Sprawl vs compact development?

[mashman]

Maybe we should all stop breeding... Haha

Or I should give up and find another job. Or just go for a ride. That always makes things better.

Or you could do what you're talking about and buck the trend by selling to who you want for the price you decide to sell at... and go for a ride etc...

[HenryDorsetCase]

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...

you want urban sprawl, Christchurch will be the case study for it in the next few years.

Ive thought about this topic a lot and I live with a landscape architect. ...... more incoherent thoughts tomorrow.

[Hellzie]

you want urban sprawl, Christchurch will be the case study for it in the next few years.

Ive thought about this topic a lot and I live with a landscape architect. ...... more incoherent thoughts tomorrow.

I look forward to your incoherent thoughts.

[Hellzie]

Or you could do what you're talking about and buck the trend by selling to who you want for the price you decide to sell at... and go for a ride etc...

Lead by example, I like it. Challenge accepted. See you on the road.

[mashman]

Lead by example, I like it. Challenge accepted. See you on the road.

Personally I'd go for domes. You don't have to build them like this but the advantages speak for themselves and they tick a few of your boxes. I will build one some day, or at least have one built.

[Gremlin]

Has terraced housing not arrived in NZ yet?

Fletchers is doing terraced housing in their Stonefields development, in the old Mt Wellington Quarry. Probably the most modern upmarket example actually Hellzie, for your purposes.

No posting PM's either Hellzie, site rules

[superman]

They've got it right in Europe. It seems any country colonised by the British has ended up with vast sprawling culture.

I don't think there's any compromise. Build compact, and those who deal with it will stay. Suburbs are already the compromise between country and city and are extremely wasteful on space.

[mashman]

Fletchers is doing terraced housing in their Stonefields development, in the old Mt Wellington Quarry. Probably the most modern upmarket example actually Hellzie, for your purposes.

Modern and upmarket as in it looks stylish? or modern and upmarket because of the materials and construction methods being used? I don't particularly like terraced housing, personal thing I guess, but understand why they're built. Are they town house terraces or the normal 1 up 1 down?

[Gremlin]

Modern and upmarket as in it looks stylish? or modern and upmarket because of the materials and construction methods being used? I don't particularly like terraced housing, personal thing I guess, but understand why they're built. Are they town house terraces or the normal 1 up 1 down?

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).

[Hellzie]

Fletchers is doing terraced housing in their Stonefields development, in the old Mt Wellington Quarry. Probably the most modern upmarket example actually Hellzie, for your purposes.

No posting PM's either Hellzie, site rules

I know stonefields well. Got shown around some of the houses and terraces. The houses were monstorous, with useless wasted space on the sides (your typical 1.5m or so service yard). With windows on the sides looking straight at the neighbors house.

The terraces on the other hand, actually felt more private, and because there was less land to work with, it was well considered, functional and efficient and there is plenty of it for everything you need. And if that's not enough, there is a big park with playground, mown grass etc etc for all your other outdoor needs.

The terraces are definitely not small - they are over 200m2 in area. 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, garage for 2 cars (set up in a way that you can convert half into a second living room or rumpus room).

They've got it right in Europe. It seems any country colonised by the British has ended up with vast sprawling culture.

I don't think there's any compromise. Build compact, and those who deal with it will stay. Suburbs are already the compromise between country and city and are extremely wasteful on space.

Building compact doesn't have to be seen as a compromise. It's not a step backwards, and you get more amenity, more choice. If done right, it's a lot better, not worse. Do we really still believe that suburbia is paradise? Who actually likes living in suburbia? Or do we not link all the negative impacts of it together? Who likes sitting in traffic (when yourenot on your bike that is)? who likes driving to a massive carpark that's always full just to pop in to get one item that ends up being down the other end of the gigantic store and you're lucky if you can find the sales staff in one of the many massive aisles. All that driving, parking, angst and more walking than if you walked to your local high street store and your friendly local shop owner sells you the same part.

We need to start comparing apples with apples. Suburbia sux balls.

[unstuck]

Glad I left the shore years ago, The only way is up, unless they start filling in some estuarys there will be nowhere left to build houses. Gore council have been talking about finding new land to build houses on too, so many empty sections around town to build on too.

[Ocean1]

Ok, so if you liken it to a transaction of that sort... You have bought your house, and the land it sits on. That is a product in a way. What surrounds your property does not belong to you. It's other people that own their own properties but there is an understanding that they won't do something to their property that diminishes the value / or adversely affects your property. Everything else that's provided by the council is a service. It is up to the council to provide a good service to keep you happy there and keep you from moving elsewhere. Nowhere in that arrangement does it say that they have to get your opinion before making changes to the service they provide. Like any other business, they make changes, (educated changed) and there is always risk that the customers will go elsewhere, or there's the chance it will be better, and more customers will come.

The sort of changes you're suggesting aren't to services, though, are they? They're changes to the building codes that were in place when the area was developed, which is what defined the product in the first place.

Such changes are hardly the behaviour of a council keeping clients happy and staying put, are they?

Changes to those rules will diminish the value of the existing properties. Ethically, the existing owners should have the say as to whether such changes be allowed. If so then any dissenting owners should be due compensation.

[Hellzie]

The sort of changes you're suggesting aren't to services, though, are they? They're changes to the building codes that were in place when the area was developed, which is what defined the product in the first place.

Such changes are hardly the behaviour of a council keeping clients happy and staying put, are they?

Changes to those rules will diminish the value of the existing properties. Ethically, the existing owners should have the say as to whether such changes be allowed. If so then any dissenting owners should be due compensation.

I guess the question is will they diminish or improve the value of the existing properties? I would argue it would improve the value. And for now we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

And also, changing the rules for what you can do to your product, doesn't mean you have to change your product. And I would argue that the people around you have the right to do what they want to their products (within reason obviously, and within the rules put in place by council), and it doesn't actually affect you as much as you claim it does.

[Brett]

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.

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.

[oneofsix]

I guess the question is will they diminish or improve the value of the existing properties? I would argue it would improve the value. And for now we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

And also, changing the rules for what you can do to your product, doesn't mean you have to change your product. And I would argue that the people around you have the right to do what they want to their products (within reason obviously, and within the rules put in place by council), and it doesn't actually affect you as much as you claim it does.

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.