On Special Housing Areas

Someone much wiser than me once wrote that: "people will believe something is true, if it is evident that others believe in it firmly..."

A couple of contested ideas about Auckland, copied from the Auckland Housing Accord document:

• "(there is) a current shortfall of 20,000 - 30,000 new homes and a need for 13,000 new homes each year for the next 30 years..."
• "...the 2013 Demographia International Housing Survey rated Auckland as severely unaffordable with a median multiple of house price to income of 7..."

Since the Housing Accord was agreed there have been a number of other pieces of information that have emerged about Auckland's population growth. One of these was the Census and a report by The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research which contradicted the first idea (See Fallow). There has also been debate about the median multiple statistic. A quick check of TradeMe's Real Estate listings shows there are many 3 bedroom homes on their own sections in Manukau City for sale for under $300,000.

So how real is the scarcity and affordability problem?

The above "facts" are used consistently and frequently with Auckland Councillors to keep them on the straight and narrow, keep them tied to the cause, and reinforce them for holding the line, compliment them for strength of character.

But is that what the role of an elected Councillor should be? Wouldn't it be more useful for a councillor to ask questions of the "facts" that are put in front of them? Wouldn't it also show greater strength of character? Reveal them to be questioning, seeking awareness of the many possibilities there are for action. Wouldn't that be more useful than leaning on "facts" that are in doubt?

Now that I'm a planner, my greatest concern with Special Housing Areas is how they will be implemented. I generally support the need for an implementation plan when considering the redevelopment of parts of urban Auckland.

But what I'm hearing is that these proposed Special Housing Areas will really only be a cluster of development sites for developers. The wild west. No urban planning to speak of. Just let the market and entrepreneurial energy build the new community and any necessary infrastructure. So just a cluster of homes - and no structure plan - and no binding economic development plan that will take a share of the profits from development sales to fund necessary infrastructure - whatever that might be.

And what I understand is that the planners who work for Auckland Council, and who are generally nudging these Special Housing Areas along have bought into the idea that this is the way to go. No Structure Plan needed. No infrastructure funding and development plan and agreement needed. Let the market deliver....

So what school did you planners go to? Surely you had the odd lecture about market failure and that urban planning and design is needed - beyond what the RMA delivers and requires - to ensure good urban outcomes?

Or are you just about outputs now?  ten houses permitted today - hooray!  A Special Housing Area agreement signed tomorrow - hooray!  Driven to feed the questionable and insatiable engine of housing shortage and affordability. Not sure about the urban outcomes, but just love those outputs to report back to management, make Council look good, and keep the Minister happy.


Come on planners. Look in the mirror and consult your handbook of ethics.

And give them a hand councillors. Show some interest in the problems your officers and planners are dealing with pioneering these Special Housing Areas under pressure from be-suited central government bureaucrats. Ask a few questions when you have an opportunity. Otherwise your silence will be interpreted as support. And you'll be thanked and stroked. But not by those who will eventually end up living in poorly planned housing estates.....