Greetings from Amsterdam, where I’m happily ensconced in a multi-storey apartment building. Just now I had a look at the New Zild Herald, where I was disappointed to read this article from Bernard Orsman. Titled “Suburbs could get more apartments”, the article seems primarily designed to whip up fear, which is something I’ve criticised the Herald for previously. In this post I pick out some specific comments with the article that I found particularly disappointing.
“They believe large swathes of the city where single houses sit on a single site will be rezoned to allow developments with no density controls.” Oh dear. So much is wrong with this statement. Later on in the article Bernard (finally) acknowledges that what we’re talking about is the extent of the Single House Zone (SHZ), which Council have suggested might be better replaced with a Mixed Housing Zone (MHZ) in some places. While the MHZ allows development of up to three storeys, it is not equivalent to “no density controls”. Indeed, developments within the MHZ are still subject not only to height limits, but also a myriad of other density controls, e.g. landscaping rules, boundary set-backs etc etc. Bernard buries most of this information at the back of the article, rather than presenting it up front where it seems to belong.
“It basically destroys a lot of the character of the inner-city suburbs like Grey Lynn, Ponsonby, Herne Bay, Parnell and Mt Eden,” said Christine Cavanagh of the Herne Bay Resident Association. The issue with this statement is that the SHZ is not intended/designed to preserve “character”, but instead to control development intensity. Development intensity is quite different from character, which is why Council has separate rules for the latter, e.g. demolition controls on pre-1944 buildings and site coverage ratios. Christine may think that character is intrinsically linked to low development intensity. If so, then she needs to explain why all of Auckland’s inner-city suburbs have quite intensive multi-storey apartment buildings, many of which have existed for a long time. Below are some of my favourites, but there are many others.
My final criticism is for Pete Sinton, who describes the mixed housing zone as “high intensification“. In what dystopian world could three storey developments qualify as “high intensification”? Maybe only a world where people’s feet had been chewed off by zombie rats so that nobody could get up stairs anymore?!? In reality, three storeys is a perfectly normal level of development most places in the world. It’s shorter than most mature, fully grown trees. Three storeys is less than many large (rural) houses that are found in places like the Netherlands and Sweden.
So is there a silver lining to this article?I actually found two.
The first silver lining comes towards the end, where Bernard includes some comments from people who support intensification. This includes business owners in Mission Bay, and some residents who are happy with development up to four storeys. The second silver lining I found in this article is actually Penny Hulse, who manages to explain why the Council is reconsidering the extent of the single house zone, i.e. to balance the need for more housing. Penny generally does a marvellous job despite all the bullshit thrown her way by the likes of Bernard Orsman and Christine Cavanagh.
In a more balanced world the title of the article would read “Auckland allows more housing”. True Storey.
Processing...
Surely, surely, surely we could avoid a lot of this “oh won’t someone think of the children” if we just lined GNR with 16-storey apartment blocks – where they don’t block anybody’s view (they’re already on a ridge) – and increased PT/bicycling links from there to the CBD and down the road towards Motat etc.
There’s space for at least 25 such developments. That’s 5000 dwellings. Sorted.
Yeah that’s a third of Auckland’s backlog sorted. What about the rest and what about future growth?
Not that I disagree with going hard along the Great North Road ridge. No brainer.
Nice try but no. The Nimbys of Milford complained about a mid rise apartment block not because it blocked anyone’s views or shaded anything, but simply because they would be able to occasionally see it from the street. True storey.
I agree completely with apartment blocks along arterials – and more power to the efforts of Ockham, who seem to be single-handedly trying to give Auckland some decent apartments with some shared space. But did you hear Mark Todd talking to Kim Hill about all of the limitations he faces? I think we need to be thinking much more about pocket neighbourhoods, with smaller houses and shared commons, too – as shown on the Catalyse Facebook page :https://www.facebook.com/pages/Catalyse/207200169481585
The link to Kim Hill’s interview of Mark Todd of Occam’s Residential is here http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/201765712/playing-favourites-with-mark-todd
The first 10 minutes has the majority of information.
I hadn’t heard of Mark Todd prior to this interview and I feel that his thoughts and actions need much wider coverage. I guess he is to busy doing rather than trying to influence the current Governement thinking.
Punch Drunk Baboon – do you think that turning Great North road into High rise Alley will be carefully and meticulously developed by the Auckland Council planning department – have you ever dealt with them challenging their oversight of existing regulations.
Well the planning department don’t develop anything, they are not developers. But I have some considerable sympathy with what you are saying, there are indeed far too many restrictions on what can be built. But that’s not what Bernard is complaining about, or rather carefully shaping his columns to look like the what everyone wants- he wants more rules, rules that prevent anything even slightly different happening anywhere ever.
That he has the representatives of the suburban landed gentry on speed-dial but somehow never quite makes the effort to canvas the views of anyone younger or less firmly established in the property market is a great shame, and reflects poorly on his interest in understanding the forces at work in the city currently, as opposed to just pushing a barrow.
He really needs to get a deeper understanding of whats going on than his lazy and dated trope of honest little toilers versus evil property developers. It isn’t the 1960s anymore, even at the herald.
“It isn’t the 1960s anymore, even at the herald.”
Unfortunately at a few desks it still is. Maybe they can remain in the old building when the rest move and the Herald can move on. There are some great people there, it’s a just a few that hold the whole publication back.
Pretty sure the planning department will not be developing anything at all along GNR. However there are plenty of developments actually happening along there so clearly somehow the developers are getting their plans approved.
Call me naive or stupid or deranged but I am constantly amazed that a “legitimate” newspaper like the Herald prints radically distorted views like these. The only explanation is that they think it represents some kind of balance, but it’s a false balance because it’s not legitimate to balance information with disinformation. I don’t see the Herald as a legitimate newspaper, so I’m not affected; I have better sources of information and enough experience to evaluate that information for myself. But lots of people believe what they read in the papers and see on TV, and they are particularly influenced by the negative. The Herald has long had a political agenda. It isn’t serving Auckland well.
Also, if the multi-story housing looked like the examples above, many people would welcome it. Problem is, it doesn’t. At all. Instead we are treated to boxes clad with cheap materials, no articulation in the facade, no role for an architect of any kind, no concession to a human sense of beauty. It’s really a pity when we’re supposed to be thinking about the long term.
Zild?
Agree entirely, but not sure what the solution is. They set up the Urban Design Panel but that appears to precious to actually criticize the architecture which is the area that is seriously lacking.
Could it be that the Herald’s stance seems to be more anti anything Brown and his supporters are trying to do and more with trying to raise the voters to oppose anything that may lend support to those of the left.
They seem to support the John Banks of this world instead.
Economic reticulation life seems to vary. I was involved with fibrolite water main installation in the 1970’s (which at the time I considered to have at least a 50 year life) is starting to delaminate and cause failures. Those pipes replaced spiral welded concrete lined pipes that had failed after thirty years. The spun concrete pipes installed were not failing however the rubber rings connecting them lost resilience and were prone to blow out when ground flexing heavy vehicles disrupted their bedding after 50 years. I wonder at what stage Water Care will be looking at their reticulation and how they will be panning for future loadings when replacing their pipework. These systems don’t last forever.
+1 for the examples
The extent of Bernanrd Orsman’s dishonesty is even worse than you state. The Mixed Housing Suburban zone only allows 2 storeys, and it doesn’t go anywhere near heritage suburbs like Grey Lynn, Ponsonby, Herne Bay, Parnell and Mt Eden.
I will leave you with this parting shot I took at Bernard yesterday at the Auckland Development Committee over that same article https://youtu.be/rtcC7dQG6eo?t=1m3s before going into another matter yesterday.
But in any case the article from Bernard was appalling although the part at the end quoting the Deputy Mayor was a final shot at redemption there.
I will leave what came out of the Mediation sessions on the Residential Zones now that mediation is complete and we wait Council’s evidence https://www.scribd.com/doc/274249881/059-060-062-and-063-Auckland-Council-Mediation-Joint-Statement-Session-1-11-27-31-July-4-7-August-and-10-11-August-2015
Note just in case that the Panel did leave comments in the linked statement stating that the position of Council is not final. That position is taken in the Evidence (due September 8) and again in any Rebuttal Evidence Council might produce by October 6. Same applies to submitters like myself in that we haven’t taken our positions yet either until we see Council evidence and write our own evidence.
So in short what you see in those tracked changes is not final and commenting on it can lead to pure speculation.
I also caution people that Topics 080 and 081 (Rezoning) have not even started yet.
There’s a big difference between apartment buildings with architectural merit as illustrated, and the concrete jungles that are have become a feature of our downtown Auckland architecture at present. I am a big fan of the major overseas cycling races, and the recent tour of Poland was a great example of what has happened overseas. A couple of stages of that race were conducted around the streets of Warsaw, which was virtually decimated during the war, yet you wouldn’t know it now, with destroyed buildings having been faithfully rebuilt, or replaced with buildings of great architectural merit, designed to be in sympathy with the buildings around them
Well if the council had rules that said developers would get quick and automatic approval of any [ tall ] buildings that looked pretty ( pre-approved samples designs attached to rules ) then you’d probably see a lot of those go up fairly quickly.
Yes, let’s try to ensure we get good design, not just small buildings, just because we’ve seen some larger ones we don’t like….
The urban design panel process works well, deals around bonus floors etc for quality public improvements and space etc… Other cities do it epwell.
Let’s not forget the swathes of batshit ugly, leaking, stand alone houses.
+1000
Better design rules would be a better way to achieve that. Banning higher densities wholesale doesn’t lead to attractive architecture, just to lots of ugly, poorly designed, poorly built standalone houses in sprawlburbia.
It is likely that MHU and MHS will lose their lot size/density controls in the operative PAUP, and rely on an increasingly small set of development controls (height, setbacks, coverage, etc). Mixed housing zones are too broad to cover the range of situations present across high-end character areas like Herne Bay, as well as encouraging intense development in greenfields sites like Huapai, or intensifying suburban areas like Glenfield or Botany.
The Special Character Area overlay is applied in a lot of the historic suburbs, and the Pre-1944 demolition control covers a lot of the rest – however neither has been fully tested and the Pre-1944 control is being challenged in court. There’s no overlay for places like Westmere or Epsom which are not “special” enough – so are potentially at risk from some fairly ugly outcomes. More detail is required over what Special Character Areas mean for developers. The whole issue of overlays needs to be conveyed more clearly to the public, because zonings are not as important as they used to be.
Posting photos of great traditional apartments is useful -aspirational- but it doesn’t represent reality in this age of tilt slabs and fire ratings. Intense development can be attractive and have character – so lets discuss what guidelines Local Boards could create to ensure their areas have the ammunition to ensure density with quality. And avoid this:
https://goo.gl/maps/KQfty
The pre 44 blanket is only short term. It’s to give Councils Heritage dept time to assess the houses/areas.
Heritage Dept has had 30+ years to do that, but somehow just hasn’t….
It’s to stop “you don’t know what you’ve got til you’ve lost it” happening again
Posting a few sunshiny pics of small apartment buildings (surrounded by regular houses, note) doesn’t address how the character, view, green space, drainage, and sun exposure changes when the majority are blocks, and most not so pretty as your fanlighted glowy upmarket block featured.
And double yes vote to the previous commenter about trusting the Auckland Council to handle the land profiteering (ahem) I mean suburban development responsibly.
er no, that article was entirely factually inaccurate fearmongering nonsense, see Franks comment above. If it is an issue of taste, then regulate for taste; don’t regulate for height and density. The buildings pictured above did not ‘fit in’ when new, they were a departure from the shacks around them.
It is a false juxtaposition to say it either 100 year old villa or Hobson/Nelson apartment blocks. The later are not possible in the MHZ, and the MHZ is not in the areas that the paniky people quoted by Oarsman are worried about.
Irresponsible ‘journalism’.
Agree with the chap who agreed with me 😉 I think the so called anti niimby pro apartment people often take umbrage against people who disagree with them. I also thought the selection of groovy Amsterdam apartments was misleading – that is not what we will have here. Not against apartment developments – but Aucklanders have a right to be wary about how they are overseen.Journalists are allowed to quote them without being called dishonest. There seems to be a lot of faith in the Auckland Council and its relationship with developers,
The pictures are all in Auckland.
My mistake. But they are exception rather than the rule = and with land the price it is would only be attractive to a small number of developers. My argument not against apartments – just the way high density advocates attack naysayers and make personal attacks on reporters.
Bernard or me or anyone who enters a debate publicly can expect responses. Some will be ad hominem, but they are easily ignored, it’s the quality of the argument and evidence that matters. And in this case Bernard deserves a big swerve; its poor work. Nothing personal.
“they are exception rather than the rule”
AgreeableBut – I would respectfully disagree. I’d encourage you to go to this link and check out the apartment buildings completed, under construction or on the drawing board. There is some impressive stuff there.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=994
Plenty of ugly standalone houses but we don’t put a moratorium on building those because of it. Neither should mistakes with apartment design in the past stop us with that.
Those shots are all of AKL buildings! None are in Amsterdam.
Want to ask you Agreeablebut why exactly Auckland can’t have 2-4 storey medium housing ala what I have seen in many places in Europe and in such places as Chicago and NYC? I can’t see why Auckland should be any different in this regard.
Intensified housing could allow for expansion of public space. For example, instead of 50 people living in 20 houses, occupying 5 acres, they could live in a building occupying one acre, freeing up 80% of surrounding area for a community garden, football field or some such thing that encourages neighbourly behaviour, something that has disappeared from Auckland in the last two decades, completely unrelated to population density.
Another possibility:
Remove all density controls
However, if any development can be proven to have caused a reduction in utility for neighbours, a fine of say $1 million will be applied.
That’s not even good trolling, let alone a workable policy idea.
Why don’t you start by finding me an example of _any_ single development in Auckland that resulted in a loss of $1 million in utility for neighbours. Please show your work.
Not everybody works as a researcher Peter! Appears in your view no one can have an opinion unless they’re an academic!
I think Peter’s point is opinions are fine but when you bring evidence then they carry weight.
Early commuter – your idea sounds like a recipe for disaster that would place residents in a costly round of pointless and unwinnable litigation
The Herald exists to print Cameron Brewer’s press releases and anything criticising Len Brown. It assisted in whipping up the fearful in opposition to the Unitary Plan prior to the last Local Body elections (in concert with C&R candidates and for their political advantage) and continues to do so today.
Bernard Orsman has an anti Len Brown / anti centre-left agenda, so he spends his days working tirelessly to make anything good sound bad.
I rarely read his stuff without rolling my eyes and sighing.
Weirdly Bernard seems more like a lost soul of the liberal left than anything, so odd that he is now campaigning for the exceptional treatment of property rights for the landed few rather than what I think he thinks he is doing; fighting for the ordinary citizen against the machine…. That and desperately trying to keep his job by delivering up sensationalist headlines from the fairly dreary beat of local government…. it’s tough out there in media land.
These lost souls of the liberal left seem to be quite common. They like to think of themselves as being on the side of the little guy but in opposing housing they are harming the poor more than anyone. Case in point is Mike Lee. In response to the clear need for more housing he has stated we need to question whether:
“population growth equates to economic growth which equates to quality”.”
He is not talking about reducing migration, which could be a way to take pressure off housing. He is just saying that we need to shut the city doors and damn the consequences. Refusing to allow more housing won’t stop population growth – it will just mean that the people at the bottom will suffer more through paying more for housing and living in more crowded conditions. It’s odd that someone who claims to fight for the downtrodden is so actively making their lives worse. And all while couching this in the language of a righteous fight against the evils of capitalism.
That’s a tendency I call “old left” or “conservative left”. John Minto, sadly, is one of those people, who takes it for granted that any high-density development will be a horrible slum. He just states it as fact if you ask him – “any apartments built will be slums because greedy property developers”. It’s a meme, a catchphrase, a prejudice.
“Economic growth is evil and population growth is a conspiracy to make more evil economic growth” is another meme of the conservative left. Joel cayford and the usual Cityvision reactionaries often make this argument.
It would be better if they were honest and just admitted they don’t like change and don’t really care about poor people.
I wish I could get them to tell us how to avoid population growth. Force migrants to move to Taihape? Contraceptives in the water supply? Deliberately crash the economy?
You don’t seem to like him very much
The single house zone are there because:
First, council doesn’t have enough service capacity. For example the existing water pipe may be too small to accommodate additional density. The council may not want to relay bigger pipes.
Second issue is the council may have issues with the local road capacity and do not wish to create more congestion.
Third is many of the owners who wants a quiet lifestyle may not want their sun light blocked, or too close to the neighbor’s new subdivision.
As opposed to building new suburbs on greenfield sites, which will need even more services?
It becomes more and more clear that this is selfish wealthy inner-city types who have it sweet, while other working families can’t afford homes, and the inner-city types want to keep it sweet for themselves and screw everyone else.
I put it to the anti-density types. Where do YOU want young people and working families to live? Hobsonville? Flat Bush? If so, you are part of the problem.
Hobsonville Point is quite a nice development. In time it will be well serviced by bus ways and for the time being there is a ferry service. There are plans for local shops and a developing commercial area. As the isthmus is mostly refusing terraces, the outer suburbs, esp greenfield like Hobby Pt and SHA’s, using UP density rules, will provide.
There’ll be a lot more congestion if people have to live in Flat Bush and drive in, rather than buying an apartment on Dominion Rd and taking the bus.
As for the quiet lifestyle, by all means take sunlight etc into account in design specs, but preserving a ‘quiet lifestyle’ circa 1970 for existing homeowners doesn’t trump the need to provide new housing in a way that the city can sustain.
Quite right Kelvin – it is not necessarily because of greedy rich people who are standing in the way of progress.
And yet when the council wishes to intensify in the inner city – signaling it has no such issues with servicing – there those people are, still pushing back, still objecting to 3 storey “slums”, only now its about design.
Goalposts. Shifting.
And let’s go easy on the strawman arguments – insinuating high rise towers going up next door to hobby farms. We couldn’t even get 10 stories on top of the Milford Mall for goodness sake.
Three storey slums? Give me a break! Bernard, you come from England. I think there is some intensification over there. Stop trying to mess up our development, you arrogant bugger.
Oops, I was thinking of Rod Oram. Sorry.