We have been very disappointed with the result of the outcome of the unitary plan after it was thrown under the bus by the short-sighted local board members who got scared of a couple of old ladies with a tint of blue in their hair. The changes have cut down the potential for growth across much of the city and while people may want their berms at bowling green height, having an entire city’s building heights like that does nothing to help make the city the most liveable in the world – especially as we as a society keep saying we don’t want the city sprawling across the countryside.
I expect we will see a number of developers challenging the zoning’s through the hearings process however I also expect the opponents of the plan will also be fighting to make the plan more restrictive, especially in places like St Heliers and Milford – after all who needs a bowling green when you can just grind it down to dirt. Overall I expect each group will have some wins and some loses but that overall we won’t see that much change. In my view we will likely be left with a plan that is goes completely against the high level development strategy the city agreed to just over a year ago.
While it has been incredibly disappointing, the cutting down of the unitary plan has raised a couple of interesting questions that it seems only a few people might be starting to realise – and those negatively affected likely won’t wake up till it’s too late. The two key issues relate to population and development and are:
- Political structure of the city
- Public investment
So lets look at these a bit closer.
Political Structure of the city
From memory, when the royal commission recommended the super city structure, they suggested the political set up be that there were 13 councillors elected in wards across across the city and another 7 elected at large, people who would stand for council not representing one specific geographical patch but who would have to get a lot of buy in from the entire region. One of the downsides mentioned at the time by opponents to the super city was that only people with large campaign budgets would likely be able to afford to mount a region wide campaign and that it would lead to mainly only wealthy people of a set political ideology standing in those seats.
When the government released its plan, it instead decided to go for the approach we now have which is 20 councillors elected from 13 wards with the major downside being we still often tend to get disagreements about geographical issues and patch protection going on. The latest example of the stupidity being the arguments over the mowing of berms in the old Auckland City Council area (seriously stop complaining, it’s not a big issue). The wards and local boards were set up as per the map below.
But not all wards were created equal. As mentioned there are 20 councillors spread across 13 wards so we have ended up with some wards (and local boards) with more than one councillor. That’s not such a problem when those wards with two councillors also have a lot more population to represent. But even with the set up things weren’t even. The table below shows the wards and their estimated population when the boundaries were created along with the number of residents per councillor there are.
What you can see is that the ward with the single largest population happens to be Waitakere which comprises mostly of the old Waitakere City Council area and even though it also has two councillors it also has the second highest population to councillor ratio. But as we have shown, the under the Unitary Plan West Auckland is also where the most growth has been allowed to occur. While it is unlikely all development will occur to the level allowed for, we are still likely to see a significant increase in the population in the west and north-west as a result. If that significant growth occurs while other areas of the city stagnate due to the more restrictive zoning it will really start to raise some fairness and representation issues. Long term it could even require the ward boundaries to be redrawn and that could see West Auckland picking up a councillor or two at the expense of other parts of the city.
In short the long term implications could see potentially significant shifts in the political power of the council. That’s not a bad thing if the power is shifting in your direction but if it is shifting away from where you are it probably isn’t ideal.
Public Investment
Perhaps even more concerning for some could be the implications the plan has on public investment – in particular transport investment. Most of the projects proposed are on the Auckland Plan list are to supposedly to help address problems that stem from predicted growth. If that growth doesn’t occur due to the absurdly restrictive zoning in the Unitary Plan then there is also likely to be little need for additional infrastructure meaning the money planned to be spent can be focused on those areas where growth is actually occurring.
As an example the massive upzoning in the west combined with the future greenfield growth in the north-west – which will now likely be needed sooner due to the shutting down of development elsewhere – means that both the City Rail Link and a North-west busway will become absolutely essential and needed sooner. By contrast the greatly reduced growth potential on the North Shore means that travel demand isn’t likely to increase by the levels predicted, reducing the need for projects like an additional harbour crossing or an upgrade to Lake Rd. That is unlikely to be palatable to many on the Shore but it is surely a reality that needs to be made clear.
This doesn’t just cover transport investment either, investment in new or upgraded parks, town centres, street scrapes as well as council facilities like libraries and community buildings would also need to come under similar scrutiny. Additionally improved services would also need to fall into this funding change group. , want a more frequent bus, train or ferry, then more people need to be living in an area
One way to look at this would be to say that if no growth is allowed then there is no investment of public funds other than maintaining the status quo. Another way to look at it would be to say that the council would be encouraging intensification in locations where the public accept it by providing sooner the public amenities needed to make the intensification viable.
I have heard – although I haven’t checked it – that incentivising communities to allow for intensification through improvements to public infrastructure and services is an approach being taken by Seattle right now and it is supposedly helping to break down the usual barriers and concerns that many residents have. I imagine it would also help to make plainly clear what communities will miss out on by locking down their suburbs. Something that perhaps the Auckland Council should have done already.
Based on the Unitary Plan so far, perhaps this map shows where the spending focus should shift too (green) and where there should move away from (red) – I can hear the howls of protest now.
As mentioned, it will be interesting to see how long it takes for the councillors and the local boards to realise what they have done but what do you think? Should the council use infrastructure and services a leverage for intensification. Perhaps our friends at Generation Zero could make a little graphic on this, something like “Not intensification, no investment”.
Processing...
Totally agree. We should be investing our limited resources into the areas that have the greatest ability to grow. If people want to live in lower density areas that is their choice, but they should accept that those areas should only recieve the basic level of investment.
And to heck with the farmers and the familys and the greenies and the families who’ve lived in the outer areas for sometimes 3 or 4 generations. Lets keep in mind that while we need intensification, this is relatively new thinking. And the people who live further out are not bad or selfish and don’t deserve to be deprived of the investments like libraries and events and infrastructure that facilitate livable communities.. The investment needs to be of an appropriate scale. While i think revitalising the centre is great and right . Each community still needs to have appropriate funding. Putting a large event like coca cola in the park provides one type of mass commnunity. But investing in productions at local rural community halls is important too. It facilitates relationships and community. As the new thinking is to not have one type of housing. Lets not have one type of town either. The centralisation of money, to the have and have not commnities is encouraging the gap between rich and poor suburbs. Lets have fair distribution of funding.
Can you imagine for one minute that councillors in those wards with the red circles are going to let “their” public investment money get spent in Westie land?
So whats going to happen is that the money earmarked for the red circles will stay there.
Poor West Auckland will get starved of needed transport investments to cope with the growth meanwhile the growth will occur as it has to.
And any disagreements within Council like this gives any future Central Government more than enough excuses to not put their money up if the Auckland Council(lors) can’t agree on the spending priorities.
This parochial ward system only encourages the Balkanisation of the super city back to how it used to be.
in the case of transport they can protest all they like, but if it does not change the business case then NZTA won’t fund it. Of course the Council could opt to stump up all the funds, but that would funds being diverted from somewhere else.
So yes, I think it is likely that those areas that opposed intensification will lose out on public investment. It won’t be *all* the funds that were previously earmarked to that area, but a significant chunk nonetheless.
NZTA only use business cases when they don’t want to do a project. When they do want to do a project like a second harbour crossing, the business case is both fudged and ignored.
It’s not just the blue rinsers; I’ve been surprised by some people to hear them say “we won” wrt the unitary plan outcome. It’s selfishness in general that’s driving it, an attitude of this plan works for me, boo for you if it doesn’t work for you, loser.
And many of those whingers will have passed on in 30 years anyway.
At the time the decisions were made to gut the Unitary Plan, City Vision put out a release calling the reduction of intensification ‘significant gains for the community’. Apparently ‘the community’ only means established home-owning baby boomers in nice central suburbs.
http://cityvision.org.nz/news/significant-unitary-plan-gains-for-the-community/
I have only been back in Auckland for about 18 months and already I wonder how much longer I can take it. The lack of vision of what it takes to make a great city is just incredible. Len Brown may not be perfect but at least he has some ideas, not juts preserving the status quo and pretending that a million more people wont be wanting to live in Auckland in the next 30 years.
I respect the guy for keeping on. I would have thrown my hands in the air and retired ges ago dealing with these hicks.
Yeah I remember when I moved back and found the same. Personally I think Len is a bit nuts, but in his insanity he seems to have a fair idea of what Auckland needs.
The only way to change it is to vote – make sure they are not wearing a blue tie!
Transport Blog has down an amazing job analysing the Unitary Plan and providing a platform for informed debate but I think there has been a great deal of misrepresentation about what occurred in the Waitemata Local Board area, particularly Grey Lynn. (I am responding here but it could have been to any number of posts/comments over the last couple of weeks)
The majority of the Waitemata area has been zoned for intensification for many years so I think people in our area get the Unitary Plan and were generally in support. There certainly hasn’t been the NIMBY hysteria and “business as usual” thinking that has been suggested by commentators on this blog.
The Grey Lynn Residents Association sought to shine light on the draft plan in a very considered way to help residents understand what was proposed. For example the Waitemata Local Board organised an information evening at their request– reps from 2040 showed up and were very disappointed that there was no opportunity to grandstand. The Association also changed their position on parking minimums after studying the issue (thanks again to Transport blog).
There has not been wide spread “down zoning” in the Waitemata area. What has in fact happened is that Grey Lynn residents successfully advocated for a heritage assessment before up-zoning occurs in areas that currently have the look and feel of Res 1. There was wide support for this precautionary approach and temporary zoning including from groups like the Grey Lynn Business Association and the Grey Lynn Urban Environment Group (who looked at the Unitary Plan from a sustainability perspective).
I totally appreciate there is a trade off between heritage protection and development (the Auckland Plan recognises this conflict but seeks to protect heritage) . Taking a precautionary approach to the zoning in character areas and prioritizing heritage assessments before the Unitary Plan is operative might help achieve the right balance.
We (i.e. the City Vision members on the Board who did all the Board’s work on the Unitary Plan) also support a range of tools to create housing choice. For example we support inclusionary housing and encouraging residential development in MU zones; we advocated strongly against parking minimums. We opposed big box retail becoming a discretionary activity in the MU zone (instead of non-complying as it is currently).
I would suggest reading the Waitemata Local Board’s response to the draft Unitary Plan before calling out City Vision. I think we took a progressive, forward looking approach to the Unitary Plan that supports the compact city model and implementation of the Auckland Plan.
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/aboutcouncil/localboards/waitematalocalboard/meetings/waitematalbminatt20130725.pdf
@pippacoom “There has not been wide spread “down zoning” in the Waitemata area. What has in fact happened is that Grey Lynn residents successfully advocated for a heritage assessment before up-zoning occurs”
But in the March draft of the Unitary Plan the entirety of Grey Lynn was subject to either a Historic character overlay or a pre 1944 demolition control overly. Every single site that was zoned more intensely than single house (mixed housing and THAB) was subject to the pre 1944 control. That means that if someone wanted to demolish a house the onus was on them to prove that it wasn’t of heritage value. This was already a precautionary approach and there was no risk at all of losing heritage. The downzoning of areas that are already subject to other heritage provisions is nothing but NIMBYism dressed up as something that sounds ‘progressive’.
Also the Waitemata local board reduced all height limits in centres to three storeys for no justifiable reason given that there was already provisions in place to protect heritage.
I’ll probably end up voting for some City Vision candidates just because the alternatives are worse, but I am pretty disappointed in their record in upholding their own principles.
Also – “also support a range of tools to create housing choice. For example we support inclusionary housing”
1. The effectiveness of inclusionary zoning is not clear. It could have unintended consequences and actually reduce the provision of housing.
2. We wouldn’t need inclusionary zoning if we didn’t have so much exclusionary zoning like that in Grey Lynn.
Frank McRae – yes the pre-1944 demolition overlay is a step in the right direction but I think there is a lot of distrust about how it will work in practice and whether it is able to achieve the right outcome.
In any case even though much of Grey Lynn has the look and feel of Res 1 it has actually been zoned for intensification since the 90’s (in particular around Grey Lynn park). Arguably this has not occurred because the desirable pattern of development (and “fashion” to retain heritage houses) has moved beyond the zoning.
But of course this doesn’t mean we should give up on finding ways to provide housing choice in Grey Lynn. I mentioned inclusionary housing because that is one of the tools available in the UP. If we are serious about providing affordable housing (which is a City Vision policy commitment) then we can’t just rely on the UP. Council will have to get back into the provision of housing for a start.
And with regards to heights in town centres – the Waitemata Local Board did not reduce all height limits to three storeys. I don’t think there have been any town centre reductions (eg Ponsonby Road has remained the same as the operative district plan)
Pippacoom –
“yes the pre-1944 demolition overlay is a step in the right direction but I think there is a lot of distrust about how it will work in practice and whether it is able to achieve the right outcome.”
So work on making the rule work properly not downzoning every site in the whole suburb even if it does not contain anything of heritage value.
“it has actually been zoned for intensification since the 90’s (in particular around Grey Lynn park).”
The areas around Grey Lynn park are zoned in the operative plan for 300 -375 m2 density and 8 – 10 metre height limits.
Firstly that is not exactly intensification, and secondly that shows that thanks to the work of the local board the Unitary Plan will have a less intensive zoning (500 m2, 8 m height) than the operative plan in this area.
“Arguably this has not occurred because the desirable pattern of development (and “fashion” to retain heritage houses) has moved beyond the zoning.”
Two points here: Firstly just because this intensification has not occurred yet does not mean that we should prohibit it from ever happening, especially when the city is growing and space is at a premium. Secondly, if you acknowledge that there is a fashion for keeping heritage houses, then why the need to take such extreme measures to protect heritage, to the detriment of the development of non heritage sites.
“the Waitemata Local Board did not reduce all height limits to three storeys. I don’t think there have been any town centre reductions”
You are being disingenuous here. I meant that you had reduced heights from what was in the March draft Unitary Plan not from the operative plan.
Grey Lynn, West Lynn, Ponsonby, and Parnell town centres have all had their heights reduced from 16.5 metres in the March draft to 12.5 metres in the notified plan. Ironically one of Auckland’s finest heritage buildings, the Mayfair in Parnell, would be in breach of the 12.5 metre height limit by about two storeys.
Keep in mind that the Unitary Plan is meant to provide for 30 years of growth and that your own party and board both have stated that they wish to reduce sprawl. If you wish to reduce sprawl but are prohibiting growth from the areas where it makes most sense I can only conclude that despite all statistics you don’t really believe the city is growing.
Thankyou Pippa. I appreciate the realities of the political tightrope you are walking and wish you and the City Vision Team all the very best for a good election outcome.
The rest of you out there consider this – re the Twitter feed, 87% of Aucklanders have not yet voted. If this percentage does not improve we run the risk of getting a very distorted outcome that is not at all representative of the region…..now, following the rule that governments and councils get voted out by grumpy citizens, who are most likely to have voted:
Hmmmmm….grumpy residents of the Auckland isthmus who want council to mow their berms (unlike those living to the North, the West and in South Auckland who already mow their own berms!)
Who else? Ah yes – 2040 members and their supporters that include a large percentage of a certain age, ethnicity and wealth demographic who have the time and the grumpiness to post their voting papers.
So, get out there and vote people, and cut City Vision a bit of slack………aye.
With all due respect Pippa, we have heard that tripe from every politician who has opposed upzoning.
A heritage overlayt is the appropriate way to protect heritage, not a ridiculously limiting set of zoning rules.
I appreciate that Pippa Coom and the local board were in a difficult position politically, and that compromises are always necessary in politics, but the removal of almost all potential intensification from the inner Isthmus suburbs seems less like compromise than it does an irresponsible folding to the hysterical and selfish minority.
So if you want to ‘selfish and hysterical minority’ to have less influence over our city’s future direction, I put it to you that the silent majority needs to be….. less silent. This isn’t Pippa’s problem, this is our problem.
I have to say that this site has played a massive role in changing people’s perception of what a city should look like and function, and a huge thanks is in order to those with the passion and energy to contribute daily to this site. And it is good that at least some of the mainstream media use this site as a knowledge resource, thinking of Campbell Live.
However, the rate of change as a whole is frustratingly glacial, and fragile. And, there are a significant number (likely a majority) of mainstream commentators who back the ‘selfish and hypocritical minority’. You have to love the Bernard Orsman article on Len Brown in this morning’s Herald :-/ What would happen to the CRL if John Palino did take Len’s job?
Small steps people, small steps.
Tuttuk, I’d agree. Bernard Orsman left impartially behind years ago and uses his position to push a very one sided agenda. It’s not his worst though- a couple of weeks ago the evil pair of Brown and his able deputy both gave in to the will of the people so we can all have our lawns to mow (with berms) and at the same time were responsible for rezoning prime agricultural land for housing.
Big ticket items are listed along with ‘Specific projects [for our outraged readers to get angry about]’.
I’m hoping that tomorrow’s follow up article outlines in a clear way how Brewer and Palino plan to reduce this terrible debt and money wastage going on. Given what most of the money goes on (water, sewerage, roads, PT), I’d love to see the plan that involves ‘savings’ here while retaining and building on key infrastructure for growth.
Not holding breath.
Franks McRae. I have checked again. The Waitemata Local Board did not advocate for lower town centre height limits than what was proposed in the March draft and there has been no reduction. The overlay continues to trump the underlying zoning. It has just become more transparent about what the overlay does to the height limit.
There was no folding in to a “hysterical and selfish minority”
Pippa, the height in centres is almost irrelevant when the entire isthmus in SHZ.
The biggest problem, I believe anyway, is that people have ‘heritage’ and the ‘look’ of heritage mixed up. What people usually want is a ‘look’ as opposed to genuine historic buildings. If you could set that in place for Grey Lynn then you’d have a fantastic opportunity to intensify and keep the ‘image’ of how people see Grey Lynn (and Ponsonby). Have a look at this street in Chicago. There are period single level, 2 story and multi story buildings all in a residential street. It looks fantastic. http://goo.gl/maps/r6OKG
I am sorry Bryce but that is just not good enough for Auckland. I dont see one feijoa tree in those photos (see below).
And who will mow all those berms? Wont somebody think of the berms!!!
Having been in these areas in the windy city, yes they look great, but in terms of Auckland they are “high rise slums” as anything appears to be more than a single level house *sarcasmoff*
Exactly, Bryce.
At least the name “special character” is a bit more honest than calling it a heritage area, as they did in the draft UP. Just being old doesn’t make a building of historic importance. It makes that building a antiquarian curiosity for the owner, which is all very well, but that’s no reason why the neighbours can’t live in something new, and no reason why the density and land use of the area can’t change.
If all the “special character” zones did was preserve the look and feel of a few iconic suburbs, requiring new buildings to be sympathetic to the style, even if they’re a few stories higher, that’d be fine. But it’s not – it also reflects an elitist attempt to stop any change in the area, to keep out “undesirables”, and keep property prices skyrocketing. The very first thing to do is change the underlying zone of inner suburb character areas to MHU or THAB, and reform the “character” rules so that they don’t require buildings and parcels to be of the same size and density.
goosoid – Chicago’s berms actually look much better kept than ours 😀
Good points both Bryce and Steve. Also reading the issues/ objectives/policies relating to heritage there appears to be a lack of understanding of heritage as it relates to the RMA. Council seems to be advancing the idea that all heritage is historic heritage. It would be nice if they used a dictionary and actually looked up what the term historic actually means.
Much of Mangere Bridge has a ‘special character’ or heritage zoning meaning you can’t subdivide unless the section is 1200sq m. It’s ridiculous considering 75% or more the housing stock there has no architectural merit whatsoever. It is as Steve D says “an elitist attempt to stop any change in the area”. And it applies to many suburbs. Howick is another notable example.
and Cityvision are the left wing party (I think). I guess it shows political boundaries don’t mean a heck of a lot regarding this plan.
I don’t think the left – right divide is very useful when it comes to local government politics. There are terrible conservative NIMBYs who call themselves ‘left’ and terrible conservative NIMBYs who call themselves ‘right’. Both work against their self proclaimed principles of helping the disadvantaged, and supporting the free market respectively.
100% agree.
Apartments are still in full thrust. You boys should be happy as you prefer no lawn and no garden. Forget the rest of us that do want it. Auckland should be subdivided so that 70% of the city has no lawn and no garden i.e. 300sqm..
Dam you old lady fighting for the ideals of the past, a past which built NZ and offered kiwis a feijoa tree in the back garden.. Who are you to tell us old lady?!!!… I want everyone living with no lawn, silly old bat!! Old people aye, so un-knowledgeable and unwise..
Good on you Josh, sticking up for feijoa trees. Shame those who don’t want one don’t have as much choice as they should.
That’s what you folks are always forgetting. You are not “protecting” anyone. You are forcing everyone to live by YOUR ideas of what is ideal, instead of allowing choice. Yeah, thanks for forcing us to have a mandatory feijoa tree, even if we don’t want it.
LOL Joshr, you make a good point. I guess this is the only place where people aspire to live in smaller homes 😀
Yep, the only place. Once you are in a big home nothing would ever chance and you’d never want to leave
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/herald-homes/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502988&objectid=11130473
“Soon the Shepherds will have only one son at home, so they’ll require less space.”
Yeah, how foolish of me to have so much spare income for investment, travel and spending. I really should spend almost all of it on a bigger house I don’t need so I can be a slave to a mortgage for the next 20 years.
Yep. And once ensconced in a large plot you gain the right to complain about how hard it is to look after as you grow old.
This from coverage today of the election-changing berms ‘scandal’:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11133832
“The 76-year-old, who is unable to operate a lawnmower, already spends $40 every three weeks keeping her Paihia Rd lawn in order, and is upset she will have to fork out extra.
“I’ve only got a pension and that’s not much. I’ve lived here for a long time and they’ve mown the berm since about 1964. The old council always did it – why not now?”
Mrs Parr’s berm, outside the corner property she has lived in for over 40 years, runs for almost 100m.
“It’s like a park,” said Mr Wright. “I’m only going to charge her a few extra dollars, I have a business to run, but I feel bad for her.”
Mrs Parr said she wrote a letter to the council expressing how upset she was over the issue.
“It’s a lot of land and actually it’s not my land, so why should I be paying for it to be maintained? I would do it myself if I could, but I can’t. And I want the place to look tidy,” she said. “We already pay high rates and now this.”
Now – I have sympathy for people burdened with oversized homes because there is a lack of alternatives. I don’t think I’m an uncompassionate person generally, and I am really not having a go personally at this lady.
But society needs to get real. Age is not an excuse for denying responsibility for your own life choices. If you’re too old to mow the lawn on a large lot, no-one else is around can help you out, and you cannot afford to pay $40 every three weeks then you need to move, not complain to the Council for how they are overburdening you with mowing berms. And if you need to live in an apartment with the cheesy title of “Club Life”, then so be it….
Why O why can people not see the connection between the diverse, real costs of suburbia and the choices that they make…?!
“Age is not an excuse for denying responsibility for your own life choices. If you’re too old to mow the lawn on a large lot, no-one else is around can help you out, and you cannot afford to pay $40 every three weeks then you need to move,”. It is not her lawn she is commenting on – it is the Council
The article is clear. She pays $40 to have her lawns mowed. The contractor is quoted as saying “I’m only going to charge her a few extra dollars, I have a business to run, but I feel bad for her.” in reference to the cost of mowing the berms
Joshr, no one is forcing anyone to divide their land, just allowing them to do it if they want. There are always going to be houses on big sections with Feijoa trees. Realistically those houses should be in the likes of west Auckland, but with the current plan it looks like the big sections will be close to the city centre and owned by the elite, while the rest of us are forced to live in apartments in the burbs or in houses closer to Hamilton than Auckland. The apartments in the burbs won’t be desirable due to location so will become slums. But at least the Feijoa loving rich old lady’s ‘rights’ to tell their neighbours what to do with their land will be protected!
Nothing wrong with the elite owning big properties close to the city. To argue that legislation should force them out of their homes or devalue the area through intensification seems to be a very communist ideal. You can not make poor people rich by taking money of the wealthy, its a socialist experiment that never works.
Arschlecker – how would they be forced out of their homes? Nothing of the sort is proposed, only allowing people more choice of what they can do with their property. You support putting regulations on other people’s properties to force your lifestyle on those who don’t want it and you’re calling people communists. A little consistency would be nice.
I have no problem with the rich owning big properties close to the city, and I can’t see anyone recommending legislation that ‘will force them out of their area’. I’m not anti property rights or in any way communist. Quite the opposite, I want property owners to be able to do what they want with their property, a free market. I get the feeling you want the council to be telling everyone what they can do with their property (e.g. you must have one house per 1/4 acre), creating a distorted market, approaching communism?
Force? Who is forcing? There are no powers to appropriate land like under the Public Works Act. That is a completely baseless and unsubstantiated statement that is typical of the shallow and ignorant scaremongering that has peppered this debate.
“You can not make poor people rich by taking money of the wealthy, its a socialist experiment that never works.” – In general I agree, but you can make them less poor. For example, the Scandinavian countries.
As I said below, the opponents to the UP are the ones acting in a Communist, statist way by refusing me the right to do what I want on my land. Do you have no respect for private property rights? Socialist!!!
I think it has to be accepted that people who own the property in the area feel they have a vested interest in not allowing more density. I believe if you allow lots of town houses to spring up in what has been a suburb of large older homes on large sections it devalues all the property. Removing exclusivity is very likely to remove premium.
I would hate to see these old areas of Auckland lose there charm by replacing the grand homes with modern terraces. Let the people that can not afford to live in Remuera buy a house in Avondale where the costs to them are affordable.
Do you believe in any zoning laws and property consents or do you think developers should be allowed to build anything they like on there land? As an example, if I buy a house in front of yours then I should be allowed to build out your views?
I would suggest the opposite, if a number of properties in an area start to be developed it raises the value of the ones that remain.
Also you seem to be missing the whole point of the post, if people don’t want density in their neighbourhood then fine but then they also can’t expect any significant council investment in new services or infrastructure. If they want to become a dormitory suburb that only exists to make themselves feel better and pay for stuff in other parts of the region then that’s fine but they then can’t complain that the west is getting investment and not them.
Funny you mention Remuera, because Remuera Rd is lined with apartment towers and multi level townhouses… ones that block the views from the south side of the street. For example, has the 14 story apartment tower at 524 Remuera Rd reduced the exclusivity of the row of stately mansions next door? Not sure if a luxury apartment building makes the old money estates of Remuera any different.
Fotzen Schlecker, i don’t think developers should be able to build anything they like – the unitary plan defines height to boundary limits to prevent reducing your neighbours sun, and a whole lot more building constraints to prevent the kind of shoe boxes that already exist in the city.
However I don’t think it is fair that the unitary plan says you must have 1/4 acre per house in Epsom because it is full of rich people that complain lots but high density in Massey because no one complained. The density of an area should be based on sensible factors such as capability of rain and sewer networks, proximity to city, transport, soil conditions, etc – not on how rich and whingy the current occupants are.
Just because your area was zoned a certain way in the early 1900’s that doesn’t mean that it should never change in a growing city!
That’s actually a very interesting example, because of all the things that the RMA and district plans protect, views from private property isn’t one of them. Height planes are about access to sunlight, not views, and they apply regardless of what other people can see out their windows. As long as you meet height limits, you are, in this country, perfectly free to build out anyone’s view.
There are viewshafts in some places, but they all protect views from specified public places. Not other people’s houses.
Yes, they are ideals of the past, exactly. NZ is not that same place it was when I was growing up in Chch (and what a relief that is).
Have you ever lived in an apartment or terraced housing? Have you ever lived in a big city? It really isnt that bad you know and is a valid choice for billions of people in the world.
Auckland is a big city and getting bigger. A significant minority in big cities have to live in smaller housing – not all (and certainly not you if you dont want it) but a significant minority. This is not about forcing anything on anyone. Noone is being forced to live in an apartment or terraced housing. This is about allowing the owners of land to do what they want with their property.
Do you not support private property rights? Are you a communist? How do you justify denying me the right to develop my land the way I want?
If you dont like the inevitable (and it is inevitable) urban direction of Auckland there are lots of very nice small cities in NZ. Maybe it is best if you go and live in one of those where your suburban lifestyle is much easier to maintain – mostly because those places are shrinking as people relocate to Auckland.
Great point goosoid. One question though – do you believe in the ‘right’ of property owners outside the MUL to subdivide their land too, or do you have communist tendencies also 😉
I would welcome the elimination of the MUL/RUB and all exclusionary zoning (EZ) rules to create a level playing field. Development in the city should be governed by a statutory design guide that requires good quality developments but with no preconceived ideas about the form of that development. If that means sprawl then the market and people have spoken and so be it. However, I dont believe everyone in Auckland wants to live on 800sqm in Flat Bush.
We have to remember that all these EZ rules only first came into effect in the US post-WW1 as a way of allowing the new rich to get out of the highly polluted inner cities and create suburbs. A good way to ensure that the riff raff stayed in the city was to make sure there were minimum standards so that the housing was kept expensive. Keeping black people out was especially important for northern cities although this was knocked back after the Buchanan case in 1917 that said racially based zoning was unconstitutional. After the famous Euclid case in 1926 EZ was off and racing and has then spread all over the world. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_zoning#Case_history). That is my lawyer’s analysis.
Lets also remember that the most desirable suburbs in Auckland (and Christchurch – Merivale/St Albans in particular), small workers’ cottages, were designed and built when there were no restrictions on lot size.
Great answer, I think we are on the same page – let the market decide what goes where. I expect some form of planning will still be needed, but not much.
Funny thing is this is what a National party should be very keen for – but their ideals seem to take a back seat to make sure their rich mates get exclusive rights.
Of course. Everyone is for the market until it delivers something they dont want. Then they are suddenly fans of regulation. And the more the person says they are a capitalist neo liberal, the more that is true.
I would add that developers need to contribute to infrastructure required for greenfields development at the appropriate level. The current government seems keen to discontinue development levies, and move this cost onto existing ratepayers. The alternative could be a targeted rate for new developments to cover this.
Oh JoshR, how silly of us free market capitalists, with our free market ideals to propose tha people have free choice of section size, must be communism right?
Also, don’t feijoas grow on vines, not trees?
I’m a shameless city kid, and definitely no botanist, but the brown and green thingy that I get feijoas off at my granny’s house looks like a tree to me.
Kiwi fruit grow on vines, feijoas come from trees 🙂
Memory has failed me. Has been at least 10 years since I saw one. Maybe I should plant one. What conditions do they need?
Dirt, sun, water.
They look like pohutukawas but stay more bush like. There’s one growing over the neighbour’s fence. Of course when the communists come in and force them out so as to build a 12 story apartment block it will be the first to go…
Those damn communists 😉
“The latest example of the stupidity being the arguments over the mowing of berms in the old Auckland City Council area (seriously stop complaining, it’s not a big issue)”
Clearly it is, front page news in the Herald for 2 days in a row. Bringing you all the big stories…
It is a parochial NZ thing to get worked up about small things and not worry about important things, eg berms not mown, Wellywood signs, vs Privacy laws, climate change, international unrest, GFC
John Palino is closing the gap on Len Brown according to this Herald article.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11135452
Wishful thinking on the part of the Herald? Perhaps. But, better get the word out to get a more representative cross section of Auckland to vote folks.
Probably wishful thinking, but yes, good point about getting the word out, I’m going to implore everyone at work to vote this week, everybody should do the same.
You make a fantastic point Matt, I wonder if the council is aware of the Seattle approach?
I can’t understand why they didn’t make the less rich central-ish suburbs more dense – Avondale, Mt Roskill, Otahuhu, Mt Wellington, GI, etc. People in these areas are unlikely to complain too much, they have good PT options, and if like you say the council incentivise it by offering services it would be a no-brainer for these places. I live in Mt Roskill and I really cant see many complaining if there was more intensification, especially if it came with the promise of better PT and upgraded town centre.
Most of these councillors are doing their area a disservice by assuming that the complaints they are hearing make up the majority – I think in a lot of cases (Epsom excluded) the nay sayers are a very loud minority.
I think the problem is that most of the people in support of intensification are out actually doing stuff, like working and raising families. They (and I) dont have time to attend meetings and form groups like Auckland 2020. It is the old and the rich who have the time to cause all the noise and so their message appears to be that of the majority.
That is my perception too.. plus I would suggest the demographic mix of voters in the local council elections will be equally unbalanced. Unrepresentative in fact. Everyone reading this blog excepted of course, I assume 100% of us will at least vote.. saying that even there we have a problem with so many unopposed candidates or effectively unopposed blocks.
Much of Otahuhu has been allowed to intensify under the Unitary Plan. Much of western Otahuhu is rentals/Housing NZ stock.
A slight correction – the major growth out west won’t be occurring in the Waitakere (Ranges) ward but rather in Upper Harbour, Henderson/Massey and Whau. In fact, much of the Waitakere ward is growth constrained by the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area.
Waitakere is the name of the overall ward that has the Henderson/Massey and Waitakere Ranges local boards inside of it. One of the issues with having a similar name for both the ward and local board. Glen Eden is zoned to allow for significant growth and that is in the Waitakere Ranges local board area. As such it is correct to say that the zoning allows for major growth in the Waitakere Ward.
As a resident of Glen Eden, can I say a big “well done” to the local board. I’m proud to live in a strong community with a future vision, where the board has the kahunas to increase the density when consulted. That’s what I call political leadership. We bought here anticipating that the neighbourhood would change, glad to see the board going for it. It might not -look- the kind of magnet that Ponsonby is, but it has a great set of people here and is only going to get better.
Tim. Sent from carriage 4 on the 5.52 with a great view of the waitaks.
Right on TimR!!! It’s a groovy community. Off to the most excellent Glen Eden Playhouse today. When cool people move to transitioning townships like Glen Eden and spend money in the shops and start businesses. Then the towns grown and improve. Instead of all scrapping over Grey Lynn.
Yup. Places in AKL change fast, way quicker than my European immigrant experience told me to expect. This decade’s Ponsonby is next decade’s Parnell. Once a place is the focus of attention it is too late to buy into the new thing.
If you’ve got some time, doing some research on Seattle would be worthwhile. They’ve done some really good stuff over the past 10 – 15 years in terms of their zoning and transport corridors, while maintaining their vision (and moniker) of a city with green spaces.
My fiance and I like West Auckland and are reasonably likely to move there in a few years’ time. I like the final image. 😉
Just trying to cheer myself up…
Steve D- (for some reason “reply” doesn’t show up)
“If all the “special character” zones did was preserve the look and feel of a few iconic suburbs, requiring new buildings to be sympathetic to the style, even if they’re a few stories higher, that’d be fine.”
Many people have been pushing for exactly that, unfortunately elements within the UP team are against that.
Having been stuck in the middle of a bunch of this it strikes me that if this were the case; much fear and opposition would melt away or become support…
That would be hideous. 3 story villas? The scale would be all wrong. Just look at the ‘replica’ villa at 32 Rose Road. There isn’t any issue I can see with the juxtaposition of the villas of Dickens St/Millias St and the apartment blocks and townhouse near Richmond Road (apart from the obviously issues with the builds of the later). And these are hardly good examples of how these buildings could look.
Complimentary doesn’t have to be ‘looks the same’.
Hideous? I’ll re-paste this link to an image from Chicago. http://goo.gl/maps/r6OKG
Note the variety of buildings that all look different but the same. The key is design, not the year they were built nor how many story’s they have.
Notice the extensive use of lovely warm red brick – good for the soul !!
Isn’t it just :-). And even better is that they can make brick perfectly ok in earthquake prone areas. After all, it only really needs to be a cladding to get the look.
My building has brick pillasters over concrete, it looks great. I think they had to do some special anchoring to stop them flying off in a earthquake though.
Conan- you seem confused…
1- You quote ‘looks the same”, even though neither myself or the OP said that.
2- Ditto for 3 story villas. Where was that mentioned? Not by me or OP..
3- For “complimentary” I think you mean “complementary”?
4- “Sympathetic” is the word the OP used that I quoted. The fact you think “the Pulse” juxtaposes nicely with the villas makes me think you don not have the definition of “sympathetic” right.
1. Those aren’t quote marks.
2. In the past you have been a big supporter of buildings that look the same as what is there now. Look back at you opposition of new buildings proposed for Ponsonby Road. The 3 story villa is a paraphrase, if you like, of that.
3. Correct
4. “And these are hardly good examples of how these buildings could look.” I was talking about the size relationship, which seems to work. Imagine if these buildings were actually half decent.
Not quite sure if i’ve read the convo right, but paget street and john street in posnonby has some good examples of 3 (and 4) storey turn of the century housing
Geoff – I agree with conan, in the sense that the Pulse isn’t very good, but that’s not because of the context of the size. It’s just bad in general. It would be entirely possible to have a four-storey apartment building there that was pretty good.
SDW – I can’t speak for Geoff, but I originally used the word “sympathetic”. I think it’s a bad idea to try to closely imitate a particular style if there’s a genuine example sitting next door. It’s definitely possible to do a pretty good job of it in general, but it still tends to look fake by comparison.
You can build a contemporary building that respects its context, though. In fact, most of the “special character” area statements explicitly recognise that the style they are protecting covers buildings that are themselves from a wide range of eras, that are “independent in style” (to quote the section on Helensville). Ponsonby’s character in particular is “reflective of all periods of design from the Victorian period to the present day”. The character of the residential area is supported in part by having “varying lot sizes and a variety of period styles”.
Clearly, people in the past could build in a style that complemented the even older buildings that were already there. They weren’t even trying, yet they did such a good job that today we consider that very juxtaposition as something having special character worthy of protection.
My hypothesis for you all is that there’s a reason for this. It’s no accident that the 1940s is the cutoff for when things are considered “old” for heritage purposes, since after the war is roughly when the car became completely mainstream. Before, even low-budget buildings tended to competently address the streetscape, because there were actually people there to appreciate it. Even though everyone appreciates having a car of their own, no-one actually likes the sort of development that’s inevitably produced when you design primarily for the car. Which is what you mostly get today, often coupled with unimaginative and ugly architecture. Thus – the enthusiasm for heritage protections.
+1 Nailed it
Agree with the gist of the article. But surely there should be a a green circle around GI, panmure, then down to Sylvia.
Have a look on the map and you will see the orange and purple. Geez, all of GI is zoned for high intensity. It’s also got a young, fertile demographic with brownfields developments ready to kick off.
And there are a few special precincts around tamaki campus and tamaki train station.
And what about the South. They haven’t exactly zoned heavily for intensification down there.
This is what I am wondering about. The Unitary plan allows for significant intensification in the west, yet according to this article http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11134452 and the graphic at the bottom of the article, the Auckland Isthmus expects the highest increase in population.
Most of that will be occurring in the central city and along currently car-yard filled areas such as New North Rd, Great North Rd, Eden Terrace etc. So in those areas we can expect a massive increase in the number of people.
“Should the council use infrastructure and services a leverage for intensification”
It would be illegal, immoral and highly unethical for a council to manipulate funding of services to force desired policy upon the public. It is so wrong I’m surprised you regard it as an option.
It’s also contradictory to suggest that the council should do this, when it is the same council that has made the changes to the UP in the first place. They listened to the people, through the democratic feedback process, and changed the UP accordingly. I think that should be respected and valued.
It’s good to know that when the people stand up, they are indeed heard. Some countries suffer the misfortune of losing their democracy, and we should never allow ourselves to become one of them.
+1
Isn’t it more along the lines that if an area isn’t going to grow because the upzoning got removed, then it’s naturally going to get less investment in the future because it’s simply not necessary.
Let’s say there’s two places – suburb A and suburb B. They both currently have the same population – suburb A is full of NIMBYs and rejected all upzoning, suburb B said “bring it on!” and upzoned to allow a tripling of its population over the next 20 years. Which suburb should get the bulk of investment in transport, open space, community facilities etc. Suburb B of course.
Why should the council invest in additional infrastructure and services if there aren’t going to be more people in an area when there are likely to be areas growing that have a much greater need?
You can’t for example expect a new train station or additional services if there aren’t the people to justify it. It also doesn’t to be about forcing people to accept it but instead the council saying, we want to allow area X to intensify, if you agree then in return we will add X infrastructure and X services.
I would argue that while the UP process appeared to be democratic, it was actually closer to being an exercise in who could yell the loudest. The election will be the true test of the UP and democracy.
Most Unitary Plan meetings I went to it seemed like 80% of the people there were retirees. I almost wanted to yell out “don’t panic, you’ll all be dead before Papakura gets an 18 level apartment building!”
@Bryce:
Even then, turnout is probably going to be well under 50% for the local elections, and our wacky block-vote system means that the results don’t even reflect people’s votes that strongly. The two elected North Shore councillors got just 31% of the vote between them, and the two Albany councillors less than 20%. I don’t have figures for turnout by ward, but if Albany was typical for the city (50.5%), then only one eligible voter in ten in Albany actually wanted, for example, Wayne Walker on the council.
We really need genuinely partisan elections, not this endless sham of shifty “independents” that no-one’s heard of. STV would be nice, or even just single-member wards if we stick with FPP.
+1
As an Albany ward resident who has read the candidate’s blurbs, there is not one of them I can bring myself to vote for. And I am a girly swot who votes in every election. It is depressing.
I agree, really struglling to pick someone atm, is there a no-confidence?
Wayne Walker’s a bit crazy but his heart is usually in the right place – when it comes to transport that is.
By the way, I’m not saying there’s something particularly wrong with Wayne Walker. I’m just using him as an example since having the support of only 19.1% of Albany voters gives him the worst mandate of anyone on the council.
I would be a big fan of STV for Council and LB voting.
This is the whole problem with Hide’s super city design. Way too remote and monolithic to relate to anybody. We should just admit that the poor quality of candidates and the number of I opposed candidates show that people have become disenfranchised from the whole unwieldy structure. When we had tho old Waitakere Council elections were interesting, everybody knew the candidates and we had good quality candidates to pick from. Now we are lumbered with a bureaucratic, unresponsive structure which is going to be a financial and social disaster.
yes Bob, we are still living In Hideland. But-
The SuperCity deal was- first you live in Hideland with all his appointees for 3 years, then after the 2nd election you can change it to however you want.
That would be about now. We’re allowed to chop the wards and LB areas etc up however we aucklanders want.
I wonder if we’ll be offered that chance?
We will be stuck with this plan for a long time into the future. Further the buildings constructed under this plan will stand for 100 years. We can change councillors according t whether they will mow our berms or not every 3 years, but the effects of lack of leadership giving us an incoherent urban form will be with our grandchildren.