53: Concentrating on Corridors
What if we got serious about intensifying corridors like Melbourne does?
One of the things we hear all the time in Auckland is ‘Unlike – insert City X – we can’t do that here because – insert excuse Y’. Now, sometimes these differences are real and we need to work harder to translate good ideas into a New Zealand context. But more often than not we exaggerate the differences between city life in this small corner of the world and that elsewhere. Fundamentally we have much in common with cities elsewhere, especially the New World cities of Australia and North America, even when they are much bigger than ours.
So what if we got serious about intensifying corridors like Melbourne does? We tried this once before; the former Auckland Regional Council’s growth strategy put a lot of emphasis on intensifying centres and corridors. But not a lot of development happened. We often hear that the problem is our original grain of subdivision and street patterns that doesn’t lend itself well to this type of development. Is that the case, or do we just need to go about it differently or work a little harder to change that?
To really go to town on corridors, we would need to accept greater change in character of the say 7.5% of land area that fronts these arterial corridors, to offset less intensive change elsewhere across most suburban streets. This seems to be the basic premise of recent strategic planning in Melbourne. We can debate how successfully that strategy is being realised over there, but it is hard to argue against the fact that Melbourne already has far more examples of good mid-rise mixed use development on its major roads than Auckland. Why is that?
Here in Auckland, have we forgone such an opportunity with the Proposed Unitary Plan? Imagine if the Council had put more effort into zoning for these outcomes along corridors like Dominion, Mt Eden and Remuera Roads on the isthmus, the former highways of Great North and Great South Roads or the likes of Onewa Road or Lake Road over on the Shore. Such an approach could have adopted a strategy of greater protection of historic commercial buildings balanced with more aggressive up-zoning across the balance of sites including much deeper back from the main street to create viable sites for more intensive mid-rise development.
In acknowledging this as a great planning and urban design outcome, we would also need to acknowledge that it is pretty tough for developers to assemble sites and make it work. Council would need to look to use as many carrots as it can muster across its regulatory, revenue-gathering and investment toolboxes to provide far greater incentives for this to happen.
An Auckland where more people could afford to live amongst the great amenities and character of the long-established suburbs we already have? Wouldn’t that be a better Auckland?
Stuart Houghton 2014
Processing...
I think it would. The first few houses back from the corridor are often of less value than further down, because they are not adapted to deal with the noise from the now much busier road. If these sections were part of the development, with a good space and lower heights between them and the existing houses – sympathetic design – could be a great solution.
This seems to me to be an excellent strategy. Karangahape Road and Panmure’s Queens Road strike me as too good frontages on whihc to do this too. I do think though, that there needs to be much greater effort made on co-ordinating the street frontages of new buildings – I see no reason for example that 21st century building technology can’t accommodate the kind of ornate and beautiful frontages such as that on the Pitt Street building on the K Road corner for the entire length of the street, At present we simply have a jumble of old and new and just plain ugly along there. I see your point on how it can be difficult for developers to aggregrate small individual properties in order to make a viable larger project, one feature I saw of such developments in Taipei in Taiwan was where individual property owners got together and had a stake in the larger and more valuable building that was constructed on top of their combined properties (this also the landowners to continue living in their community if they wish), as it stands here in NZ the developer captures more of the increased value than the small landowner does. The piecemeal way that large sections in older suburbs have been subdivided as has lead IMHO to huge waste of resources – an easy and obvious one for example being where you can two long driveways right next to each other, both leading to back sections – why doesn’t the developer co-operate with the neighbours and compensate them to used a slightly wider shared driveway for example? How often too, does one see a whole block of formerly single houses that has coherently developed into sensible intensive development?
+1
Auckland has no concept of “sympathetic” development.
It would get a lot of Nimbys to change sides…
When any development in Auckland is suggested so often the property, or buildings, or trees even, suddenly assume an historic, sacred or ethnic character. Most of the so called historic houses in Auckland, euphemistically described as character residences in real estate terms, are really just old mass produced Edwardian workers cottages and there are thousands of them with no particular architectural merit and never historic and.most are falling apart.
Any reassignment of land use in Auckland will have to reconsider the ridiculously inflated value of these properties and the Auckland Council’s own assessment of their historic and architectural worth.
Napoleon might have got away with bulldozing wonderfully broad avenues through the middle of Paris but it aint’ going to happen here.
Building apartment has to go over neighbor objections, need to borrow a lot of capital from bank, spend a lot of money on lawyers, architects, accountants, and a lot of hidden risks before the plan get approved. Due to low height limit and high administration costs, they carry too much risk for little profit made.
In contrast, subdividing land is relatively simpler, less risk and also yield the same, if not more profit for the same capital spent.
Money will go to the investment that gives the best return with minimal risk, which is subdivide instead of building apartment.
Council need to increase the profit incentives and reduces the risks.
Yes, yes, yes – Have long thought we should be doing this.
One complicating factor is access. Would hate to see a whole bunch of new vehicle accesses along such roads as they intensify. Need Council/ AT to invest in right of ways running parallel to main roads to provide for servicing and vehicle access to new apartment developments.
Do they deal with this in Melbourne examples?
Melbourne has a long standing tradition of lanes behind main streets that have been co opted as vehicle accesses, generally avoiding the need for driveways on the frontage. My old neighborhood had continuous footpaths and street trees out front, even with angle parking in some streets, yet most people had a garage or carport opening onto the back lane.
Another fine example of something that works beautifully that you’d struggle to get approved today.
Ahh…proper planning. We havent had that since 1991.
And like Sydney, you can then have wonderful bike-lanes through the lanes. Allows you to get away from the busyness of the main road and enjoy looking at peoples houses and gardens.
Excellent idea. Easier said then done. I recall someone trying to do this on Ponsnoby road and everyone complained and the building got downsized.
The problem with upzoning sites and trying to protect the neighbouring heritage sites is that all of the land values go up making a greater incentive to knock down the old building. I am not against that in fact if Auckland Council wanted to protect great old buildings then they should buy Dunedin! They are better buildings and they are far enough away not to be a problem to development.
Much of the intensification seems to be happening along the rail corridor. I hear council have bought the Monier site in New Lynn, an expansion has been announced for Lynn Mall, and Councillor Battersby has claimed an 18-storey apartment building is in the pipeline.
Neil Homes are busy working on the Penihana subdivision next to Swanson Station, with (iirc) terraced homes within walking distance of the station.
I’m sure Derek Battersby would be pleased to hear people call him a Councillor still. He’s actually on the Local Board.
I would make sense to widen Onewa Road. I lived near a similar road in Sydney that was four lanes wide.
Onewa road is already wide enough for four lanes, we don’t need to widen it, just to remove the carparking Westbound to put in the bus lane.
Yeah, that would work. Particularly as the serious PM jams occur when buses have to manoeuvre around parked cars.