What this means is that the Council's Long Term Plan - a Draft of which is being prepared at present for consulation early next year - will contain a "statement of proposal" relating to "Development Auckland" (the interim name proposed for the CCO) and will seek public submissions.
I have long believed that Auckland needs some sort of Urban Redevelopment Agency approach. It is not enough to simply promulgate a Unitary Plan and leave implementation to the market. The reason there are so many critical submissions to the Unitary Plan (from communities fearful of intensification) is that little thought has gone into planning implementation (whether its social or network infrastructure, changes in land use, community development). This flies in the face of urban redevelopment experience around the world in cities that are older than Auckland (most are), and that have been there, done that. I provided some planning background to that in this posting, which summarises the learnings from a Joint Council study trip to Perth some years ago.
So Auckland Council's decision is good news I think, but there are some fish-hooks.
The first and most obvious to waterfront observers is the risk to delivery and continuation of the direction and programme of works and development that have been managed by the Waterfront Auckland Development Agency (AWDA). It is appropriate to harness the skills and approach to brownfield redevelopment that have developed in AWDA, and to apply those skills so other parts of Auckland can benefit, but that should not threaten or reduce the quality of what is being achieved at Wynyard Quarter, which is really only just past the start of what will be a 20 year project.
The Council report about the proposed "Development Auckland" makes these points, under the heading, An evolutionary approach to building capacity and capability:
29. The best examples of urban development agencies overseas also focus on lifting the socio-economic status of the local communities undergoing redevelopment, by building in opportunities for job creation and the provision of social services. It is extremely likely that over time council will also need to work in locations where a high degree of this broader activity is necessary. In the establishment phase of Development Auckland, the focus will be firmly fixed on building capacity and capability to deliver physical redevelopment in brownfield locations.Point 29 (above) points to another potential fish-hook. My research strongly supports the idea that "best examples" of urban regeneration include: "building in opportunities for job creation and the provision of social services". This is partly what we see at Wynyard Quarter where there is a place-making balance between marine industry, fishing industry, residential development and commercial development - though there is still insufficient emphasis there on social services such as a primary school, kindergarten, library or community centre. However Point 29 goes on to state: " the establishment phase of Development Auckland, the focus will be firmly fixed on building capacity and capability to deliver physical redevelopment in brownfield locations..". This is problematic I think, and suggests that the main driver for the establishment of Development Auckland is to satisfy the housing supply aspirations of the Hons Nick Smith and Bill English. Their political objectives and assumptions - that housing supply is the only problem, that economic growth trumps all other issues - are highly ideological and questioned by many commentators and economists. I would be very concerned if Development Auckland is established to PRIMARILY focus on building houses (not communities) in Special Housing Areas. That it is PRIMARILY established to facilitate getting house-build runs on the board for central government.
30. International best practice also shows that having a balanced portfolio of redevelopment locations can be beneficial – those that have the ability to generate a surplus, and those that do not but are still important for other reasons. Staff will consider this and a number of other matters when undertaking location intervention analysis and in recommending the best locations for council approval for Development Auckland to operate in.
31. It is envisaged that location intervention analysis would be led by council staff with input from many parties including Development Auckland staff. Once locations had been approved by council and the Board of Development Auckland, the masterplanning and business case process would be led by Development Auckland staff with council staff input.
32. Over time it is also likely that Development Auckland will build a more sophisticated understanding of property and development dynamics in the Auckland market. Since it will become a key player in this market, it will seek to foster learning within the broader development industry wherever possible.
I make this point strongly because of the headline that accompanied Council's announcement of the Development Auckland decision. This reads: New agency to fast track urban development. This suggests an altogether different agenda from that recognised in Point 29 above. Maybe Auckland Council needs to satisfy Central Government Ministers, but that should not compromise objectives to build complete communities through genuine place-making approaches.
I generally agree with the planning process that is suggested: That Auckland Council develops an Auckland redevelopment implementation strategy, and prepares high level masterplans (which could be like the Urban Design Framework that was prepared by Councils for Wynyard Quarter) for specific areas, leaving the Development Agency to work with local communities to develop detailed masterplans - including infrastructure requirements (which would need to be funded through development levies or value uplift related revenues).
The final fish-hook. Nowhere do I see any mention of how the regeneration and redevelopment of Downtown Auckland will be handled. The documents are silent on QE Square, Precinct Properties, Quay Street, and all the rest. But the Downtown Auckland project is as important to Auckland City as Britomart was, and as Wynyard Quarter has become. It is the most significant brownfield development project for the Auckland Region. It is the heart of Auckland. It might not be about building houses quickly for Bill and Nick, but it is of critical importance to all of Auckland.
It needs a Development Agency focus to deliver optimum public, private, long-term sustainability.
2 comments:
"Their political objectives and assumptions - that housing supply is the only problem, that economic growth trumps all other issues - are highly ideological and questioned by many commentators and economists."
Nice weasel words but can you name one economist who doesn't think housing supply is a major problem?
Joel, you are the only commentator that thinks that housing supply is not a problem and that the issue can just be wished away.
I should probably have written that Nick and Bill believe that "housing supply is the main solution" to the housing demand problems we have. I don't believe that it is the main solution. Neither does economist Keith Rankin (he accepts there is a shortage of financial instruments for would-be investors, but that is not the same as a shortage of homes). Neither does Shanubeel Eaqub, principal economist at NZIER, who talks about the need to improve rights of tenants and renters to make renting and ownership experience more equivalent, that renting rather than ownership needs to be made more attractive. Most economists also point to the growing trend of extracting capital gains rather than rentals as earnings from a house as being the major problem. I accept there is room for improvement in the construction sector, but it is not the most significant issue or problem in the housing market.
Post a Comment