I Will Be Watching The Auckland Development Closely in Regards to Development Auckland #AKLPols UPDATED

Type 1’s are there for a reason

 

I watched the Auckland Development Committee from Town Hall this morning mainly to see how the Councillors would react to the report from Panuku Development Auckland on the nine short listed areas that will be shortened even further to a list of three for what is called Type 1 intervention. Type 1 being those places or Centres needing long-term intervention with Development Auckland and the Private Sector. Type 2’s when mentioned are those often deemed more market attractive but Development Auckland is still wanting to partner up with the private sector. Type 3’s were determined to be most market attractive thus Council land is deemed surplus and can be sold off with Development Auckland still “keeping an eye” on any subsequent development that might occur on the Type 3 land space.

 

Now note what I have just said about the three types Development Auckland uses to categorise locations in Auckland for intervention and or development. Now check the scores below:

Panuku Development Auckland Type 1 short list Source: Auckland Council
Panuku Development Auckland Type 1 short list
Source: Auckland Council

There is a reason why Councillors Darby, Watson, Clow, Brewer and Krum places like Albany. Newmarket, Mt Eden Station and Onehunga would not be suitable for Type 1 intervention with Development Auckland but rather Type 2 and 3. That is because of Market feasibility of those places I just mentioned in comparison to Manukau and Otahuhu which have very total high scores but low Market scores for a very good reason.

If a location/centre has a good Market score (as listed above) then as I see it is a candidate for a Type 2 or 3 ranking with Panuku dependent on landholdings the Council might have in that respective area (Type 2 is Council does have land Type 3 if more towards Private like Albany). If the Market score is low then of course more intervention through Panuku is needed and thus a candidate to be a Type 1.

Therefore if a place like Avondale and Newmarket are identified and placed as such as a Type 2 or 3 then the first thing that needs to be done if not already done is an Area Plan. Area Plans give a basic framework on what the respective Local Board wants to do with its area over the next 20 years if not beyond. Thus for Panuku and the Local Boards that have Avondale and Newmarket they need to do Area Plans before Panuku then starts doing its partnership approach. Same applies to Onehunga and Albany Councillors Krum and Watson.

 

Back to Type 1’s

Councillor Darby as much as you said today the Committee was thinking Regional I am going to disagree. Councillor Clow, Krum, Brewer, Walker and Watson’s remarks in the debate today suggested to me they were not thinking Regional they were thinking what I fear – Patch. None of the places they touted are suitable in any given length to what I would rank as Type 1’s, they are Type 2’s and 3’s. I am not saying this as a citizen with bias but as a Geographer who used geographic analysis when selecting out the three Type 1’s to join the other two already there – Panmure/Glenn Innes and K’Road-Aotea Precinct (giving the total of Type 1’s to be actually five once you bring in the other three).

 

This from the Auckland Development Committee Decision Digests:

Item 12:  Urban Location Analysis results for Panuku Development Auckland

A number of locations have been recommended to Panuku Development Auckland to consider as part of their new ‘Type 1’ urban redevelopment programme. 

The Urban Location Analysis project, established by Auckland Council, identifies nine initial locations which include Manukau, Ōtāhuhu, Onehunga, Newmarket, Northcote, Takapuna, Mt Eden Station, Avondale, and Henderson.

Type 1 developments are very large scale, long-term residential and/or commercial developments that deliver on one of the objectives of the Auckland Plan – to radically improve the quality of urban living. An example is the redevelopment activities occurring at the Auckland Waterfront. 

Panuku Development Auckland is in the early stages of selecting urban locations across the region where it will facilitate development. The results of this project helps Panuku focus within Auckland’s spatial priority areas for future development.

The location analysis information and recommendations will now be passed over to the Panuku Development Auckland toconsider and report back to the Auckland Development Committee on 10 December with a recommended Type 1 development shortlist.

—ends—

 

As explained in Panuku Development Auckland’s Big Urban Renewal Development Program #BetterAuckland Manukau, Otahuhu and Henderson were chosen as prime candidates to join Panmure/Glen Innes and Aotea/K-Road in what would be Panuku’s five Type 1 developments that have long term intervention (i.e partnership with private sector, iwi and Government, and larger scale requirement of public works for civic infrastructure).

 

From Panuku Development Auckland’s Big Urban Renewal Development Program #BetterAuckland:

Panuku Development Auckland’s Big Urban Renewal Development Program #BetterAuckland

Phase Two of City Building to get under way

…………

Why these three?

Now remember, Aotea/K-Road, Panmure and Glen Innes are excluded for reasons stated by Development Auckland above.

But for Manukau, Otahuhu and Henderson the biggest stand out for me (apart from Manukau’s score) and on the score sheet was the ‘Community’ score. Community was scored by the following metrics (can be seen in the document I will have embedded at the bottom of the post):

  • Community Readiness
  • Community Facilities
  • Deprivation Index
  • Maori Wellbeing

I know during the Area Plan and Unitary Plan exercises that the communities serviced by Manukau (Otahuhu-Pukekohe and arguably the northern Waikato) as well as the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board were keen on Manukau to be intensified and undergo large-scale urban renewal over the next 30-years. Henderson and their community and Local Board are the same as well with intensification (given that Henderson like Manukau are both Metropolitan Centres) and urban renewal. Manukau and Henderson are surrounded by areas of high social deprivation as well (Manukau is in the core of The Southern Initiative while Henderson would be the core for a Western Initiative) so any works by Development Auckland on Manukau and Henderson will have to bear this in mind. Manukau and Henderson are also surrounded by large Maori populations as well so their wellbeing again must be considered with any work undertaken by Development Auckland. As for community facilities Manukau is a civic hub for Southern Auckland with Council service centres and offices, police headquarters, Manukau District Court, MIT and AUT tertiary campuses, and Government departments like ACC sprinkled around the place. Henderson is the same with police, courts, Unitec, Council service centres and offices, and respective Government departments as well.

So both Manukau and Henderson community wise are set up from the get-go AND most of all would have community backing for which if you did not then things for Development Auckland will not be going far.

As for Otahuhu most of the above for what I said about Manukau and Henderson applies minus some civic functions as well as Otahuhu is serviced by a Town Centre not a Metropolitan Centre. But again like Manukau and Henderson the community is behind their Centre (Otahuhu) and providing Development Auckland takes them on the journey the urban renewal of Otahuhu will be accepted more readily than if not taking the community on the journey.

 

Market scoring for Manukau, Otahuhu and Henderson is low compared to others on the scale and is a major case why these three places need to be in the Type 1 listing Development Auckland has created. If the Market scoring was higher than Manukau, Otahuhu and Henderson would be more suited to Type 2 where the urban renewal is more market driven and Development Auckland while still in partnership it would not be leading as hard as with Type 1.

 

As we know a lot of land in Manukau is owned by Auckland Council through Development Auckland. Any privately owned land is often more-so in big parcels making urban renewal on both Council and private land much easier than a Centre with smaller more fragmented sites like Henderson.

 

Lakewood in Manukau Source: http://www.lakewood.co.nz/
Lakewood in Manukau
Source: http://www.lakewood.co.nz/

……..

Finally we have Capital Complexity which Manukau scored some of the highest marks while Otahuhu will in the middle range and Henderson non-existent. Looking at Development Auckland’s criteria for Capital Complexity it seems Manukau is very much “Deliverable” in terms of redevelopment (urban renewal) as a market proposition despite a low “Market” score. I am interpreting this as once Council has laid down a Manukau City Centre Master Plan like the City Centre Master Plan and kick starts some public works in Manukau like Wynyard Quarter the market will pretty much come to the party and get cracking with new urban development. This means Council paying more attention to Manukau than the last five years but with what Development Auckland is proposing exciting times are in store of Manukau providing Council follows through.

Otahuhu and Henderson are by the looks of it going to need a bit more public works through Council than Manukau would in a relative sense before the market started kicking in doing its part. But given the absolute potential Otahuhu and Henderson hold for Auckland and the communities the higher amount of public works from Council for these two places especially with high community engagement and buy in the investment would be most prudent.

……………………..

Link is proved above

 

How to execute a Type 1 can be read here: Panuku Development Auckland and Manukau #BetterAuckland #AKLPols

 

Concluding Remarks

December 10 is when Panuku will give its short list of Type 1 long-term intervention with urban renewal to the Auckland Development Committee for endorsement. As I expected and feared Councillors are mixing up the methodology behind the Type 1 (long-term intervention and larger public works element) and Type 2 (more market led but with Panuku more inclined to enter partnerships) especially when it came to the so-called “Market” score on the current Type 1 short list (see above). I am also concerned that Councillors are trying to get their own area’s elevated into Type 1 when they are not suited for what a Type 1 truly is.

 

There is a reason why Manukau has a such a high score and has such a large gap in the score between itself and the like of Onehunga, Newmarket, Avondale and Albany. The 67.7 score shows the level of long-term intervention, work and even public works in regards to urban renewal in order for Manukau to reach its maximum potential. Potential that will have the largest spill over effects of any other short listed Type 1 given by Panuku. Manukau’s immediate catchment is around 393,000 with an extended reach of over 545,000 people and this is before we include other commercial and industrial complexes in Southern Auckland.

If the individual members of the Committee struggle to see that with Manukau, its score and the reason why it is the prime candidate for the Type 1 list then I do have worry about some of our Councillors.

 

Manukau housing site housing map Great place for the actual Inter City bus depot and metro bus lay over
Manukau housing site housing map
Great place for the actual Inter City bus depot and metro bus lay over
Advertisements