Is the Draft Auckland Plan a Lemon?

Is Chapters Seven and Eight of The Draft Auckland Plan a Lemon?

 

And

 

What could intensification look like in your neighbourhood if Auckland Council continued as is with The Draft Auckland Plan?

 

Lets have a look and see if Lemon is the operative word

 

 

Yesterday I posted the Independent Report into actual intensification potential in Auckland and how at absolute best, still falls 10% short of the desires set out in the visions in The Draft Auckland Plan.

 

Recapping briefly:

The Draft Auckland (Spatial) Plan stated a 75:25 ratio of intensification (Brownfield) to sprawl (Greenfield) development for a projected 400,000 new residential dwellings in Auckland (to house 2 million people) by 2040. The Draft Auckland Plan also sets out a very clear Rural Urban Boundary system on where development can or can not occur. In effect, the RUB is an arbitrary line on a map, all urban development will occur behind the RUB curtain, no urban development will occur on the rural side of the boundary. The RUB is the containment method behind the compact city model pushed by some in Auckland Council including the current mayor, Len Brown. So effectively 300,000 of the 400,000 the new dwellings needed will occur behind the RUB line. The city can not expand “naturally” which then causes major imbalances in the demand and supply of residential (and commercial/industrial) market(s). So can the intensification be done?

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  • Whilst the Plan’s target cannot be achieved, substantial intensification is possible, but needs to be much more widespread than the current Auckland Plan’s town centres and corridors.
  • Without major re-zoning only 45-60,000 extra dwellings are able to be provided in intensified form in the next 30 years.
  • With major re-zoning and sticking to town centres and corridors (as current draft Auckland Plan) could provide 90-120,000 extra dwellings .
  • With major re-zoning in most current urban areas (requiring huge political resilience) could provide 200-270,000 extra dwellings.

So as you see The Draft Auckland Plan, to be blunt and honest the Plan is a lemon when it comes to intensification.

Any how lets take a look at the report more in-depth, by starting at looking at if the last bullet point did occur this is what your local neighbour would look like.

 

So lets take a look at the graphics that were provided in the report.

Birkenhead

Birkenhead

 

 

Mangere

Mangere

 

 

New Lynn

New Lynn

 

 

Tamaki

Tamaki

With my views of Tamaki, refer to my Tamaki Assignment

You can right-click each of the above graphics and open them in a new tab, but heads up they are 1879×1033   so a 27″ screen does pay dividends

 

Those are the levels of intensification as an example of what would occur, if the maximum amount of permissible intensification (which is still 10% short) occurred.

To get an idea of what the buildings will be like, check out Chapter Eight of the Draft Auckland Plan by clicking the respective hyper-link.

Some areas would suit and be able to handle it such as Tamaki, over areas such as Birkenhead could not.

Look, we need all to have a pause and serious think here about how we want OUR Auckland to evolve over the next 30-odd years – as The Draft Auckland Plan misses the point and boat entirely looking at the independent report.

I personally advocated for a 60:40 ratio (Draft Auckland Plan is 75:25) in Brownfield (Intensification) : Greenfield (Development). So out of the 400,000 new residential dwellings needed; rather than the 300,000 as set out in the Draft Auckland Plan for Brownfield development, it would be around 240,000 (out of 400,000) dwellings needed in the Brownfield zones. Now looking at the report, the maximum plausible was 270,000 and even my 240,000 is pushing the barrow up the hill – with the 50:50 (200,000) split being advocated by the centre-right in Auckland Council also pushing it.

 

So then what is the ratio if The Draft Auckland Plan stuck to its guns. Well according to the report:

With major re-zoning and sticking to town centres and corridors (as current draft Auckland Plan) could provide 90-120,000 extra dwellings .

So that would mean a ratio of 30:70 Brownfield:Greenfield development – rather bit off to the point the other way around. And if no major re-zoning was undertaken the ratio falls even less to Brownfield developments. 

So taking it from the report:

Whilst the Plan’s target cannot be achieved, substantial intensification is possible, but needs to be much more widespread than the current Auckland Plan’s town centres and corridors.

Effectively, Chapters Seven and Eight of the Draft Auckland Plan are basically duds with no real scope of achieving its vision target let alone being viable or plausible.

Even my 60:40 ratio and the centre-rights 50:50 ratio is pushing it politically (at the minimum) but could be more “acceptable” and viable then the 75:25 current ration.

 

 

So where to next folks – we have a lemon for a Draft Auckland Plan in its current form – some serious re-working is going to need to be done. And that is before we factor in Port of Auckland.

 

 

About these ads

One thought on “Is the Draft Auckland Plan a Lemon?

  1. Pingback: And So it is with 60:40 « View of Auckland

Comments are closed.