Sprawl vs compact development?

[Hellzie]

So this is totally unrelated to bikes, but I'd like to get people's opinion on this. Doing a bit of research in regards to the Auckland Plan's proposal to direct future residential growth towards more compact development - i.e. infill housing in existing suburbs, preferably in and around existing town centres, on public transport corridors, surrounding high amenity areas that have nice views or places to recreate.

This all has huge benefits in 'urban design terms' but on the ground, and with most non-urban-designers, it seems to get a very negative reaction.

Now what I'm trying to establish is how do we marry the two... keeping existing suburban people happy that their precious suburbs are not getting destroyed by evil infill, and achieving adequate density to improve choice and variety for everyone in all aspects (including the type of house you live in, the range of shops and facilities available, the form of transport you choose to use, etc).

So essentially what I'm after is ideas or examples of good quality infill housing - or tell me I'm mad and infill is evil.

[Timmeh:P]

You are evil and infill is mad.

[Hellzie]

Thanks Timmeh P...

Very helpful.

[tairl]

Your not mad... If we don't start with some higher density (but well planned) development and continue to let Auckland boundary's expand then I think we will end up in a very unliveable urban sprawl.
Some of the best city's in the world have high density, that's what makes them fun, vibrant places to live or visit...

[flyingcrocodile46]

So this is totally unrelated to bikes, but I'd like to get people's opinion on this. Doing a bit of research in regards to the Auckland Plan's proposal to direct future residential growth towards more compact development - i.e. infill housing in existing suburbs, preferably in and around existing town centres, on public transport corridors, surrounding high amenity areas that have nice views or places to recreate.

This all has huge benefits in 'urban design terms' but on the ground, and with most non-urban-designers, it seems to get a very negative reaction.

Now what I'm trying to establish is how do we marry the two... keeping existing suburban people happy that their precious suburbs are not getting destroyed by evil infill, and achieving adequate density to improve choice and variety for everyone in all aspects (including the type of house you live in, the range of shops and facilities available, the form of transport you choose to use, etc).

So essentially what I'm after is ideas or examples of good quality infill housing - or tell me I'm mad and infill is evil.

Move to Ch Ch

[Hellzie]

I think most people are starting to accept that, it's just pinning down what New Zealand / Auckland's version of good quality development is... and changing the perception that infill is all bad. I'm looking at aerials maps of Auckland and it's not hard to see why most people are anti-infill.

Finding good local examples is proving bloody difficult. If you know of any, I would love to hear about them! Or even overseas examples would be helpful.

Cheers,

[flyingcrocodile46]

Your not mad... If we don't start with some higher density (but well planned) development and continue to let Auckland boundary's expand then I think we will end up in a very unliveable urban sprawl.
Some of the best city's in the world have high density, that's what makes them fun, vibrant places to live or visit...

Many also have huge slum areas

[Hellzie]

Move to Ch Ch

You got any particular places in mind?? That's what I'm after.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Finding good local examples is proving bloody difficult.

I wonder why that is.

Apparently we humans do not function well consistently when in close proximity to masses of people (exceeding 150 - 170). We become very antisocial and things go bad. The higher the density the worse we get. Give us our fucking space or we will kill you.

[Hitcher]

Many New Zealanders hanker for a bit of land that they can call their own, not that they have any intentions of doing anything productive with it, such as growing their own vegetables or even having enough room for kids to run around on. Then they'll bung up a 2.2m high undressed pine board fence around it to enhance their "privacy", the property's aesthetics and to stop their dog doing a runner. Marvellous.

Such pioneering twaddle comes at a cost, rarely met in full by the people who live there. Firstly there's the land itself, that could arguably be better used for market gardening or even agriculture. Then there's the kilometre of paved highway and footpath per resident ratio, not to mention the costs of reticulated services, such as power, phone, internet, sewage, water, stormwater. Don't forget rubbish collection costs. All of these costs are rarely fully met by the property owner or occupier. They are averaged out across all ratepayers or customers of utilities.

Then there are other services these communities demand, like buses, doctors, schools, shops, megacentres, sports facilities, and so on. The residents of these suburbs, rolled out like readilawn, again aren't meeting the full cost. But they're more than happy to capitalise the investments of others into the value of their humble abodes.

Real estate agents drive a lot of this nonsense, particularly those whose business is also a property developer. Gillies and Marks built Upper Hutt. I'm sure there are plenty of similar examples in parts of New Zealand that have a propensity to sprawl across their hinterland.

Intensification has merits, provided that it's well planned, purpose-built accommodation. In-fill is not the only way of delivering intensive urban residences.

This is much of the reasons why cities around the world have embraced spatial planning. This is what the Auckland Plan is seeking to drive.

If you want a third-of-an-acre section, move to Matamata. Otherwise get with the programme.

[Hellzie]

I wonder why that is.

Apparently we humans do not function well consistently when in close proximity to masses of people (exceeding 150 - 170). We become very antisocial and things go bad. The higher the density the worse we get. Give us our fucking space or we will kill you.

But our suburbs are hardly what I would call in close proximity to masses of people? In fact, it's quite the opposite. Low density leaves people isolated, with little to do and noone to talk to.

Aside from people that are really antisocial, most of us prefer to have at least some contact with other human beings. There's a balance, and we definitely don't have it right.

And also, I know why we don't have many, if any, good local examples - crap development controls that don't allow good design.

[flyingcrocodile46]

But our suburbs are hardly what I would call in close proximity to masses of people? In fact, it's quite the opposite. Low density leaves people isolated, with little to do and noone to talk to.

Aside from people that are really antisocial, most of us prefer to have at least some contact with other human beings. There's a balance, and we definitely don't have it right.

And also, I know why we don't have many, if any, good local examples - crap development controls that don't allow good design.

You're on the list

Many New Zealanders hanker for a bit of land that they can call their own, not that they have any intentions of doing anything productive with it, such as growing their own vegetables or even having enough room for kids to run around on. Then they'll bung up a 2.2m high undressed pine board fence around it to enhance their "privacy", the property's aesthetics and to stop their dog doing a runner. Marvellous.

Such pioneering twaddle comes at a cost, rarely met in full by the people who live there. Firstly there's the land itself, that could arguably be better used for market gardening or even agriculture. Then there's the kilometre of paved highway and footpath per resident ratio, not to mention the costs of reticulated services, such as power, phone, internet, sewage, water, stormwater. Don't forget rubbish collection costs. All of these costs are rarely fully met by the property owner or occupier. They are averaged out across all ratepayers or customers of utilities.

Then there are other services these communities demand, like buses, doctors, schools, shops, megacentres, sports facilities, and so on. The residents of these suburbs, rolled out like readilawn, again aren't meeting the full cost. But they're more than happy to capitalise the investments of others into the value of their humble abodes.

Real estate agents drive a lot of this nonsense, particularly those whose business is also a property developer. Gillies and Marks built Upper Hutt. I'm sure there are plenty of similar examples in parts of New Zealand that have a propensity to sprawl across their hinterland.

Intensification has merits, provided that it's well planned, purpose-built accommodation. In-fill is not the only way of delivering intensive urban residences.

This is much of the reasons why cities around the world have embraced spatial planning. This is what the Auckland Plan is seeking to drive.

If you want a third-of-an-acre section, move to Matamata. Otherwise get with the programme.

So are you

[Lelitu]

actually, I think wellington has done a reasonable job at avoiding both sprawl and too high a density
have a look at newtown, and hataitai particularly

dense enough to be not rambling, but not so dense as to provoke intense asociality

[Swoop]

i.e. infill housing in existing suburbs...

You had best look at the north shore as a prime example of infill housing.
Shockingly done and for the primary reason that the city council gets more rate-paying residents. Very little extra infrastructure is provided for this extra housing (sewer capacity, drainage, roading capacity, public transport, etc, etc) so it becomes much like a cash-cow for the morons in power.

Design of infill housing is poorly executed in a lot of instances (lack of eaves) to generate a floor footprint as large as possible for the residents.


The north shore is a prime example of a fuck-up. I'm glad I no longer live over there.

[Usarka]

And also, I know why we don't have many, if any, good local examples - crap development controls that don't allow good design.

Other way around - crap development controls that allow and encourage crap design.