but may just easier to self of lots individually to builders, given state of finance sector and frustrating District Plan rules.
Love one of the local NIMBY’s to tell me that this fits in well the local neighborhood. This is what people seem to forget, if areas are zoned for detached housing they will looks like this is 50 years as current houses expire, not at all like the neighborhood they know. I’m very sure apartments of terraced houses would have been a much better solution.
Gated cul-de-sac as well.
Used to be a dental school back in the day and had to be clay capped as the ground is very contaminated.
If i recall rightly this parcel of land has a checkered history. Was a park after the school which had its land use changed to residential, then purchased by the same person in the council who made the change to the district plan.
The piece meal development indicates the current developer is financing by selling off the odd house to afford the next build.
Sounds dodgy as. You should name and shame!
If my memory serves me well that all happened in the late 80s. There was some court cases to test the legality but the person left the council and kept the land. I think that was the outcome…
sigh.
This development really is disgusting .. aesthetically and programmatically. A basic design guide for suburban development is a step in the right direction .. similar to the recent apartment design guide that was funded by ACC.
Rejecting work with slippery developers is another option ..
Classic failure due to Council planners not getting it ,that rules do not create good design but often achieve the opposite. The unitary plan is going to be no better. Frankly after designing for 35 yrs using planning rules I have come to the opinion that the present system doesnt work at all. I suggest that we scrap all rules in Auckland and replace the rules with neighbourhood structure plans created in consultation with neighbourhood communities. If this is done comprehensively with architects and urban designers heavily involved then we could ditch generic rules in favour of precinct specific design.
This sounds like an idea worth considering. However, I wonder how such a process would deal with the issue of (changing) land values.
As I mentioned in the post, the reason that these houses are packed in so tightly is that land in Mount Eden is pricey, which creates an incentive to build as much house as possible on each square metre. (This obviously wasn’t the case when Mount Eden was first laid out.) I also suspect that a lot of people would show up and request structure plans that require new houses in the neighbourhood to have generous backyards and lawns.
Obviously, high land prices, big backyards, and affordability are incompatible. You simply can’t have all three at once. So perhaps the question is: how do we make sure that people understand the existence of such trade-offs and make decisions accordingly?
I agree there are conflicts Peter, However there are also some opportunities . To have a broad range of housing types we may need to have shared open spaces for kids to run around surrounded by larger sized housing for Families. The xtra land needed would be achieved by higher density small apartments woven into the development for older single people and hot zones of very high density young and single apartments ( noisey but staying within the neighbourhood. ) What I do know or sure that anything will work better than what we have now. After 40 odd years of town planning we are worse off not better off.
+1
Apartments/ terraces in a deco/ bricky style would we welcomed by the local “Nimbys”.
Unfortunately, In Auckland, all planning is “top down” and local wishes are completely irrelevant.
Nimbys should be harnessed, and their energy used to provide good outcomes. The system of “Independent” Commissioners and non notifieds means this cannot happen under the current system.
Special styles means more cost, more risk, less profit. Where is the incentive?
shitty crappy styles means lower value.
They still want 1.7 to 1.9 million for those.
So a little slice of Botany Downs in inner city Eden Terrace?
They should have taken a cue from the name and built terraces. Would have got twice as many of them in with the same floor area and garden space each.
Might be a good case of you get what you asked for??
I’ve been looking to buy a place closer to a train station, so I’ve had a good wander round these streets, as they’re 5 mins walk from Mt Eden station. Other than the power lines and some tarseal, Kelly Street and the neighbouring streets look pretty much like they would have done 100 years ago. They are not gentrified up the wazoo, and have little room for parking on or off street. Some of the streets have been closed off to through traffic.
The problem with the train stations from Mt Eden, Grafton, Newmarket, Remuera right round to Greenlane is they are all within the Auckland Grammar Zone. Consequently the housing prices are much higher, and the types of houses being built in these areas are aimed at attracting the type of people that send their kids to Auckland Grammar. I’ve also had a good wander round the Market Road through to Greenlane area, and whole swathes of houses have been replaced by these types of multiple McMansions jammed onto a section that used to contain a single house.
I go past this Kelly Street site every day on the bus, and it grinds my gears. A well designed terrace house with a small garden would have been absolutely perfect for me at the Kelly Street site.
Interestingly, the building on the corner of Mt Eden Road and Esplanade Road (one of the other site boundaries) is a 1930’s vintage terraced block.
After it was a dental school, it was the Eden Science Research Center who later changed to Environmental Science & Research (http://www.esr.cri.nz/Pages/default.aspx) I used to live behind this building and it was fairly common for the neighbor hood kids to use the grounds as a playground after hours and on the weekend. It was left abandoned for a while and I remember there being a campaign to try and turn it into a park. I think the use of such a large grounds for this sort of density is quite a shame. It’s an amazing location there are different options. They could have had business frontages on to Mt Eden road and Kelly street, with mixed use apartments and homes above and behind.
I think that arbitrary and absolute rules like “one household unit per 200m2” are a big part of the problem – that’s what drives the McMansions with multiple bedrooms and en-suites, rather than a much greater number of small apartments or terrace houses that would better match our changing demographics.
Ockham (Mark Todd, Barry Kaye…) have a submission into the Unitary Plan suggesting the removal of all specifically density controls.
+1
On the post about Demographia, several people brought up the Japanese model which I’d say seems to deliver more affordable housing and better transit-oriented development than ours.
Among the other points, the central government does not allow local governments to have zoning rules that arbitrarily limit the number of units. There’s coverage, height, and floor-area ratio rules, and so on, but no density cap in itself.
It’s all well and good debating personal taste in this matter.
But at the end of the day it’s all about council rules.
And council gets what council wants
What can we do to get good buildings to happen more often?
people who build houses have to stick within the local rules.
You need to speak to those that make the rules that control the development i.e. Auckland Council
I think discussing the design of buildings is absolutely essential to creating the support from communities needed to enable intensification. Surely design rules that specify an “in-character” requirement for each community – and then explicitly states the types of design (art deco, brick, colonial etc) is preferable to the sub-division trash you get like this (and Stonefields, for instance). I realise there’s an argument for not being too specific and limiting design etc, but when you’re weighing it up against the likely alternative – this – then surely it’s the lesser of two evils.
Look at the type of buildings, locations and built environment that people most value – they’re largely from another era, they’re either the wooden colonial styles or the solid, stone/brick buildings of yesteryear – rarely are they the tilt-slab, glass and steel designs than ooze sterility and bland. No one will be celebrating these in the decades ahead, if they even survive, which I suspect many won’t given the escalating price of land.
Outright force on the part of Council is absolutely essential, through strict design criteria – they really need to grow a pair.
+1 bro
This sounds good: “discussing the design of buildings is absolutely essential to creating the support from communities needed to enable intensification. Surely design rules that specify an “in-character” requirement for each community”
Although it’s a special case, the history of 83 Hinemoa Street in Birkenhead over the past 5 years is a case where a developer created a lot of local objections on account of unsympathetic design. Over the following years, local residents negotiated with the developer who then came up with a design that appears to have overcome local objections (see pictures at http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auction-755439853.htm)
This is a special case because the underlying of the site was commercial.
However, arguably it represents a case where community involvement in design standards has achieved a win-win.
The plan developed by the Milford Residents’ Association is another case where local involvement in planning has helped to identify a quality outcome for residents – with good proposals for intensification near transport nodes. Auckland residents need to develop a win-win partnership to achieve a sensible balance of quality and intensification by transport routes – while avoiding the worst excesses that the property development lobby will try to impose in the interests of easy profits.
Little more ornamentation on the outside would be good, but I figure the residents will add flower boxes, vines, trellises etc
Seems like a good outcome. Might be a good idea to petition your Local MP to have community led planning added to the new version of the RMA?