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. :shifty:

[Hellzie]

Thanks Timmeh P...

Very helpful. :facepalm:

[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. :niceone:

[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 :bye:


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 :Pokey:

[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.

[Ocean1]

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

You don't. The existing inhabitants paid the going rate for their properties because they wanted to live in that environment. Changing the rules controling their environment is always going to be seen as unfair. 'Cause it is.

[Ocean1]

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.

Long accepted that, without too much recent evidence.

Sooo: http://geocommons.com/maps/14287

[blue rider]

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.



Have a look at some of the new developments that are going up in Royal Oak. Buildings going up in 50 cm distance of the Neighbors property, subdivisions from Hell, yes you can put a 4 unit block and a 4 bedroom house what used to be a quarter acre, it just ain't pretty nor private, and definitively not soundproof. I can watch my neighbors around me live their lives, they have absolutely no privacy, and unless i board up my windows will not have any.....quite distressing sometimes for them and for me. Yet more and more of those Box buildings are going up.
Cheap n nasty, no double glazing to keep out the noise pollution, and insulate against the weather, no insulation in the wall for the same purposes, bathrooms the size of a shoe box, and rooms so small that if one enters to quickly they fall out of the window. Storage in your house....hahahahah good joke, go rent storage somewhere else. Central Heating?

this is then sold as design, because its painted grey, or beige,.......


There are under developed suburbs in Auckland (and surely elswhere in NZ) that could do with a bit of TLC, proper board walks, cycle lanes, adequate public transport, park and drive options, that are in need of shops and such. It might be better to uplift these "hoods" instead of creating new ones. One might even contemplate moving there if they were not such neglected holes.


As for my street were I live, if there is ever an outbreak of influenza this is not the place to be. It will spread faster than the pestilence in Germany in 1462.
The trouble with Auckland is that there never was and never will be any urban planning, just individual developers after a quick earning and council that will approve no matter what.


the city and many others in NZ speak for themselves. Which is quite sad, as there are some beautiful samples of architecture still around, however they might lend themselves to a 6 Story Brothel in the inner city. (insert sarcasm smiley)

[merv]

Lol the voice supporting railways speaks up - of all the cities I have visited in the World, the ones that hum have rails of some sort running through, under or over them, those without rail lack the vibrancy.

Aucklanders that don't embrace the city loop are crazy, but it can't end there you need rail under the harbour too to North Shore, airport etc. Christchurch needs to act now and build a rapid rail into its heart and then develop from there. Its better to build now, it will only get more expensive as more obstacles are put in the way.

Good examples over the World in their own context that I've visited a few times are:

San Francisco - so alive in its centre compared to Los Angeles - why? Because it has so many rail systems 1. the famous cable cars (now mainly tourism), 2. the street cars (also tourism), 3. the BART heavy rail system, 4. the Caltrain heavy rail system, 5. the Muni light rail metro system.

London and Paris are no-brainers - they are so big and so densely populated the Underground and Metro systems just carry people so quickly out of congestion's way.

Zurich - about the size of Auckland - man you should see the quality of its rail systems - heavy rail and light rail trams with airport routes. No buses operate in the main part of the CBD just the trains underground and the trams overground - it keeps it all so neat and tidy looking I always say it looks like a Marklin train set. Long distance trains run operate on at least a half hour service between Zurich and Geneva

Perth Australia - has a rail system that performs in patronage way beyond expectation, but they built rail in places in advance of the urban development - still a bit of a sprawl - but the trains get them to CBD quickly and easily.

I've just got back from Japan - Tokyo many people live there without ever having to own their own vehicle. Why would you when you can go everywhere by JR train (mainly above ground), on the various metro systems underground or on the Shinkansen trains long distance at better than twice the average speed you can do it by road. The Shinkansen are even more frequent than the fast trains are in Switzerland or France. Between Tokyo and Osaka - about 510km - they run about every 5 to 10 minutes - big 16 car trains that can carry around 1,400 people in spacious comfort.

Some may say that we don't have the population to support great rail systems but if Auckland bit the bullet and went with it growth would come. In NZ we have had a habit of letting developers develop suburbs basically in the wops and not supported it with decent public transport so people have to go by car then we get the congestion we paid for i.e. we were too cheap and get what we deserve.

So with time, and more immigrants who are used to this, I can see a denser housing future for Auckland but you can't skimp on the transport around the city nor in connection to other places that will make sure it works in a vibrant way.

[Gremlin]

Infill housing shouldn't be classed as compact development. Yes, it's more dense, but not the density Auckland requires.

It's a simple fact that delivering services to a high density population is cheaper and easier. In big cities around the world there are plenty of people with no car and no licence to drive one either. High quality public transport fulfils their needs.

[Ocean1]

All of these costs are rarely fully met by the property owner or occupier.

Indeed?

I'll give you the paved highway. Such as it is. Footpath? None. Power, phone, internet? All here, at the extra cost of a few metres of extra cable, a capital cost of about $100 each. Sewage, water, stormwater? No, no and no. And the rubbish collection is private.

And yet my rates bill is right up there at the pointiest of pointy ends.


But I only bitch about it if provoked by specious claims to the contrary.

[Usarka]

Lol the voice supporting railways speaks up - of all the cities I have visited in the World, the ones that hum have rails of some sort running through, under or over them, those without rail lack the vibrancy.

Aucklanders that don't embrace the city loop are crazy, but it can't end there you need rail under the harbour too to North Shore, airport etc. Christchurch needs to act now and build a rapid rail into its heart and then develop from there. Its better to build now, it will only get more expensive as more obstacles are put in the way.


It's a bit chicken and egg imho. All the cities you mention have high density housing to service the public transport.

I liken it to living in london. One train station would service about 1,500 homes within easy walking distance. In auckland it would be more like 250. Ok, I made those numbers up but you get the picture.



Have a look at some of the new developments that are going up in Royal Oak. Buildings going up in 50 cm distance of the Neighbors property, subdivisions from Hell, yes you can put a 4 unit block and a 4 bedroom house what used to be a quarter acre, it just ain't pretty nor private, and definitively not soundproof.

+1 to all this. Without decent regulation we get shit developed, which in turn attracts low income tenants (ie. become slums), which in turn drives away existing residents who are then told they should support high density housing.

[merv]

Yep it is a bit chicken and egg, but if you get on and build the transport then people will be happy to live close to transport hubs and the housing developments should then be built to suit. Urban sprawl is such that no decent transport system can be built to service it - except roads and cars at the moment.

Funny, check this out - everything we have said aside, Auckland still rates highly so they say - its on Wiki so it must be true - but see how the European cities rate too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_most_livable_cities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_most_livable_cities)

[Hellzie]

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

Thanks for that, I will have a look at Newtown. Wellington seems to be quite. Bit ahead of Auckland from what I've seen.


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.

Exactly the issue, but the world is not static, and just because shit has happened in the past, doesn't mean the future has to be that way. Places evolve and shitholes become prime real estate.


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

Yeh totally agree with you on that one, hence the lack of good examples I guess... May need to look much further afield, if not think of something completely new...


You don't. The existing inhabitants paid the going rate for their properties because they wanted to live in that environment. Changing the rules controling their environment is always going to be seen as unfair. 'Cause it is.

That's great, so these existing inhabitants can live their happy little lives in their static environment that they bought into, as for some reason when their house was built it was somehow ok to change what was there before? Meanwhile, house affordability is sky rocketing as housing is pushed further and further out (and the costs of doing so are catching up to us).. So anyone that hasn't bought a house is pretty much screwed.


Infill housing shouldn't be classed as compact development. Yes, it's more dense, but not the density Auckland requires.

It's a simple fact that delivering services to a high density population is cheaper and easier. In big cities around the world there are plenty of people with no car and no licence to drive one either. High quality public transport fulfils their needs.

Yes but seeing as we have been developing Auckland in low density for a long time, we eventually need to start thinking about fixing what we have screwed up. And I'm not suggesting all intensification should be via infill, but it should be a part of it, and the big challenge is getting it right, while maintaining the amenity for existing residents. In fact, if it's done right, it will bring more amenity (in the form of a wider range of derives, transport options, etc).

[mashman]

Has terraced housing not arrived in NZ yet?

[Usarka]

Has terraced housing not arrived in NZ yet?

Trouble is, building houses back to back requires the walls to be made of something rather more substantial than plywood.

The only way it's been successfully done in NZ is in 60/70's brick and tile flats. Which as a rule are an eyesore.

[Hellzie]

Indeed?

I'll give you the paved highway. Such as it is. Footpath? None. Power, phone, internet? All here, at the extra cost of a few metres of extra cable, a capital cost of about $100 each. Sewage, water, stormwater? No, no and no. And the rubbish collection is private.

And yet my rates bill is right up there at the pointiest of pointy ends.


But I only bitch about it if provoked by specious claims to the contrary.

The are so many other costs you haven't taken into consideration... E.g. What about the fact that unproductive use of land in the form of lifestyle blocks results in food production being pushed further out, which then pushes up the price of transporting the food back into town?

And then there's all the non-monetary costs.. I don't care what people say, humans are social animals. We weren't made to live in isolation. It's not in our nature. Sooner or later, isolation screws with your head.

[Hitcher]

Yep it is a bit chicken and egg, but if you get on and build the transport then people will be happy to live close to transport hubs and the housing developments should then be built to suit.

There's a lot of snobbery about public transport, as the proponents of light rail in Wellington are a good example. We're also lucky to have a Mayor who believes she was elected to provide light rail from the Railway Station to the Hospital at a cost of $141 million a kilometre. Seriously, what's wrong with buses? A lot of those can be procured for the cost of one kilometre of Mayor Celia's fantasy. Perhaps they're not green enough.

[mashman]

Trouble is, building houses back to back requires the walls to be made of something rather more substantial than plywood.

The only way it's been successfully done in NZ is in 60/70's brick and tile flats. Which as a rule are an eyesore.

Only if you don't want to hear the neighbours though?

And they make a terrible mess when they fall down it appears. The cost of a plot these days is unbelievable. 550+sqm for 200k :facepalm:

[Hellzie]

Has terraced housing not arrived in NZ yet?

There are quite a few better terrace house developments happening these days (so far there have been a lot mor crap ones, but hopefully that's changing)...

And that's kind of different from what I'm looking at. That's generally when you have a bigger section and you can fit at least 5 or so new houses, and it's a bit easier to deal with privacy issues and relationship to neighboring properties etc. The challenge is your 18m x 30 or 40m lot with one house on it. They typically have a pretty poor interface with the street, and are rather wasteful in all sorts of ways. There's plenty of opportunity to double the density of suburbs made up of these lots, without diminishing, or should I say, while improving amenity for everyone.

It's not feasible to aggregate the lots due to ownership issues, so the key is to make it easy for the house owner to develop their individual sites. The idea is that it's better for all involved. You keep 1/4 of your back yard (not as much grass to mow, but still plenty of room for the dog to run around, or the kids to play), you build another house, sell it, have lots of money to spend going on holiday, buying things at the new cafe that's opened down the road now that there's more potential customers, playing in the flash new playground with your kids (built using all the extra rates the council is getting from the exta houses). Etc etc ... Sound good?

[Hellzie]

There's a lot of snobbery about public transport, as the proponents of light rail in Wellington are a good example. We're also lucky to have a Mayor who believes she was elected to provide light rail from the Railway Station to the Hospital at a cost of $141 million a kilometre. Seriously, what's wrong with buses? A lot of those can be procured for the cost of one kilometre of Mayor Celia's fantasy. Perhaps they're not green enough.

Both buses and rail have their benefits. Buses generally have more flexibility in where they go, and they tend to have more stops, but they're not as efficient in the numbers they can transport and the speed is slowr too as they tend to have more stops. Some people hate buses yet don't mind rail. It's all about choice. Not having the choice is surely worse? Ask any of the bikers on here that have lost their licence for a few months, how does it feel being stuck at home?

[mashman]

It's not feasible to aggregate the lots due to ownership issues, so the key is to make it easy for the house owner to develop their individual sites. The idea is that it's better for all involved. You keep 1/4 of your back yard (not as much grass to mow, but still plenty of room for the dog to run around, or the kids to play), you build another house, sell it, have lots of money to spend going on holiday, buying things at the new cafe that's opened down the road now that there's more potential customers, playing in the flash new playground with your kids (built using all the extra rates the council is getting from the exta houses). Etc etc ... Sound good?

Unsure as to what you're getting at there... probably coz I don't fully grasp the concept of infill housing. Is it just, oooo look there's enough space there for another house or two so let's use the space?

[Hellzie]

Quote: Happens to be something I know a bit about. With another head on I am President of out local Residents and Ratepayers Assn. We fought the old Auckland City Council on intensification 10 years ago (and won) , and we are fighting the present council.

Your statement is fundamentally flawed. The Auckland Council compact city model is specifically NOT about infill. It is about bulldoze and rebuild in high rise . Initial council preference was 7 stories, but turns out 7 stories is most expensive and most unsellable height. So they've increased it to 10 stories.

Infill is one thing. Having 10 story concrete towers built next to you is another thing.

The highly negative social implications of such development are well documented. The reasons there are no good examples put forward is because there are no good examples and never will be. Unless you are talking million dollar plus apartments, which is not what Auckland City is talking.

I challenged Ludo Campbell-Reid , Auckland Council intensification champion on that very point at a forum AC held a few months ago - "Show me just one example of good urban design in a compact model for low cost , or even medium cost, housing, in Auckland". He admitted he couldn't.

Which is we'll keep fighting it , it's not intensification that is proposed, it's slumification. Oh, and Urban Design is complete bullshit, just a magic buzz phrase to disarm opposition.

[Ocean1]

That's great, so these existing inhabitants can live their happy little lives in their static environment that they bought into, as for some reason when their house was built it was somehow ok to change what was there before?

What was there before was paddocks. They built or bought into a subburb developed to meet council development regulations. Changing the regulations without re-negotiating the residents original purchase price is unfair and dishonest.




Meanwhile, house affordability is sky rocketing as housing is pushed further and further out (and the costs of doing so are catching up to us).. So anyone that hasn't bought a house is pretty much screwed.

Whatever led you to believe it was feasible to have so many people living in the population densitity levels you propose? Doesn't it make more sense to make new comunities?

[Hellzie]

Unsure as to what you're getting at there... probably coz I don't fully grasp the concept of infill housing. Is it just, oooo look there's enough space there for another house or two so let's use the space?

Yep, essentially it's about improving efficiency. We are very wasteful (when it comes to land use), and that's becoming more and more of an issue as transport, food, power and all other costs are going up. We can't keep doing what we've always done, it's just not affordable.

I really noticed it when I went to Serbia a few years ago. Everywhere you look the land is being used productively. They don't have flowers or hedges in their front yards, they have corn fields or fruit trees. Or the old city of Zadar in Croatia, in the daytime thhe space is a cafe, in the evening its a bar. Space is precious, its used efficiently and at all times of the day. In nz, we have a hell of a lot of space that's being used for absolutely nothing or in the case of carpark lots, only used at certain times of day.... How much space do we need???

[Hitcher]

It's all about choice. Not having the choice is surely worse? Ask any of the bikers on here that have lost their licence for a few months, how does it feel being stuck at home?

Choice at a cost. Bikers who through their own transgressions have lost their licenses for a period of time is more than a little difference from ratepayers being asked to stump up for solid gold public transport when there are more cost-effective options.

[Ocean1]

The are so many other costs you haven't taken into consideration... E.g. What about the fact that unproductive use of land in the form of lifestyle blocks results in food production being pushed further out, which then pushes up the price of transporting the food back into town?

Farm economics change. It's no longer that important to be within horse and cart range to the sunday market. And most of what you call lifestyle blocks were developed on land less than ideal for farming in the first place. A lot of it is also less than ideal for typical residential use too.


And then there's all the non-monetary costs.. I don't care what people say, humans are social animals. We weren't made to live in isolation. It's not in our nature. Sooner or later, isolation screws with your head.

So it's all for our own good eh?

'Nuf said.

[avgas]

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.
First step I would look at is subdivision law.
Currently you cant subdivided if you have less than 800m so I am told. But i can build a 16m^2 house unit. So the maths doesn't add up for me to start with.
And if someone mentions "community housing projects" I will punch that hippy in the face - that is not a solution, it is a bandaid for a broken arm, the same as crossleasing and unit titles.

If the chinese can buy up half the country in one deal - why can't I buy 200m of freehold land?

[Hellzie]

What was there before was paddocks. They built or bought into a subburb developed to meet council development regulations. Changing the regulations without re-negotiating the residents original purchase price is unfair and dishonest.

Whatever led you to believe it was feasible to have so many people living in the population densitity levels you propose? Doesn't it make more sense to make new comunities?

I can see what you're saying and I understand where you're coming from. There should be negotiation (although that implies exchange of money?) before decisions are made or regulations are changed. However, an issue in new Zealand is that we don't trust that the people who we appoint to make decisions on behalf of the community know what they're doing (quite often totally due to their own wrong doing). In other countries, people trust their councils, and their planners (after all they're supposed to be professionals in their field, and they're supposed to be better informed to make educated decisions that are best for the whole community).

The second bit about new communities, yep that needs to happen too, but our existing suburbs are far from perfect, and theres a lot of room for improvement. Believe it or not, chaining regulations and allowing good quality development will improve the value and the amenity of the neighborhood you bought into. Static isn't good. A city that's not growing is not a healthy happy city.

[mashman]

Yep, essentially it's about improving efficiency. We are very wasteful (when it comes to land use), and that's becoming more and more of an issue as transport, food, power and all other costs are going up. We can't keep doing what we've always done, it's just not affordable.

I really noticed it when I went to Serbia a few years ago. Everywhere you look the land is being used productively. They don't have flowers or hedges in their front yards, they have corn fields or fruit trees. Or the old city of Zadar in Croatia, in the daytime thhe space is a cafe, in the evening its a bar. Space is precious, its used efficiently and at all times of the day. In nz, we have a hell of a lot of space that's being used for absolutely nothing or in the case of carpark lots, only used at certain times of day.... How much space do we need???

I'm with you on those sentiments although how to do it ain't easy because of the $$$ it would cost to implement projects to maximise the use of the available space. It wouldn't be too much of a problem if we could share office facilities and use them 24/7, but we'd have to change the way we worked too. I'd like to see the offices moved out of town and in to specific business districts, kinda silicon valley like, which could allow for the sensible use of transport i.e. food processing would need good roads etc..., IT/office work would need a good transport system. Offices could be located near schools and the offices that currently sit empty with their lights on all night could become apartments. There are loads of different ways of doing things in the name of efficiency, but it's all down to the $$$. It's also easier to move offices than move peoples homes. New communities are likely the way to go but I guess they can easily become sprawl as there is something to be said for the peace and quiet of living out of earshot of the neighbours. You're right about us needing to do things more efficiently, and as possible as it is, it's improbable due to cost. My useless 2c :).

[Hellzie]

I'm with you on those sentiments although how to do it ain't easy because of the $$$ it would cost to implement projects to maximise the use of the available space. It wouldn't be too much of a problem if we could share office facilities and use them 24/7, but we'd have to change the way we worked too. I'd like to see the offices moved out of town and in to specific business districts, kinda silicon valley like, which could allow for the sensible use of transport i.e. food processing would need good roads etc..., IT/office work would need a good transport system. Offices could be located near schools and the offices that currently sit empty with their lights on all night could become apartments. There are loads of different ways of doing things in the name of efficiency, but it's all down to the $$$. It's also easier to move offices than move peoples homes. New communities are likely the way to go but I guess they can easily become sprawl as there is something to be said for the peace and quiet of living out of earshot of the neighbours. You're right about us needing to do things more efficiently, and as possible as it is, it's improbable due to cost. My useless 2c :).

But it doesn't cost more to use underutilized land more efficiently. There are plenty of places all around Auckland that have all the services in place, all the parks, the shops, etc in place to support mor people living there. There's no need to build new roads, new sewer, power, parks etc, when it's all already there. All with an existing community as well. I'm not proposing aliens move into the new houses either. Just more potential friends, people to look out for your kids while they play in the park, or maybe your kids have moved out of home and they can actually afford to buy a house, stay living in the same neighbourhood instead of being driven out to the periphery into some new alien place.

This is what has happened for centuries all over the world. Places grow and evolve. You can't expect to keep spreading out, eventually we will run out of room if we don't run out of money first.

[Ocean1]

I can see what you're saying and I understand where you're coming from. There should be negotiation (although that implies exchange of money?) before decisions are made or regulations are changed. Of course it means an exchange of money. It might mean buying some of them out altogether. Unless you can convince all of them you're makeing changes they all approve of. However, an issue in new Zealand is that we don't trust that the people who we appoint to make decisions on behalf of the community know what they're doing (quite often totally due to their own wrong doing). Within a villiage type community it's unheard of for such trust issues to be unfounded. Why do you suppose it's there? In other countries, people trust their councils, and their planners (after all they're supposed to be professionals in their field, and they're supposed to be better informed to make educated decisions that are best for the whole community). Maybe overseas they are qualified professionals. I wonder how many of ours are.

The second bit about new communities, yep that needs to happen too, but our existing suburbs are far from perfect, and theres a lot of room for improvement. Believe it or not, chaining regulations and allowing good quality development will improve the value and the amenity of the neighborhood you bought into. Static isn't good. A city that's not growing is not a healthy happy city.

I guess you should ask the customers if they think the changes will improve the neighbourhood, eh?

[Hellzie]

I guess you should ask the customers if they think the changes will improve the neighbourhood, eh?

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.

[mashman]

But it doesn't cost more to use underutilized land more efficiently. There are plenty of places all around Auckland that have all the services in place, all the parks, the shops, etc in place to support mor people living there. There's no need to build new roads, new sewer, power, parks etc, when it's all already there. All with an existing community as well. I'm not proposing aliens move into the new houses either. Just more potential friends, people to look out for your kids while they play in the park, or maybe your kids have moved out of home and they can actually afford to buy a house, stay living in the same neighbourhood instead of being driven out to the periphery into some new alien place.

This is what has happened for centuries all over the world. Places grow and evolve. You can't expect to keep spreading out, eventually we will run out of room if we don't run out of money first.

Fair enough :yes: You're mad and you're evil :shifty:... but I can't see it bringing house prices down though, quite the opposite meaning that the kids will have to move out to be able to afford their own house. After all that's why we end up going out instead of up. If money were no object it'd be great, but looking at what's happened in Glasgow/Liverpool/London and their infill "projects", it's ramped the prices up and produced tenement gated communities. I had a friend who lived in one and not long after she bought it she wanted out.

[Hellzie]

Fair enough :yes: You're mad and you're evil :shifty:... but I can't see it bringing house prices down though, quite the opposite meaning that the kids will have to move out to be able to afford their own house. After all that's why we end up going out instead of up. If money were no object it'd be great, but looking at what's happened in Glasgow/Liverpool/London and their infill "projects", it's ramped the prices up and produced tenement gated communities. I had a friend who lived in one and not long after she bought it she wanted out.

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.

[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. :woohoo:

[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. :woohoo:

[mashman]

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

Personally I'd go for domes. You don't have to build them like this but the advantages speak for themselves (http://www.domeofahome.com/dome_advantages.html) 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 :nono:

[superman]

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

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 :nono:

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. :facepalm:

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.:shutup:

[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.

[HenryDorsetCase]

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.

[Hellzie]

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.

[Paul in NZ]

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

[Hellzie]

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 (http://fora.tv/2011/05/02/Jan_Gehl_Cities_for_People)

He's a Danish architect. Makes a lot of sense. He's done a lot of work in Christchurch (http://www.ccc.govt.nz/cityleisure/projectstoimprovechristchurch/publiclifestudy/index.aspx) actually. And a bit of work for Auckland too.

[oneofsix]

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 :facepalm:

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.

[Hellzie]

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.

[Hellzie]

I must have mis-interrupted the discussion on in fill and 10 story high rise etc. Like that ever happens on KB :facepalm:

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.

[Hoon]

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.

[Hellzie]

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.

[Hellzie]

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.

[merv]

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.

[Gremlin]

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.

[Hellzie]

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.

:blink: Trust me, I spend plenty of time interfacing with Councils.... :angry2:

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.

[Gremlin]

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.

[Zedder]

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.

[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...

:shit: 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. :bleh:

[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.

[Hellzie]

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.

What an awesome film! Watched it last night. I liked what Jan Gehl said about the staying power of the city. Measuring the success of a place can be likened to a party. A good party is one that you want to stay a long time, and the same goes for a place. You know it's good when people stop and just enjoy it, rather than just passing through or going about their business. Interesting way of looking at it.

[oneofsix]

We drive to the gym and go up the escalator to get there.


You have to save your energy for the gym, after all it is time on the machines that count not the calories burnt getting there. :laugh: It is often said the best way to use the gym is to walk/run there and then turn around and walk/run home again. :shifty: Living down here the gym is a lot warmer especially when I take the heated car to get there.:shit:



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

Can all be resolved but will they? Given the cheap arse, cut corner ways development has been done in NZ are you surprised people are reluctant to trust it to happen until they have seen it else where. Perhaps something else it requires is a return having local shops that were killed off by big box stores and malls, even local gyms. :bleh:

[Paul in NZ]

Have a look see here

http://www.ferndaletrust.co.nz/index.php

(I note uptake has not been strong here during the recession but I've not been there for a few months so that may not now be true)

I prefer this idea

http://www.ngarara.com/site/index.php?page=home

[Swoop]

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.
Something took my interest a few years ago over in the Albany area of Akl. Industrial style units with a full apartment on a closed-in mezzanine level.
Massive amounts of space (easily fit a good sized boat + 2 cars + associated junk) plus a normal household without the "quater-acre-nightmare" (mowing the bleedin' lawns!) to worry about.

I was quite tempted with this concept. Obviously targetted towards the small business owner or import/export market.

[Hellzie]

Have a look see here

http://www.ferndaletrust.co.nz/index.php

(I note uptake has not been strong here during the recession but I've not been there for a few months so that may not now be true)

I prefer this idea

http://www.ngarara.com/site/index.php?page=home

Ferndale - first impression - I would liken it to a tranny. A man putting on heels and then calling himself a woman. That's not sustainable. You have to get the basic sustainability principles right first.

Ngarana looks like it's going about in a more honest way.

[Paul in NZ]

Ferndale - first impression - I would liken it to a tranny. A man putting on heels and then calling himself a woman. That's not sustainable. You have to get the basic sustainability principles right first..

Ouch! Maybe a little unfair as its an older development and they have gone to some lengths to do things differently. Having said that - every time I go there and try to convince myself to sell what I have and build a new house there I go....errrr.....nah...... Its just missing that certain something...

[oneofsix]

Ferndale - first impression - I would liken it to a tranny. A man putting on heels and then calling himself a woman. That's not sustainable. You have to get the basic sustainability principles right first.

Ngarana looks like it's going about in a more honest way.

Sorry but both sub-divisions seem to still be sprawl rather than compact. They are both converting new ground to housing. What if Ngarana could take their concept and go vertical with facilities included in the vertical.

[Hellzie]

Ouch! Maybe a little unfair as its an older development and they have gone to some lengths to do things differently. Having said that - every time I go there and try to convince myself to sell what I have and build a new house there I go....errrr.....nah...... Its just missing that certain something...

yes it looks like they've incorporated a lot of sustainability principles, but the fundamentals are wrong. Not sure if I expressed it clearly before but it's easier to look like a woman if you've got the right bits under the clothes to start with. :shutup:

So a couple of examples of why it won't work -

We are excited about Ferndale's development - the subdivisional enclave has a sense of it's own identity, an area of calm and peace, being a place for families, couples, and individuals alike.
It's not a place for families, couples and individuals as they're only providing one house type - which ultimately only suits family types with a certain income and lifestyle.


Being just 2km from Waikanae town centre and 4km from Waikanae Beach, Ferndale is ideally located to take advantage of all that the Kapiti area has to offer - like an extensive range of award winning shops, restaurants, bistros, cafes and galleries. Close by are parks, river walks and the Nga Manu Nature Reserve. Ferndale is also central to a variety of community services, schools, clubs and organisations.
By car...... 2km and 4km is too far to walk. And the density doesn't support public transport. So those that can't drive (young and old) don't have access to those services.. and they're usually the ones that need them most.

So they're having to work really hard to make it work because the basic issues weren't resolved. Ngarara on the other hand, looks a lot more promising!

[Hellzie]

Sorry but both sub-divisions seem to still be sprawl rather than compact. They are both converting new ground to housing. What if Ngarana could take their concept and go vertical with facilities included in the vertical.

I would argue that not all greenfield development is sprawl. It's new ground, but it's not suburban sprawl. They're proposing a variety of housing types, and also other uses (village centres with commercial / retail and other community facilities, etc). To me, sprawl is monotonous, cookie cutter residential and car dependent.

Compact development is environmentally preferable, but there should be a balance, and there is still room for greenfield development. It just needs to be done right.

[Paul in NZ]

By car...... 2km and 4km is too far to walk. And the density doesn't support public transport. So those that can't drive (young and old) don't have access to those services.. and they're usually the ones that need them most.

So they're having to work really hard to make it work because the basic issues weren't resolved. Ngarara on the other hand, looks a lot more promising!

In reality its a LOT more than that too (just talked to Vicki and she reminded me)

One thing I didn't like was it was so far away from shops that you may as well have had a proper lifestyle block at Te Horo ;-( and yes - its expensive, probably too expensive for what you are getting IMHO.

The Ngarara one was what I liked too, much more village like. There was also a really really good proposal from the Pritchard Group (yes I was surprised too) around the local transmission gulley / kapiti bypass road. The big block of land freed up could have been developed similar to the Ngarara idea complete with cycle paths and extending the historic tram lines from QE Park to Coastland and the railway station. Brilliant, you could catch a train to Kapiti and tram right to the beach. There was also the mixed housing model.

[Winston001]

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....

No choice? The one place in NZ where you can find apartment buildings is...Auckland. And plenty of them. Similarly there are plenty of townhouses and ownership flats, exactly the type of compact infill housing required by retired people and working couples. Isn't this exactly what the ACC is aiming to encourage?



Suburbia sux....

LOL fair enough but for hundreds of thousands of families, the suburbs are where they want to be. Children need space. Safe space. And parents enjoy sharing that with them. The growth of gardening centres is direct evidence of our interest in mucking about on our own patch of dirt. Moreover, caring for our lawns and gardens is a way of keeping grounded, simple work away from the pressures of modern life.


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

Don't misunderstand, I actually agree with your ideas. There is no need however to reinvent a special New Zealand wheel. What do other cities do successfully? In Europe, Japan, Scandinavia? There must be some good ideas out there.

[avgas]

Something took my interest a few years ago over in the Albany area of Akl. Industrial style units with a full apartment on a closed-in mezzanine level.
Massive amounts of space (easily fit a good sized boat + 2 cars + associated junk) plus a normal household without the "quater-acre-nightmare" (mowing the bleedin' lawns!) to worry about.

I was quite tempted with this concept. Obviously targetted towards the small business owner or import/export market.
I love this concept and will do it when I get permission. Seen lots of cool stores converted into housing down in Kati also.

Which is why I raise the argument, if you only need 200m - why can't we get that subdivided. Get a whole loft/shed thing going on with your own little slice of heaven.
Some of us can't afford the $400,000 for 400m but can afford $200K for sub-200m to build our shed/houses on.
And cross-leasing is like marrying your neighbors. Give me freehold fee simple any day.

[Hellzie]

No choice? The one place in NZ where you can find apartment buildings is...Auckland. And plenty of them. Similarly there are plenty of townhouses and ownership flats, exactly the type of compact infill housing required by retired people and working couples. Isn't this exactly what the ACC is aiming to encourage?

There is choice in a wider Auckland context, but what I'm talking about it choice at a smaller scale - there should be a mix of options in all neighbourhoods (obviously to different extents, ie.. you don't need a big 4 storey apartment in a small rural village).


LOL fair enough but for hundreds of thousands of families, the suburbs are where they want to be. Children need space. Safe space. And parents enjoy sharing that with them. The growth of gardening centres is direct evidence of our interest in mucking about on our own patch of dirt. Moreover, caring for our lawns and gardens is a way of keeping grounded, simple work away from the pressures of modern life.

There is a place for the suburban house type (i.e. a standalone house with a (relatively speaking) large garden. But it doesn't suit everyone. I have lived in the city (in a terrace house), 10min walk from work (in the CBD). And I have also lived in a suburban standalone house (15min bike ride / 20 min bus if you catch it just at the right time of day / 1 hour grid lock drive). And I can say quite happily that the terrace house living allowed me to get away from the pressures of modern life much more successfully, and quickly, whenever I liked. And it had a garden. Big enough to call my own, small enough to not require a whole weekend of attention.

[Hellzie]

I love this concept and will do it when I get permission. Seen lots of cool stores converted into housing down in Kati also.

Which is why I raise the argument, if you only need 200m - why can't we get that subdivided. Get a whole loft/shed thing going on with your own little slice of heaven.
Some of us can't afford the $400,000 for 400m but can afford $200K for sub-200m to build our shed/houses on.
And cross-leasing is like marrying your neighbors. Give me freehold fee simple any day.

Hobsonville Point is kind of on the way there - the lots are more like 275 - 300 I believe? But I dont' think you can buy a section?

Totally agree with you though.. we just assume that everyone wants 400m2... we assume everyone wants 3-4 bedrooms, 2 garage, 2-3 bathrooms, 2 living rooms...

And the reason this is assumed - it's what's most profitable for Mr Developer because it's the easiest route to take in getting Consent from the council because of the ridiculously shit rules and zoning regulations.

[Brett]

Hobsonville Point is kind of on the way there - the lots are more like 275 - 300 I believe? But I dont' think you can buy a section?

Totally agree with you though.. we just assume that everyone wants 400m2... we assume everyone wants 3-4 bedrooms, 2 garage, 2-3 bathrooms, 2 living rooms...

And the reason this is assumed - it's what's most profitable for Mr Developer because it's the easiest route to take in getting Consent from the council because of the ridiculously shit rules and zoning regulations.

Councils largely dictate the sizes of the sites, along with cost of site acquisition - ie the price of the vendor on the land is based on how many sites it can be cut into.

Hobsonville point is pretty expensive for what you get! Although, nothing is cheap in Auckland anymore.Still....600k for a 180m2 3 beddy that far from town...no thanks. I am just finishing an architecturally designed, 230m2, 4 bedroom (Double rooms) with study, 2 bathroom, separate lounge, Tuscan brick and tile house with a reasonably high spec in The Gardens on 410m2, which we are selling for around the same price...and I know which I would rather have if I was looking for a home in that price bracket. But hey, everyone is different...and thank goodness for that.

[Hellzie]

I love this concept and will do it when I get permission. Seen lots of cool stores converted into housing down in Kati also.

Which is why I raise the argument, if you only need 200m - why can't we get that subdivided. Get a whole loft/shed thing going on with your own little slice of heaven.
Some of us can't afford the $400,000 for 400m but can afford $200K for sub-200m to build our shed/houses on.
And cross-leasing is like marrying your neighbors. Give me freehold fee simple any day.

Are you talking about converting existing commercial / industrial into residential or getting a 200m2 freehold site (greenfield or subdivided in an existing residential area) and building on it?

Also are we talking terrace houses or standalone? I'm trying to establish what you'd like? Designers / council / developers don't seem to ask very often, they just assume they know best - and they judge what people want by how many houses they sell... not really seeing that as a compromise - people are choosing from the options they're given rather than what they essentially want.

So if you had it your way, no rules, no zoning, just your budget.. what would you want? (and I mean how would you actually do it - e.g. buy 200m2 of land in x location, close to x, y and z, build a house / terrace / shed, etc.


Something took my interest a few years ago over in the Albany area of Akl. Industrial style units with a full apartment on a closed-in mezzanine level.
Massive amounts of space (easily fit a good sized boat + 2 cars + associated junk) plus a normal household without the "quater-acre-nightmare" (mowing the bleedin' lawns!) to worry about.

I was quite tempted with this concept. Obviously targetted towards the small business owner or import/export market.

So did this project get built? what made you change your mind?

[Brett]

I love this concept and will do it when I get permission. Seen lots of cool stores converted into housing down in Kati also.

Which is why I raise the argument, if you only need 200m - why can't we get that subdivided. Get a whole loft/shed thing going on with your own little slice of heaven.
Some of us can't afford the $400,000 for 400m but can afford $200K for sub-200m to build our shed/houses on.
And cross-leasing is like marrying your neighbors. Give me freehold fee simple any day.

Because then you would have a whole bunch of shonky developers buying up the land and building rough little units on the 200m2 sites. I agree with you on this, but it would need to be administered properly in terms of design principles etc. Ie...lots of units on smaller chunks of land but that look really good, function well together and actually create a good living environment rather than a slum...like exist in part of East Tamaki, Mangere, Manurewa, Penrose etc.

[Hellzie]

Councils largely dictate the sizes of the sites, along with cost of site acquisition - ie the price of the vendor on the land is based on how many sites it can be cut into.

Hobsonville point is pretty expensive for what you get! Although, nothing is cheap in Auckland anymore.Still....600k for a 180m2 3 beddy that far from town...no thanks. I am just finishing an architecturally designed, 230m2, 4 bedroom (Double rooms) with study, 2 bathroom, separate lounge, Tuscan brick and tile house with a reasonably high spec in The Gardens on 410m2, which we are selling for around the same price...and I know which I would rather have if I was looking for a home in that price bracket. But hey, everyone is different...and thank goodness for that.

Sorry where is this "The Gardens", I typed it into Google but too many things came up and I'm not sure which one it is... :shutup:

[Brett]

So if you had it your way, no rules, no zoning, just your budget.. what would you want? (and I mean how would you actually do it - e.g. buy 200m2 of land in x location, close to x, y and z, build a house / terrace / shed, etc.





This would result in one hell of a mess, much akin to the slums of India IMO...allbeit the population is miniscule in comparison.

http://www.eaglecanyongolfestate.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17&Itemid=49

The above link is for a golf estate that I have visited and is on the right path. Houses are nicely designed, yet compact, so are the house sites.However there is a lot of public space (in this case the golf course being a big space!) but also community buildings such as the 19th hole, which has a lot to offer, restuarants, gyms, smimming pool to name just a few. Now I am not saying that this is on the money at all, and it isn't the best I have seen...but it a good start. I am all about creating a sense of community, imagine if you had community games rooms/areas, sports fields, well designed communal living areas so that the houses aren't limited by being on small yards.

[Brett]

Sorry where is this "The Gardens", I typed it into Google but too many things came up and I'm not sure which one it is... :shutup:

South Auckland, but a pretty upper-class suburb of South Auckland.

Some local real estate.....
http://www.realestate.co.nz/residential/all/auckland/manukau-city/the-gardens

[jonbuoy]

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.

Yup Merv that was my biggest issue - wasn´t happy at all about not having a toy box :crybaby: patch of grass to kick a ball around in would be nice too - they have a lot of well maintained kids playgrounds and grassy areas around here. Nice thing is that its families using them day and night and not groups of hood rats/chav skum. NZ has a great opportunity to do them well and the space to put in cycle paths/rugby pitches/play areas/skate parks etc...

[Hellzie]

This would result in one hell of a mess, much akin to the slums of India IMO...allbeit the population is miniscule in comparison.

http://www.eaglecanyongolfestate.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17&Itemid=49

The above link is for a golf estate that I have visited and is on the right path. Houses are nicely designed, yet compact, so are the house sites.However there is a lot of public space (in this case the golf course being a big space!) but also community buildings such as the 19th hole, which has a lot to offer, restuarants, gyms, smimming pool to name just a few. Now I am not saying that this is on the money at all, and it isn't the best I have seen...but it a good start. I am all about creating a sense of community, imagine if you had community games rooms/areas, sports fields, well designed communal living areas so that the houses aren't limited by being on small yards.

I'm not suggesting rules should be taken away, but the rules should work in a way where people actually get what they want (within reason), while providing certainty for everyone else that something totally unreasonable won't happen.

And as for the gold course project above, it's got some good elements (community facilities) but once again it's not catering for a range of incomes and lifestyles which is not a healthy happy sustainable community. The healthiest communities are ones where people can and want to live there throughout their lifetime, and have long lasting relationships with friends and neighbours.

[Hellzie]

Yup Merv that was my biggest issue - wasn´t happy at all about not having a toy box :crybaby: patch of grass to kick a ball around in would be nice too - they have a lot of well maintained kids playgrounds and grassy areas around here. Nice thing is that its families using them day and night and not groups of hood rats/chav skum. NZ has a great opportunity to do them well and the space to put in cycle paths/rugby pitches/play areas/skate parks etc...

Do you have any piccies or places in particular that you think are nice over there? What did you end up doing to solve the issues? Do you have lock up space somewhere or have you had to compromise? And are there other things that are better so you're happy (er) overall?

[Swoop]

So did this project get built? what made you change your mind?
Yes the project was existing when I stumbled upon it while being "nosey" around the Albany area.
A very sensible design idea. They appeared to be tilt-slab construction, so less chance of being a "leaky building"!

I would have been more interested apart from finding Schloss Swoop out west. Much nicer location.

[Brett]

I'm not suggesting rules should be taken away, but the rules should work in a way where people actually get what they want (within reason), while providing certainty for everyone else that something totally unreasonable won't happen.

And as for the gold course project above, it's got some good elements (community facilities) but once again it's not catering for a range of incomes and lifestyles which is not a healthy happy sustainable community. The healthiest communities are ones where people can and want to live there throughout their lifetime, and have long lasting relationships with friends and neighbours.

Absolutely agree on both points. Only showing that as a potential example of something approximating what could be done.

[jonbuoy]

Do you have any piccies or places in particular that you think are nice over there? What did you end up doing to solve the issues? Do you have lock up space somewhere or have you had to compromise? And are there other things that are better so you're happy (er) overall?

http://www.coastalpropertiesmallorca.com/property/1569-ground-floor-apartme-son-caliu-mallorca

Have a scan through the pictures, most of these are run by community management which restrict what you can and can't do with your own place but they also sort out disputes and manage all maintenance issues. I have a lock up garage which keeps me happy. I dont live in that complex but its a nice example of what you can do.

Where we live now is somewhere we can stay until they drag us off to an old peoples home, disabled friendly, short walk to shops etc.

[avgas]

we just assume that everyone wants 400m2... we assume everyone wants 3-4 bedrooms, 2 garage, 2-3 bathrooms, 2 living rooms...
Yep - fact of the matter, if I had a choice between a 2-bed apartment and a 2 bed townhouse where I owned the land, both in the city, both for the same price......well its not rocket science. As for simply moving out further and getting more land - would love to, but marriage is about compromise.


Are you talking about converting existing commercial / industrial into residential or getting a 200m2 freehold site (greenfield or subdivided in an existing residential area) and building on it?

Also are we talking terrace houses or standalone? I'm trying to establish what you'd like? Designers / council / developers don't seem to ask very often, they just assume they know best - and they judge what people want by how many houses they sell... not really seeing that as a compromise - people are choosing from the options they're given rather than what they essentially want.

So if you had it your way, no rules, no zoning, just your budget.. what would you want? (and I mean how would you actually do it - e.g. buy 200m2 of land in x location, close to x, y and z, build a house / terrace / shed, etc.
Either or. Seen shit loads of loft developments when I was overseas. Esp NY. But if we simply changed the subdivide rules to smaller land ammounts people could live in the good old fashion gottage or similar.
Things like this could be then implemented.
http://www.getawayhomes.co.nz/Site/Home.ashx
http://www.getawayhomes.co.nz/Cache/Pictures/1150060/6_Ski_Chalet_Holiday_Home.jpg

But stuff like this would never take off if people don't have the budget to buy a small amount of land.
Like I said earlier - it amazed me when I was in Japan staying in little houses on little blocks (250m roughly) of land and yet it was incredibly comfy. They even had motorbike garages!!!!

Also if we made it a national thing to have 200m subdivisions - it would mean kids right out of school could work towards buying their first home and have it paid for before they finish their apprenticeships etc. But initially I think it would have to start where its needed - in the city's, where a small block of land costs in excess of 200K.

We can't assume we have all the answers and our way of life as it exists is perfect - there are smart people outside of NZ too you know.


Because then you would have a whole bunch of shonky developers buying up the land and building rough little units on the 200m2 sites. I agree with you on this, but it would need to be administered properly in terms of design principles etc. Ie...lots of units on smaller chunks of land but that look really good, function well together and actually create a good living environment rather than a slum...like exist in part of East Tamaki, Mangere, Manurewa, Penrose etc.
Shonky happens due to people not the land size. Ponsonby used to be a drug alley. Now they can't afford to live there. As prices go up the same will happen in the other areas.
I personally believe there should be no state housing within 50km of a CBD. But that's just me, and I think that people are a bigger problem than who designs a house and what its made of.
Many of my trips overseas has taught me that we really don't know shit when it comes to 'sprawl' or close-knit housing. But I guess up until now we pretty much haven't had to learn it.

[Hellzie]

Yep - fact of the matter, if I had a choice between a 2-bed apartment and a 2 bed townhouse where I owned the land, both in the city, both for the same price......well its not rocket science. As for simply moving out further and getting more land - would love to, but marriage is about compromise.

Agreeeeed.


We can't assume we have all the answers and our way of life as it exists is perfect - there are smart people outside of NZ too you know.

Yep, but the reason I'm looking for local examples is that people respond to local examples better. If you show something from overseas people tend to say "well that can't happen here because we have different issues / different climate / different lifestyle. As much as I agree that essentially underneath it all, humans are all the same with the same basic needs, Kiwis tend to like to think we're different. And its easier convincing council if you can show them local examples.


I personally believe there should be no state housing within 50km of a CBD. But that's just me, and I think that people are a bigger problem than who designs a house and what its made of.

:shit: But those are the people that need to be close to services and public transport etc as they can't afford to travel by or own multiple cars, etc. Transport poverty is a very real issue. and will be getting worse.


Many of my trips overseas has taught me that we really don't know shit when it comes to 'sprawl' or close-knit housing. But I guess up until now we pretty much haven't had to learn it.

Yep totally agree with you there. .. and the sad thing is, a lot of people still seem to think it's a non-issue. They ignore the negative effects of it apparent all over the world. We seem to be happy repeating the same mistakes everyone else has made.

[avgas]

:shit: But those are the people that need to be close to services and public transport etc as they can't afford to travel by or own multiple cars, etc. Transport poverty is a very real issue. and will be getting worse.
Wrong thing to say to me. I studied in engineering, business and economics. Doesn't make me smart - but makes me cold to things that don't solve problems.
Consultants fuck me off on a daily basis.

If there is a transport problem - fix the transport problem.
If there is a housing problem, fix the housing problem.

Don't botch up a housing to fix a transport problem. Don't fuck up transport to fix a housing problem.
Separate problems that need separate solutions.

People who try to kill 2 birds with one stone typically don't have the budget to solve either properly.
The result is usually a pile of shit when people combine problems.
http://www.vagabondish.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/wenger-85-swiss-army-knife.jpg

[Swoop]

Ponsonby used to be a drug alley. Now they can't afford to live there.
I dunno about that. Seems to be a few druggies that can live there still, and drive flash cars...:shifty:

[Winston001]

We seem to be happy repeating the same mistakes everyone else has made.

I'm genuinely interested in the issues you raise but I'm also not sure what you see as ideal. Villages within cities? High rise apartment buildings with double parking and storage facilities (to mimic a large double garage)? Condominiums? Four story walkups?

No city in a democracy (that I know of) has ideal urban planning. The only place this can happen is in an autocracy (essentially dictatorship) where the state has complete control. China, Russia, North Korea etc.

Brazilia is the poster child for modern central planning of a city. I remember learning about it at school and it sounded great. Unfortunately it is regarded as a failure. The citizens don't like it.

Which leaves us with laissez faire organic growth - exactly what you are kicking against. And I'm not even slightly convinced people are forced into the developers dream. People buy and live where they can. The better-off build their own dreams and thank goodness they do - they inspire others.

[mashman]

Yep, but the reason I'm looking for local examples is that people respond to local examples better. If you show something from overseas people tend to say "well that can't happen here because we have different issues / different climate / different lifestyle. As much as I agree that essentially underneath it all, humans are all the same with the same basic needs, Kiwis tend to like to think we're different. And its easier convincing council if you can show them local examples.


:scratch:



They ignore the negative effects of it apparent all over the world. We seem to be happy repeating the same mistakes everyone else has made.

:scratch::scratch:

It would seem that we're always looking for "tried and tested" and councils and govts must be the worst of the lot for it (unfair maybe?)... but how often do you hear, but that's not how they do things there, they do things this way in Victoria ergo it must work for us too etc... If we're going to act in such a way we will crab forwards, as Winston puts it, with a laissez faire attitude towards our housing (none cares if it's affordable after the recent housing bubble that they don't want to have happen again). Unfortunately there's no pressing need to do anything different, we've got land to spare (sell too) and unfortunately we have a population that doesn't really give a shit about such issues as that's someone else's problem. We're reactive and it'll take something special to be proactive in an already established industry... is funding available for such housing projects?

[Ocean1]

:scratch: It would seem that we're always looking for "tried and tested" and councils and govts must be the worst of the lot for it (unfair maybe?)...

Not at all, councils are indeed the worst. At pretty much everything.

[BMWST?]

some interesting thoughts here.
The size of sections is indeed set by councils via district schemes and zones.This is presumably done in response to demand.....from who,developers and builders?
I agree that methods of construction should be more free.....but who takes responsibility for it.In the current system the councils are stuck with being the policemen,and they are becoming more and more risk averse,and who can blame them when they are the ones in the sights when something goes wrong.I beleive that we should tighten up the rules and regs on who can build so that if a problem develops in a building the original designers and builders are held responsible for it ,not a third party like the council.If you want to build and sell a bulding with alternative solutions,fine,but you must be accountable for it,not turn a round and say the council let me do it or that it had a branz appraisal.
I have been looking around wellington recently at apartments and the range of stuff is amazing.Some are downright appalling,others quite pleasant but very very expensive....lease arrangements are interesting, you "buy" an apartment but say $8 000 a year on the lease,tied to the cpi!!!!,carpark $50000 more and storage $10000 more.
i dont have any answers just more questions.
There is a reason the "conventional" house persists.....it has been found to be a very good way to shelter it inahabitants form the elements

[mashman]

Not at all, councils are indeed the worst. At pretty much everything.

That's disappointing to hear, if it's true that is.



The size of sections is indeed set by councils via district schemes and zones.This is presumably done in response to demand.....from who,developers and builders?
I agree that methods of construction should be more free.....but who takes responsibility for it.In the current system the councils are stuck with being the policemen,and they are becoming more and more risk averse,and who can blame them when they are the ones in the sights when something goes wrong.I beleive that we should tighten up the rules and regs on who can build so that if a problem develops in a building the original designers and builders are held responsible for it ,not a third party like the council.If you want to build and sell a bulding with alternative solutions,fine,but you must be accountable for it,not turn a round and say the council let me do it or that it had a branz appraisal.

We've had a bit of a mare with the builder that built our place and it's kinda tricky to get them back in to do a job properly or even any job properly where they don't want to (a VERY common grumble amongst the neighbours). They can lie about their credentials quite easily and will only be found out if caught. The only fall back is insurance :yes: :facepalm:. As the council told me recently, ignorance is no excuse... in my case that went both ways and the council saw reason. There's no thick and fast in regards to how well the job will be done, even with rules and regs in place, because again, "they" need to be caught doing something "wrong"... and even then the "penalty" can, and most likely will, be a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket... or at least that's how "they" were treated by the Commerce Commission :mad:. Rules and regs mean fuck all where no one is willing to enforce them or at least take responsibility for enforcing them. They're only ever any use when a legal fight starts and then everyone runs for cover and hides behind lawyers and money gets poured down the drain. You pays yer money and takes yer chance... sometimes you have to fight harder than you might think to protect your "investment" :yes:.

[jonbuoy]

Instead of mortgaging yourself up to the eyeballs to be in a house thats more than you need to live in wouldn't it be encouragement enough to live somewhere just big enough and be free of the mortgage? Most people end up downsizing when they get older anyway, saves pissing away all that money in interest payments that could be invested, saved or spent elsewhere.

[avgas]

Instead of mortgaging yourself up to the eyeballs to be in a house thats more than you need to live in wouldn't it be encouragement enough to live somewhere just big enough and be free of the mortgage? Most people end up downsizing when they get older anyway, saves pissing away all that money in interest payments that could be invested, saved or spent elsewhere.
You can say that in NZ. Our entire economy runs on the principle of people spending more than they can afford. :laugh:

[oneofsix]

You can say that in NZ. Our entire economy runs on the principle of people spending more than they can afford. :laugh:

Yeah, its called capitalism :shutup:

Garth Morgan had a bit of a whinge about our property lead economy in the Herald yesterday.

As to size of property, I tried downsizing with our latest because the kids were at that leaving age :doh: The Mrs was right ... again. Need the extra space for the visits.

I think you avgas, said about solving one problem at a time, sorry dud it doesn't work and is what is wrong. Hellezie is more correct in that you have to address the other problem as well to make the one solvable. If motels weren't too expensive for average kiwis then I wouldn't need the space for visitors.

Most of these planned communities don't allow for industry so manual workers need to travel and it is not in the NZ culture for an employer to lay on a bus or for the workers to be based in one location. There goes that NZ culture thing, wont work here because .... However as has been shown with booze and ciggies culture can be changed, in fact by its nature culture does change, an unchanging culture is a tradition (and usually a fucked up interruption of the tradition at that)

[mashman]

Instead of mortgaging yourself up to the eyeballs to be in a house thats more than you need to live in wouldn't it be encouragement enough to live somewhere just big enough and be free of the mortgage? Most people end up downsizing when they get older anyway, saves pissing away all that money in interest payments that could be invested, saved or spent elsewhere.

bwaaaaa ha ha ha haaaaaa. Pick your myth. Property or Investment. Either is a gamble, ill health/market forces/dodgy bastards all trying to help you to lose your life "savings". Mortgage free? Troll! I couldn't afford a shoe box (similar to MOST) and see no reason why I should pay rent money and not pay my rent money to me for the place I live in (yes I realise I'm paying the bank). The size of my place is my choice and for an extra 200 a month I can get something bigger for my family of 5, along with a bit of space for visitors etc... The places I've seen for rent in that lower price bracket are generally shite in comparison to what I'm used to (not dirty mucky cold etc... call me picky, but my kids health is worth it) and to that end I can understand where Hellzie is coming from, and whilst it's attainable, it's not going to become a reality where the price of land/materials/labour/compliance costs etc... are constantly subject to inflation/market valuations etc... and will never come down when fresh out of the box. You're dreaming if you believe that there's money left after paying rent/the mortgage as they're usually about the same value, so where's the savings to be invested?

[mashman]

You can say that in NZ. Our entire economy runs on the principle of people spending more than they can afford. :laugh:


Ahhhhh, but according to the man you can afford it just as long as you're able to meet the repayments :laugh: ... tough shit when you can't though. Isn't that the line we're sold?

[Paul in NZ]

In England there are lots of attempts down through the ages to cater for larger numbers of people. There were also lots of new towns created and Bill Bryson has a bit to say about it in Notes from a Small Island and usually its not kind... However its interesting to note that apartments in large cities that have shared gardens in squares reserved for the apartment owners are selling at a premium (usually location based $$ though). England has always had the allotment as well.

NZ Councils seem to be desperate to stop people having gardens due to water requirements. We are starting into a battle in Kapiti around water meters and already the emotive language is flying around people having 'inefficiently watered' gardens etc etc. What the council wants is for us all to live in concrete boxes with zero lawn or other area that requires water - except for the rich of course.

This topic is coming up because of increases in population. Part of the argument / discussion has to be about limiting population growth so that we can (if we want) stick to a traditional way of life. After all my tribal roots are in the 'burbs, its my heritage and I want to protect my culture.

[oneofsix]

In England there are lots of attempts down through the ages to cater for larger numbers of people. There were also lots of new towns created and Bill Bryson has a bit to say about it in Notes from a Small Island and usually its not kind... However its interesting to note that apartments in large cities that have shared gardens in squares reserved for the apartment owners are selling at a premium (usually location based $$ though). England has always had the allotment as well.

NZ Councils seem to be desperate to stop people having gardens due to water requirements. We are starting into a battle in Kapiti around water meters and already the emotive language is flying around people having 'inefficiently watered' gardens etc etc. What the council wants is for us all to live in concrete boxes with zero lawn or other area that requires water - except for the rich of course.

This topic is coming up because of increases in population. Part of the argument / discussion has to be about limiting population growth so that we can (if we want) stick to a traditional way of life. After all my tribal roots are in the 'burbs, its my heritage and I want to protect my culture.

Sorry Paul but the council screwed up and like most pollys don't want to back down from their position, it is not to do with your garden. Also they are bowing the UN edict on water, populations of Kapiti's size and larger should be metered (nothing to do with conservation) and water is a commodity.

Kapiti and everywhere else in NZ have enough water, we need to collect and manage it. Crikey our only thing close to a desert NZ has had to be created by a volcano that is now a fucking big fresh water lake.

[Zedder]

Ahhhhh, but according to the man you can afford it just as long as you're able to meet the repayments :laugh: ... tough shit when you can't though. Isn't that the line we're sold?

"They" also sell mortgage protection insurance though.

[avgas]

Yeah, its called capitalism :shutup:
Actually capitalism in its purest form has nothing to do with debt. Its about investment. But nothing stays pure when people are involved. Communism suffered the same problem. Just the names changed. In capitalism if you need more than you afford you 'borrow' from some scum bank, in communism you borrow from the govt (or KGB!).

In NZ you can do both - making us double fucked.


I think you avgas, said about solving one problem at a time, sorry dud it doesn't work and is what is wrong. Hellezie is more correct in that you have to address the other problem as well to make the one solvable. If motels weren't too expensive for average kiwis then I wouldn't need the space for visitors.

Most of these planned communities don't allow for industry so manual workers need to travel and it is not in the NZ culture for an employer to lay on a bus or for the workers to be based in one location. There goes that NZ culture thing, wont work here because .... However as has been shown with booze and ciggies culture can be changed, in fact by its nature culture does change, an unchanging culture is a tradition (and usually a fucked up interruption of the tradition at that)
It does work - but the problem is people give up on solving one problem at a time. They EXPECT everything to be solved at once. They EXPECT the impossible - which leaves us with a dozen half-arsed efforts to solve problems.

As for communities popping up and being catered for industry. The residents of Kaikoura, Tauranga, Cromwell, Huntly, Waihi.........would dissagree with you. However in most of these situations the community is only temporarily, as the work is only short-term (in most cases). Europe/China and US has shown us Building world class transport systems and world class housing does not completely change this (but it does slow decline).

The only recent adavancement that has changed this has been the internet.

Take things on step at a time and you will ease the next solution - but provide a solution that band-aids the problems together and you only have a temporary fix.

e.g.
Job problem - create jobs
House problem - build houses (this helps but does not complete resolve the job problem)
transport problem - build transport (this helps the house and the job problems, but does not resolve them)
In this series of solutions:
- People have jobs that sustain the town
- People have well constructed houses (often closer to work than previously thought possible)
- People have well constructed trasport that is effective to those who require it

not

Build houses and create transport - to create jobs.
Eventually all the work is done and people wonder why the fuck they are still living there, and all go on benefit or worse, wait for the houses and roads to fuck out again so they have more work to do.
In this solution:
- Roads are shit
- Houses are shit
- There is no work

This needs to be a top-down initiative. Companies can be coaxed to work anywhere. Especially when they find out that a town can be moulded to their needs, rather than bent to the beneficiaries wants.
People will move if they see an advantage. They are leaving us for Aus, US, Europe everyday for the same reason.

[mashman]

Actually capitalism in its purest form has nothing to do with debt. Its about investment.

Eh? How does that work then? Investment without return? slightly OT, apologies.

[merv]

Paul as for water, the Aussies faced a crisis for about 8 years, now just about everyone I know over there has the big collection tank systems in the back yard collecting rain water from the roof - we could do that here too but the situation just hasn't been desperate enough for us to take the sensible option.

[mashman]

Paul as for water, the Aussies faced a crisis for about 8 years, now just about everyone I know over there has the big collection tank systems in the back yard collecting rain water from the roof - we could do that here too but the situation just hasn't been desperate enough for us to take the sensible option.

They could also put a desalination plant or two on the hills above the populated centres to top off the water source.

[Winston001]

Instead of mortgaging yourself up to the eyeballs to be in a house thats more than you need to live in wouldn't it be encouragement enough to live somewhere just big enough and be free of the mortgage?

Yes there's movement towards this in the USA and other places. Doing more with less. There are some clever designs.


On the subject of home ownership and the relentless lament that nobody can afford to buy a home:

65% of New Zealand home owners have no mortgage. Zero. None.

http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research/bulletin/2007_2011/2009mar72_1kida.pdf

Right now despite the high prices of our housing, real estate sales have jumped up. People are taking mortgages and buying homes. It will be hard for these families for a while but in the long term they will pay off the mortgage and then be able to help their children.

[Brett]

They could also put a desalination plant or two on the hills above the populated centres to top off the water source.

Pretty energy heavy process isn't it?

[flyingcrocodile46]

Paul as for water, the Aussies faced a crisis for about 8 years, now just about everyone I know over there has the big collection tank systems in the back yard collecting rain water from the roof - we could do that here too but the situation just hasn't been desperate enough for us to take the sensible option.

Ok out in the countryside and outlying subdivisions but not so for centres of bigger population centres. You won't get resource consent in Auckland central (and probably some other city centres) due to concerns about cross contamination of comunal water supplies with air polutants contaminating tank water from dirty roofs.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Pretty energy heavy process isn't it? Not to mention the set up costs

[flyingcrocodile46]

It does work - but the problem is people give up on solving one problem at a time. They EXPECT everything to be solved at once. They EXPECT the impossible - which leaves us with a dozen half-arsed efforts to solve problems.

Take things on step at a time and you will ease the next solution - but provide a solution that band-aids the problems together and you only have a temporary fix.


Solving one problem at a time is fine as long as it is viable to do so in isolation, i.e the return doesn't rely on the resolution of other yet to be solved problems that may subsequently be found to only be resolveable using steps which make no or little use of the answers to the earlier resolved problems. Kinda like building foundations to meet a time line for a building completion, then subsequently finding that it is impractical to use some or all of them for the building design above ground because they are in the wrong place or wrong size.

Or you can take a look at how well the 'one step at a time' philospy works for the IT functions of pretty much any Council and many business's if you want to talk about broken arse band aid solutions. (though they weren't seen as band aids at the time... just solving one problem at a time)

A better result is usually achieved when the full scope of needs and processes are properly understood and pathway solutions and solution pathways are fully tailored to ensure best economy of efforts and the most efficient and fully effective outcome.

[flyingcrocodile46]

This is very confusing. Why would they build cities without industries to employ the occupants?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2005231/Chinas-ghost-towns-New-satellite-pictures-massive-skyscraper-cities-STILL-completely-empty.html

[Winston001]

Aw geeze Croc, ain't it obvious? Build it and they will come!






Well...it worked for Kevin Costner...:confused:

[mashman]

Pretty energy heavy process isn't it?

depends on what you use to power them and how ya build 'em I guess... but if the alternative is water shortage ???


Not to mention the set up costs

More than likely... money eh :), all the little things it stops us from doing :msn-wink:

[ellipsis]

...at some point it will all come together, Trantorian ,habitat related space was somewhat restricted, but Arthur gave us a good picture...from what i remember of the prophetic trilogy, work/industry seemed to be off planet and social mores had become...somewhat lax...more like what it is here, now...shalom...

[flyingcrocodile46]

Is this what Kiwis want? I don't think so. We ain't sardines


http://youtu.be/dHIrrjMPSMw

[mashman]

Wireless technology: check
Body of water: check

Offices on the water: check (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1345738/Ark-Hotel-Remistudio-biosphere-self-contained-haven-event-flood-disaster.html)... Just add sensible monorail/tram/public transport system. No reason why these things can't be apartment blocks either and as most of our cities are on the shore and we're surrounded by water... No one said we had to use "land".

T'would free up the city housing/shops etc... As Hellzie says, the infrastructure is already there. The office is the intruder in cities imho.

[Ocean1]

Wireless technology: check
Body of water: check

Offices on the water: check (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1345738/Ark-Hotel-Remistudio-biosphere-self-contained-haven-event-flood-disaster.html)... Just add sensible monorail/tram/public transport system. No reason why these things can't be apartment blocks either and as most of our cities are on the shore and we're surrounded by water... No one said we had to use "land".

T'would free up the city housing/shops etc... As Hellzie says, the infrastructure is already there. The office is the intruder in cities imho.

Very good. We could export all of the poor people who can’t afford to live in Ponsonby there.

Leme see, it's within an order of magnitude of the mass of a cruise ship. They cost 'prox US$6000 per gross ton to build, call it an even half a billion US dollars, aaaand as a habitat they service several tens of the clients that structure would. Ah, and a cruise ship isn't even slightly self-sufficient, they import absolutely everything, even the Margaritas.

Cost of residency on a cruise ship, you ask?

http://ezinearticles.com/?Smart-Buyers-Guide-to-Residential-Cruise-Ships&id=721770

[Usarka]

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.

Lol I've been in some trains overseas when I'm thinking there's no way in hell anymore people could squeeze on, nek minnit 30 more people. From both sides, as a passenger already in the train, and as someone who wants to get somewhere without havign to wait 4 hours until rush hour is over.

[Usarka]

I dunno about that. Seems to be a few druggies that can live there still, and drive flash cars...:shifty:

Are you going on about TVNZ celebrities again....? :sherlock:

[Subike]

Fill in is not good
you only have to look around the worlds at all the major cities
condensed housing estates, high rise apartment buildings, close dometry type streets have all in the end led to slums,
bad environments and rapid growth in crime, teenage pregnancy and depression,
Humans are pack creatures sure,
But we are also by design wanderers,
Separating us from nature is bad, plenty of open space, trees , brush, bush, rivers, etc,
should be all around us to evoke peace of mind and good healthy living
Put us all in cages, watch murder, rape, and negativity grow, no matter what the income base or luxury base is.

[avgas]

This is very confusing. Why would they build cities without industries to employ the occupants?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2005231/Chinas-ghost-towns-New-satellite-pictures-massive-skyscraper-cities-STILL-completely-empty.html
Why do WE (in NZ) fix the same bits of road even if they aint broke?..........where towns in NZ (on the east coast) have massively damaged access-ways?

- because its someone's job to do it.

Doesn't matter if your a road worker in Kaikohe or a builder in China. If its your livelyhood to do something stupid, you will do it so long as your paid.

[avgas]

Is this what Kiwis want? I don't think so. We ain't sardines
Unless we have 2 (or more ideally less) child policy, its will be the future for all of us eventually.
Its pretty simple maths, if it takes 2 to tango, and tango = +1 more..well any more than 2 kids and your no longer keeping the population static (i.e. 1 birth = 1 death) your increasing it.

NZ will be what Singapore is now........in about 200 years.
Unless something changes.

[Usarka]

NZ will be what Singapore is now........in about 200 years.
Unless something changes.

GDP growth is the answer to all our problems!

[Ocean1]

Unless we have 2 (or more ideally less) child policy, its will be the future for all of us eventually.
Its pretty simple maths, if it takes 2 to tango, and tango = +1 more..well any more than 2 kids and your no longer keeping the population static (i.e. 1 birth = 1 death) your increasing it.

NZ will be what Singapore is now........in about 200 years.
Unless something changes.

Meh, it's an easy fix.

Instead of paying 'em for each sprog charge 'em.

[mashman]

Very good. We could export all of the poor people who can’t afford to live in Ponsonby there.

Leme see, it's within an order of magnitude of the mass of a cruise ship. They cost 'prox US$6000 per gross ton to build, call it an even half a billion US dollars, aaaand as a habitat they service several tens of the clients that structure would. Ah, and a cruise ship isn't even slightly self-sufficient, they import absolutely everything, even the Margaritas.

Cost of residency on a cruise ship, you ask?

http://ezinearticles.com/?Smart-Buyers-Guide-to-Residential-Cruise-Ships&id=721770

I sense a hint of sarcasm in your post :bleh:... How much do office blocks cost to build? How much does the average "office" cost to rent? How much "rent"/$$$ would you get if you sold office units as flats? Fortunately houses have solar and wind power and are self-sufficient enough to not have to import the ingredients for Margaritas... otherwise there might be a slight flaw in your comparison.

Ahhhh the variation (http://dornob.com/will-robots-assemble-the-utopian-sea-cities-of-our-future/?ref=search) and innovation of it all... bet it's too expensive :facepalm:

[Swoop]

Are you going on about TVNZ celebrities again....? :sherlock:
Strangely enough, no. But that would encompass another large-ish chapter of P Rd...

[ellipsis]

...if we could only talk the populace of our clean, green land (tui) who only pull their heads out of their arse to breathe or when there is something for free on offer, to leave it stuck up there for three minutes too long, our problems would be over...nirvana...there would only be a few thousand in the whole land...plenty of housing and firewood then...

[Ocean1]

I sense a hint of sarcasm in your post

Nevermind. I've taken a fancy to this: http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/oasisoftheseas/

Wonder if they've got a wee track around the deck...

[mashman]

Nevermind. I've taken a fancy to this: http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/oasisoftheseas/

Wonder if they've got a wee track around the deck...

Iffen I got ye wrong, berate me KB styles :yes: and I will grovel and swoon at your awesomeness... holy shit that's some ship, gadgets and all. I :rofl: at the Rising Tide bar. T'would make for an interesting working environment. However I was concerned at the lack of a strip club :innocent:

[avgas]

GDP growth is the answer to all our problems!
Well actually Singapore was the positive solution to our population increasing. The alternative is along the same basis as countries like Uganda etc........which is what would happen if NZ doesn't become a business hub and has 30+ Million.

I still would prefer if we stay in the sub-10 mil category though. But at the rate we are importing + breeding, that dream will die in my lifetime.

Meh, it's an easy fix.
Instead of paying 'em for each sprog charge 'em.
In any other country I would say that would work. In NZ we don't penalize anyone. Even the crims have it ok.
At the best the NZ govt would produce a pamphlet about overpopulation.

[Winston001]

I still would prefer if we stay in the sub-10 mil category though. But at the rate we are importing + breeding, that dream will die in my lifetime.

In any other country I would say that would work. In NZ we don't penalize anyone.
At the best the NZ govt would produce a pamphlet about overpopulation.

Actually I don't know if our population is expanding at all. We loose a lot of people to Australia and Britain. Growth is very slight.

As for penalising families who have more than one child - so far as I know China is the only country in the world which does this so its unfair to suggest NZ alone could follow them.

Furthermore its believed that the China one-child policy has failed and isn't spoken of these days. Officially it exists but in reality, province by province it is ignored. The way it works there is if you have a second child, you pay more tax. That is the exact opposite to our Family Support tax relief and similar policies throughout Europe. In our case, the more children you have the less tax you pay.

[Ocean1]

Furthermore its believed that the China one-child policy has failed and isn't spoken of these days. Officially it exists but in reality, province by province it is ignored. The way it works there is if you have a second child, you pay more tax. That is the exact opposite to our Family Support tax relief and similar policies throughout Europe. In our case, the more children you have the less tax you pay.

The way it worked a couple of years ago is that the parents simply didn't admit to having a second child. The villiage cultural ambasidor knew about it, but if he failed to advise head office it didn't affect him. So because the state hadn't registered the second child it didn't exist, no education, healthcare etc etc.

[avgas]

Actually I don't know if our population is expanding at all. We loose a lot of people to Australia and Britain. Growth is very slight.

As for penalising families who have more than one child - so far as I know China is the only country in the world which does this so its unfair to suggest NZ alone could follow them.

Furthermore its believed that the China one-child policy has failed and isn't spoken of these days. Officially it exists but in reality, province by province it is ignored. The way it works there is if you have a second child, you pay more tax. That is the exact opposite to our Family Support tax relief and similar policies throughout Europe. In our case, the more children you have the less tax you pay.
Just to prove I am not that old.......its happened in my lifetime.
<iframe marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" src="http://www.google.co.nz/publicdata/embed?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_pop_totl&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:NZL&ifdim=region&tstart=-304689600000&tend=1304683200000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false&q=new+zealand+population" frameborder="0" height="325" scrolling="no" width="400"></iframe>
http://www.google.co.nz/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_pop_totl&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:NZL&ifdim=region&tstart=-304689600000&tend=1304683200000&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false&q=new+zealand+population

So it seems we are importing more than we are importing. Probably due to the fact that we have ourselves a little paradise that we are keeping secret about. Thank god we get crappy weather otherwise we would have been pillaged by now.

China is not the best example of a good society, but my experience of being there I was dumbstruck at how fucked they would be if they didn't have such a policy.
But once again the whole 1-child thing would never work unless it;
a) happened everywhere
or (in china's case)
b) you stop/prevent people entering the country from overseas.

But some food for though - if we call keep breeding the bar will be raised, again and again and again..........until no one can afford 400m of land 5km from a big city. Its pretty close to that now.

[Winston001]

Yeah no worries. Our population growth is 0.88% which places us 125th in the world. Mind you, there are countries below us such as South Africa which have negative growth.

Personally I don't want to see our population grow at all. I like the vast open spaces and scarcity of people.