Urban Development: you care when it’s your own backyard
When you buy a home in the city, you don’t just want a house but a neighbourhood with lots of things to do in walking distance. A good cafe makes a huge difference . . .
We all want sustainable, affordable housing that facilitates community connectedness and individual wellbeing but will the Urban Development Bill that gives Kainga Ora, the new housing and urban development authority the way to do it? Bernard Oarsman lays out the issues - in this Herald article of 3rd February:
He’s right. While there is a recognition that there are some people priced out of the market and that overcrowding has led to people living in cars, there is nervousness about compulsory purchase, that the well-consulted-upon unitary plan could be ignored, that reserves and parks will be gobbled up with new housing projects, and all this at a time when there is more development in Auckland than there has been in years, and where, one hears, some developers are nervous about a glut of apartments coming onto the market at the same time. I wondered whether there was a lack of choice in apartment sizes but a developer building 3-4 bed apartments not far from the city also told me that the market was slow. New building is expensive, and the cost of new homes, like a new tailored suit will always be high. Pre-fabs can be a lot cheaper - the equivalent of off-the-peg (did you know Californian Bungalows were sort of Ikea homes that people could build themselves in the twenties? Now they WERE affordable - I read it in Ben Schrader’s book on the history of state housing in NZ) but there isn’t much of that as yet despite the best efforts from Chris on Grand Designs. Can good quality bespoke new homes be priced at a level that those on low incomes can reach? What needs analysis has been done? What do people want? Are conversations being had?
One assumes they are, but community consultation takes a long time and the shadow of the regeneration of Glen Innes lingers. The hard won Tamaki Commitment is now in place to assure residents that if they lose their rented accommodation and want to stay in the area then they can. Will this apply to Kainga Ora? What happens to people who are forced to sell their homes. If the development doesn’t go ahead, can they get their homes back? At present it seems not. It almost seems as if the desire is to avoid the whole painful process completely TO JUST GET ON WITH IT, but is that wise long term? In theory I am all for high density, mid-rise well-designed developments but of course when it is all proposed on the land you already live on, it is a rupture. People need to be kept informed and they don’t want to be thrown under a bus for the greater good.
Auckland, through consultation, collaboration and a bit of trial and error has developed an Auckland Plan and a City Centre Masterplan that connects - by foot, by bike, by public transport and by car - to the surrounding and outer suburbs. A number of urban centres, existing and future have been identified and rapid transport corridors will fit between them. Room for new housing is being made. Developers have considerably more right to build up than they used to. But you can’t make them. Urban planning is core local government work and there are teams involved in resource consents, planning, design guidance, providing infrastructure for water, for waste, for transport. There are some extremely talented people there and building up good local and institutional knowledge and relationships. By creating a new agency will that mean duplicating work and putting a strain on human resources and messing that up? In New Zealand how many expert planners are there? If central government can fill in the gaps in actually building what is required then that would be brilliant. This may not mean reinventing the wheel.
The Hobsonville Land Company that was Auckland Council, is now part of the new Urban Development Authority. The one criticism of the area is that it is supposed to be well connected to the city centre by public transport and it isn’t really. Will moving governance for that entity into a central authority with power over roads, but not public transport, mean that future projects will also be planned without public transport in mind? Absolutely yes if the Kainga Ora works in partnership with local and regional councils, but if they don’t, who knows? One advantage I can see is that by having a housing development agency based and funded centrally then there can be collaboration with the Ministry of Health and Education to ensure there are sufficient schools and clinics within new developments. Perhaps clinics can be close to libraries or community centres or supermarkets that are within the realm of local government? These alignments can be done if there is strong collaboration between the local and the central. And what about other sorts of efficiencies and allignments? The Urban Development Bill notes in s.34 Kainga Ora’s obligation to consider the suitability of a site with reference to:
protected land, nationally significant infrastructure, land that is subject to a conservation interest, any part of the coastal marine area, any defence area, any area or feature of land protected under a local Act (for example, under the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008); and
(b) each of the following, to the extent it is within the proposed project area: any reserve, by location and purpose: land that is owned by the Crown: former Māori land: RFR land; and
(c) Treaty settlement obligations and participation arrangements that apply to the proposed project area; and the information that the relevant local authorities hold on the following: natural hazards within or otherwise relevant to the proposed project area: contaminated land within the proposed project area; and the archaeological and historical heritage values of land within the proposed project area; and at a high level, the extent to which the project (including any infrastructure requirements identified) aligns with any documents that are published by a relevant local authority and that set out its plans (whether alone or with other local authorities or entities) for urban growth; and potential funding options for any infrastructure requirements identified.
(2) Kāinga Ora must also identify—
(a) the existing planning instruments and iwi planning documents that apply to the proposed project area; and
(b) any publicly available reports on climate change matters, prepared in accordance with the Climate Change Response Act 2002 or New Zealand’s obligations under an international treaty, that are relevant to the proposed project area.
It is not made explicit in the bill as far as I can see that amenities like parks, playgrounds, libraries, schools, shops with fresh food, community centres, cafes, pubs, green spaces and sustainable, reliable public transport be already within walking/cycling distance or will be provided. These spaces open up lots of opportunities to interact with other people and keep up with what is going on. Without them, however eco the buildings are it wiill be hard for emissions to be reduced so that we meet our climate change goals. People, particularly young people and seniors need access to the fun parts of the city (whatever that means to them), and if cars are required to leave the development to go and do anything then it can’t be described as a sustainable development that improves wellbeing. This is so even if the cars are electric because firstly kids, and a number of adults don’t have access to vehicles (legally, anyway), and secondly, cars still use up huge amounts of resources and demand resources to run them, and road space. Successful urban areas connect, they don’t separate.
The great thing about the current system is that we have the Unitary Plan which makes clear what is possible where so that people have some idea of where the city is headed and can put down roots accordingly. If you like suburban gardens then Glen Eden is a solid bet, if you want more nightlife, well you may prefer the city centre. At present my area has height to boundary ratios and a heritage overlay. It is a pretty old suburb in which there are still a few houses falling apart. We live in one of them but have engaged an architect to replace the soggy lean-to (which really does lean: drop a cherry tomato and it will head off across the floor). Will we incur this debt only to get a letter citing the Public Works Act? It feels that the Unitary plan should be followed, local infrastructure standards complied with and compulsory purchase done, if at all, only under limited and very carefully defined circumstances.
Is it time to celebrate special housing areas that facilitate the building of social housing to fill in the gaps, on the ridgelines, near the rapid transport corridors? The infrastructure and amenities are already there and they are still being paid for and so development contributions would be welcome. Should we take the opportunity when larger sites come on the market to put in courtyard buildings as in Copenhagen and Paris. They can stretch whole blocks, but can also be built five storeys high on much less - two adjacent sections, or one car dealership would do it. Can council work with central government to identify opportunities, bringing their different skill sets to the table and bringing local residents, current and future in on the journey?
Will the future feel like a rerun of the battle between Jane Jacobs and Robert Moses? Or will it harness the collaborative teamwork of Freiburg that is famous as being one of the most sustainable, child and people-friendly cities in the world? We shall see.
If you want to submit on the bill you have until 14th February. Click on the link below.