With housing such a hot topic right now this article in the Herald on Sunday highlights a situation of the council removing houses for that most Auckland of things, a carpark.
About 40 residents of Auckland’s council-owned properties face being kicked out of their homes to make way for 44 carparks.
Residents of a quiet Royal Oak cul de sac in Auckland have been told their council-owned flats and houses backing Monte Cecilia Park could go, possibly by December.
Eight properties – including blocks of flats – will be cleared to make way for 44 carparks to access a new playground, shown on plans for the reserve. Currently park users have to rely on streetside parks.
Letters have been sent to residents in homes and flats in Korma Rd telling them their properties will feature on park maps.
“Inclusion of this property on the map does not imply the public has access to your property but as the land has been purchased by Auckland Council and will become part of the park in the future it has been included in the map,” said the letter.
“We don’t have a firm date for the house removals but it is likely to be at the end of 2015 or during 2016.”
Auckland Council sports and parks manager Mark Bowater said the council had bought homes in Korma Rd between 2006 and 2011 under a strategic plan to develop the park. He said it could be some of the properties would be needed for carparking and a new playground. All residents would receive formal notification from the council to move out either later this year or next year.
It baffles the mind that the council would even consider doing this and given the size of the park at over 11 hectares even a playground should easily be able to fit within the existing footprint without anyone feeling like space is being taken away.
I suspect there’s much more to this than the Herald have just said in their article however I did want to point out a couple of specific aspects that caught my attention.
If parking is such an issue then instead of demolishing homes then why not come to an agreement with the church across the road to use their car parking when it’s not being needed. That would help get better utilisation out of that space. Of course there’s the issue of the church wanting their own parking but I’m sure arrangements can be made (also even if the council did build a carpark what’s the chance they too would they be used up by church goers?)
On the other side of the park, car parking was added a few years ago. How much parking does this park need?
I understand some consultation about the park has only just closed – and unfortunately the council have taken the documents down already so it’s hard to see just what they are proposing for the site but at a first look it seems crazy to even think of demolishing those houses for a (presumably free) carpark.
Processing...
Forget about building a car park there. Build some terraces facing the park entrance and the park itself.
At least they will have somewhere to live when they are forced to live in their car.
Definitely something else going on. It doesn’t take up that much room to create 40 carparks – maybe 2 or 3 full sections only.
I do wonder the cost (including the opportunity cost of lost rents) of making this change.
Why not replace the housing with higher density townhouses/apartments which will probably result in more tenants and carparks for the park.
Or why not create bike lanes to the park so carparks aren’t needed. THere should be plenty of onstreet parking in that area, even if they just stole a bit of land and turned them into angle parks.
Monte Cecelia now does a brisk trade in weddings, functions and luncheons. That might have something to do with it.
Still, I don’t have much problem with removing the few houses that remain inside the obvious park boundary. They should pair that with up zoning all around the park though.
You did spot that row of big Moreton Bay fig trees between the park and the houses? Guess the people who planted them saw that as an obvious boundary.
Apparently the grand idea is to open up a view shaft from Pah Rd so passing traffic can see there is a park there. Don’t know why they need more carparks, but I guess that must have been explained in the consultation docs.
However removing 40 people’s homes at a time when we don’t have enough of them is just nuts. I have to declare a conflict of interest – my brother is unfortunately one of those people. He’s still trying to find out more about what is going on.
And so now we have a ratio, about 1:1. Dwelling space for people or dwelling space for cars in suburban Auckland. Everytime a carpark is added or mandated we can assume one less person has somewhere to live….
As Harvey notes above, it depends on the size of the car. 🙂
Incorrect. The area would be used for a playground and a car park. Actually, a car needs about 30m2 of space in total (including entrances and exits) therefore 44 car parks equals 1320m2. That’s equvilant to about 5-6 properties. The other 34ish homes are for the playground and the view shaft.
Thus the ratio is not 1:1, but something like 1:8. One home or eight car parks.
Incorrect. The area would be used for a playground and a car park. Actually, a car needs about 30m2 of space in total (including entrances and exits) therefore 44 car parks equals 1320m2. That’s equvilant to about 5-6 properties. The other 34ish homes are for the playground and the view shaft.
Thus the ratio is not 1:1, but something like 1:8. One home or eight car parks.
I understand the Moreton Bay Figs were planted by my gt gt gt uncle Thomas Russell, when he owned the property between 1866 and 1877 when there weren’t any roads as such on the 250 acre property. Russell, who had spent some time in New South Wales as a youth, obviously remembered the trees fondly. His brother, my gt gt grandfather, J B Russell, allegedly planted the figs in what is now Myers’s Park for much the same reasons. The additional car parking facility is an obscenity but then again so is the 2 metre wide concrete path that was installed around the residual estate a few years ago as indeed is that travesty of the ‘restored’ Pah homestead that now is used as a venue for the Wallace art collection, which the less said about, the better. A depressing vanity project of the former ACC; don’t understand why they’re still pushing it.
“I understand the Moreton Bay Figs were planted by my gt gt gt uncle Thomas Russell”
Bravo. They are great.
Julie Farey posted this on another blog:
http://voakl.net/2015/04/19/playground-needing-44-car-parks-in-place-of-occupied-existing-residential-dwellings/#comment-11828
“The acquisitions were made, the contracts signed. The land must be used for the purpose for which it was purchased, ie relevant to the park. To that end housing is not a legal option, unfortunately. The majority on the Puketapapa Local Board has now changed, and were we making decisions about these acquisitions now I doubt they would be supported by the Local Board. The decisions we do have left to make are what to do now that the land is owned by Council. Hence the concept plan work.”
If one reads the article it is not just this set of houses that are under threat but also
“Meanwhile, 25 pensioner units at nearby Liston Retirement Village in Delargey Ave on the opposite side of the reserve are also under threat.
The village, owned by the Auckland Catholic diocese, could face demolition for parkland under a long-term plan for the area. Puketapapa board member Michael Wood said the local board was commissioning a report to investigate options to retain the village.”
So we have 25 pensioner units as well.
A great solution to the housing shortage.
What about our ever fattening little Johnies and Bexes just walking to the park?
Useful discussion incuding the Local Board’s Julie Fairey in comments – http://voakl.net/2015/04/19/playground-needing-44-car-parks-in-place-of-occupied-existing-residential-dwellings
This project is an example of how large organisations become so silo in their thinking. It shows a lack of leadership at the top that one part of the organisation is planning to destroy houses while heaps of other parts are busy trying to create more houses. This is big park, so why do they not put their playground on part of the existing park? There is no law that says parks have to be only grass and trees.
When did we decide the current priorities for land use? Clearly to the Council it is 1/places for dogs to crap, 2/ places to park your car 3 places for people to live. I must have missed that consultation.
If AC have so much money to splash about how about some improvements for active travel and PT access.
It is not beyond the wit of man to revisit the merits of this plan albeit predating the current LB
Hello there, I’m the chair of the Puketapapa Local Board. Thanks to those who have already mentioned my comments over on Ben Ross’s post. I’m not going to repeat verbatim what I’ve said there as you can make with the clicky. Just quickly – the purchases were made between 2006 and 2011 (on Korma Rd anyway) and actually there wasn’t going to be a refresh of the concept plan (from about 2008 iirc) to get public input on the use of the bits of land that have been purchased, but the Board decided that should happen. I’m waiting on the analysis of the public feedback on the concept plan, in particular those Korma Rd properties now! which we should get in the next couple of weeks. The Board will then be making decisions and I’ve certainly heard the additional feedback here and elsewhere about that specific part of the park loud and clear. I completely agree that the park didn’t need to be expanded. I lost those arguments back before 2013 (including an attempt to overturn some of it led by Cr Casey in 2011 iirc). Democracy has moved on and now those purchases might not have been made, we have to deal with the fact that they have and we have some limitations on what we can do with that land (although I found some wriggle room on Tuesday that I’ve reported on at the voakl link). Definitely definitely hearing the views here (and elsewhere online!)
If there are limitations on what the land can be used for, they can always send the properties to auction and pocket the capital gain.
True Neil, and that remains a possibility imho.
I regularly walk around the beautiful Monte Cecilia park at various times during the day and very few people walk there so why is the park being expanded? Playgrounds and vast car parks will only destroy the natural beauty of this park. The Council has just spent millions upgrading the Onehunga waterfront which is a windy, exposed, noisy and unpleasant place to walk. Will this be another unnecessary cost paid for by the ratepayers? Annette
Annette, are you still teaching?? Would love to catch up with you.