Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 166

Thread: Sprawl vs compact development?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    9th January 2005 - 22:12
    Bike
    Street Triple R
    Location
    christchurch
    Posts
    8,198
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jpN8kI0-pY


    We saw this film at the weekend. Very good and worth tracking down a copy: examples and exemplars talking about European cities (why they "work") and (mainly) American cities (why they suck). the key seems to be that if you design your cities for cars, then your city sucks. If you design them for people (a concept called "prospect/refuge" where the spaces are people sized: example is a city square should be no more than 100sq m because thats the human scale) then they win. Key issues there are infrastructure, planning and thinking about how people will use the spaces. Oh, Portland OR is another example of urban planning gone well. One of the most interesting was Bogota Colombia: massive extremes of wealth and poverty. Also Brasilia in Brazil which was a planned city (like Canberra) which looks beautiful from the air but is a nightmare if you live there (like those Mrkn cities where you can't walk anywhere).

    Detroit too: used to be 135miles square and had 2M people. Now has <700000 people. think about what that does to service provision, infrastructure, who left, who is stillthere etc.

    Sorry, told you it would be incoherent.
    I thought elections were decided by angry posts on social media. - F5 Dave

  2. #62
    Join Date
    10th January 2011 - 16:13
    Bike
    Trip and Fanta
    Location
    North Shore
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by oneofsix View Post
    Interesting one. If the product can operate and still provide the same enjoyment or whatever unaffected then no. But what if your power supplier uses your logic and changes to 110V or DC supply tomorrow? Wont you be a bit pissed that all your electrical stuff no longer works?
    Trying to introduce high density housing into a traditionally low density environment without considering the present owner wont work. You would be better taking a long term view and progressively buying out the present owners, once the developer has ALL the properties then the change can be made.
    The thing is through bitter experience no one in there right mind in NZ trust any politician to do the right thing and to provide the resources to make something work. High density housing only works were the right services and facilities are in place, and they wont be so you will get slums as in all cities where this has been done.
    But i'm not suggesting high density housing into a low density environment. And I would think large scale re-development is more disruptive to a community than incremental change (as is what normally happens and is happening).. it's not that much different to additions and alterations to existing houses. You will find that you could almost double the number of households in most Auckland suburbs and there is enough amenity to handle it and in most cases, infrastructure to deal with it, and if not, it can be incrementally upgraded to suit (also less disruptive).

    Demographics are changing, there are less people living in each house, so it makes sense to create more variety in the type / size of houses available. So people can stay living in the same neighbourhood through different stages in their lives. A 3 - 4 bedroom standalone house with lots of garden is not everyone's cup of tea. Yes it works for families, and young people who like flatting. But there are young professional couples, people without children, the elderly, and so on who have different needs, and it would be nice if they can live close to their families, in the neighbourhood they know and grew up in, rather than being pushed out to some other unknown place. It's important to have a range of options and prices to have a balanced society that everyone can participate in.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    24th June 2004 - 17:27
    Bike
    So old you won't care
    Location
    Kapiti
    Posts
    7,879
    Well like any argument – there are many sides to this and all of it deeply skewed by your own lived life and current aspirations for the future.

    I live in very ‘un-dense’ housing (1400 sqm) with an undeveloped orchard and a goat over the back fence and I love it. However I won’t love it when I’m 75 so the grand plan is to have moved on a long time before then. But having lived in dense housing I know that the make or break factor is the quality of your neighbours. People who are selfish and don’t give a shit about your needs or are messy etc can make that life a living hell.

    The one thing that really worries me is what the heck will I do with my toys and hobbies? Kayaks, fishing stuff, sports stuff, camping stuff, ancient motorcycles and tools n equipment dictate a bigger than double garage minimum. In your usual dense housing scheme this is nearly always the first to go and then I get told that you don’t need all that space blah blah blah. Usually by someone who gets paid a lot of my money and actually Has ALL THAT SPACE AND MORE plus they have no interest in doing anything for themselves and thus need no tools etc. Its not exactly a Bert Munroe attitude is it???

    Now to achieve a compromise that I can live with – I live in Kapiti and not in town. I put up with the commute etc to live the way I want but always my ability to choose seems to be under attack from people wanting to tell me I’m wrong thinking.

    In simple terms these planners want ME to fit their box and to conform to their vision rather than accommodating my lifestyle choice. Again – if you suggested that maybe one of the planners make the same sacrifice there would be a lot of bluster about executive stress, family needs etc etc.

    Public transport is another issue. Come on – you cannot just call it snobbery. It sucks arse big time. My default transport is the train from Kapiti. It’s a rolling disease factory crammed full of snotty ill people in a poorly heated unventilated unreliable tube. (I have auto immune issues and yes I get much sicker when using the train) Its significantly slower than the car and its only saving grace is that its cheaper. It’s a joke that survives on price alone.

    In short – say what you will

  4. #64
    Join Date
    10th January 2011 - 16:13
    Bike
    Trip and Fanta
    Location
    North Shore
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by HenryDorsetCase View Post
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jpN8kI0-pY


    We saw this film at the weekend. Very good and worth tracking down a copy: examples and exemplars talking about European cities (why they "work") and (mainly) American cities (why they suck). the key seems to be that if you design your cities for cars, then your city sucks. If you design them for people (a concept called "prospect/refuge" where the spaces are people sized: example is a city square should be no more than 100sq m because thats the human scale) then they win. Key issues there are infrastructure, planning and thinking about how people will use the spaces. Oh, Portland OR is another example of urban planning gone well. One of the most interesting was Bogota Colombia: massive extremes of wealth and poverty. Also Brasilia in Brazil which was a planned city (like Canberra) which looks beautiful from the air but is a nightmare if you live there (like those Mrkn cities where you can't walk anywhere).

    Detroit too: used to be 135miles square and had 2M people. Now has <700000 people. think about what that does to service provision, infrastructure, who left, who is stillthere etc.

    Sorry, told you it would be incoherent.
    Awesome thanks, you'd like Jan Gehl then. He's all about Cities for People.

    cities for people

    He's a Danish architect. Makes a lot of sense. He's done a lot of work in Christchurch actually. And a bit of work for Auckland too.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    21st December 2010 - 10:40
    Bike
    Kate
    Location
    Kapiti Commute
    Posts
    2,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Hellzie View Post
    But i'm not suggesting high density housing into a low density environment. And I would think large scale re-development is more disruptive to a community than incremental change (as is what normally happens and is happening).. it's not that much different to additions and alterations to existing houses. You will find that you could almost double the number of households in most Auckland suburbs and there is enough amenity to handle it and in most cases, infrastructure to deal with it, and if not, it can be incrementally upgraded to suit (also less disruptive).

    Demographics are changing, there are less people living in each house, so it makes sense to create more variety in the type / size of houses available. So people can stay living in the same neighbourhood through different stages in their lives. A 3 - 4 bedroom standalone house with lots of garden is not everyone's cup of tea. Yes it works for families, and young people who like flatting. But there are young professional couples, people without children, the elderly, and so on who have different needs, and it would be nice if they can live close to their families, in the neighbourhood they know and grew up in, rather than being pushed out to some other unknown place. It's important to have a range of options and prices to have a balanced society that everyone can participate in.
    I must have mis-interrupted the discussion on in fill and 10 story high rise etc. Like that ever happens on KB

    Trouble is NZ still remembers the 1/4 acre pavalova paradise we never had. Terrace housing makes one think of those awful State Advances (Housing Corp.) double, triple and quad unit things they put in what are often now considered the worst areas where they packed in the poorest families. Then there are the images of Coronation St back in the day and the UK and USA 60s high rise failures.

    We have some medium density housing in our area and still people hate them. Of course they too are a council failure in that they were allowed on the provision that a railway station was to be built close by, that isn't going to happen now the polytech has moved and the rail priorities have changed. Infrastructure and housing have to come together, not built piece meal relying on what might be. Once full there will now be issues with the amount of cars required to service the medium density housing that now doesn't have good public transport.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    10th January 2011 - 16:13
    Bike
    Trip and Fanta
    Location
    North Shore
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul in NZ View Post
    Well like any argument – there are many sides to this and all of it deeply skewed by your own lived life and current aspirations for the future.

    I live in very ‘un-dense’ housing (1400 sqm) with an undeveloped orchard and a goat over the back fence and I love it. However I won’t love it when I’m 75 so the grand plan is to have moved on a long time before then. But having lived in dense housing I know that the make or break factor is the quality of your neighbours. People who are selfish and don’t give a shit about your needs or are messy etc can make that life a living hell.

    The one thing that really worries me is what the heck will I do with my toys and hobbies? Kayaks, fishing stuff, sports stuff, camping stuff, ancient motorcycles and tools n equipment dictate a bigger than double garage minimum. In your usual dense housing scheme this is nearly always the first to go and then I get told that you don’t need all that space blah blah blah. Usually by someone who gets paid a lot of my money and actually Has ALL THAT SPACE AND MORE plus they have no interest in doing anything for themselves and thus need no tools etc. Its not exactly a Bert Munroe attitude is it???

    Now to achieve a compromise that I can live with – I live in Kapiti and not in town. I put up with the commute etc to live the way I want but always my ability to choose seems to be under attack from people wanting to tell me I’m wrong thinking.

    In simple terms these planners want ME to fit their box and to conform to their vision rather than accommodating my lifestyle choice. Again – if you suggested that maybe one of the planners make the same sacrifice there would be a lot of bluster about executive stress, family needs etc etc.

    Public transport is another issue. Come on – you cannot just call it snobbery. It sucks arse big time. My default transport is the train from Kapiti. It’s a rolling disease factory crammed full of snotty ill people in a poorly heated unventilated unreliable tube. (I have auto immune issues and yes I get much sicker when using the train) Its significantly slower than the car and its only saving grace is that its cheaper. It’s a joke that survives on price alone.

    In short – say what you will
    I'm not suggesting everyone fits into a box and conform. We are not currently given lifestyle choice. That's the issue. Only a select few can afford to live in what you describe. And not all people want to either. And even the more 'dense' suburbia is becoming unaffordable for many as there is not enough variety in the size of plots or the houses on them. It's the mix that's important. Hellish neighbours are no better in standalone suburbia - is the 3m that separates the standalone houses really much different than terraced houses with good sound insulation when it comes to noisy neighbours? I'd argue terraces can actually be MORE private and feel more separate from the neighbours as you can't see them from inside your house if designed well. I can say this as I have lived in both and have had noisy neighbours in both cases. The standalone house it was way more noticeable. In the terrace I hardly ever saw my neighbours.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    10th January 2011 - 16:13
    Bike
    Trip and Fanta
    Location
    North Shore
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by oneofsix View Post
    I must have mis-interrupted the discussion on in fill and 10 story high rise etc. Like that ever happens on KB

    Trouble is NZ still remembers the 1/4 acre pavalova paradise we never had. Terrace housing makes one think of those awful State Advances (Housing Corp.) double, triple and quad unit things they put in what are often now considered the worst areas where they packed in the poorest families. Then there are the images of Coronation St back in the day and the UK and USA 60s high rise failures.

    We have some medium density housing in our area and still people hate them. Of course they too are a council failure in that they were allowed on the provision that a railway station was to be built close by, that isn't going to happen now the polytech has moved and the rail priorities have changed. Infrastructure and housing have to come together, not built piece meal relying on what might be. Once full there will now be issues with the amount of cars required to service the medium density housing that now doesn't have good public transport.
    Agree with you on that one for sure. The denser the housing, the better the infrastructure needs to be. Better and more efficient. We need to shake the images of the past, we're not going backwards, we need to be more forward thinking, like the rest of the world.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    3rd December 2002 - 13:00
    Bike
    1991 Kawasaki ZXR400L1
    Location
    West Auckland
    Posts
    841
    The biggest problem is Kiwis. We dont like living close to others. Other cultures don't have this problem. I spent a few weeks in Hong Kong visiting the wifes relatives, was welcomed into peoples homes and able to observe them going about their daily lives as an 'invisible' non-Chinese speaking fly on the wall. I was thoroughly impressed with the lifestyle over there but I can see how many NZers just wouldn't be able to handle it. I saw them comfortably deal with close confine situations that would have most of us crawling in our skins.

    I don't know how you could change NZers habits, it would take at least a generation to overcome but if you could sort that you'd be halfway there.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    10th January 2011 - 16:13
    Bike
    Trip and Fanta
    Location
    North Shore
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett View Post
    Infill housing can be done really really well. Sadly, much of the time it is done HORRENDOUSLY...aka 1/2 of Dannemora, Flat Bush etc. However, the scheme plan under the original developer (Nigel McKenna) for Botany Junction was actually pretty good and would have been a good case in point.

    These are just a few critical criteria:

    - developers need to have a sympathy for and care about the environment that they are creating, not just about the $$ in the project.
    - design for an infill project needs to be wholistic - not just carving up some land into small sections and then group home builders go crazy. There needs to be a clear, structured, overarching design requirement that sees all developed houses/buildings tie in with the overarching design.
    - developments need to be designed with future growth and serviceability in mind.
    -as part of the business case, the development needs to target the right groups, ie creating only entry level, low income housing (and giving 50% of it to Housing NZ for eg) will ensure that within 24 months the development will look like a slum.

    I could right a thesis on this, it is something I am very passionate about. Sadly, as long as profitability is the key driving factor in a property development, we will see poor design and poor construction methodology.
    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.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    10th January 2011 - 16:13
    Bike
    Trip and Fanta
    Location
    North Shore
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoon View Post
    The biggest problem is Kiwis. We dont like living close to others. Other cultures don't have this problem. I spent a few weeks in Hong Kong visiting the wifes relatives, was welcomed into peoples homes and able to observe them going about their daily lives as an 'invisible' non-Chinese speaking fly on the wall. I was thoroughly impressed with the lifestyle over there but I can see how many NZers just wouldn't be able to handle it. I saw them comfortably deal with close confine situations that would have most of us crawling in our skins.

    I don't know how you could change NZers habits, it would take at least a generation to overcome but if you could sort that you'd be halfway there.
    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.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    13th March 2003 - 11:47
    Bike
    2006 Honda XR250L
    Location
    Porirua
    Posts
    7,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoon View Post
    The biggest problem is Kiwis. We dont like living close to others. Other cultures don't have this problem. I spent a few weeks in Hong Kong visiting the wifes relatives, was welcomed into peoples homes and able to observe them going about their daily lives as an 'invisible' non-Chinese speaking fly on the wall. I was thoroughly impressed with the lifestyle over there but I can see how many NZers just wouldn't be able to handle it. I saw them comfortably deal with close confine situations that would have most of us crawling in our skins.

    I don't know how you could change NZers habits, it would take at least a generation to overcome but if you could sort that you'd be halfway there.
    Funny you say that. If you walk up close to country folk they back away say the body language experts while city folk stay close. I was staying at the Crowne Plaza in Auckland a week ago, jump in the lift with my wife and its quite full. It stops at a floor and a whole lot of people are waiting, some stare and think hmm too full, but an Asian family just happily jump on board and squeezed into the spaces.
    Cheers

    Merv

  12. #72
    Join Date
    31st March 2005 - 02:18
    Bike
    CB919, 1090R, R1200GSA
    Location
    East Aucks
    Posts
    10,425
    Blog Entries
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Hellzie View Post
    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.
    I'm afraid you'd need to spend a little more time interfacing with councils before suggesting that sort of thing.

    Driven by budgets, guided by strict rules (born out of liability and people not skilled enough) and rules enforced by those with not nearly enough experience to make judgements, there is no way discretion or common sense would be advisable in today's world. The rules are there for all, to make sure that a safe minimum standard of housing exists, otherwise the shonky builders would have a field day.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jane Omorogbe from UK MSN on the KTM990SM
    It's barking mad and if it doesn't turn you into a complete loon within half an hour of cocking a leg over the lofty 875mm seat height, I'll eat my Arai.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    10th January 2011 - 16:13
    Bike
    Trip and Fanta
    Location
    North Shore
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by Gremlin View Post
    I'm afraid you'd need to spend a little more time interfacing with councils before suggesting that sort of thing.

    Driven by budgets, guided by strict rules (born out of liability and people not skilled enough) and rules enforced by those with not nearly enough experience to make judgements, there is no way discretion or common sense would be advisable in today's world. The rules are there for all, to make sure that a safe minimum standard of housing exists, otherwise the shonky builders would have a field day.
    Trust me, I spend plenty of time interfacing with Councils....

    And I very much have to disagree that having dumbed down rules is the only way of the future. Discretionary based district plans, like many other things, work very well overseas. As close to home as Australia.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    31st March 2005 - 02:18
    Bike
    CB919, 1090R, R1200GSA
    Location
    East Aucks
    Posts
    10,425
    Blog Entries
    140
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jane Omorogbe from UK MSN on the KTM990SM
    It's barking mad and if it doesn't turn you into a complete loon within half an hour of cocking a leg over the lofty 875mm seat height, I'll eat my Arai.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    13th July 2011 - 14:47
    Bike
    A Japper
    Location
    In the moment
    Posts
    1,259
    Quote Originally Posted by Gremlin View Post
    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.
    That's "the problem" though, the whole system needs a major overhaul before things even start down the design track.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •