Tag Archives: Land use

C- Grade Plan Blurs Vision of The City

Posted on by

Herald on Sunday editorial: Compact city a blurred vision – Opinion – NZ Herald News.

 

The Herald on Sunday ran a tabloid version of what the NBR covered more “in-depth” in regards to Housing Affordability and the Compact City in Auckland. Titled (from NBR): ‘Housing crisis needs action not tinkering – commission‘, and a guest piece titled ‘How housing can be more affordable;’ the contributions look at why housing affordability is out if reach, why the Compact City is a joke, and to their credit – ideas on how to get on top of this problem.

I commend the Productivity Commission and their Chairman to step up and contribute their ideas to the public realm. Their ideas in a nutshell were:

Productivty Commission key findings

  • Home ownership peaked at 75% in the early 1990s but has declined to 65%
  • An immediate release of land for residential development would reduce pressure on prices
  • Tax policy had little to do with the recent housing boom
  • Auckland’s metropolitan urban limit is driving up land costs to 60% of the cost of a new home compared with 40% in other urban centres
  • Council height controls, boundary setbacks and minimum lot sizes are frustrating high-density housing developments
  • High section prices explain why new housing is concentrated at the top end – who is going to put a $150,000 home on a $300,000 section?The quality of rental housing is generally low but becoming increasingly expensive
  • Social housing policies lack cohesion and have shifted from addressing income issues, to complex social issues
  • Safe, comfortable and stable housing is important for social cohesion, family stability and individual wellbeing

I will have the full report embedded below – heads up its 342 pages long!

As for the Herald itself, lightweight but it expected. I will let you read it for yourself – should take a few minutes at most (time for the kettle to boil). As for why I call The Auckland Plan “C-” grade, you can read that HERE.

Now I do have ideas/policy platform suggestions of my own.

The main one can be found in my submission to The Draft Auckland Plan (now finalised and adopted) in regards to land use and supplemented with transport follow ups. Others can be found through coverage of Port of Auckland and The Auckland Water-Frontier (to which I will re-do (including links) the Port of Auckland Index over the coming week), my submission to the Draft Long Term Plan, and my logic and vision posts done just recently.

Just remember, ideas and solutions are fluid as the environment challenges changes are constant – so I do change my ideas to adapt to the environment challenges. 

The Productivity Commission Findings into Housing Affordability

A Few Moments Please

Posted on by

I will be a “Do’er” and front up with my Alternative Transport Plan

Rather than have a whinge and participate in the partisan Stalinist vs Neo Liberal Cock Fight, I will draw up my alternative to transport projects and funding in Auckland – drawing on my own and others ideas into getting Auckland moving without breaking the piggy bank.

Auckland

Auckland Harbour Bridge heading towards the City

However give me a moment folks – I will separate out Section Two – Transport from my Draft Auckland Plan submission (which also included Land Use) and produce a sub document to be uploaded into Scribd. That way there is around 18 odd pages instead of 53 to be read including an excerpt from another document of mine relating to the Westfield Rail Diamond Realignment.

Then by Wednesday night (fingers crossed) I shall have an extensive post of my Alternative Transport Plan that will include the funding mechanisms that will not break the bank.

However the alternative plan might be slightly different to what I have published in previous documents – this is owing to the uncertainty into Port of Auckland and what is going to happen to it – a case of ‘shall I stay or shall I go.’

The Draft Auckland Plan (#5) (Serial)

Posted on by

Looking at Tamaki CMCP

 

Looking at the next Central Master (Community) Plan, we focus in on Tamaki in Auckland’s Eastern Suburbs.

Titled “Tamaki Reconnected. A Tamaki Reconnected Initiative, Community Transformation Plan;” it was what would become (in my final year at the University of Auckland) my second Central Master (Community) Plan, and my first serious attempt at posting a viable alternative to a Brownfield development program from the Auckland planning and governing authorities.

The document/report is embedded at the bottom and pretty much sums up the entire Tamaki CMCP including the Eastern Highway.

Effectively Tamaki would be a great test bed for wide scale Brownfield urban renewal before it is carried out else where in Auckland. Thus I recommend starting here as the first Brownfield and transit orientated development program.

Just as a side note – this original document was written in 2010 – just under two years before the Port of Auckland Saga blew up in everyone’s faces. As a result I have a few clarifcations I would like to make in regards to the Tamaki CMCP and how the Port of Auckland saga could now affect the program.

I would recommend checking out the Port of Auckland Index here at VOAKL for my full commentary on POAL and how it could affect Auckland planning on a very large scale. I highly recommend checking out “Possible Port of Auckland Relocations – Part Three” for commentary into the consequences of expanding POAL into the Waitemata Harbour from its current position.

The Eastern Highway

You may be aware that I am a proponent of the defunct Eastern Highway Program. However there could be some confusion in relation to my two different stances on the Eastern Highway when it comes to The Draft Auckland Plan and the Port of Auckland expansion program. Thus this is where I stand with the Eastern Highway:

The Eastern Highway had three options available that could be built allowing rapid and alternative transport routes through the Eastern Suburbs of Auckland.

You had:

  • Local Option which was a two lane road with T3/Bus Lanes along the highway designation. There was no grade separation with other roads – meaning traffic lights or roundabouts at major intersections. Speed Limit – 60km/h
  • Sub-regional option which was a 4 lane expressway with T3/Bus Lanes along the highway designation. There was some grade separation in places – meaning a median barrier and on/off ramps on key places such as where the Panmure roundabout is. Other places you would have a 4 metre wide flush median strip and traffic signals controlling other intersections. Speed Limit – 80km/h
  • Regional Option which was a full blown 4-6lane motorway with bus lanes along the separation. As it would be a motorway the entire stretch is limited access and grade separated. Speed Limit – 100km/h
I have always advocated the Eastern Highway to be declared a State Highway and the sub regional option to be built – that is the Expressway. I felt the local road would not be able to cope while the full blown motorway was overkill. This is despite the Eastern Highway – Expressway being the primary Port of Auckland truck route (instead of the current Southern Motorway north of Mt Wellington) and an alternative for those wanting to get to the CBD without also hitting the Southern Motorway. However in picking the sub regional option – I did not allow or even consider at the time two years ago that POAL would expand to the extent currently planned. If POAL did expand as current debated, my sub regional option which was also designed to help Tamaki (see the document below) would be unable to cope with the huge increase in traffic volumes unless a motorway was built instead. The  motorway option I feel would be more of as detriment to Tamaki then an aid like the expressway was.
Thus I continue to support the Sub Regional option for the Eastern Highway but not the Port of Auckland expansion and the required transit upgrades needed – not when there are more viable alternatives else where for the Port of Auckland.

The Tamaki CMCP Document

Is the Draft Auckland Plan a Lemon?

Posted on by

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.

 

 

Auckland Plan Land Use Split

Posted on by

So 75:25, 50:50 or nothing?

The Draft Auckland Plan mentions extensively land use throughout the document. The document mentions a mixed method of growth of around 75:25 to all new development in Auckland.

That is, over the life of the Auckland Plan (through to 2040) which wants to “fit in” two million residents (and supporting businesses, industry and services) 75% of all new development will occur on Brownfield Land while 25% of development will be on Greenfield Land.

Further to that a Rural Urban Boundary will be drawn up to strictly contain all urban development (Brownfield and Greenfield) inside that boundary until the end of the Auckland Plan in 2040.

Although in saying that with the Rural Urban Boundary, you can remove the line on the map and will still have a “soft” RUB arising from the 75:25 Brownfield/Greenfield ration. The soft approach would mean more flexibility in the location of  the 25%  Greenfield Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation (rather than the “hard this is where it is going to go approach” the actual RUB will cause).

So I have two polls for you.

The first poll is on: Do you Support the Rural Urban Boundary. Pretty straight forward yes/no.

The Second Poll is more in-depth.  It asks you (regardless if you support the RUB or not as the answers given in the poll loosely fit with the RUB poll) the ratio that new Brownfield:Greenfield Development that should take place in Auckland through the life of the Auckland Plan (to 2040). REMEMBER the ratios are BROWNFIELD : GREENFIELD

Please consult Wikipedia links and The Draft Auckland Plan around land use (Chapters Seven and Eight) before answering the polls

You can comment on the poll but it will be subject to moderation first

The Polls