Sprawl vs compact development?

[Hellzie]

Alright... then how do you fix a problem where the inspectors are not qualified or experienced enough to make judgement calls and council is unable to get the correct personnel for that job due to not having the budget for it, and those skilled people can earn more being the builder etc?

Don't worry, I'd prefer what you want, it would allow the volume builders to get on with building, lower the cost of building (both the building cost and councils consent processing overheads) and make it faster as well.

However, its much the same as the speed limit. There are drivers that cannot cope with the current limit, just like there are builders trying to cut as many corners as possible, so the rules have to be made to catch out the problems.

The rules need an overhaul, real bad. It needs to be more balanced, and the rules need to reflect the overarching vision and objectives. And unfortunately its not happening even with the new Unitary Auckland Plan. Yes you need base rules, but there should be more discretion for non-complying designs, where they still meet the intent of the rule. The intent of the rule (why the rule was put into place to start with) is more important than the rule itself. More emphasis on getting this right is what needs to happen. So just like the building code, you have acceptable solutions (tried and tested), but you can also propose an alternative solution (which allows innovation) and caters for the ideas that can only be thought of at detailed design stage, not during structure planning / master planning, etc.

It's all bad if we have no place for common sense and innovation.

[Gremlin]

Hah, it reminds me a decade ago of the new housing designs. Council was fine with various claddings we now know to be bad (well, it was actually how they were fitted, with the lack of cavaties), and hence building has changed.

How do you know an alternative is going to be OK? Hindsight shows us that what we think is brilliant at the time we all accept is bad down the track. On the flipside, the rules do create a very standard way to build, so a lot of houses all look the same...

[Hellzie]

Hah, it reminds me a decade ago of the new housing designs. Council was fine with various claddings we now know to be bad (well, it was actually how they were fitted, with the lack of cavaties), and hence building has changed.

How do you know an alternative is going to be OK? Hindsight shows us that what we think is brilliant at the time we all accept is bad down the track. On the flipside, the rules do create a very standard way to build, so a lot of houses all look the same...

really??? So we should just stick with what we know and never try anything new in fear of it not working? No new inventions? Static world? Even if we try, this can't actually happen. Change is inevitable whether you like it or not.

[ellipsis]

...it actually sounds like you are trying to sell something...prove your product is what EVERYONE wants, needs or has a wish to be part of and you may have the ears of the populace...implying that socially, all will be better off is a big call...implying that all will be happier is a fairly big call...implying that we in NZ could have some of what bigger vibrant overseas cities have is also fair enough, but a big call...you would need to educate a nation, execute some, change a national mindset....but in a big old warm, fuzzy, hippyish kind of way it sounds good...good luck with trying to take the greed out of the 'leaders'..

....thank fuck i live in a paddock surrounded by animals and humans are scarce around here...

[Brett]

Profitability is ALWAYS the key driving factor in a property development for developers and it always will be. However, if Council has rules (or better still, the discretion) to ensure good, integrated design, then this becomes a non-issue. The problem is the Council doesn't have the balls to give themselves discretion, instead, they write dumbed down rules that cater for the lowest common denominator, to ensure that the worst doesn't happen, and in the process they also don't allow good design. And this is why there is no good examples of quality infill in Auckland. Because the rules don't allow it to happen. There's no common sense anymore. It's all tick the boxes. BOO.

It is A driving factor, not THE driving factor. I AM a developer, but I won't develop shit. I will only develop stuff that I want to live in, but yes...as a business it needs to ultimately be profitable. However building good developments and making money are complimentary rather than mutually exclusive.. It needs to be well designed and thought out, and it needs to be built to last. It also needs to be in the right area and targeting the 'right' type of people. For a while I was looking at developing houses for Housing NZ...but thankfully saw sense and walked away.

[Brett]

Easy - almost half the people living here are immigrants. I made that statistic up but I'm pretty sure that's about right. And surely around 70 - 80% have been overseas and experienced the alternative to what we're doing. So really, I guess what I'm saying is, a lot of people would prefer an alternative to more sprawl, they just aren't being given the choice right now.

I would agree with this. I have spent time in 'infill' housing developments, gated developments and well designed high density towns and I have found a few that are actually hugely preferable to what we have here. They were in different countries too, Aussie, Europe, South Africa. Someone hit the nail on the head earlier as well...the neighbours and neighborhood make a huge difference to the success of the community. In fact, I almost preferred it to what we have now, which by Auckland standards is pretty nice. Semi rural - 10 minutes from Botany Town Center, new house on 3000m2. There is something about being 'freed' up from your property like some of these communities provide.

I worked with a group about 6 years ago looking at developing a huge block of land in Pokeno into a type of 'Eco Village' (minus the pot smoking hippies) which in all seriousness would have been a fantastic place to live with very well designed community services and infrastructure, but unfortunately the funding fell through and then the recession hit. However I am very very keen to have another go at some stage in the future, I have been working on a scheme plan for a while and hopefully one day the time will be right, but at the moment a project of that scale is a bit beyond our means.

[Hellzie]

I worked with a group about 6 years ago looking at developing a huge block of land in Pokeno into a type of 'Eco Village' (minus the pot smoking hippies) which in all seriousness would have been a fantastic place to live with very well designed community services and infrastructure, but unfortunately the funding fell through and then the recession hit. However I am very very keen to have another go at some stage in the future, I have been working on a scheme plan for a while and hopefully one day the time will be right, but at the moment a project of that scale is a bit beyond our means.

Oh cool, was that the WAM / DJ Scott one? That looked like a cool little project, shame it didnt go ahead.

[Hellzie]

It is A driving factor, not THE driving factor. I AM a developer, but I won't develop shit. I will only develop stuff that I want to live in, but yes...as a business it needs to ultimately be profitable. However building good developments and making money are complimentary rather than mutually exclusive.. It needs to be well designed and thought out, and it needs to be built to last. It also needs to be in the right area and targeting the 'right' type of people. For a while I was looking at developing houses for Housing NZ...but thankfully saw sense and walked away.

Agreeed. I work with developers all the time, I think most (at least the ones I've dealt with) do actually want a good outcome. They want the project to be design led and to be a success.

[mashman]

Link for you: http://www.stonefields.co.nz/TerraceHousing.aspx The quarry will be a mixture of types of housing (website has more details). Personally, yeah, it's a bit small... all modern houses I feel myself hunching up to avoid clipping walls and door frames, but then I ain't a wee fella. Then again, they can only work with what the developers create site wise... I know council has been pushing for smaller sections the whole time, to work into their density planning (but that's a whole other topic).

The entire development will take years to complete, I know of it because my dad is a manager elsewhere in Fletchers. Haven't been on site and seen the details of it, but it's Fletchers, so no fly by night temporary company setup for the job (seen those in East Auckland on big blocks, one company created for each block by the parent company... shocking).

heh... is that where the stepford wives live? Tis a shame they don't add an extra floor and gently slope the roof. My sister used to live in something very similar except she had an extra floor that made all the difference.

[Winston001]

Haven't read the whole thread but it's certainly an interesting discussion.

A few random thoughts: research says that 150 people is the ideal size of a community based on the size of human villages. Its data worth considering when planning community hubs - train/bus depots, small shops, arterial roads etc.

A mate of mine (Kiwi) has lived in the USA for 25 years. In that time his suburban homes have always been on 1 acre (4048m2) or larger sections. That's across six states over the 25 years. And that's normal for many Americans who choose to live in spacious suburbs. Personally I like it.

The 1/4 acre section still exists in many NZ towns and cities and is enjoyed. Space, privacy, light and air are all critical elements for our individual well-being.

At present I think urban planning theory for higher density housing cannot work in NZ. Quite simply, there are too few of us, plenty of land, and not much money or reason to live cheek by jowl. Its a vision of hell for me.

[jonbuoy]

Housing here is very dense but it keeps the small island from getting over developed. I struggled getting used to apartment living when I first got here but now I'm used to it. Easy to keep clean, heat/cool and maintain. Weekends are for fun not painting and weeding. Biggest struggle has been finding a lockup garage with power. We have talked about upsizing but the more I look at it the less sense it makes financially and time wise. Difference here is the majority of people live in apartments not the minority.

[avgas]

Haven't read the whole thread but it's certainly an interesting discussion.

A few random thoughts: research says that 150 people is the ideal size of a community based on the size of human villages. Its data worth considering when planning community hubs - train/bus depots, small shops, arterial roads etc.

A mate of mine (Kiwi) has lived in the USA for 25 years. In that time his suburban homes have always been on 1 acre (4048m2) or larger sections. That's across six states over the 25 years. And that's normal for many Americans who choose to live in spacious suburbs. Personally I like it.

The 1/4 acre section still exists in many NZ towns and cities and is enjoyed. Space, privacy, light and air are all critical elements for our individual well-being.

At present I think urban planning theory for higher density housing cannot work in NZ. Quite simply, there are too few of us, plenty of land, and not much money or reason to live cheek by jowl. Its a vision of hell for me.

Said the man in Invercargil.
Perchance did your mate in the US happen to live in NY, CT.......where they have less than 1 a blocks? 6 out of 50 (or whatever they concluded it was) states is like saying you lived in Auckland and Wellington and know NZ inside and out.

No one is forcing you to live on sub-400m blocks. But atleast leave the option open to others.
Otherwise you will end up with people living in apartments rather than houses.
As you mentioned "Space, privacy, light and air are all critical elements for our individual well-being."

[merv]

Jonbuoy mentions the lockup and that is a key point we've gotta have space for the toys. Apartments tend to skimp on parking let alone having lockups. There has to be a balance for sure.

[avgas]

Jonbuoy mentions the lockup and that is a key point we've gotta have space for the toys. Apartments tend to skimp on parking let alone having lockups. There has to be a balance for sure.

The Japanese seem to always build spaces with lockups etc in their compact little lives.

[Hellzie]

Jonbuoy mentions the lockup and that is a key point we've gotta have space for the toys. Apartments tend to skimp on parking let alone having lockups. There has to be a balance for sure.

Balance, but most of all choice. Not everyone needs space. We're not given the choice right now. It's either lots of space (at an unaffordable price for most) or nothing. So you get people living in houses that don't suit their lifestyles. You get young couples that have to flat with others to be able to afford it, even if they'd prefer to live alone. You get old single people that are stuck in their houses far away from any of the services they need, unable to get anywhere. You get bored youths that aren't old enough to drive that have nothing to do and nowhere to go so they cause trouble because they're bored. We put our old people in retirement homes, and our children in daycare (and even our dogs now go to doggy day care???). We drive to the gym and go up the escalator to get there.

Suburbia sux. We need to start connecting the dots. The car dominated world we've created has consequences at all levels, not just physical, but social and lifestyle. Why is it that higher density is seen as a compromise, yet all the compromises we make to live in suburbia seem to be ignored or accepted? Why is it ok to have to spend 1 - 2 hours a day sitting in traffic? (not to mention how much that costs us and our health).

All the issues people bring up about higher density can be resolved. Privacy, space, light, storage. All can be resolved and catered for.