Sprawl vs compact development?

[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 You're mad and you're evil ... 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 You're mad and you're evil ... 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.