It was mainly triggered by the sequence of community meetings that are happening now. It was also informed by Future Intensive: Insights for Auckland Housing a report that has been released by Transforming Cities, part of the National Institute of Creative Arts and Industries at The University of Auckland. The report is an evaluation of Auckland medium density case studies in New Lynn, Albany and Onehunga, that:
• Evaluates the effectiveness of urban planning instruments to deliver housing intensification.
• Establishes how well the housing developments have met resident’s expectations, aspirations and needs.
• Analyses house price dynamics in selected medium density developments.
But my opinion piece was inspired by: Planning for Higher Density - Concepts of privacy in Auckland’s culture of housing by David Turner. Which is a thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Planning, University of Auckland, 2010. Anyone who is involved in planning for the intensification of Auckland should read this thesis which is publicly available (50Meg).
The original text of my Op Ed piece follows (it contains relevant extracts from Future Intensive: Insights for Auckland Housing and other information that was edited from the NZ Herald piece.)
Auckland Council's draft Unitary Plan is under attack as people engage with its implications for their backyards and neighbourhoods. The question confronting city planners and councillors should be how to fix the plan, rather than walking away from it in an election year.
Intensification is at the heart of it. Increased density and apartment living is part and parcel of delivering the Auckland Plan's vision of a compact and sustainable Auckland. The Unitary Plan is described as the implementation tool to make that vision a reality on the ground. On the same ground where Auckland's existing communities and neighbourhoods live today, and have lived for the last hundred years. Therein lies part of the problem.
Another part of the problem is that the Council, developers and home owners are governed by planning legislation enacted in 1991 in a political climate that favoured a market economy, and rejected state intervention or regulation of private property rights. The Resource Management Act (RMA) was intended to ensure a speedy, developer-friendly process, and put as few obstacles as possible in the way of development, while paying some attention to the idea of sustainability.
However the RMA is silent on neighbourhoods, does not mention urban form, and is not interested in what makes a community. It implicitly assumes these sorts of matters will be managed by the market economy.
The Council is the meat in this sandwich. It is between between communities fearful of change to their backyards and legislation presuming the market knows best how to deliver an Auckland that is the most liveable city in the world.
With its emphasis on enabling the development rights of private property owners the draft Unitary Plan is consistent with the RMA. It is clear about maximum allowable heights for housing in the different residential zones. It is clear about setbacks from neighbouring properties. It is clear about what private property owners can do as of right on their land - especially when they buy a couple of adjacent properties.
That is the message that emerges loud and clear. Permitted building heights, minimum lot sizes, density entitlements. Music to developers' ears.
It should come as no surprise that existing residents, neighbourhoods and communities are responding, now they can hear it too. They understand it. It affects them. They are taking action.
But many people are responding positively to another part of the compact city message. Generation Zero welcome the vision of affordable inner city apartment living with active nightlife on the doorstep as portrayed in the "Friends" TV program. Active retired couples welcome the idea of a secure lock-it-and-leave-it style home in a community setting with a gym, near their children's families, and without the need to look after a private lawn and garden. New settlers are coming to New Zealand from cities where medium density living is the norm and choose to live in familiar feeling developments where they can build local communities.
A research report Future Intensive prepared for Auckland Council by University of Auckland summarises in-depth interviews with hundreds of medium density development home occupants at Albany, Onehunga and New Lynn. Three quarters of them were born outside New Zealand and most were from China. The report states: "A high proportion of respondents expressed the view that their housing met their social needs. This view was strongest among Ambrico Place respondents, where the agglomeration of residents with Chinese origins appears to have created a supportive environment, with easy access to services and products that met their cultural needs."
Auckland's quarter-acre pavlova-paradise development pattern is not for everybody, and it's not affordable for everybody now as increasing population brings increased economic activity and higher land value per hectare. But it is an enduring vernacular urban form of housing and settlement that is a big part of the kiwi dream. It's about talking with agreeable neighbours over the fence, borrowing tools, sharing recipes, being invited across the road to a family barbeque, kids walking to school and growing up together, walking to the corner shop for an icecream, kicking the ball at the park, mowing the lawns, sitting outside in private, and having a beer and watching the rugby with someone who's got Sky.
The RMA and the Unitary Plan are silent on such things but I would argue these freedoms are at least as important to Auckland's existing residential property owners as their private property development rights. Especially when there is a perception their way of life is threatened by an urban form that is alien.
The first medium density developments at Albany were a failure because planners and developers didn't think beyond the building. So the District Plan was changed. Future medium density development would only be permitted if local shopping, a green space, and public transport with a fifteen minute frequency of service, were not more than 500 metres walk away. Great idea, but unworkable because there was little coordination between public and private development activities.
Auckland Council has previously indicated that the Unitary Plan would be built on Area Plans (one for each of the twenty-one Local Board areas), with Precinct Plans for specific neighbourhoods. This has not eventuated. As far as I am aware only two comprehensive area plans have emerged - one each from Onehunga and Hibiscus and Bays. Again this is not surprising. Local Boards are under-resourced. And they are structurally a part of Auckland Council and inhibited from acting independently.
Even if they could act independently they would be powerless when it came to influencing decisions about transport infrastructure improvements and the need to increase local school capacity to meet the needs of an increasing population.
So what to do?
First of all, Councillors and Planners need to recognise the scale of urban change that is embedded in Auckland's compact city vision, and appreciate the extent of cultural change that will be required for it to be implemented.
Secondly, the approach to implementation of intensification needs to change from a simplistic city-wide zoning approach to a much more targetted precinct by precinct or neighbourhood by neighbourhood approach, where specific plan changes are promulgated once community buy-in has been obtained, and where appropriate Council intervention and involvement has been agreed and budgetted.
Auckland is a place of diversity and difference. Its urban planning needs to respect that and build from the ground up, not just the top down.
No comments:
Post a Comment