This Myth Needs to Be Debunked

 

Note: I sought clarification from the Unitary Plan Planners today in regards to the definition of high rise here in Auckland. An easy to read PDF was also forwarded which I will embed further down the document. Changes will be in “red” in this particular post.

Ben, Admin to Talking Auckland

 

I saw this piece come up from the Manurewa Action Team that is seeking votes in the upcoming local elections:

This makes me rather sad. Why? Because I have the up-most respect for Angela Dalton and Simeon Brown who are seeking re-election to the Manurewa Local Board. While I expect that kind of above stunt to be pulled by Cameron Brewer I do not expect it from these two individuals – which is why that poster makes me rather sad (and angry as well).

Now if I have the definitions incorrect can a Unitary Plan Planner let me know please but, this is what I am going on since I last posted the definitions of an Auckland high-rise tower.

 

This was from my initial reaction over in Facebook

Note: Changes here reflecting Newmarket will no longer support high rise but Pakuranga will.

This is going to put me on a collision course with people I respect but this high-rise myth needs be busted.

The definition of High Rise in Auckland is anything building over 9 storeys high. There are only 11 places in Auckland this will be able to happen under the Unitary Plan. They are the main CBD and 9 of the Metropolitan Centres (which have 18 storey height limits apart from Newmarket which got dropped to 8 (so no longer it supports high rises)  and Papakura that got dropped down to 10 storeys). Pakuranga Town Centre in the draft Unitary Plan also now supports high rises with an 11 storey height limit proposed for that area

Manurewa is a Town Centre and is up for either 6 or 8 storeys which is deemed mid-rise by planners, geographers and civil engineers. I believe the Terrace Housing and Apartment Zone that surrounds the Manurewa Town Centre is restricted to five stories.

As for the Suburbs in the Manurewa Local Board area, those in the Mixed Housing Zones whether it be suburban or urban are up for a maximum of three storey (which is a restricted discretionary consent and as per the existing legacy plans any how) or otherwise known as Low Rise.

Remember also the Unitary Plan is an enabling document meaning such buildings will only be built by either state intervention or economic demand.

Apartments are contained to the Manurewa Town Centre and Terrace Housing Apartment Zone surround the Town Centre. In saying that I believe one could have a try at building a three storey walk up apartment in the Mixed Housing Urban Area but that would need to go through some brutal urban design control parameters first before the consent was ever approved by council.

And before someone says this is all planning speak – I a NOT a planner – I am a Geographer. If I, other geographers, planners and civil engineers have to “comply” with high-rise definitions then so should elected representatives. Otherwise you are basically telling out right incorrect information which is unfair to the population.

Think carefully folks. Manurewa Town Centre is up for MID Rise with the surrounds up for LOW Rise – there is NO High Rise for that area.

———-

 

Let me make this very clear again. These are the ONLY places where high rise towers can be built in Auckland under the Unitary Plan:

1. Main CBD
2. Newmarket
3. Takapuna
4. Albany
5. Westgate
6. Henderson
7. New Lynn
8. Sylvia Park
9. Botany
10. Manukau City Centre
11. Papakura
12. Pakuranga town Centre (11 storey height limit)

Note: this comment in blue seems to have caused a bit of “issue” today. The comment still stands after the clarification as high rise towers outside the above areas previously mentioned would be either non complying or prohibited activities under the Unitary Plan. Also to some people out there and it pains me to say this; stop being so thin skinned on more ‘controversial’ issues such as the Unitary Plan. It does democracy, debate, knowledge sharing/gaining and rational no good unless and at times (so not always) you put some “oomph” behind the message or point.

So if your suburb is not there you do NOT get high-rise towers in your neck of the woods.

So please be careful when selected your candidates to represent you. Those throwing around incorrect terms is dangerous and an actual hindrance to those carrying out planning work in the said area.

Anyone claiming high rise intensification in their area that is not one of the 11 centres named above is – I am sorry telling an out right subjective lie. 

 

Let’s approach how Auckland will be developing in an objective manner – please. Otherwise it does again make life harder for those planners, geographers, civil engineers and even developers and businesses trying to carry out their work.

Heights in the Metropolitan and Town Centres

 

I am Jealous

I just saw this on Twitter: http://oh-yes-melbourne.tumblr.com/post/60889176766/emporium

Why could such a concept not be built here in Manukau (and Henderson and Albany). This is what we need to (on the consumer side) advance Auckland as an international city into the 21st Century. It would also break the sterility of our shopping scene we currently have in Auckland…

One can hope I suppose – but remember if an investor or developer was keen on such an Emporium concept