Category Archives: Politics

The Politics behind the issue or of the day

The Karaka Collective Presentation

Posted on by
Reply

Musings on the presentation

 

I have been meaning to get this piece up onto the blog for a while about the Karaka Collective presentation recently. I have not got the Physical Powerpoint presentation on me but, will chase it down from the Collective and upload it to the blog ASAP.

 

On May 13 at Karaka Hall, Peter Fuller representing the Karaka Collective gave a presentation of the Collective’s “submission” and vision for Karaka West and Karaka North. This also included the Weymouth-Karaka Bridge which seems to be causing enough upset from both sides of the harbour.

I have been asked for comments on the meeting as I was there. These are my thoughts and some responses to queries I got asked which covered both the physical presentation and the subject matter at hand:

 

The meeting in itself was civil and hats off to residents knowing the issue is both passionate and a sore issue (for both Karaka and Weymouth).
For the presentation it was too long and should have only be at maximum 10 minutes for the matter presented. Anything beyond a 20 minute mark in presentations and you lose the audience. I nodded off at the 20 minute mark to which I decided to go over and start talking to Councillors Fletcher and Penrose on the matter at hand.

I would have recommended to follow what is called a split presentation when giving a talk on material that can be quite heavy or quite extensive.

The split presentation format I used for the Auckland Plan Committee last week in my Manukau Presentation ( http://voakl.net/2013/05/15/the-manukau-presentation/ ) had both a short power point presentation covering the main points and a “booklet” with all the information at hand.

Both the presentation and the booklet is sent to the committee in advance for advanced reading leaving me to go over briefly the main points of my argument. The committee with the booklet in hand then asks questions they might have. It was a useful technique and allowed maximum time for the main purpose; questions or what I like to call dialogue if executed properly.

Peter Fuller should have split the presentation with both a short 10 minute brief covering the main points, followed by a booklet with all the finer details for further reading – and had it released a week in advance. Bloggers like myself would have picked up on this and both republished the information and ran commentary on it.

Although in saying that there is a risk of preempting the Collective’s presentation of information and allowing the residents to form questions before hand. Or allow bloggers like myself to take control of a debate and frame the argument. Risks but risks the Collective will have to take if they want their plan to progress. Also something a particular Herald journalist and elected representatives on the North Shore find out too when they get debunked for utter misrepresentation of information. So the remedy is simple; tell the truth from the beginning and you have nothing to fear. Tell a porker and don’t expect much forgiveness from people nor bloggers in return. The Collective were being honest and their ambitions known.

While the material in Fuller’s presentation was too long and too heavy with the presentation too full of planning and officialdom jargon. It could also be taken that the information presented in a way that was talking down to everyone in the room. So a patronising effect that will chill residents and elected representatives

As for the questions they were pretty good, as for the answers they were not. Fuller was okay with the answering but the other two that were land owners I had real issue with. Their answers were put in a way of both putting down the room and issuing a challenge to the room to “meet them” in the Environment Court which is likely where this issue will end up. I have taken note from Brigid her comment which was (it is public):

“I was at that meeting and there seemed to be a difference between how Bruce Wallace envisioned a Weymouth-Karaka link and what Peter Fuller showed in his presentation. Bruce Wallace seemed to be wanting de facto motorway that would get him quicker to and from the airport and lower congestion on SH1 so he could get to work in under 20mins. However Don McKenzie the traffic expert on the Collective team said any Weymouth-Karaka link would not lessen congestion. And Peter Fuller spoke of a 60-80k Te Irirangi Drive/Te Rakau Drive equivalent. “

 

This folks is what you call an effective “Buggers Muddle” – that is a pile of different answers that basically contradict each other to the point oxymoron becomes the norm. Three different answers that would have three very different consequences on that particular bridge. Not entirely confidence material nor helpful for both Auckland Transport and NZTA if they ever decided to run with the project. So lets look at the points individually:

 

  • Bruce Wallace seemed to be wanting de facto motorway that would get him quicker to and from the airport and lower congestion on SH1 so he could get to work in under 20mins.

Umm no and won’t happen. Auckland Transport and NZTA would have to overcome hell and high water from Southern Auckland to get a de-facto motorway put in and the bridge built. The Benefit Cost Ratio would be below 1.0 owing to the massive environment (physical and social) consequences (mainly negative) to the entire area of the de-facto motorway proposal. The “motorway” would not lower the congestion on State Highway One especially when the Greenfield areas get built up. The only way to bet congestion on State Highway One is to 6-lane the motorway all the way to Drury interchange, get the rail service more effective and efficient, and development some large employment centres close to home (Manukau, Wiri and Drury). If one wants a quick trip to the airport then may I suggest throwing your support and money behind the Airport Line from Manukau Station to the airport. Coupled with the EMU’s you could be there in well 30 minutes without the traffic crap on the roads…

 

  • However Don McKenzie the traffic expert on the Collective team said any Weymouth-Karaka link would not lessen congestion.

Excuse the language but No Crap Sherlock. It will not lessen congestion any where. All that bridge will do is cause rat running through an established community causing misery and literal hell. Yes I see Weymouth has the strip to allow a 4-lane road but it is now too late for the road. That road and bridge should of been built 50 years ago to 4-lane specifications before Weymouth took firm settlement. The settlement could of then be built around the road and bridge rather than the community now being built around the road. As I said the only way to lessen congestion is what I mentioned above. Through in a proper Regional Public Transport Plan and I would say you could remove all together 33% of the cars off the road at a minimum while still allowing transit choice

 

  • And Peter Fuller spoke of a 60-80k Te Irirangi Drive/Te Rakau Drive equivalent. “

So an expressway option. Last I looked that the communities around Te Irirangi Drive were built in a way that they were mitigated from the most serious aspects of that road. That is the road was built around the community with green shelter belts and lane ways to access the houses (that is no house has a direct driveway access to Te Irirgani Drive in the new sections of that road). The older sections at the Manukau end of the road and along Te Rakau Drive which do have direct driveway access to the road show the implications of planning not done properly. What we see in the older sections of Te Irirangi Drive with direct driveway access rather than green belts and lane ways off the road is what we would get in Weymouth. Not fun for the residents nor particular safe for an 80km expressway either… It is of note that the Manukau end of Te Irirangi is at 60km/h while the new Botany sections are at 80km/h. That 80km/h section has the greenbelt and lane ways shielding the houses from the road. I wonder if the Collective would be willing to stump the cash up to retrofit Weymouth Road with those lane way shields if they want their bridge built. Probably not, so I wouldn’t want a 80km/h expressway either without the proper mitigation in position FIRST.

In regards to Bruce Wallace (seem to remember him rather well for some odd reason), I don’t particularly care if one has had issues with the old Councils. Most of us would have had crap from the legacy Councils so we know what it is like (Manukau Station being a pet peeve for me with the old Manukau City Council that I am still trying to fix up with the current Council). But what I do care is them short circuiting the RUB process and apparently trying to buy their way into outcomes favouring them via the Unitary Plan.

I did ask the final question for the night regards to the Collective supporting existing and new infrastructure projects before backing the Weymouth Bridge. Those projects include Glenora Road Station, Spartan Road Station, the Manukau Rail South Link, the RPTP with the bus routes and so on. While they said they would and might have done so (meaning I need to dig up submissions), I highly doubt it unless they prove me wrong over the next 7 years.
In saying that I am working on my submission to stave off that bridge as long as possible through a formation of a new regional park on the Karaka side. This has been mentioned before in this blog before

The submission will go up on my blog as soon as its finished.

Otherwise the meeting was handled well by the residents from a group short circuiting the processes the rest of us have to go through via claiming it is for the good of Auckland.

 

 

Those were my thoughts in the presentation. As I point out to the Collective, those ARE MY THOUGHTS AND INTERPRETATIONS of that presentation. If the Collective differs to my interpretations they are free to share a guest post – that is less than 2500 words and in plain English. Graphics help and can be facilitated easy into the blog.

 

In the mean time people do not forget your submission to the Unitary Plan in before May 31 – 5pm

 

 

 

And DEBUNKED

Posted on by
Reply

Tsk Tsk – For a Major Debunkment

 

Well I debunked Orsman this morning in my “DEBUNKING ORSMAN – AGAIN AND AGAIN” post. Sure enough it upset some centre-right conservatives and Orsman fans (despite the Twitter storm against Orsman this morning) which triggered off this response from me on Facebook:

A message to our Centre-Right Conservatives in Auckland 

If you want to know why I debunk Orsman day in day out ; it is because I will not allow the Main Stream Media to get away with misrepresentation’s and utter crap. That graphic purporting on Papakura was a classic example of deliberate misrepresentation on something that could never occur. What was more insulting of that misrepresentation was that is was of my home Papakura – where I live and shop. 

While I live in a Mixed Housing Zone and will look at a three storey house in the future in the area once the UP is operative, I am also 100 metres north of the Papakura Metropolitan Centre and know extremely well what I am in for through to 2040. And what Orsman used as a representation for Papakura that is false is insulting and scaremongering to the residents and businesses down here. I am also to believe that Orsman was handed the graphic by the Character Coalition which will irk me even further. Irk number one for Orsman not checking a graphic that is a misrepresentation which was subsequently placed in the paper, irk number two for the Character Coalition obtaining (again failing to check) or drawing up a wrong graphic knowing that kind of building can not be done in Papakura.

That is why Orsman will be debunked. The conversations from others on Twitter in relation to this matter reflect my sentiment against him as well

 

 

Well pretty much on cue the Council debunked Orsman and I even think the Character Coalition who “supplied” the false drawings that went into the Herald. The debunking was on similar grounds to my debunking but with the rules and proposals quoted under the Unitary Plan. I shall do a copy paste job over for your reading. The two articles by Orsman that were debunked were:

 

From shapeauckland.co.nz

UNITARY PLAN ILLUSTRATIONS IN TODAY’S NZ HERALD INCORRECT

 

The illustrations used in today’s NZ Herald and credited as being “Supplied” are not Auckland Council illustrations but were done by a student. Those student impressions are incorrect and not possible under the rules of the proposed Unitary Plan. They do not represent development that would be allowed under the draft Unitary Plan.

They have fundamental flaws:

Sandringham images

NZ Herald

The sites on the corner of Sandringham Road and Cambourne Road are zoned Single House in the draft AUP. The Single House zone does not permit development of the scale shown in the image. The Single House zone has a maximum permitted height of 8 metres.

Papakura images

Secondly, the building in the background of the image would breach the proposed maximum tower dimension control for Metropolitan Centres. Above six stories, this control limits the horizontal distance between the exterior faces of the two most separate points of a building to 50 metres.The buildings shown in the illustration would fail to meet a number of the urban design criteria for development in Metropolitan and Town Centres. Examples of this are the requirements that “buildings should be designed to avoid long, unrelieved frontages and excessive scale when viewed from streets and public open spaces” and “buildings should provide a variety of architectural detail at ground and middle level”.

A building of the length shown would not be permitted under this rule. The image does not represent the form and design quality of buildings that would be required under the draft Unitary Plan in Metropolitan Centres.

St Heliers images

NZ Herald 2

Firstly, the buildings do not meet the specific requirement for a number of streets in the St Helliers local centre (including the two shown) that buildings are set back at least 2.5 metres from the front boundary above 8.5 metres in height.

Secondly, the buildings would not meet the very detailed urban design criteria for St Helliers, including the requirement for buildings to “respond to the elements that contribute to the character of St Helliers”. The key criteria are listed below.

a. New buildings should respond to the elements that contribute to the character of St Heliers and have regard to:
i. The contribution any existing building on the site previously made to the character of St Heliers as described in Appendix 12.1 St Heliers character statement.
ii. Where the site is located.
iii.  The existing or original street subdivision pattern and the extent to which buildings are articulated to avoid potential adverse effects of scale and bulk.
iv. The visual interest at street level should be maintained in order to enhance the pedestrian amenity of the street environment. Buildings should be designed to front streets, concentrating main entrances and windows on frontages facing the street.
v. Where appropriate incorporate a recessed street frontages to create transition space for outdoor dining, seating, planting or other uses.
vi. The scale of proposed building elements should be compatible with that of existing buildings in the vicinity. In particular, where a proposed building is higher than an existing adjoining building, to reduce the dominance of upper levels consideration should be given to differentiating upper storeys from lower storeys. For example, this can be achieved by setback from the frontage, change of building form, change of building materials/colour, or by other appropriate design variation.
vii. Roof design should maintain or contribute to the varied roofscape of the centre as viewed from the surrounding residential area.
vii. Rooftop projections including towers, chimneys, lift towers, machinery rooms, air conditioning equipment, ventilation ducts and equipment, or water towers should be integrated in an architecturally attractive manner as part of the overall design of the building.

b. Site development should respond to features of the surrounding context including: topography, streetscape character, scale and pattern of the public/private interface.

c. On-site car parking and vehicle circulation areas should not visually dominate views of the site from the surrounding public realm.

d. For development across two or more sites, including amalgamated sites:
i. the clarity of the grid-like structure should be maintained or enhanced
ii. the number, variety, scale and quality of public spaces, such as streets, lanes, alleys, squares and/or parks, are maintained or enhanced
iii. pedestrian permeability and comfort should be maintained or enhanced.

—–ends—–

 

Before I go any further a comment on St Heliers. St Heliers is a place where I am keeping very special attention focused in regards to the Unitary Plan to a degree of fondness for the place. That would be stemming from what the UP has in store for St Heliers, me disagreeing with that aspect of the Unitary Plan, and creating the Special Character Zone in reflection of the St Helier’s community. If it was the Character Coalition supplying incorrect and highly misrepresentative photoshopped graphics to the NZ Herald I would be extremely disappointed of the Coalition. The Coalition does have ties to St Heliers and I believe knows of my Special Character Zone work under way. My disappointment due to the misrepresentation caused by the graphics in the Herald today would serve me to apply distance not from St Heliers and the Orakei Local Board but to the Character Coalition.

Work such as the Special Character Zones would of complimented the Character Coalition’s view on a special and specific zone to high character areas of Auckland. However scaremongering such as seen in the two Orsman articles has the very high potential not only to piss off the city as a whole but has the very high potential to annoy council and undermine any work towards things like the SCZ. If as an example the SCZ work was undermined because of the shonky reporting today then that would be a massive blow to St Heliers, the wider city, and myself after the work put in thus far (and what was still to come). I hope for the Coalition’s sake if it was them and the graphics today that Council does not go hostile to the SCZ’s.

 

 

As for the rest of it I shake my head at the shonky reporting from the Herald. But it is also what I expect from that particular “journalist” hence the constant debunking. The Council should demand an apology from Orsman for his trifle in both articles today. It does not help the debate nor the submissions with the Unitary Plan. It also makes the job for private and even professional individuals and organisations like myself harder as we have to scale back the misinformation before getting to the actual nuts and bolts of the plan. Local Boards would also be rightly annoyed especially they get swamps with concerns stemming from the articles as they too claw back the misrepresentation before getting the again actual nuts and bolts.

Maybe this might serve a reminder to people on where to go with Unitary Plan information. Certainly not the Herald (apart from Rudman when he does comment)…

 

Speaking of debunking take a listen to this piece from Morning Report on the 2040 Auckland group. The link is this http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2555808/big-turn-out-expected-for-meeting-on-auckland’s-housing.asx

Radio NZ seemed to be providing the right questions and debunked 2040 Auckland rather well. The Deputy Mayor got on afterwards and then had her piece to say.

 

 

If I were take a guess at this I would say the level of misinformation thus the level of debunking in return will only increase as May 31 gets closer, and formal notification gets closer (whenever that is)…

A pity as it does undermine work like Manukau as the Second CBD of Auckland, and the Special Character Zones…

 

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND

BR:AKL: Bring Well Managed Progress

The Unitary Plan: Bringing Change

Auckland: 2013 – OUR CITY, OUR CALL

 

 

Lessons from British Columbia in Electoral Races

Posted on by
Reply

Lessons too with The Unitary Plan

 

This particular article was given to me via Facebook and has some very poignant lessons on elections, and “selling” the Unitary Plan:

B.C. election offers lessons for politicians everywhere

From advertising strategies to mobilizing young voters, politicians have a lot to learn.
By: Michael Byers Published on Thu May 16 2013

 

The main thrust of the article was going on about an incumbent long thought to lose only to win and cause a large shock that even caught the premier out. Tactics and some sober reminders were also pointed out which I should go through point by point in regards to the UP but, touching on the mayoral race as well.

 

From The Star.com

Christy Clark’s re-election was a political shocker of seismic proportions. Nobody saw the victory coming: neither the pollsters, nor the pundits, not even the premier herself.

Across Canada, across the electoral spectrum, politicians and their advisers are scrambling to understand what occurred. Here’s an initial assessment, from my vantage point close to the front lines.

 

  • Positive campaigning is about demeanour, not substance. It’s about conveying optimism and empathy, about connecting with potential voters and inspiring them to turn out. Christy Clark did this well; Adrian Dix did not. And you never, ever, say that you’re running a positive campaign. Just do it!

Speaks for itself with a mayoral campaign. As for the Unitary Plan it is one of the things I try to do when running balanced commentary on this vast document. Yes I will go into attack mode (as Orsman and some conservatives find out quickly) but, that is going to be covered in another point in this post. Yes The Clunker can reign confusion and anxiety but the idea is not to go cause a self-fulfilling prophesy and fuel those negative emotions. Empathy for those that have anxiety (which is legitimate) and optimism for that despite a lousy hand from the Unitary Plan as it stands now, things CAN get better. I suppose empathy and boundless optimism with the Unitary Plan is what is keeping me from going off the deep end for this long as it stands. At the same time real alternatives are being crafted and presented for which all are being received favourably by most sides of the spectrum (you can never impress a NIMBY if you push change or even progress (so some battles you can never win)). All from running a positive campaign approach

 

 

  • Incumbents have to be held to account. Barack Obama’s “yes we can” campaign was leveraged explicitly on eight years of Bush administration failures. The B.C. NDP should have campaigned hard against the major scandals from the B.C. Liberals’ 12 years of power, including the deceptive introduction and shamefaced retraction of the HST. They should have campaigned against British Columbia having the highest child poverty rate in Canada, and against Clark’s personal proximity to the scandal-ridden sale of B.C. Rail.

Again this speaks for itself if one wishes to run against Len. As for me with the Unitary Plan and holding those to account; well the Penny’s (Hulse and Perrit) will get me asking questions if I am lost or don’t like something in particular with the Unitary Plan. Pretty much standard “operations” with a civic body and a planning document. Depending on how such questions are answered will influence whether I go positive or on the attack. Thus far I have not needed to go on the attack against the Penny’s. However holding Local Board Members and Councillors’ feet to the fire is something I will do more readily in regards to the UP. Those like Angela Dalton and Desley Simpson seem to be the exception rather than rule in not having to hold their feet to the fire. Why? Because they do their job and display empathy to all despite the UP being not the easiest document out there. And because both Angela and Desley do their job properly (and extended to Calum Penrose, Mike Lee, Sharon Stewart and Chris Fletcher) I get along with them well when sorting out the crap hand dealt to all of us with the Unitary Plan. We might not all agree but that is democracy and makes for healthy debate and stronger resolutions.

However with the good comes the bad. And there are those I will be holding their feet to the fire over the Unitary Plan. I do not tolerate scaremongering or deliberate misrepresentation from elected members on aspects of the Unitary Plan. The Three Storey House and Walk Up Apartment issue is the most recent case where I have (and rather sadly) gone on an attack path against some of the elected members (which ironically is our more conservative members who have an infamous name that has the word blue in it). This attack has happened because of their deliberate misrepresentation over the three storey housing issue which the subject matter has always been in the Unitary Plan. It would have helped if those particular members actually read their own legacy District Plans which formed the new rules  in regards to three storey buildings in the Unitary Plan

So people will be held to account where required – pure and simple with no apologies for it…

 

 

  • Attack ads work, at least if they are directed against real weaknesses. Adrian Dix did change his position on the Kinder Morgan pipeline halfway through the election campaign. He did wrongly backdate a “memo-to-file” while serving as chief of staff to an NDP premier in 1999.

Attack ads don’t work in NZ too well. Whale Oil and David Farrar would be the better people for opinions on this. But yes to me they do work when executed right and as part of a multi-prong campaign. Especially when an opponent has real actual weaknesses. This also applies with the UP when I go on the attack.

 

 

  • Never show up at a shootout with a Nerf Gun. Attacks have to be countered, and strongly, before they cause lasting damage. This can require launching a retaliatory attack — ideally, again, one that is directed against a real weakness.

Well no ahem Sherlock. Anyone with half a brain should know that. It is also like taking a knife into a gun fight – you will not win… Speaking of which I am listening to a Morning Report piece on the Unitary Plan where this bullet point I am commenting on comes into effect. If a journalist is on to it which they were in this piece, showing up to a shoot out with a Nerf Gun is only going to hurt and it did. As for the bullet point in itself, something that needs to be learned in NZ. Although I measure I will try to use if I get caught in a shootout (to varying degrees of success)

 

 

  • Most people, rather than voting on detailed policies, make their choice on the basis of some broader narrative. The economy matters, but detailed solutions — like Adrian Dix’s beloved “skills training” — do not. The people who are hurting most in tough economic times are also those who, because of a lack of time, education or civil engagement, may be most receptive to simple messaging.

Yep as I learned that in Political Marketing at the University of Auckland. It is also the reason why I get friends to assist me to simplify my documents on the Unitary Plan so that is not only easy to read but encompasses a broader narrative for the readers out there.

 

 

  • Progressive parties need to address the felt desire of many progressive voters for cross-party electoral co-operation. A clear commitment to introducing proportional representation immediately upon being elected could help to draw third party supporters toward any progressive party with a real chance of winning. Unfortunately, the B.C. NDP believed it could win successive elections within the “first past the post” system. Federal Liberals and New Democrats please take note!

Take note those seriously running for office. Failure to do will get you buried. I wonder if this particular bullet point rings out why the Centre Right, Local Government lot in Auckland have been failing with the Super City. It could very well be a lesson for them to take note before the Centre Left increases its majority further.

 

 

  • Pollsters have trouble accounting for lower turnout among some parts of the population. Young people are still not voting, and inspiring them to do so is the single greatest challenge facing progressive political parties today. Twitter and Facebook are no replacement for face-to-face relationship-building. Christy Clark lost her own seat because of a young and energetic B.C. NDP candidate who forged thousands of personal connections the hard way.
A pet problem in getting sections of the population to vote. Still Len managed to pull it off and might very well do so again in these elections with nothing impossible in this stage of the game. As for the Unitary Plan and face to face relationship building; it is the main reason why I headed out across the city to listen to the UP community meetings and gauge people’s views on it. The jetsetting around the city meeting different people has helped frame commentary on the Unitary Plan. The relationship building is also helping when drawing up those alternatives and then putting them out there for people’s thoughts. I supposed the measured successes of the Special Character Zone, and the Manukau as The Second CBD of Auckland work has resulted in the face-to-face relationship building. Seeing faces is often best compared to seeing “Facebook.”

 

  • There are no second chances. The key organizers of the B.C. NDP campaign were the same people who lost the 2009 provincial election. The campaign manager was Brian Topp, who was the early front-runner in the 2011-2012 federal NDP leadership race. With all due respect to Dix, who would have made a remarkably good premier, politicians who want to win cannot allow friendships to shape their choice of campaign teams.

Hmm Banks got a second but not a third chance however, with the UP there is no second chance once it goes into full operation. The bullet point makes a sober reminder when assembling teams to advance any project. Surrounding yourself with Yes-Men that pander to your ego and maybe Small Man Syndrome is going to be the fastest way to be both attacked by all sides and fail at the same time. You always need strong teams and teams that have people who will either go outside the square in thinking or disagree with you if something is utter crap. These kind of teams are winners and serve a reminder to both those with the Unitary Plan and those running for office the stakes in getting this aspect oh so wrong.

 

So we have sobering lessons from Canada that apply here in Auckland. I recommend having a deep thought session about this while I go debunk a piece said on Radio NZ this morning.

Debunking or Clarification?

Posted on by
Reply

Always Returning Planning to Local Board Level

 

 

The 2040 Auckland meeting at Takapuna Grammar last night attracted around 500 people and is covered by both Orsman in the NZ Herald and Joel Cayford with his blog. I will ignore Orsman unless I want to waste a post on debunking him again. But, as for Cayford I found myself nodding away to what he was saying.

 

The “meeting” yesterday however, would only reinforce my presumption that the Unitary Plan is an Anglo-Saxon Euro-Centric plan that is unrepresentative of a significant and growing proportion of Auckland’s population. You can read further into the commentary of the Unitary Plan being Anglo-Saxon in my “MISSING SOMETHING WITH THE UNITARY PLAN” post. Further more from comments coming out of that meeting another section of the population was missing (and I don’t blame them either) and that was the under 35′s. Yes even I did not go and rather spend time with the extended family watching the NRL, netball and movies than hear a one-sided fest on the UP. In saying that I have seen the under-35′s mobilise with the Unitary Plan. 150 at Generation Zero meetings and 20-30 in the Southern Auckland Youth Forums run by the Manurewa Local Board. All present, all just as concerned as the elders on the Unitary Plan having the potential to go very wrong very fast. So I wonder who is not giving a fair go here?

 

As for Cayford you can see his piece “Auckland 2040 Unitary Plan Meeting at Takapuna” by clicking on the hyperlink.

I did pick up these points though from Cayford

Meanwhile, back in the meeting there were questions from the floor. One bloke asked about the Auckland Housing Accord. I was a bit taken aback by Richard Burton’s response. “The Special Housing Areas in greenfield and brownfield. I think that’s a good idea. Completely separate from the unitary plan process…”  He failed to mention that it is Central Government and Auckland Council doing the selection of these areas. Seemed unconcerned by the fact that Central Government was about to step into Auckland Town Planning.

 

I agree with Cayford there and have commented heavily on the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas. Friends in the National Party and Government have heard me against both aspects and reasons why. Cayford’s concern would be similar to mine (separate to the Unitary Plan process and government interfering). So I wonder if Burton either realises the actual issue with the Accord or vested interests somewhere? Hmmm

 

One “rethink the plan” point listed in the feedback form was of concern to me. It was the last one. It asks Council to re-evaluate the greenfields versus intensification balance in the plan. I would strongly oppose that submission – having sat for years trying to slow sprawl into Auckland greenfield land. The emphasis for compact city planning needs to be on mechanisms to achieve change – rather than blanket zoning controls that permit an unregulated free markets approach. The meeting heard from one resident who insisted that the city was growing and that it needed to change in some way to accommodate that need. I felt the meeting was short-changed a little on planning information about housing diversity, and about the housing needs of the broad demographic – including active retired people (who don’t want a big house and garden), and young people who would like to start with an apartment not too far from where they grew up.

 

Yeah well nothing unexpected from that lot in 2040 with the Greenfield bit. Harking back to what they know and 1950s planning? The 60:40 Brownfield:Greenfield urban development provision is one I called for then supported when it came up in the now operative Auckland Plan. I still support it as we take Auckland out of 1950 and into the 21st Century. My Housing Simulator attempts (crude as they are) outline how I would divvy up the Brownfield:Greenfield allocation with the 60:40 split, and I had a surplus of housing to allow flexibility in both areas. My submission to the UP will continue support for the 60:40 split.

What I came up with to give my take

What I came up with to give my take

That is the Housing Simulator mix I came up with and will be running with in my submission

 

While I take aim at 2040 Auckland with the Greenfield aspect of their submission, I do hear them more clearly with other aspects of concern. This is where the Brigade and myself are talking the same but differently at the same time. This slide I saw was rather interesting:

What this 2040 want with the Unitary Plan

 

I can see and hear everything single point made in that slide. This is what got me going again Councillor Dick Quax when he implied I was defending the Unitary Plan which you can see here:

  • Dick Quax Ben for someone who follows Council matters as closely as you seem to it’s ironic that you can only refer to people’s age as some kind of defence for the Plan. I expected better.
    • Ben Ross Dick do not assume under any circumstance what so ever I am mounting a defence for the Unitary Plan. I refer to age to point out the imbalance we are seeing with the UP feedback. Can you safely say 20% or more in the room were under 35? If not then a section of the city was missed – badly and sadly. My views on the Unitary Plan are very clear and have been clear since Day One. Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse knows it and acknowledges I refer to the UP as The Clunkler for a very good reason. But she also knows the effort and resource I have poured in to turn a crap hand to something more useful for the city. It is how I got the Special Character Zones for Orakei Local Board, the CMCPs and SLPDs for the entire city, Manukau as a Second CBD of Auckland for Auckland’s sake, Auckland as a megaopolis for Auckland’s sake. Heck even got approached by John Palino and had a very fruitful 2.5 hour chat on Friday discussing an alternative future for Auckland. So you can expect better Dick as I will go above and beyond the call of duty as a citizen and as a professional with the UP. It was so mentioned last Tuesday

 

 

Auckland as a Megaopolis, Manukau as the Second CBD of Auckland, Special Character Zones, Centralised Master Community Plans and Semi-Liberal Plan Districts, re drawing up the zones and centres to better reflect, simplify and solidify the planning process in Auckland. All mentioned, all drafted, all being submitted on that will cover those very points made in the slide above. At the moment though the information is scattered across many documents and blog posts. I am collating it into one master document though as I write-up my submission to the Unitary Plan which will be made available May 31.

 

 

A reminder to all that the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License applies to this blog unless otherwise noted.

 

So do I debunk or clarify? Clarification it is as I go collate all the information together

 

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND

BR:AKL: Bring Well Managed Progress

The Unitary Plan: Bringing Change

Auckland: 2013 – OUR CITY, OUR CALL

 

 

That 10 Metre – 3 Storey House

Posted on by
3

Okay and the issue was?

 

Patrick Reynolds from Auckland Transport Blog dug up a picture of a similar 10 metre – 3 storey house built in San Francisco that could apply to our Mixed Housing Zones back here in Auckland.

This folks is what a 10 metre high, three storey house (although it could be deemed a Terrace House) with 3-4 bedrooms (so medium to large) and proper urban design controls looks like:

San Fran 3 storey houses

pic.twitter.com/CzxwFIUnfR
Credit: Patrick Reynolds

 

Serious Auckland what is the issue with this in some of our Mixed Housing Zones across the city.

Coupled with parks, community spaces, transit provisions and neighbourhood centres this kind of development would be an excellent example of my Fringe Zone work I am drawing up for my Unitary Plan submission. This example would be near perfect as both a transition from a Metro or Town Centre’s Terrace Housing and Apartment Zones back down to the Single Housing Zone, or pepper potted along a Mixed Housing Zone area when not near a centre. To add further diversity there would be nothing stopping putting two of those houses together to get one of those super large houses at 5-8 bedrooms to cater for our collective families in Auckland (that the UP sorely is missing as in my “MISSING SOMETHING WITH THE UNITARY PLAN” post).

 

In saying that though according to the Unitary Plan this kind of developed is classed as a ‘non-notified restricted discretionary activity.’ Meaning in short this kind of development in the picture would be an exception rather than the rule with Mixed Housing Zones. In plain English this kind of development is not a permitted activity under the Unitary Plan – that is you just can’t simply do it if you feel like it. Restricted Discretionary means a central Council Planner will decide whether such a development in the picture above happens. It also means you will have to jump through the Resource Consent and Urban Design hoops the Council will put in position via the UP.

 

I have the “paper work” in regards to Mixed Housing Zone and the three storey houses in my “DEBUNKING ORSMAN” post that went up this morning for your reading. Any queries and I’ll try to answer them, if I can’t I shall find someone who can.

 

Grrr this is why I go along and debunk people like Orsman because he fails to investigate properly what would actually occur and what something might look like if carried out. Done properly I can see no issue with quality designed 10 metre – 3 storey houses pepper potted in Mixed Housing Zones like those in San Fran. If anything the San Fran lot pictures would most likely add more character and amenity to some very character devoid areas in Auckland currently. Also if done right this is where the Unitary Plan has its positive spin offs…

 

 

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND

BR:AKL: Bring Well Managed Progress

The Unitary Plan: Bringing Change

Auckland: 2013 – OUR CITY, OUR CALL