Something does just not add up

I was going to run some more commentary on the Metropolitan Zones from The Clunker but, debate around Local Centres and transport has kept flaring up again and again which deserves some commentary on its own.

I open my Facebook and Twitter feeds this morning and heck almighty they are both running white-hot on Unitary Plan commentary from just about everyone in the city. While this was expected I narrowed down what main concerns keep coming up again and again (NIMBY-ism doesn’t count) and two main things have shown themselves in the this debate:

1. Local Centres
2. Infrastructure – particularly transport

Local Centres

I’ll replicate a comment here I posted on Facebook what I said about Local Centres this morning:

My geography training from the University of Auckland (I have a B.Arts in Political Studies (Public Policy and NZ Politics) and Geography (Human)) is kicking in here with the Unitary Plan, specifically around what is called “Place Setting.” In short “place-setting” is a social construction from people who build (over time) the sense of place (often based on their values) that they then attach themselves to. “Home” is the most basic unit of a place-setting exercise; you have a house which is the physical structure you live in, but “home” is what you mentally make of it. You will defend your home when threatened as we don’t often tolerate our “place” being tampered with. That does not mean the place will not changes – because it does, but it means you might not be so tolerant when say The State whole-scale interferes with your home and causes you great disturbance.

By extension this “place-setting” exercise extends to our community and to our city (it also extends to the country but the Clunker is not a national document). The hierarchy we humans will attach in place-setting usually goes (in order): home, neighbourhood, community (the local), the wider community (the town), the city (if you live in one), the region and finally the nation (it does extend to international but that is beyond this scope).

With the Unitary Plan currently out for discussion, everything from home to region is being affected here from this massive rulebook document. Now with me focusing on Local Centres which are deemed “Community (The Local)” and have the most interment place-setting attachment people beyond the home, I am going to focus in on this and see what is going on.

First some context from the NZ Herald and The Clunker Business Zones

From The NZ Herald

Four-storey rule sparks congestion fear

By Bernard Orsman @BernardOrsman 5:30 AM Thursday Apr 11, 2013

It will not be possible to drive to Devonport if plans to intensify neighbouring Belmont proceed, a public meeting heard last night.

About 100 people turned out at the Devonport RSA for a meeting on heritage provisions in a new rulebook for the city, but questions quickly turned to Belmont and the effect that four-storey apartments would have on Lake Rd – the congested route into the seaside suburb.

“Why would you choose this particular area [Belmont] to have four storeys? You will never get into Devonport,” said Seacliffe Ave resident Lexie Smith.

Belmont resident Trish Jenner echoed those concerns: “We are already suffering from too much traffic and if there are more people living in Belmont, the people of Devonport will have a huge problem with traffic that is already horrendous,” she said.

The draft rulebook plans to rezone large areas of mostly single houses east and west of the Belmont shops for four-storey apartments and terraced housing.

“Transportation up Lake Rd is more than a disaster, it’s unbelievable and getting worse,” said one long-term Devonport resident.

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board chairman Chris Darby said the board had secured $52 million to upgrade Lake Rd, from Hauraki Corner to the Belmont shops. Design work would start next year and the project would be completed by 2018.

Senior council planner Penny Pirrit said many town centres were struggling and getting more people to live nearby would make them more vibrant places where people came together.

Draft Unitary Plan Town and Local Centres Definitions

Town Centre zone – Zone description
This zone applies to suburban centres throughout Auckland, the satellite centres of Warkworth and Pukekohe, and the rural town of Helensville. The centres are typically located on main arterial roads, which provide good public transport access. The zone provides for a wide range of activities including commercial, leisure, residential, tourist, cultural, community and civic services. Provisions enable buildings between four to eight storeys high, depending on the characteristics of the centre. Increased height within the centres will facilitate increased office and residential living opportunities at upper floors. Some street frontages within the zone are subject to a Key Retail or General Commercial overlay. Key retail streets are the focal point of pedestrian activity within the centre. General commercial streets play a supporting role. Development fronting these streets is expected to reinforce this function. Rules for the overlay are incorporated in the zone rules. New development within the zone requires resource consent in order to ensure that it is designed to a high standard which enhances the quality of the centre’s streets and public open spaces.

Local Centre zone – Zone description
This zone applies to a large number of small centres throughout Auckland. The centres are located in areas of good public transport. The zone provides for the local convenience needs of surrounding residential areas, including local retail, commercial services, offices, food and beverage, and small-scale supermarkets. Large-scale commercial activity is discouraged. Provisions allow for buildings up to four storeys high, enabling residential use at upper floors. New development within the zone requires resource consent so that it is designed to a high standard which enhances the quality of the centre’s streets and public open spaces.

Now while the transport element was mentioned I will come to that later. It is the comment planner Penny Pirrit (who I have heard multiple times give the Unitary Plan presentation and will hear a few more times (most likely April 15 in Karaka)) that has gotten me writing about Local Centres.

To my opinion Penny has made a mistake here (unless the Herald has quoted wrong – which is not unusual most days) of not distinguishing what a Town Centre is and a Local Centre is in terms of place setting. Local Centres are small area of retail, office and maybe some medium density residential where locals from the immediate vicinity come together and conduct their business whatever it maybe. Although Papakura is an actual town centre, it still has that local centre feel where the wider Papakura and rural communities nearby come to the place to conduct their business. I do so when paying my water bill, visit the library, head to the train station, or maybe some shopping at the local Farmers or Warehouse (although The Warehouse is moving to Takanini). Local Centres are the local community’s “local” (service/business centre) and are often treated as such by the wider city. Local Centres will often not draw many outsiders in as a town centre or metropolitan centre would – nor would I expect it to. Local Centres serve “locals” not Auckland per-se.

In a round about way this brings me back to my Facebook comment on Town and Local. As I mentioned you need critical mass to make a centre vibrant as Penny said. But this applies to: City Centre Zones, Metropolitan Zones, and to a limited extent Town Centre Zones. This does not apply to Local (or Neighbourhood) Centres due to the difference in what each centre serves. City Centre and Metropolitan Zones serve the entire city, Town Centres the wider community around it (meaning it serves a larger catchment than a Local Centre). Local Centres again serve a small catchment – their immediate local communities and this is what is alarming the residents in Auckland.

Local Centres are up for 4-storey intensification through the Unitary Plan. This brings them to what most of our Town Centres are on-par with right now (although they are up for 8 storeys in the future) so you can gather the type of feeling in what our Town Centres are. As a result of this we have this place-setting in mind with what a Local Centre and a Town Centre already in our minds. Taking our NIMBY-ists out of the equation as they are more of a hazard than Council running amok, I would be safe to say the city knows it is up for some intensification – but how much. I have given my views on this very clearly in: my Auckland Plan submission, all Unitary Plan commentary here at this blog, and my housing mix simulator (first attempt) – which includes takes on Greenfield development as well. But what is being seen here is that time and time again Council (and her planners) are virtually over intensifying the Town and Local Centres basically to our current mind-frame turning them into:

• Town Centres (8 storey under the UP) into mini Metropolitan Centres
• Local Centres (4 storey under the UP) into Town Centres

If this the current mind-frame of the city with this level of intensification for our two but more specific Local Centres, then based on my above interpretation with place-setting of Local and Town Centres I can see why residents are so upset. Council is over intensifying and rewriting the place-setting of these centres rather than the communities doing that exercise (which they should as it is their right).

Thus in my opinion and using the Council housing simulator; I believe to maintain the place-setting we have attached to Town and Local Centres currently (which does facilitate constant evolution in how we construct our place setting exercise) but allow and recognise that the city has to grow as well I recommend highly to the Council for Local Centres:

• Maximum of three storeys with setback rules in place along the main local centre street or streets (so one or two storeys on the street side, and three storeys further back) 
• Meaning Medium Density 1 residential (upgraded from Low Density residential in my Auckland Plan submission) and low density commercial – but chances of going to medium density commercial on a case by case basis (Milford would be a case here to go to five storey around its mall)(basically upgrading to Town Centre) per my Auckland Plan submission

To my opinion three storey with setback rules for Local Centres would not create radical difference to the existing local centres not put extra burden on the infrastructure (unless someone screws up there). Three storey done tastefully (this is where my CMCP and SLPD’s come into play here) would not detract from the existing Local Centre but allow to accommodate the growth the city is facing and still give a sense of vibrancy these Local Centres often have.

I do seek readers opinion on my definition for Local Centre and what I would “zone” it as with heights and character here at the blog – as Council do keep an eye on this.

The Housing Simulator Mix I came up with as a reminder on what I did come up with

Transport.

I’ll keep this brief as we know the story. Intensification equals more traffic in that area and it is upsetting residents. I wish there was something to reassure residents this was not the case but Auckland Transport’s failed $60 billion Integrated Transport Program does not give that reassurance at all – so residents fears are perfectly justified.

Of a final note; I am sending Council an invoice for all this volunteer work and commentary I am doing on the UP here. This does take formidable amounts of my time and resources but I love it – as if someone wont, then who will for the city

Reference

Submission to Auckland Plan – has the CMCP, SLPD, and density work I drew up that is mentioned in this post

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND