Too Many Restrictions, Not Enough Progress – Unitary Plan

Written by Ben Ross - Talking Auckland

Unitary Plan Still Needs to be Liberalised

 

 

I came across this dissenting opinion over at Bob Dey’s Property Report Blog yesterday on the Unitary Plan.

A reminder that formal submissions to the Unitary Plan are open until 28th February, 2014. For more on the Unitary Plan please check out the Shape Auckland website: http://shapeauckland.co.nz/

 

Back to the dissenting opinion

According to the Property Report Blog (Bogunovich dissents from Institute of Architects’ support for “unreal” intensity plan): “Urban design professor Dushko Bogunovich has dissented from the Institute of Architects’ submission supporting intensification in the Auckland Council unitary plan.”

The Institute of Architects support the Unitary Plan while Professor Bogunovich despite his rhetoric does not. It is noted in the Property Report that Bogunovich does not support the 70:30 (60:40) Brownfield:Greenfield split in both the Auckland and Unitary Plans.

 

Rather than a mono-core centric compact city approach as purported in the Unitary Plan, Professor Bogunovich stated that:

Auckland should be a polycentric, predominantly low-density urban region, with many old & new satellites (about 100). It should be growing in co-ordination with the rest of the upper North Island (the ‘Whanga-Tane banana’ theory – to ease some of the pressure for growth.

…

Source: http://www.propbd.co.nz/bogunovich-dissents-institute-architects-support-unreal-intensity-plan/

Meaning you have a megapolis that stretches from Whangarei to Auckland, through to Hamilton and Tauranga forming that banana shape. No it does not mean one massive urban mass stretching over 400 kilometres but rather something you see in the New York-Boston-Washington megapolis region (albeit smaller scale here).

 

 

Okay that quote from Professor Bogunvich needs to be split into two parts:

Part One

Auckland should be a polycentric, predominantly low-density urban region, with many old & new satellites (about 100).

…

Ummm no – simply no. Not only does it contradict what the Institute said at the bottom of the Bob’s blog post but it is also not how the freer market would treat the situation either. If the Unitary Plan was liberalised (for example: height limits removed from Manukau and Albany Metropolitan Centres, the entire old Auckland City Council area had its Mixed Housing Suburban flipped over to Mixed Housing Urban Zone, and more MHU and Terrace Housing and Apartment Zones around key transit nodes, Metropolitan and Town Centres (for starters)) you would find that freer market reacting and working properly.

By properly I mean you would see an upshot of more high density growth in key areas of Auckland. Whether that be people wanting to be on the fringes of the CBD or living within a Metropolitan Centre, people (the demanders) and the development sector (suppliers) should be free (within the urban design and zone rules) to allow the equilibrium to be met. Existing residents should not be putting up massive NIMBY barriers for new residents to settle in the respective community.  Change and progress happens whether one likes it or not.

So by 2030 I can safely say there will be certainly more medium and high-rise buildings throughout the Auckland region – providing the Unitary Plan is not as restrictive as it currently is in the formal notification phase.

As for Poly-Centric, I am still working through dual and tri-centric centres with Council at the moment via the Unitary Plan processes (the 3 being: CBD, Manukau and Albany (as Super Metropolitan Centres).

 

Part Two

It should be growing in co-ordination with the rest of the upper North Island (the ‘Whanga-Tane banana’ theory – to ease some of the pressure for growth.

…

 

This folks is going to happen one way or the over through the course of the 21st Century. I have heard this particular situation come out of Town Hall especially the Manukau to Hamilton Corridor (with State Highway One and the North Island Main Trunk Line acting as the East-West boundaries) over the next 40-odd years more than once and bound to keep hearing it as the Unitary Plan approaches operative status in 2016. I believe I have even blogged about this situation more a few times earlier this year and might go review the situation early next year.

At the back of my mind when working through the Manukau redevelopment concepts is the fact we could be looking at the Whanga-Tane banana theory becoming actual reality. Thus one has to be mindful of the next 50 years ahead when drawing up concepts – especially for a metropolitan centre that could be come a major focal-centre for a “mega-region.”

 

 

No doubt there will be plenty more of dissent with the Unitary Plan as we progress through the notification. Dissent is fine as it spurs debate, scaremongering like a particular lobby group is however, NOT!

 

Will see more from all sides of the Unitary Plan debate as we get closer to February 28

 

 

Related articles