As we were discussing last week, draft plans for Auckland City would see Auckland's skyline in for a major makeover, increasing the city's capacity for new builds from 900,000 under the 2016 unitary plan to accommodating two million new homes. That's a lot. And it might be easy to dismiss the concerns of residents as being those of Boomer NIMBYs just worried about the house prices, but there are very real concerns that intensification on that level could be disastrous if there isn't careful planning. Communities aren't just about putting a roof over a head – you need infrastructure that can support those homes, like stormwater, like wastewater, like schools.
It's estimated that if you want two million further dwellings, you'll need 56 more primary schools, 23 more secondary schools – good luck with that. I would argue you'd need loads of green spaces as well – lungs for the city. And I am not convinced that we have learned lessons from the past. Chucking up shoe boxes is not good for anyone, any neighbourhood, any city. Thoughtful, well-designed, high-density developments can be built and can live alongside those established character homes. I'm just not entirely convinced that we can do it in New Zealand. I would love to see evidence of it. I mean the closest I can get to is Stonefields and possibly Hobsonville Point. Perhaps some of the developments around Tauranga, they look to be reasonably well done, although there have been issues with the amount of traffic that suddenly appeared on the roads and the congestion that is caused.
Give me an example of where thoughtful high-density development has taken place and I'd love to hear it. I'm just not convinced that when we go up, we know how to do it properly. We need more homes for more people. Absolutely we do. We need a variety of different homes, we need them to be near public transport and cycleways, hence the suburbs that are under question. We cannot simply keep up swallowing arable land. We need to go up. And I think the communities who are close to public transport hubs close to the city know this, they just want to know that the developments will be well planned and well supported by the necessary infrastructure. Who can blame them for being sceptical that this will happen?
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB - where this article was sourced.
It's estimated that if you want two million further dwellings, you'll need 56 more primary schools, 23 more secondary schools – good luck with that. I would argue you'd need loads of green spaces as well – lungs for the city. And I am not convinced that we have learned lessons from the past. Chucking up shoe boxes is not good for anyone, any neighbourhood, any city. Thoughtful, well-designed, high-density developments can be built and can live alongside those established character homes. I'm just not entirely convinced that we can do it in New Zealand. I would love to see evidence of it. I mean the closest I can get to is Stonefields and possibly Hobsonville Point. Perhaps some of the developments around Tauranga, they look to be reasonably well done, although there have been issues with the amount of traffic that suddenly appeared on the roads and the congestion that is caused.
Give me an example of where thoughtful high-density development has taken place and I'd love to hear it. I'm just not convinced that when we go up, we know how to do it properly. We need more homes for more people. Absolutely we do. We need a variety of different homes, we need them to be near public transport and cycleways, hence the suburbs that are under question. We cannot simply keep up swallowing arable land. We need to go up. And I think the communities who are close to public transport hubs close to the city know this, they just want to know that the developments will be well planned and well supported by the necessary infrastructure. Who can blame them for being sceptical that this will happen?
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB - where this article was sourced.
8 comments:
Auckland: it can be guaranteed to be done badly with the left-leaning council. This build - without proper infrastructure - will destroy the inner suburbs. Grim Moscow or Shanghai 15+ storey shoeboxes will destroy the inner suburbs. Hey ! Probably the intention.
No.
We need less immigration and a quality of life.
The new development at Ellerslie racecourse has turned the traffic around Ladies Mile / Marua Rd / Abbots Way / Peach Parade ( which was already bad) into a complete debacle.
Yep. Our town planning is short sighted and we lack vision. We have one hand on the 50s housing models and other on the 21 century modern world. We want solutions that we can’t afford. The result is a modern - not necessarily better- version of Coronation Street.
Biggest problem in NZ with new housing development, especially master planned ones (like Hobsonville Pt) is not the services inside the new suburb, it is the infrastructure around it not being increased... the adjacent roads, motorways, shops dont have the capacity to absorb the additional people. And this is because whilst these developments are consented by a Council, the other govt depts arent in sync... NZTA for motorways, education Dept for schools, and so on.
Aucklanders in particular are rightfully miffed by recent radical zoning changes. It is only woefully limited publicity which has prevented contrary public response on a grand scale. Enormous thought went into the Auckland Regional plan; its re zoning caused anguish for many. But it provided for decades. Then,, spurred by lack of planning elsewhere, Labour and National connived on a radical sweeping override. The most unimaginitive could see that 3 stories everywhere was going to be a disaster for many neighbours and this has proven to be the case. And out of nowhere 6 story blocks were allowed in many currently very pleasant residential areas within 800m of a rail station. Not something touted when the rail network was proposed. Now escalated to 15 stories! All those wonderfully comfortable 1920s homes with sections surrounding and within 800m of, for example, Baldwin station, will be enormously degraded by towering blocks hard alongside, or simply by the threat of. With the home future so insecure many of the mid professional owners who work in the city will feel compelled to move to outer suburbs. Or in many cases, to Australia. It is very questionable if similar key downtown employees will be the new majority occupants. More likely office cleaners, students, and idle beneficiaries. Anyone working other than in downtown will be living in an inappropriate suburb. Citizens throughout Auckland were well compensated for flood damage, despite this often very foreseeable by faintly diligent buyers. But there is no compensation for the devastation resulting from neighbourhood zoning change. Despite having exercised all reasonable diligence and studied the very seriously considered Auckland Regional Plan, many owners will find themselves caught out with their asset devastated, along with life in general when living in a canyon. For many it will be akin a leaking building experience.
Planners overlook that unlike many places overseas in NZ car ownership is essential and usual ifthe accepted and sought after normal life style is to be experinced.
Why does Ak need an extra 2m extra dwellings ? Potentially enough for nearly 4-5m people ? Where will all the people come from ? Didn't our current dear leader recently say he loves Indians ?
My sixpence worth. My father was a very successful businessman in the 50s but we lost everything overnight. Another interesting story. We ended up in government intensive blocks of 'demonstration' , as in eperimerntal) flats housing in Petone - we were broke, although you don't know that when young. It was a real shock, and you learned to cope with a completely foreign world (violence,m family abuse, swinging beer bottles etc) very quickly at age 13.The places we lived in were condemned in the late 20th century after the gamgs moved in, decapitation murders etc (I kid you not). So to all those 'experts' who have lived in cotton wool all their lives, I would suggest that there are better ways. Personally, I am grateful because you had to grow up real fast at 13, but intensive, low socio-economic housing schemes should be approached with great caution from my experience. Crime flourishers and it can be a very hasrd, bastard of a way to live. My recommendation would be a model based on traditional family concepts. Mixed age groups, the older with spare time to aid/support the under pressure younger family battlers, a big family setup, if that is not too naive. In the words of that great Aussie philosopher, John Williamson., 'the do gooders do more harm than good'. Tread carefully. Listen to real experience and perhaps avoid history repeating itself. Yoiu need to have been there on Thursday, as the trout fishing book said.
Post a Comment