I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
I thought elections were decided by angry posts on social media. - F5 Dave
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.
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
Originally Posted by Jane Omorogbe from UK MSN on the KTM990SM
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.
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?
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
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).
Originally Posted by Jane Omorogbe from UK MSN on the KTM990SM
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).
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.
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.
For a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. Keep an open mind, just dont let your brains fall out.
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.
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
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.
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.
Nail your colours to the mast that all may look upon them and know who you are.
It takes a big man to cry...and an even bigger man to laugh at that man.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks