If the NIMBY‘s Can Mobilise – So Can We

 

I believe I can say what started as all happy and keen at the Council Unitary Plan media briefing on Thursday had by now turned into a pretty much meltdown after the maps were checked from yesterday by interested citizens (then hit Twitter).

People concerned about Auckland truly becoming like LA and becoming one sprawling mess should read Bob Dey’s “Unitary plan notified Monday – and Fontein says new restrictions increase housing shortfall to 150,000.”

Long story short, because of the conservative NIMBY’s fostering excessive controls upon the Unitary Plan (now in notification) we (if this was to become operative) are facing not only a shortfall in housing but, a lack of choice, affordability, a massive pile of low-rise and low density sprawl to boot.

Some key points from Bob Dey’s blog post

To house an extra million people in Auckland over the next 30 years, the council target is to get 400,000 more houses built, of which 280,000 would be inside the rural:urban boundary and the balance on greenfield sites outside that line.

Mr Fontein produced detailed analysis in 2011 to show a 100,000-dwelling shortfall inside the boundary. In a presentation at Construkt Architects Ltd last night, Mr Fontein lifted his shortfall estimate to 150,000 – 54% of the target, or homes for 375,000 people that would not be built.His conclusions:

• Affordability will be a growing problem because the influx won’t stop
• Restrictions imposed in the final days of the unitary plan debate mean more housing must be built in greenfields
• Achieving the intensification target will require a second major round of upzoning
• But that will be harder because upzoning in this first round will be insufficient, so many of the prime sites will be underdeveloped.

…

And to the scoring

Points for trying…. none for buckling

Mr Fontein gave the council points for achieving broad aims against advice given in 2011 –

• 9 out of 10 for pushing for all residential intensification to be urban design-led,
• 8 out of 10 for overhauling the planning approval process,
• 7 out of 10 for continuing the town centre intensification approach.

But when it came to the hard questions, he said the council had buckled. He gave it

• 5/10 for major upzoning within 4-800m of town centres,
• just 2/10 for major upzoning to allow further quality intensification within neighbourhoods,
• 1/10 for boldness in zoning,
• 1/10 for political resilience and
• zero for its failure to run a major public relations campaign showing the benefits of quality intensification to the wider community.

…

You can read the rest over at Bob’s site which does make for some near damnation from what has occurred with the Unitary Plan so far.

 

My own first submission can be found on the Unitary Plan can here. It is of note that using the 60:40 Brownfield/Greenfield rule and some tweaking around the centres like Manukau, I managed to achieve a 4000 home surplus. – in case the population grew faster than expected. Now the current version of the Unitary Plan has a shortage forecast of 150,000 houses – unless we undertake massive amounts of sprawl.

All thanks to NIMBY and NIMEY (Not In My Election Year). I am personally guttered and deeply annoyed with the outcome thus far. Needless to say I will be preparing the most robust submission I have ever written ready for the Commissioners in 2015.

But help is going to be needed.

The minority NIMBY’s were able to mobilise giving rise to the old adage that the mouse that roared. We YIMBY‘s and those who want a more progress Auckland need to form a loose alliance and make our roar – ROAR!

 

Should we form a YIMBY Progressive Alliance?

In forming an alliance I am aware of two sides that would spring up; the libertarian side who are annoyed with the restrictions to the Unitary Plan in place, and the Smart City side wanting to maintain the 70:40 rule and push for more intensification in the urban areas.

For me this would be interesting as I would easily occupy both sides. I believe in the 60:40 approach in the form of urban containment but allow the market to move more freely in providing preferred options according to the demand in the said zoned areas. Manukau and Albany Metropolitan Centres would be enlarged and height limits removed. The Isthmus and those within 2km of a Town Centre unless topography or physical geography does not allow it would be Mixed Housing Urban (which is what most are under now in the legacy plans) ( and unless already zoned Terrace Housing and Apartment). Terraced Housing and Apartment zones need to be restored within around 800 metres of a Metropolitan or Town Centre if we are to follow the Transit Oriented Development rule.

But as it said in Bob’s post

He said the council demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of development economics and upzoning was earmarked for the wrong areas where apartments weren’t viable. Height was required in market-attractive areas to make development viable, but provision in those more expensive places was minimal at first and then cut.

In “a caving in to resistance” in Browns Bay, for example, it would cost too much to knock over  a 2-storey building to replace it with 4 storeys, while zoning for 8 storeys in the poorer Otahuhu was pointless.

Mr Fontein said the desires of the Pasifika community needed to be taken into account: “There’s not a lot of them lining up for apartments. They want terraces, duplexes, and smaller sections are OK. Asians are OK with apartments. But unless you’re going to import or export people in or out of an area, that intensification is not going to work.”

…

That is a major crux and one of the reasons Council in its part bottled the Unitary Plan as it stands (the PR exercise is another debate). And this is where an Alliance of experts AND CITIZENS would work together to eliminate the pointlessness mentioned above and get actual desired outcomes for the people as it is the people who live with the consequences.

 

I also hope we have disagreements if an Alliance was formed. Disagreements foster debate, research and people learn the art of compromise (not flame wars, trolling, and screaming matches) (often as well the Best of Both Worlds solutions come from this). Having everyone just sit there and nod or sit there like a NIMBY is  not going get them or Auckland very far.

As for the logistics of this Auckland Alliance (just a name for the sake of this blog post), still rattling that one through but I thought I get the idea out.

Yes I am rather tired of a group of my parents’ generation holding the city back and allowing it to evolve – out of this fear of change. This is a city – pretty much a living organism that needs to grow and evolve, not a museum display piece behind some glass case where no one can touch…

 

Thoughts and comments on an alliance to help get Auckland into 21st Century? Leave them in the comment box below.