Auckland Unitary Plan

[speights boy]

Opinion: Are we JAFAs prepared to let the Auckland Council's Unitary Plan make high rise schools inevitable or can Auckland's growth be slowed down?

But does it have to be this way? Does New Zealand really want to have 40% of its population crammed onto, or around, one narrow isthmus?

Massey University Sociologist Paul Spoonley pointed out New Zealand's population is forecast to reach five million by 2026, with around 40% expected to live in the City of Sails, which by international standards is an unusually large chunk of its population for a country to have in just one city.

Spoonley suggested conditions could be introduced to immigrant visas meaning the applicant must live outside Auckland for a period of time, say five years.
He noted two-thirds of immigrants live in Auckland.

And Invercargill Mayor and transplanted JAFA Tim Shadbolt, who was Mayor of Waitemata City when I was growing up there in the 1980s, has called for action to prevent New Zealand becoming "too Auckland centric."
"It's devastating for us when you have a system of population-based funding,"

"In Australia, for example, they said new immigrants had to spend two years outside the big cities and it did work for them," Shadbolt said.

So isn't it time we had the debate at a national level over whether some attempt should be made to slow Auckland's growth and encourage people and business to other parts of the country?

www.interest.co.nz/opinion/63689/opinion-are-we-jafas-prepared-let-auckland-councils-unitary-plan-make-high-rise-school

[speights boy]

Davo, someone's been reading your blog.

Opinion: The 'should Auckland go up or out' debate misses the real point - the city is already too big for the country anyway

As everybody agonises about whether Auckland city should go “up or out” very few rational voices are even acknowledging a third option.

It can be a bit dangerous and misleading to go by what commentators to websites say, but there is a constant refrain among those commenting on the great debate about whether Auckland should spread or high-rise.

Aucklanders it seems DON’T WANT the city to grow in the future the way it has in the past, whether it be up, down, forwards, backwards, out, or sideways.

My colleague Gareth Vaughan in his excellent piece pointing out the likely high-rise future for Auckland schools made reference to this unspoken third option.

www.interest.co.nz/opinion/63713/opinion-should-auckland-go-or-out-debate-misses-real-point-city-already-too-big-countr

[Davo36]

Yeah I agree with some but not all of that.

I reckon we should think hard about increasing Auckland and NZ's population. Not sure (apart from economic reasons) why we're doing it.

But I don't agree with his planning style of containing everything in the CBD etc.

[RHarris]

But I don't agree with his planning style of containing everything in the CBD etc.

not everything is in the CBd. There are industry hubs in a number of areas. Takapuna looks also to be paying a bigger role on the shore. Even warkworth may have more employment options.

Prefer a vibrant heart to the city, options, variety of things to do, like any international city. To me the city is finally growing up in a sensible way.

[speights boy]

to me the city is finally growing up in a sensible way.

or.........

To walk up auckland’s hobson street is to really feel like you have been thrust up the backside of the universe.
It is disgraceful that half these “structures” (the word is used loosely) ever got beyond the drawing board, if indeed they were ever drawn.

[RHarris]

As for some places on hobson st. best to learn from past mistakes (12-15 years ago?) and not repeat them. In some weird way they have still provided accommodation in the cbd, while not ideal. Always good to move on to better things and buildings done well.

[speights boy]

As for some places on hobson st. best to learn from past mistakes (12-15 years ago?) and not repeat them. In some weird way they have still provided accommodation in the cbd, while not ideal. Always good to move on to better things and buildings done well.

Designed well 30m2 is fine for a couple or single person who want a good location without the price.

Today felt like Christmas reading through the plan.

And yet some people seem to want more of the same.....the ghosts of Christmas past.

If the CBD is to be seen as a good location - as opposed to the drunken, vomit ridden, social embarrassment that it is rapidly becoming, interspersed with souvenir and kebab shops - then we need to learn from other cities where CDB apartments are seen as desirable.... not a starter kit.

It appears we don't have that vision...and will just produce a modern version of the same.

[SwissKiwi]

And yet some people seem to want more of the same.....the ghosts of Christmas past.

If the CBD is to be seen as a good location - as opposed to the drunken, vomit ridden, social embarrassment that it is rapidly becoming, interspersed with souvenir and kebab shops - then we need to learn from other cities where CDB apartments are seen as desirable.... not a starter kit.

It appears we don't have that vision...and will just produce a modern version of the same.

For vision - you could look at the Britomart development which gets better every time I go down there. And the Silo park with its markets and concerts in the North Wharf area. Fort Street with its shared peds/car area and Fort lane with the very slick 3 level cafe restaurant bar with walkthru to Vuitton.

Lets not get too curmudgeonly about the state of the city.

[speights boy]

Don't spoil my grump SK....I usually can make it last till lunch...

What I can't understand though, in a district oversupplied with small living boxes, people are calling for more to be built.
They say "better design" but 30-55 m2 is oversupplied now.

I have no doubt that owner occupiers would wish to move in IF there are suitable apartments to cater to their needs.
Lets start readdressing the balance back in that favour.

Nah, it's all about trying to squeeze more and more into smaller and smaller.

[RHarris]

Agree with Swiss kiwi, place is getting better and better. Most this forum appear to be for the market to decide when it suits them. The council is leaving it to the market to decide what is built with design restrictions. There are a number of housing options that could be built. Stand alone, terraced house close to transport, etc etc. Makes complete sense.

[speights boy]

..... the market to decide when it suits them. The council is leaving it to the market to decide what is built with design restrictions.

Yes....let's built to the market that is lacking the supply.....not more shoe boxes.
That's what the council wants on this land.
Next, let's do the same on prime freehold.

Wynyard apartments will sell for $500,000 and up

At Wynyard Quarter, the selling price for the smallest apartments, on what will be leasehold land, will start at $500,000, with small townhouses beginning at $850,000 and larger ones well over $1 million.

www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10869716

[speights boy]

To me the city is finally growing up in a sensible way.

All-day congestion tipped for Auckland

Aucklanders are being warned to expect all-day traffic congestion - even if enough money can be raised for pressure-relieving transport schemes such as the $2.86 billion city rail tunnels.

A new report from Auckland Transport predicts significantly worsening congestion between morning and afternoon traffic peaks after 2021 under existing budgets providing $34 billion of transport funding over the next 30 years.

The report says that although some congestion must be expected in "a thriving, successful city of two million people", levels forecast for Auckland by 2041 are well above those now experienced in centres such as Sydney and Melbourne with their already considerably larger populations.

Even under a "fully-funded" programme, the report fears inter-peak congestion will start overtaking morning delays by about 2038.

www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10874102

[sidinz]

No mention of minor dwellings but this is interesting especialy the no carpark requirement:

3.3 The conversion of a dwelling into two dwellings
1. Where a dwelling is proposed to be converted into two dwellings the second dwelling must:
a. have a minimum GFA of 30m2
b. have direct access to an outdoor living space. This space may be exclusive to the dwelling or shared withthe primary dwelling
c. have a common wall with the primary dwelling of no less than 3m or share a ceiling with the primary dwellingd. comply with the daylight controls in clause 4.3.1.4.3.11.
2. Car parking is not required for the second dwelling.

Pffft! Under this rule, a secondary dwelling on my property would have better indoor/outdoor flow than the main dwelling, which has no 'direct access to an outdoor living space'.

[sidinz]

Just had a look at the maps......the street I live in, which is already sheer madness with traffic at peak times, has been designated as terraced and apartment buildings. Are they nuts? I hate to think of what that would do to the traffic patterns which are already increasing due to a large development further up the road.

One of my IPs, in a block of three cross-leased units, has been designated as commercial, from what I can tell.

I've also received notification that two of my properties are on land that is a 'Significant Ecological Area' that the council wants protected/restored. I wonder what impact that will have on my property values?

[speights boy]

......the street I live in, which is already sheer madness with traffic at peak times, has been designated as terraced and apartment buildings.
Are they nuts?

You may well think that sidinz......I couldn't possibly comment.

After all, it's only another million residents.

Actually, we would be a far healthier society as we walk and cycle everywhere, but the air quality will be a concern.
A lot more social as well I guess, as we walk and actually talk to people as opposed to sitting stationary in cars.