Wednesday, August 17, 2016
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
Public Realm loser in Auckland's Plan
There has been a lot of public focus on the PAUP which is only one leg of the three legged stool that supports the implementation of urban growth and development in Auckland. The other two legs are area and regional spatial plans; and public realm funding planning.
But first a look at the PAUP and where it stands. The guts of the IHP's recommendations are set out in 28 points here. The main growth related recommendations are within the first five:
2. Focus urban growth on centres, transport nodes and corridors to achieve a quality compact urban form.The hairy big number in here is "400,000" - a bigger number than most were expecting, and even bigger than Government Ministers were calling for. Most of this growth is within the existing urban fabric - hence the general impression that the recommendations are more "up" than they are "out".
3. Retain the Rural Urban Boundary but expand it to include 30 per cent more land and enable it to be changed by private plan changes.
4. Enable a development pattern to meet demand for the next 30 years and double the feasible enabled residential capacity to exceed 400,000 dwellings.
5. Ensure sufficient capacity for the next seven years.
No stone - or volcanic cone - has been left unturned in the recommendations in the search for development capacity within Auckland's existing urban area. Many interest groups will be concerned that areas of Auckland or features they wished to see protected from development, have lost much of the protection that previously existed (volcanic cones, pre-1944 houses), in the face of economic evidence produced for property development interests (including but not limited to the Property Council).
These groups will now be considering their options which will include legal options, and making representations to Council not to accept some of the recommendations, or to consider specific changes to the plan that will maintain or improve the status quo. I can imagine that some IHP members will have anticipated this resistance. It appears to me that a number of the final changes in the IHP recommendations, which have come as a surprise to some, have arisen from final Council submissions which contained new evidence that has not been able to be contested by other parties. It came late with those final Council submissions. Never a good thing in a public hearing process to admit evidence that has not been subject to public scrutiny. However, given a reasonable case from advocates which reaches some sort of threshhold, there may well be justification for Council to change specific IHP recommendations.
One thing is for sure: the advocates for freeing up land for development and adding fuel to Auckland's property boom will also be in Council's ear big time, holding it to the line that has been established with the IHP, and trying to get some more land freed for development at the edges.
The Gaps (cracks) in Auckland Development Planning
There have been two persistant - but largely ignored - elephants in Auckland planning since before amalgamation in 2010. The reasons for this studious ignorance are likely to be just a continuation of Auckland's speculative planning history. Auckland is a city of un-implemented master plans (apart from the De Leuw Cather motorway master plan). Auckland's urban growth coincided with the popularity and convenience of the automobile. That history is well documented. What is less well documented is the consistent failure to provide for the public realm commensurate with private residential and commercial urban development. The public realm in an urban setting is not provided by the market or by speculation. Its component parts have to be planned spatially as part of any private development, and they need to be paid for. There has been reluctant recognition from the odd Minister that sewers and roads need to be paid for to enable new residential and commercial developments to go ahead - but they want the cheapest and lowest cost versions installed - at costs that will not upset the market.
When I was a councillor at North Shore City Council (affectionately known by councillors in other Auckland cities as "North Shore Shitty Council"- because of the leaking sewer networks), the big project was raising rates to pay for sewer repairs. The network had been built quickly and shoddily, to accommodate rapid urbanisation. The roads and the roading network was much the same. Takapuna Borough Council presided over the development of an urban form almost entirely devoid of urban parks. Maybe it was felt that being near Takapuna Beach was enough. I mention these aspects of the public realm. To that list can be added: schools, hospitals, libraries, and museums. And under-pinning that list of infrastructure is the notion that the people who live together in a city, live public community lives, as well as private lives. And that social and community values including tolerance, appreciation and understanding of cultural difference and diversity are developed through rubbing alongside each other in the public realm.
These sorts of ideas and values are not shared in self-selecting enclaves in social media, or at home where birds of a feather tend to live together. Slight digression. But back to my theme. Bruce Lilley was also a councillor at North Shore, and while standing up for sewer repairs he famously said, "a city is more than pipes..." A round of applause and support.
The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - and its IHP version - will deliver little in the way of new development in the Auckland region without the other two legs of the planning stool being put in place.
The Auckland Plan - required by Auckland's special amalgamation legislation - is little more than an uncosted wishlist of projects and developments. Area Plans and Precinct Plans are the necssary precursor to any urban redevelopment and intensification which integrates with an existing urban setting. It is through involvement in these sorts of plans that the local community sees itself, line of sight, from where they are now, to where they will be post development, and at various 5 year (for example) stages throughout the duration of the redevelopment. Spatial plans are visual so everybody can see and understand what is anticipated and expected. Including visualisations of the new public realm, but also indications of different housing typologies. Spatial plans are practical renderings of possible futures which can be engaged with by ordinary members of the community - who find it difficult to interpret zoning maps and other planning speak language.
Area Plans need to be supported by the very best data. Costs and benefits for all stakeholders - not just speculators salivating at the uplift potential their models predict. Urban redevelopment has to be a partnership including the central government agencies tasked with education and health infrastructure. All aspects of the public realm need to be paid for.
This remains an enormous gap in (crack) in Auckland's planning system. Legislative changes have forced Auckland Council increasingly into the role of being Central Government's policy implementation arm in town, with the single goal being economic growth and increased construction activity. But despite that energy and force, the fact remains that New Zealand is still a democracy, and Auckland's existing residents will increasingly demand a real say, and stake, in how Auckland develops and grows. People have a strong sense of what is fair and right, interms of who pays for what, and who benefits from betterment and value uplift. The fact that Auckland Council is still struggling with a Government that is reluctant to give it the financial tools and incentives needed for intensification and commensurate public realm is a poor reflection on the governance of this country.
Auckland Council will soon vote to change aspects of the IHP's recommendations. As it should. It would be helpful if it also voted to the effect that Central Government must now, at this juncture, fix the cracks, provide the legs needed for urban redevelopment.
Property Boom Planned & Protected by Government
It has been an interesting exercise trying to make any sense of NZ Government's housing policy with students who are taking the Urban Policy Analysis 201 course at School of Architecture and Planning at University of Auckland this year. And by "sense" I mean what is the rationale, what are the objectives, policies and suchlike, and how are those explained and evidenced by the data that is available.
I start with a slightly dated webpage put up by MBIE aimed at informing overseas investors. This says:
Turning now to Jane Clifton, Listener 6 August, we read:
And it's the "other things" that I turn to now. With difficulty because the black box of economics is outside my area of expertise. But because I think the GFC was one of the signs we entered a new world, which we are still in, and struggling to adjust to, I am curious and interested in what's actually happening.
Other signs that old dogma don't help much is the public discussion about deflation, inflation and the official cash rate. Why is it that in NZ inflation is less than 0.5%, while household inflation is crazy? And what is it about inflation that we need to get it back to 2%, and that the lever for this is to decrease the official cash rate by 0.5% (it's already the lowest it's been in recent history) to something less than 2%? There has been commentary on these matters from NZ Herald's Brian Fallow and Bernard Hickey. A recent piece from Hickey strongly advises investors to shift their money away from housing. But he struggles to offer clear advice on what to do with the money. Across the internet commentators are expressing similar concerns. Armageddon concerned too.
Big Picture Factors
Reading across the many views that are out there, a number of ideas arise:
This last one is a bit of a long bow. But when you can get 3% for your money in a bank (which is worrying about loans that might go bad in future), and 20%+ for your money in an investment unit - you'd be mad to have your money in the bank. With dairy and mining and other commodity related activities generating poor returns, then maybe the salvation is Facebook and Google and the panoply of social media producing factories that feed phone apps, not forgetting the producers of goods easily marketed by digital means.
Someone with wisdom mentioned to me the other day that whenever Australia looked like having a lull in its economy, there would be a hosuing boom. As if central government turned those particular taps on. Sounds like a plan.
Someone else - an economist - mentioned to me that he wondered whether New Zealand was capable of development planning at all. His view was that New Zealand's economy is largely unplanned, and that its development has been a sequence of speculative adventures. Starting with gold. Then frozen meat. Wool. Timber. Dairy. And in between speculative urban development. All of these activities were initiated by risk takers, acting as agents for speculative investors. Central Government's role was to clip the ticket as money came and went, and every now and then build a road to keep the investors interested and happy.
Not for New Zealand the Miti approach in Japan, or Germany's central planning, or even Thatcher's revolutionary service economy interventions. Mustn't pick winners is the opposing argument. Tried that with the think-big projects. Well, maybe not. But surely, the MBIE brains trust, and some applied strategic thinking (National, Labour, Greens...?) could come up with something more solid and future looking than a policy of increased immigration, low interest, limited investor controls and high pressure rural land rezoning.
And finally, someone else. There is another factor to add to the list above. Economic policies and political programs over the past 30 years have led to increasing inequality and concentration of wealth (the rich now want somewhere to put it that's more lucrative than under a mattress in a bank). The dispossessed, disenfranchised and alienated members of western nations are becoming the new majority. This was one of the surprising Brexit revelations. Imagine if there was an equivalent vote in New Zealand - not the new flag, but something of Brexit dimensions (and I don't mean leaving CER) - would the mob rule? Isn't it time that an alternative development plan was prepared for New Zealand rather than "studiously" ignoring that responsibility and leaving it to the mob to say no to the status quo?
I start with a slightly dated webpage put up by MBIE aimed at informing overseas investors. This says:
“Growth for 2015 is expected to be around 3%, supported by net migration flows, labour income growth, and construction activity. It is expected to fall back for 2016 and 2017, largely due to deteriorating terms of trade, particularly for our dairy exports….”(My colour emphasis added). And the next slide is what the Governor of the Reserve Bank of NZ said in his statement of 3 February this year:
“…NZ’s economy has faced a wide range of shocks since the 2007 GFC, some positive for growth, some negative,including:• Tightening global liquidity;• Canterbury earthquakes;• 2012/13 drought;• 70 percent peak to trough movement in dairy prices;• 75 percent fall in oil prices;• Record net migration;• Sizeable movements in the real exchange rate;• Annual house price inflation in Auckland that reached 27%..."(Again, my emphasis added.) So we see here a clear indication that the drivers for the property boom (including record levels of immigration) and its consequences (? - including 27% annual increases in property value), are all high-lighted. And here I will divert from my lecture notes.
Turning now to Jane Clifton, Listener 6 August, we read:
"National's studiously unacknowledged position is that galloping house price inflation and immigration are vital economic growth fuel and it dare not interfere. All the measures it has taken so far in the cause of promoting housing affordability - never once admitting that the market is in any way a problem - have been minimal...."I would add to that account the Labour Party. My reading of its policies is that they will add fuel to the fire. Fan it in fact. It's clearly a good plan to provide more State Housing - especially for those accommodated in cars and caravans. But that provision won't address house price inflation. And while a $billion for infrastructure might sound good, it is a small sum when measured against the need, and in any case will function to assist Auckland Council in releasing a little more developable land, but not enough to meet the insatiable demands that are being fuelled by immigration - among other things.
And it's the "other things" that I turn to now. With difficulty because the black box of economics is outside my area of expertise. But because I think the GFC was one of the signs we entered a new world, which we are still in, and struggling to adjust to, I am curious and interested in what's actually happening.
Other signs that old dogma don't help much is the public discussion about deflation, inflation and the official cash rate. Why is it that in NZ inflation is less than 0.5%, while household inflation is crazy? And what is it about inflation that we need to get it back to 2%, and that the lever for this is to decrease the official cash rate by 0.5% (it's already the lowest it's been in recent history) to something less than 2%? There has been commentary on these matters from NZ Herald's Brian Fallow and Bernard Hickey. A recent piece from Hickey strongly advises investors to shift their money away from housing. But he struggles to offer clear advice on what to do with the money. Across the internet commentators are expressing similar concerns. Armageddon concerned too.
Big Picture Factors
Reading across the many views that are out there, a number of ideas arise:
- demographics. The baby-boomer demographic proportion of the western world population holds much of the wealth, are retiring, down-sizing in various ways, and re-investing. The subsequent generation is smaller in proportion in number, have not benefitted from the economies, are much less wealthy, spend less, and therefore consume less.
- natural resources. The low hanging fruit that attracted speculative investment around the globe - cheap labour, easily extracted resources - are fewer in number and harder to hold on to. Globalisation and trade is not the economic engine it was. Concern is growing - Brexit is one manifestation, cross-party attacks on the TPP in the USA are another.
- money is worth less than scarce or productive assets.
This last one is a bit of a long bow. But when you can get 3% for your money in a bank (which is worrying about loans that might go bad in future), and 20%+ for your money in an investment unit - you'd be mad to have your money in the bank. With dairy and mining and other commodity related activities generating poor returns, then maybe the salvation is Facebook and Google and the panoply of social media producing factories that feed phone apps, not forgetting the producers of goods easily marketed by digital means.
Someone with wisdom mentioned to me the other day that whenever Australia looked like having a lull in its economy, there would be a hosuing boom. As if central government turned those particular taps on. Sounds like a plan.
Someone else - an economist - mentioned to me that he wondered whether New Zealand was capable of development planning at all. His view was that New Zealand's economy is largely unplanned, and that its development has been a sequence of speculative adventures. Starting with gold. Then frozen meat. Wool. Timber. Dairy. And in between speculative urban development. All of these activities were initiated by risk takers, acting as agents for speculative investors. Central Government's role was to clip the ticket as money came and went, and every now and then build a road to keep the investors interested and happy.
Not for New Zealand the Miti approach in Japan, or Germany's central planning, or even Thatcher's revolutionary service economy interventions. Mustn't pick winners is the opposing argument. Tried that with the think-big projects. Well, maybe not. But surely, the MBIE brains trust, and some applied strategic thinking (National, Labour, Greens...?) could come up with something more solid and future looking than a policy of increased immigration, low interest, limited investor controls and high pressure rural land rezoning.
And finally, someone else. There is another factor to add to the list above. Economic policies and political programs over the past 30 years have led to increasing inequality and concentration of wealth (the rich now want somewhere to put it that's more lucrative than under a mattress in a bank). The dispossessed, disenfranchised and alienated members of western nations are becoming the new majority. This was one of the surprising Brexit revelations. Imagine if there was an equivalent vote in New Zealand - not the new flag, but something of Brexit dimensions (and I don't mean leaving CER) - would the mob rule? Isn't it time that an alternative development plan was prepared for New Zealand rather than "studiously" ignoring that responsibility and leaving it to the mob to say no to the status quo?
New Election Billboards: Old Chestnuts
I remember my first election leaflet in 1998. Contained a telephoto shot of Lake Road looking toward Devonport from Takapuna. Surprisingly light traffic looking back. And here's a billboard for the 2016 campaign.....
You can't quite read the authorising text at the bottom. It's George Wood. Apparently he's not standing for Auckland Council this election. According to the billboard he's got a local board team.
I'm aware that a group of local people have been working with Auckland Transport for the past two years on Lake Road and Devonport Peninsula Planning. The group includes representatives from the Devonport Business Association, Belmont Business Community, cycling advocates, pedestrian advocates, public transport, motorists. And now George and his team have all the answers. Well, we'll see.
When Auckland Council was established there was a lot of talk about Area Planning - local community spatial planning - that would be a building block for the Auckland Plan. It's been a challenge for Auckland Council to incorporate local spatial plans into the Auckland Plan - which is one of the reasons why the Auckland Plan is failing to gain traction on the ground in local communities. Top down approaches generally run into glue and opposition in Auckland when it comes to actual implementation if they haven't been socialised with local communities (using the consultation lingo). That's shorthand for saying that any attempt to shortcut a good level of community participation in implementation planning means nothing much will happen. Which isn't progress.
Speaking of which, and in regard to Lake Road, it's interesting what the Independent Hearings Panel decided for the Devonport Peninsula. You can read about it starting page 26 in the IHP report on topic 81. This basically addresses the zoning of Ngati Whatua owned, ex Navy, land. There were apparently some 196 submitters, of which 183 opposed proposed zonings. The report states:
Despite George's billboard and the best efforts of his team.
I'm aware that a group of local people have been working with Auckland Transport for the past two years on Lake Road and Devonport Peninsula Planning. The group includes representatives from the Devonport Business Association, Belmont Business Community, cycling advocates, pedestrian advocates, public transport, motorists. And now George and his team have all the answers. Well, we'll see.
When Auckland Council was established there was a lot of talk about Area Planning - local community spatial planning - that would be a building block for the Auckland Plan. It's been a challenge for Auckland Council to incorporate local spatial plans into the Auckland Plan - which is one of the reasons why the Auckland Plan is failing to gain traction on the ground in local communities. Top down approaches generally run into glue and opposition in Auckland when it comes to actual implementation if they haven't been socialised with local communities (using the consultation lingo). That's shorthand for saying that any attempt to shortcut a good level of community participation in implementation planning means nothing much will happen. Which isn't progress.
Speaking of which, and in regard to Lake Road, it's interesting what the Independent Hearings Panel decided for the Devonport Peninsula. You can read about it starting page 26 in the IHP report on topic 81. This basically addresses the zoning of Ngati Whatua owned, ex Navy, land. There were apparently some 196 submitters, of which 183 opposed proposed zonings. The report states:
A number of submitters raised issues regarding the capacity of the wastewater and stormwater networks. Many submitters raised concerns about the effects of additional traffic volumes on an already congested Lake Road, the lack of frequent bus services and safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists, particularly school children.Interestingly the panel decided:
The Panel supports the retention of the Devonport Peninsula Precinct and the various sub-precincts and agrees with the additional height and transition provisions proposed by Ngati Whatua Orakei Whai Rawa Limited’s planning and urban design witnesses.The last paragraph will be of particular interest and concern to those who have worked for the past couple of years with Auckland Transport. I don't think for one second that they would have anticipated that their work was to enable the intensive development of Belmont and Bayswater, described in the IHP's report as follows:
The Panel acknowledges the concerns raised by many submitters relating to infrastructure capacity. However, it heard evidence from both Watercare and the Council that their networks have the capacity, or have programmed upgrades (in the case of Watercare), to address any constraints.
The Panel heard from Auckland Transport that congestion on Lake Road is not unlike that on other arterial routes in the region and that they will be investigating a programme of improvements identified in the Lake Road Corridor Management Plan to address congestion, including transit lanes and a focus on public transport improvements.
The Devonport Peninsula Precinct collectively covers 27.9 hectares of land and comprises six large land holdings (sub-precincts) of former navy housing in suburban coastal areas of the peninsula. The sub -precincts are:It is not clear how many residential dwellings might be constructed on this 27.9 hectares of land, or what sewage or traffic demands would be the consequence. This local issue will be occurring in one sort or another across Auckland. Local communities will be grappling with the local impacts of intensive zonings. However, until the Council - working with Central Government - realise and recognise that urban intensification requires planning that goes beyond zoning, you can be pretty confident that very little will actually change on the ground.
i. Sub-precinct A - Marsden Street (4.1 hectares); ii. Sub-precinct B - Birchfield Road (1.9 hectares); iii. Sub-precinct C - Plymouth Crescent (7.1 hectares); iv. Sub-precinct D - Hillary Crescent (7.3 hectares); v. Sub-precinct E - Vauxhall Road (3.2 hectares); and vi. Sub-precinct F - Wakakura Crescent (4.3 hectares). Ngati Whatua Orakei Whai Rawa Limited owns almost all of the land in Sub-precincts A to E and no longer owns Sub-precinct F
Despite George's billboard and the best efforts of his team.
Downtown Auckland Demolished
Walking to the ferry last night and came across a scene being captured by many on their digital devices. The rather massive and internally focussed Downtown Shopping Centre is being rapidly turned into rubble and dust - itself being washed out of the air by a fine mist. Spectacular.
Fingers crossed for what will replace it. Especially the public realm component....
And this morning. Being able to look through the DSC from Lower Albert. View of the CPO...
Fingers crossed for what will replace it. Especially the public realm component....
And this morning. Being able to look through the DSC from Lower Albert. View of the CPO...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
Public Realm loser in Auckland's Plan
There has been a lot of public focus on the PAUP which is only one leg of the three legged stool that supports the implementation of urban growth and development in Auckland. The other two legs are area and regional spatial plans; and public realm funding planning.
But first a look at the PAUP and where it stands. The guts of the IHP's recommendations are set out in 28 points here. The main growth related recommendations are within the first five:
2. Focus urban growth on centres, transport nodes and corridors to achieve a quality compact urban form.The hairy big number in here is "400,000" - a bigger number than most were expecting, and even bigger than Government Ministers were calling for. Most of this growth is within the existing urban fabric - hence the general impression that the recommendations are more "up" than they are "out".
3. Retain the Rural Urban Boundary but expand it to include 30 per cent more land and enable it to be changed by private plan changes.
4. Enable a development pattern to meet demand for the next 30 years and double the feasible enabled residential capacity to exceed 400,000 dwellings.
5. Ensure sufficient capacity for the next seven years.
No stone - or volcanic cone - has been left unturned in the recommendations in the search for development capacity within Auckland's existing urban area. Many interest groups will be concerned that areas of Auckland or features they wished to see protected from development, have lost much of the protection that previously existed (volcanic cones, pre-1944 houses), in the face of economic evidence produced for property development interests (including but not limited to the Property Council).
These groups will now be considering their options which will include legal options, and making representations to Council not to accept some of the recommendations, or to consider specific changes to the plan that will maintain or improve the status quo. I can imagine that some IHP members will have anticipated this resistance. It appears to me that a number of the final changes in the IHP recommendations, which have come as a surprise to some, have arisen from final Council submissions which contained new evidence that has not been able to be contested by other parties. It came late with those final Council submissions. Never a good thing in a public hearing process to admit evidence that has not been subject to public scrutiny. However, given a reasonable case from advocates which reaches some sort of threshhold, there may well be justification for Council to change specific IHP recommendations.
One thing is for sure: the advocates for freeing up land for development and adding fuel to Auckland's property boom will also be in Council's ear big time, holding it to the line that has been established with the IHP, and trying to get some more land freed for development at the edges.
The Gaps (cracks) in Auckland Development Planning
There have been two persistant - but largely ignored - elephants in Auckland planning since before amalgamation in 2010. The reasons for this studious ignorance are likely to be just a continuation of Auckland's speculative planning history. Auckland is a city of un-implemented master plans (apart from the De Leuw Cather motorway master plan). Auckland's urban growth coincided with the popularity and convenience of the automobile. That history is well documented. What is less well documented is the consistent failure to provide for the public realm commensurate with private residential and commercial urban development. The public realm in an urban setting is not provided by the market or by speculation. Its component parts have to be planned spatially as part of any private development, and they need to be paid for. There has been reluctant recognition from the odd Minister that sewers and roads need to be paid for to enable new residential and commercial developments to go ahead - but they want the cheapest and lowest cost versions installed - at costs that will not upset the market.
When I was a councillor at North Shore City Council (affectionately known by councillors in other Auckland cities as "North Shore Shitty Council"- because of the leaking sewer networks), the big project was raising rates to pay for sewer repairs. The network had been built quickly and shoddily, to accommodate rapid urbanisation. The roads and the roading network was much the same. Takapuna Borough Council presided over the development of an urban form almost entirely devoid of urban parks. Maybe it was felt that being near Takapuna Beach was enough. I mention these aspects of the public realm. To that list can be added: schools, hospitals, libraries, and museums. And under-pinning that list of infrastructure is the notion that the people who live together in a city, live public community lives, as well as private lives. And that social and community values including tolerance, appreciation and understanding of cultural difference and diversity are developed through rubbing alongside each other in the public realm.
These sorts of ideas and values are not shared in self-selecting enclaves in social media, or at home where birds of a feather tend to live together. Slight digression. But back to my theme. Bruce Lilley was also a councillor at North Shore, and while standing up for sewer repairs he famously said, "a city is more than pipes..." A round of applause and support.
The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - and its IHP version - will deliver little in the way of new development in the Auckland region without the other two legs of the planning stool being put in place.
The Auckland Plan - required by Auckland's special amalgamation legislation - is little more than an uncosted wishlist of projects and developments. Area Plans and Precinct Plans are the necssary precursor to any urban redevelopment and intensification which integrates with an existing urban setting. It is through involvement in these sorts of plans that the local community sees itself, line of sight, from where they are now, to where they will be post development, and at various 5 year (for example) stages throughout the duration of the redevelopment. Spatial plans are visual so everybody can see and understand what is anticipated and expected. Including visualisations of the new public realm, but also indications of different housing typologies. Spatial plans are practical renderings of possible futures which can be engaged with by ordinary members of the community - who find it difficult to interpret zoning maps and other planning speak language.
Area Plans need to be supported by the very best data. Costs and benefits for all stakeholders - not just speculators salivating at the uplift potential their models predict. Urban redevelopment has to be a partnership including the central government agencies tasked with education and health infrastructure. All aspects of the public realm need to be paid for.
This remains an enormous gap in (crack) in Auckland's planning system. Legislative changes have forced Auckland Council increasingly into the role of being Central Government's policy implementation arm in town, with the single goal being economic growth and increased construction activity. But despite that energy and force, the fact remains that New Zealand is still a democracy, and Auckland's existing residents will increasingly demand a real say, and stake, in how Auckland develops and grows. People have a strong sense of what is fair and right, interms of who pays for what, and who benefits from betterment and value uplift. The fact that Auckland Council is still struggling with a Government that is reluctant to give it the financial tools and incentives needed for intensification and commensurate public realm is a poor reflection on the governance of this country.
Auckland Council will soon vote to change aspects of the IHP's recommendations. As it should. It would be helpful if it also voted to the effect that Central Government must now, at this juncture, fix the cracks, provide the legs needed for urban redevelopment.
Property Boom Planned & Protected by Government
It has been an interesting exercise trying to make any sense of NZ Government's housing policy with students who are taking the Urban Policy Analysis 201 course at School of Architecture and Planning at University of Auckland this year. And by "sense" I mean what is the rationale, what are the objectives, policies and suchlike, and how are those explained and evidenced by the data that is available.
I start with a slightly dated webpage put up by MBIE aimed at informing overseas investors. This says:
Turning now to Jane Clifton, Listener 6 August, we read:
And it's the "other things" that I turn to now. With difficulty because the black box of economics is outside my area of expertise. But because I think the GFC was one of the signs we entered a new world, which we are still in, and struggling to adjust to, I am curious and interested in what's actually happening.
Other signs that old dogma don't help much is the public discussion about deflation, inflation and the official cash rate. Why is it that in NZ inflation is less than 0.5%, while household inflation is crazy? And what is it about inflation that we need to get it back to 2%, and that the lever for this is to decrease the official cash rate by 0.5% (it's already the lowest it's been in recent history) to something less than 2%? There has been commentary on these matters from NZ Herald's Brian Fallow and Bernard Hickey. A recent piece from Hickey strongly advises investors to shift their money away from housing. But he struggles to offer clear advice on what to do with the money. Across the internet commentators are expressing similar concerns. Armageddon concerned too.
Big Picture Factors
Reading across the many views that are out there, a number of ideas arise:
This last one is a bit of a long bow. But when you can get 3% for your money in a bank (which is worrying about loans that might go bad in future), and 20%+ for your money in an investment unit - you'd be mad to have your money in the bank. With dairy and mining and other commodity related activities generating poor returns, then maybe the salvation is Facebook and Google and the panoply of social media producing factories that feed phone apps, not forgetting the producers of goods easily marketed by digital means.
Someone with wisdom mentioned to me the other day that whenever Australia looked like having a lull in its economy, there would be a hosuing boom. As if central government turned those particular taps on. Sounds like a plan.
Someone else - an economist - mentioned to me that he wondered whether New Zealand was capable of development planning at all. His view was that New Zealand's economy is largely unplanned, and that its development has been a sequence of speculative adventures. Starting with gold. Then frozen meat. Wool. Timber. Dairy. And in between speculative urban development. All of these activities were initiated by risk takers, acting as agents for speculative investors. Central Government's role was to clip the ticket as money came and went, and every now and then build a road to keep the investors interested and happy.
Not for New Zealand the Miti approach in Japan, or Germany's central planning, or even Thatcher's revolutionary service economy interventions. Mustn't pick winners is the opposing argument. Tried that with the think-big projects. Well, maybe not. But surely, the MBIE brains trust, and some applied strategic thinking (National, Labour, Greens...?) could come up with something more solid and future looking than a policy of increased immigration, low interest, limited investor controls and high pressure rural land rezoning.
And finally, someone else. There is another factor to add to the list above. Economic policies and political programs over the past 30 years have led to increasing inequality and concentration of wealth (the rich now want somewhere to put it that's more lucrative than under a mattress in a bank). The dispossessed, disenfranchised and alienated members of western nations are becoming the new majority. This was one of the surprising Brexit revelations. Imagine if there was an equivalent vote in New Zealand - not the new flag, but something of Brexit dimensions (and I don't mean leaving CER) - would the mob rule? Isn't it time that an alternative development plan was prepared for New Zealand rather than "studiously" ignoring that responsibility and leaving it to the mob to say no to the status quo?
I start with a slightly dated webpage put up by MBIE aimed at informing overseas investors. This says:
“Growth for 2015 is expected to be around 3%, supported by net migration flows, labour income growth, and construction activity. It is expected to fall back for 2016 and 2017, largely due to deteriorating terms of trade, particularly for our dairy exports….”(My colour emphasis added). And the next slide is what the Governor of the Reserve Bank of NZ said in his statement of 3 February this year:
“…NZ’s economy has faced a wide range of shocks since the 2007 GFC, some positive for growth, some negative,including:• Tightening global liquidity;• Canterbury earthquakes;• 2012/13 drought;• 70 percent peak to trough movement in dairy prices;• 75 percent fall in oil prices;• Record net migration;• Sizeable movements in the real exchange rate;• Annual house price inflation in Auckland that reached 27%..."(Again, my emphasis added.) So we see here a clear indication that the drivers for the property boom (including record levels of immigration) and its consequences (? - including 27% annual increases in property value), are all high-lighted. And here I will divert from my lecture notes.
Turning now to Jane Clifton, Listener 6 August, we read:
"National's studiously unacknowledged position is that galloping house price inflation and immigration are vital economic growth fuel and it dare not interfere. All the measures it has taken so far in the cause of promoting housing affordability - never once admitting that the market is in any way a problem - have been minimal...."I would add to that account the Labour Party. My reading of its policies is that they will add fuel to the fire. Fan it in fact. It's clearly a good plan to provide more State Housing - especially for those accommodated in cars and caravans. But that provision won't address house price inflation. And while a $billion for infrastructure might sound good, it is a small sum when measured against the need, and in any case will function to assist Auckland Council in releasing a little more developable land, but not enough to meet the insatiable demands that are being fuelled by immigration - among other things.
And it's the "other things" that I turn to now. With difficulty because the black box of economics is outside my area of expertise. But because I think the GFC was one of the signs we entered a new world, which we are still in, and struggling to adjust to, I am curious and interested in what's actually happening.
Other signs that old dogma don't help much is the public discussion about deflation, inflation and the official cash rate. Why is it that in NZ inflation is less than 0.5%, while household inflation is crazy? And what is it about inflation that we need to get it back to 2%, and that the lever for this is to decrease the official cash rate by 0.5% (it's already the lowest it's been in recent history) to something less than 2%? There has been commentary on these matters from NZ Herald's Brian Fallow and Bernard Hickey. A recent piece from Hickey strongly advises investors to shift their money away from housing. But he struggles to offer clear advice on what to do with the money. Across the internet commentators are expressing similar concerns. Armageddon concerned too.
Big Picture Factors
Reading across the many views that are out there, a number of ideas arise:
- demographics. The baby-boomer demographic proportion of the western world population holds much of the wealth, are retiring, down-sizing in various ways, and re-investing. The subsequent generation is smaller in proportion in number, have not benefitted from the economies, are much less wealthy, spend less, and therefore consume less.
- natural resources. The low hanging fruit that attracted speculative investment around the globe - cheap labour, easily extracted resources - are fewer in number and harder to hold on to. Globalisation and trade is not the economic engine it was. Concern is growing - Brexit is one manifestation, cross-party attacks on the TPP in the USA are another.
- money is worth less than scarce or productive assets.
This last one is a bit of a long bow. But when you can get 3% for your money in a bank (which is worrying about loans that might go bad in future), and 20%+ for your money in an investment unit - you'd be mad to have your money in the bank. With dairy and mining and other commodity related activities generating poor returns, then maybe the salvation is Facebook and Google and the panoply of social media producing factories that feed phone apps, not forgetting the producers of goods easily marketed by digital means.
Someone with wisdom mentioned to me the other day that whenever Australia looked like having a lull in its economy, there would be a hosuing boom. As if central government turned those particular taps on. Sounds like a plan.
Someone else - an economist - mentioned to me that he wondered whether New Zealand was capable of development planning at all. His view was that New Zealand's economy is largely unplanned, and that its development has been a sequence of speculative adventures. Starting with gold. Then frozen meat. Wool. Timber. Dairy. And in between speculative urban development. All of these activities were initiated by risk takers, acting as agents for speculative investors. Central Government's role was to clip the ticket as money came and went, and every now and then build a road to keep the investors interested and happy.
Not for New Zealand the Miti approach in Japan, or Germany's central planning, or even Thatcher's revolutionary service economy interventions. Mustn't pick winners is the opposing argument. Tried that with the think-big projects. Well, maybe not. But surely, the MBIE brains trust, and some applied strategic thinking (National, Labour, Greens...?) could come up with something more solid and future looking than a policy of increased immigration, low interest, limited investor controls and high pressure rural land rezoning.
And finally, someone else. There is another factor to add to the list above. Economic policies and political programs over the past 30 years have led to increasing inequality and concentration of wealth (the rich now want somewhere to put it that's more lucrative than under a mattress in a bank). The dispossessed, disenfranchised and alienated members of western nations are becoming the new majority. This was one of the surprising Brexit revelations. Imagine if there was an equivalent vote in New Zealand - not the new flag, but something of Brexit dimensions (and I don't mean leaving CER) - would the mob rule? Isn't it time that an alternative development plan was prepared for New Zealand rather than "studiously" ignoring that responsibility and leaving it to the mob to say no to the status quo?
New Election Billboards: Old Chestnuts
I remember my first election leaflet in 1998. Contained a telephoto shot of Lake Road looking toward Devonport from Takapuna. Surprisingly light traffic looking back. And here's a billboard for the 2016 campaign.....
You can't quite read the authorising text at the bottom. It's George Wood. Apparently he's not standing for Auckland Council this election. According to the billboard he's got a local board team.
I'm aware that a group of local people have been working with Auckland Transport for the past two years on Lake Road and Devonport Peninsula Planning. The group includes representatives from the Devonport Business Association, Belmont Business Community, cycling advocates, pedestrian advocates, public transport, motorists. And now George and his team have all the answers. Well, we'll see.
When Auckland Council was established there was a lot of talk about Area Planning - local community spatial planning - that would be a building block for the Auckland Plan. It's been a challenge for Auckland Council to incorporate local spatial plans into the Auckland Plan - which is one of the reasons why the Auckland Plan is failing to gain traction on the ground in local communities. Top down approaches generally run into glue and opposition in Auckland when it comes to actual implementation if they haven't been socialised with local communities (using the consultation lingo). That's shorthand for saying that any attempt to shortcut a good level of community participation in implementation planning means nothing much will happen. Which isn't progress.
Speaking of which, and in regard to Lake Road, it's interesting what the Independent Hearings Panel decided for the Devonport Peninsula. You can read about it starting page 26 in the IHP report on topic 81. This basically addresses the zoning of Ngati Whatua owned, ex Navy, land. There were apparently some 196 submitters, of which 183 opposed proposed zonings. The report states:
Despite George's billboard and the best efforts of his team.
I'm aware that a group of local people have been working with Auckland Transport for the past two years on Lake Road and Devonport Peninsula Planning. The group includes representatives from the Devonport Business Association, Belmont Business Community, cycling advocates, pedestrian advocates, public transport, motorists. And now George and his team have all the answers. Well, we'll see.
When Auckland Council was established there was a lot of talk about Area Planning - local community spatial planning - that would be a building block for the Auckland Plan. It's been a challenge for Auckland Council to incorporate local spatial plans into the Auckland Plan - which is one of the reasons why the Auckland Plan is failing to gain traction on the ground in local communities. Top down approaches generally run into glue and opposition in Auckland when it comes to actual implementation if they haven't been socialised with local communities (using the consultation lingo). That's shorthand for saying that any attempt to shortcut a good level of community participation in implementation planning means nothing much will happen. Which isn't progress.
Speaking of which, and in regard to Lake Road, it's interesting what the Independent Hearings Panel decided for the Devonport Peninsula. You can read about it starting page 26 in the IHP report on topic 81. This basically addresses the zoning of Ngati Whatua owned, ex Navy, land. There were apparently some 196 submitters, of which 183 opposed proposed zonings. The report states:
A number of submitters raised issues regarding the capacity of the wastewater and stormwater networks. Many submitters raised concerns about the effects of additional traffic volumes on an already congested Lake Road, the lack of frequent bus services and safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists, particularly school children.Interestingly the panel decided:
The Panel supports the retention of the Devonport Peninsula Precinct and the various sub-precincts and agrees with the additional height and transition provisions proposed by Ngati Whatua Orakei Whai Rawa Limited’s planning and urban design witnesses.The last paragraph will be of particular interest and concern to those who have worked for the past couple of years with Auckland Transport. I don't think for one second that they would have anticipated that their work was to enable the intensive development of Belmont and Bayswater, described in the IHP's report as follows:
The Panel acknowledges the concerns raised by many submitters relating to infrastructure capacity. However, it heard evidence from both Watercare and the Council that their networks have the capacity, or have programmed upgrades (in the case of Watercare), to address any constraints.
The Panel heard from Auckland Transport that congestion on Lake Road is not unlike that on other arterial routes in the region and that they will be investigating a programme of improvements identified in the Lake Road Corridor Management Plan to address congestion, including transit lanes and a focus on public transport improvements.
The Devonport Peninsula Precinct collectively covers 27.9 hectares of land and comprises six large land holdings (sub-precincts) of former navy housing in suburban coastal areas of the peninsula. The sub -precincts are:It is not clear how many residential dwellings might be constructed on this 27.9 hectares of land, or what sewage or traffic demands would be the consequence. This local issue will be occurring in one sort or another across Auckland. Local communities will be grappling with the local impacts of intensive zonings. However, until the Council - working with Central Government - realise and recognise that urban intensification requires planning that goes beyond zoning, you can be pretty confident that very little will actually change on the ground.
i. Sub-precinct A - Marsden Street (4.1 hectares); ii. Sub-precinct B - Birchfield Road (1.9 hectares); iii. Sub-precinct C - Plymouth Crescent (7.1 hectares); iv. Sub-precinct D - Hillary Crescent (7.3 hectares); v. Sub-precinct E - Vauxhall Road (3.2 hectares); and vi. Sub-precinct F - Wakakura Crescent (4.3 hectares). Ngati Whatua Orakei Whai Rawa Limited owns almost all of the land in Sub-precincts A to E and no longer owns Sub-precinct F
Despite George's billboard and the best efforts of his team.
Downtown Auckland Demolished
Walking to the ferry last night and came across a scene being captured by many on their digital devices. The rather massive and internally focussed Downtown Shopping Centre is being rapidly turned into rubble and dust - itself being washed out of the air by a fine mist. Spectacular.
Fingers crossed for what will replace it. Especially the public realm component....
And this morning. Being able to look through the DSC from Lower Albert. View of the CPO...
Fingers crossed for what will replace it. Especially the public realm component....
And this morning. Being able to look through the DSC from Lower Albert. View of the CPO...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
