by Catherine Delahunty
Phil Twyford and I both agreed that there could only be one title for our blogs today. The emerging elephant is the shadow of the yellow power jacket beneath the sweetness and light at the Select Committee. Today we heard another series of passionate and coherent submissions. The committee is receiving these as if there is a blank slate on the question of the powers of local boards or councils in the proposed new model. There have been reassuring paternalistic murmurs as if privatisation by stealth e.g. contracting out the management of public assets was not on the agenda at all. It seems we all love participatory democracy and I would say that most of the Select Committee are sincerely interested in this. But the elephant in the space between the tables remains and the silence is loud around the driving philosophy behind the super city reforms.
As many submitters have said,”Why the urgency? Who benefits? Why have a presidential mayor choosing the committee chairs? What real powers will local boards have? Hasn’t the corporate model already undermined local voices and social development and why should we trust you to create something better? A world class city must include justice and voice for the Onehunga Business Association and the Oakley Creek protectors, for the youth law people and the association of blind citizens.
One of the most inspiring and surprising moments was when the Northern Employers and Manufacturers Association called for manawhenua seats. Again they were not alone. Everybody with exception of two submissions out of thirty today supported at least two Maori seats on the Auckland Council and many went further calling for Maori representation at every level. The tangata whenua were powerful and pragmatic in their expectations and it was great to see younger people roll out the banners in the room calling for tino rangatiratanga and mana motuhake. But what is equally awesome is the sea change in the awareness expressed by so many Pakeha groups from Unitec and ARC to the Mental Health Commission and CCS Disability Action, all called for Maori seats.
Many groups today called for a recognition for the marginalised sectors of the cities, both geographical and in terms of culture and power. I was most inspired by the dignity of the Cook Island Community Forum women and the rigorous detailed knowledge underpinning Lisa Prager and Penny Bright’s damning indictment of corporate local government and the theft of the public right to water. Penny’s data on how water user charges has not resulted in the conservation of water in the city but has penalised the poor warranted more time than we gave. The urban designers were a strong lobby with great ideas for a sustainable city if there was a way to make the local government structures engage with them.
We are hearing many positive suggestions and many creative voices, but the elephant is still sitting in the room, large and muscular and invisible with the scent of raw jungle power wafting up from between its big flat feet.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Catherine Delahunty on Wed, July 8th, 2009
Tags: Auckland, Catherine Delahunty, Parliament, submissions, super-city
More posts by Catherine Delahunty | more about Catherine Delahunty
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Something that has been totally missed so far by the media (I mention it in my submission, 8pm tonight for anyone interested
) is “who will do what the ARC does now?”
By that I mean – who will be the guardian of the metropolitan urban limit? The same Auckland Council that has a big vested interest in removing that MUL?
Who will be the environmental advocate for Auckland? The ARC currently makes lengthy and thoughtful submissions on District Plans, Plan Changes and Resource Consent applications. I can’t see the Auckland Council acting as both environmental advocate and consenting authority at the same time. Is the Auckland Council likely to submit against parts of its own Plan – I certainly doubt it.
I strongly think we need an “Environment Auckland” organisation with real statutory power to provide this kind of advocacy. To ensure that the job the ARC does at the moment is not lost and there can be some independent body from the Auckland Council to keep a watchful eye on what that council is doing.
Note: I do not work for the ARC.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That is a good piont jar and have “Environmental Auckland” be completely autonomous.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Made my submission today, calling for a full ward system, STV voting, Maori seats and strong community boards… Not holding my breath…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I made my submission too – got some pretty good feedback from all the MPs there. It was quite fun actually, except for listening to some right-wing nutjob drone on and on about some incoherent rant about water, rates and something else I didn’t quite get.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
elephant in a room would be impossible to overlook
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What time were you on jarbury, I was on at 6.30..?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
cant wait to see it
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Elephant in the Room.. Wow its very interesting and funny as well. Well said.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jarbury said “who will be the guardian of the metropolitan urban limit?” hopefully no one. This need not exist as all it does it fiddle with land prices either side of it, what it is designed to fix could be addressed through market based pricing of utilities.
You want someone to keep an independent eye on an Auckland council, who keeps an eye on the ARC now? I guess it’s ok for a council to have untrammelled power as long as you agree with what it does then?
Whatever comes of all this will simply be another version of big local government, pushing people around with restrictions on land use and spending other people’s money because planners don’t like people making choices with their own property.
btw a bunch of leftwing “Pakeha” organisations (Catherine thinks of everyone according to their ethnic origins it appear, rather than what people do) supporting separate race based democracy is hardly speaking for the majority. No matter how you dress it up, granting people guaranteed political representation because of who their ancestors are is bigoted and archaic. Why should someone get to be a political representative by law only because of who his or her ancestors are? Or are people of different ethnicities incapable of representing those who aren’t of their ethnic group?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Do you liberterians have your own board..? Or has the market not got around to making one yet..?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Or are people of different ethnicities incapable of representing those who aren’t of their ethnic group?”
No, but, arguably, people of different cultures are. Cultural differences run pretty deep and trying to get your head around representing people with a very different world view or beliefs of how decision -making processes should work, isn’t easy.
The problem is that with culture being such a malleable (not to mention ductile) thing, race tends to get used as a proxy. I don’t know how representative democracty is going to sort this out, but luckily it really isn’t my problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I was on at about 7.30 I think. Got called in a bit early.
Liberty, the point that I was making is that the Regional Councils and the District Councils each have oversight on each other’s work and can submit for or against what the other councils are doing. The only legal requirement is that District Plans give effect to the Regional Policy Statement (which isn’t going to be changed under the RMA amendments) and that District Plans are not inconsistent with Regional Plans.
District Councils could (and probably do) make submissions on changes to the Regional Plans and the Regional Policy Statement – thereby providing some oversight of what the ARC does. Lumping them all together as one unitary authority means you lose that oversight – of both the ARC and the District Councils.
Regarding the MUL, I guess we’re never quite going to agree on that one. If councils provided for sufficient intensification within the city limits then we wouldn’t have this whole “the MUL drives up house prices” argument.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes we will. Those US cities which have encouraged intensification behing their MUL have also ended up with unaffordable housing for the young.
The old of course love it.
I am not sure how this promotes the interest of future generations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Owen, to what extent have they “encouraged intensification”?
One could strongly argue that intensification has been “encouraged” in Auckland. That doesn’t meant it has actually been provided to anywhere near the required extent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Owen, “unaffordable housing” could also be seen as sign that a place is economically successful and a popular place to live. Take Portland — I want to live there, and I’m quite happy to rent if that’s the only option, because it’s one of the most happening cities in North America.
Tim Hazledine (head of UofA economic department) has a great presentation on the economics of the MUL and debunks the idea that it is terrible tool. He also takes on Demographia’s affordable housing surveys — 1) they only look at stand alone house prices, not other types of dwellings that are likely to be more affordable in cities. And they only look at capital values, not rents.
He points out that the top of Demographias “affordable cities” list are places that no one wants to live in. “Top” of their affordability list is Youngstown, Ohio — aka “Murder City USA”.
The bottom of the list is pretty much a list of the world’s most liveable and desirable cities…
I may email the ppt to jarbury so he can put it on his website (will ask TH for permission first of course).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What is the required extent?
Auckland metropolitan area is already one of the highest density cities in the New World – three times the average density of US cities of the same size.
You get economic gains in central city areas when you move from one to two story construction. But as densities move beyond two or three stories the gains soon turn to extra costs because of the increase in gross floor area over net area. Ie lifts stairs and balconies and parking. Also in New Zealand our high wind loads and earthquake loads mean these costs rise more rapidly than in most countries.
Also good acoustic insulation requires mass whichn means more concrete which means more earthquake load.
You can have rise apartments in the CBD at a reasonable cost but that is because they are small units – usually for singles or doubles at most.
HIgh rise apartments with large units are for the rich – have a look at where they are and where they cost. I zoned most of those locations because they were the most desirable spots in the most expensive neighbourhoods and could sustain the cost structure. There are not many.
Also as overall density increases the increases in net density have a lower and lower effect on gross density because the other demands on space remain the same. The classic case of diminishing returns. The costs of further intensification are also driven up massively by the demand for retrofitting all the underground services which are already close to overload. We are talking of billions of dollars. Now I do not know why you think this is necessary and why you are prepared to coerce people to achieve it. Private transport is superior to public transport in terms of service and efficiency. We need public transport for those who cannot drive for whatever reason. But we have the densities and structure to support buses and shuttles and cabs.
So why move to a higher cost, higher energy, higher carbon footprint , and less efficient city and a poorer city just to boost some irrelevant measurement?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So what? Our densities are still well below European cities. Auckland has plenty of potential to intensify further – particularly in regional centres like Manukau City, Takapuna, Henderson, New Lynn, Onehunga etc.
Never mind the energy efficiency gains of having more attached housing, who’s saying we need high-rise? Down the road from where I used to live in Sandringham there was a really nice 6 unit development on a 600m2 site – terraced housing that was either 2 or 3 levels high. Replicate that (with architectural variation of course) a few hundred times around the city and you’ve got something that works.
All the studies that I have read suggest that it is far more economically efficient to retrofit than build more and more and more infrastructure.
Last time I heard a bus was public transport? Personally I think what you say about private transport being more efficient is complete utter rubbish.
Transit-based cities spend around 5 to 8 percent of their city wealth on transportation but in heavily car-based cities this ranges from 12 to 15 percent (even 19 percent for Phoenix). More here.
What is your definition of efficiency?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hazeldine is simply irresponsible.
Numbers are just numbers and require some interpretation.
The historic norm of affordability is 2.5 to 3.0
When you get indices below 2.5 (Like Youngstown) then you are probably looking at a city in decline.
But once you get to2.5 and up the affordability indices bear virtually no relation to population or economic growth. INdeed high unnaffordabiliy indices generally lead to slow growth and reduced economic development as in San Francisco as the middle class and the young depart for cities where they can afford decent housing.
In these ranges the affordability relates most strongely to the ability of the housing market to respond to changes in demand – in both size and nature of demand.
In New Zealand the Bay of Plenty has adopted Smart Growth and has rocketed to the least affordable housing market in NZ – pushing Auckland into second place.
Have a look at the tables being generated out of the US and elsewhere which show the impact of the crash on house prices and employment and the losses are greatest in the least affordable areas as are the employment rates.
The most highly regulated markets had the biggest bubbles and now the biggest crashes and the most human tragedy.
Sorry – retrofitting is much more expensive than new infrastructure.
And infrastructure technology is decentralising. Microprocessor intelligence replaces engineers and so small plants can operate more efficiently and without expensive operators.
Attached housing requires higher levels of acoustic insulation which means concrete rather than renewable timber frame. That’s why the total carbon footprint calculations favour suburban development.
We can provide high density housing for those who want it, and medium density and low density and there are no reasons to force people to live and work where they do not want to.
Just tell me why your preferences should supercede mine. I am living where I want to. I used to live in the CBD. I spent a little time in the suburbs but then went to a townhouse in Grafton and my cottage at Karekare. I have been able to live in the house that suited me in the location that suited me.
Why was that wrong and what is your excuse for depriving current generations of those same choices?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Owen – how many people live in the house they want to live in?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Surveys by PEW in the US and here by (I forget) show that most people are satisfied with where they live. But they do have preferences as to where they will live next time they move.
People are realists. I am happy with where I live but am improving it and I have absolutely no desire to live in Jackson’s Neverland.
Greenfly – you introduced the term “happy”. I talk of preferences and suitability.
Happiness is what we should be allowed to pursue – most of know it is unattainable because humans are always striving for something better either for them or for their offspring.
Buses and taxis and shuttles ARE public transport and we have the densities to support them although in some situations they may require subsidy. Often taxi vouchers are the most cost effective option.
Curiously, the Federal govt does not count buses as public transport unless they are subsidised. So they only count the ‘failures’ and ignore the successes.
Consequently the US grossly under estimates bus contribution to public transport presumably to make AMTRACK look good.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry Greenfly – that wasn’t you. You introduced “want”.
I have always lived in the house I wanted to live in at that time. If I didn’t want it I would have bought or rented a different one. We sell a house when we no longer want it. And find one we want more.
Being humans we are always striving to better our lot but we don’t anguish over the limitations we have to put up with, or make the best of.
Not if we are mentally well.
It’s all about preferences and trade-offs. We are very good at it and accept the need for trade-offs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Some interesting stats about Australian cities here.
I love real numbers about real places.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25753284-25658,00.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
I would suggest that everyone whom does live in a house voulentarily does live in a house they want for if they did not want to live in the house they could forgo living in the house or could undertake a means to obtaining a different local in which to abide. That the house one lives in is not their ideal house does not mean that they do not want to live there. Just as people may work in a job they hate to earn money for food. They want to earn they food such that they may live and thus by extension they want to undertake any actions they undertake in pursuit of that food.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Interesting article Owen. This bit particularly interested me:
This is the kind of development that can be encouraged throughout Auckland’s suburban growth nodes, along transport corridors and in the CBD fringe.
I’m not promoting high-rise everywhere, simply more efficient use of the land in the kind of terraced housing this artcile specifically mentions as delivering high population densities.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yeah Sapient, but
tell me what you want, what you really, really want!
Who lives in a house voluntarily? People live in houses of necessity (otherwise it’s cold and wet). Very few live in the house that they really, really want. ‘Must’, is surely different from ‘want’. How about ‘desire’. Do you live in the house you desire or the house you want to live in (because you can afford no other, there is no other available etc.) Do you want to live in the house you are in, only because not living in it might mean you are under a bridge (with the trolls). I’ll concede ‘want’, and substitute ‘desire’. Happy to split hairs though! ‘Heart’s desire’ might be even better! The house my heart desires! I’m in mine. An online froggy bloggy poll might be interesting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
I would suggest that for those not forced into accomodation such as prisioners or infants to reside in a building at all is voulentary, necesity has nothing to do with it. It is the same as for ‘want’ in my opinion, they could otherwise live under a tree or with the trolls, that they dont because that would compromise their ability to survive (thus the neccesity) does not eliminate the fact that they want to. I would concider ‘want’ and ‘desire’ the same but for the point of arguement I would say that while people may desire some seemingly unobtainable goal they do not really desire or want it unless they do everything they can to get it unless in attempting to gain that desire they compromise greater desires. Im perfectly happy with my flat, it provides everything I need, I dont desire anything more in terms of accomodation, prehaps maybe insulation, insulation would be good.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – I suggest that many people are ‘forced’ by circumstance, into accommodation that falls short of that which they ‘desire’. Your assertion that the goal people desire is not really wanted unless they do everything they canto achieve it, is puzzling. There are a range of ‘wants’ that have to be ‘queued’ and set aside until the chances of obtaining them becomes realistic. That doesn’t mean that the desire is invalid. You say you are ‘perfectly happy’ in your flat, and yet you add the proviso that ‘insulation would be good’ (as it would!). Sooooo… you don’t quite have what you want? My point is made.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
. Prehaps I did not express myself well enough.
You took part of my point and then argued the other part back at me
Say you live in a house that suits your needs, you want to live in this house as you prefer living in the house to living under alternative arangements. You have the opportunity to work for money in a job you hate so as to aquire sufficent currency to move to a better house or aquire some other good or service you desire. You want the currency and you choose to work, even though you hate it, to earn that currency thus you want the work by extension of the fact that you make a deliberate choice to work. You can work X hours and eventually you will be able to aquire the house as a product of your labour, you spend the money on the house because you want the house in this case your want and your desire are the same. If you were able to work more hours to aquire more currency to get the other goods or services you desire but that would involve the sacrifice of other activities you also desire that you could be doing in that time then you have to choose which desire to fulfil. If you choose to not buy the goods but insteed to do something ese then whilst you desire the goods you do not want them as to fulfil that desire would involve sacrificing a greater desire.
That was a much more through examination, lol. You are correct about the accomodation, though that is because of a typo by me, instead of “i dont desire” it should have read “i dont want”. While I may desire insulation I do not want such insulation as this would neccesitate me eaither forgoing other desires by paying for it myself or forgoing the social environment of this flat and its pricing for another more pricy alternative with a less desirable environment. Thus I dont want insulation, i only desire it. I make a concious choice to forgo obtaining a desire because I benefit more in not obtaining it than I would in obtaining it. Those whom are in houses they dont like are in the same situation, they could choose to work much longer hours, they could choose to pursue education, they could make any number of choices which would ead them to the desired end point but they dont because they perceive other routes to be more deisrable, thus they dont want the outcome.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – it all sounds rather miserable! Get some wool insulation – it’s a cheap as it will ever be and snuggle down for the winter. There’s no need for discontent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
. If push comes to shove I can always use green party election materials to start a fire, not that I would do that of course…
Didint say I was discontent; as if my blankets arnt enough I have plenty of natural insulation, seems to work well for whales atleast
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’ve heard the Green pamphlets are inflamatory. They pale into insignificance beside the Exclusive Brethren ones of course (if you’d really like to generate some heat, I’ll post you a stack. I was ‘delivered of’ a box of them back in the brash days). Collectors items now, I suppose.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jarbury,
you suggest that the housing in Kings Cross can be encouraged.
And it can be enabled. Indeed one of the prototypes I specified in the lower Freeman’s bay flat area was a row of one bedroom townhouses for single women.
The writer notes these are occupied by gays, young professionals, singles, expats, DINK couples and divorcees as well as a fair complement of assorted down-and-outs.
So it suits them. But these are small household units. And other people prefer larger houses and many want room for a garden and a few trees and room for the dog to run around.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
2 thoughts
First – I would LIKE to live in a palace with servants, in fact, as I approach my dotage that is my heart’s desire, BUT it will NEVER happen.
Second – we MUST avoid becoming a 2 law state at all costs, especially one where there is a law for everyone and an additional law for one segment of society.
If there are Maori seats, especially if those seats are allocated to specific iwi, we end up with a situation where all people are not treated equally! I can just imagine a situation where the elders of an iwi select a member, and the other members of the iwi vote on the regular role – thereby giving more than one vote to one person.
One law for everyone. Otherwise we head for a revolution, which I for one will not hang around for, I’ll move country!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Owen, just for your information there no way that I’m advocating for a ban on any house with more than 2 bedrooms! Even after the Regional Growth Concept (as outlined in the Regional Growth Strategy) is “completed” around two-thirds of the dwellings in Auckland will still be single-detached houses. It hardly seems that those places will become as rare as hen’s teeth.
Furthermore, due to changing demographics we will need to provide a LOT of smaller housing units in the future. Household sizes have generally been declining over the past couple of decades (the only time they didn’t was when National introduced market rentals to state housing) as the population ages and as family structures change.
I guess what I am saying is that the majority of new houses we’re likely to need in the future will be smaller housing types, and also that under all the growth strategies there will still be a significant number of available larger houses. What we need to do is provide a lot more housing units of all types to increase affordability – that extra housing can very much be within the existing urban limits.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A lecturer in urban planning at Melbourne University visited the townhouse developments at Freemans Bay and was most impressed. He had heard I was involved and asked for some info. I sent him a google earth image with Placemarks over a number of buildings and found it easier to send the notes to the placemarks on a separate email. Here they ar. The heaings link to the lables:
Maisonette where I First Lived
While I was working on the design brief for the medium density housing and developing enabling policies to replace the “slum clearance” plans in place at the time I lived in the lower storey apartment in this four story maisonette.
This experience reinforced my opinion that medium density quality living was much easier and cheaper to achieve with two stories only without anyone living upstairs or down below. Late night parties are a problem unless the construction is to a very high standard with concrete floors and isolated flooring on top. However, I also took advantage of the opportunity to develop the know how of how to landscape a courtyard and the value of these courtyards to inner city dwellings.
The Government Architect’s “Star Flats”
When we began to complete the development of this block the Government (Ministry of Works) had already built nine of these four storey star flats with three or four flats on each floor. Council had already built the four Maisonette developments one of which I was living in.
The Star flats had common entrances and no courtyards and indeed had no access to ground even from the ground floor. So what I had to work with here was the remaining open space which is now dominated by single storey and two storey town houses, built to test the code of ordinances we developed.
One bedroom one storey studios
Our main objective was to improve the range of choice available rather than to increase density.
Some of the “density” promoters were a bit shocked when I recommended we build these single storey single bedroom studio town houses.
However, the Council Librarian, a fifty year old spinster, promptly put her name down for one and became a great champion of my approach.
And it is always wise to make the librarian your friend.
(At least in those days before we had the world’s largest library on our own desktop.
3 bedroom Townhouse
I worked up a design brief for the remainder of the buildings on this block where were one and two storey town house developments.
They were largely built while I was away at UC Berkeley from 1968 to 1970.
When I returned my wife and I rented this three bedroom townhouse apartment for $19 a week.
These were nicely staggered blocks each with their own letterbox and their own courtyard and carport.
Very popular especially with young architects.
The popular belief is that this block was developed as low cost housing but in fact it was a developed as a series of prototypes to show that inner city medium density living could be attractive to the middle class.
And it worked and was given a boost of course by the 1972 oil shock when people first began to believe that oil prices would be a major determinant of location.
It was not of course and still isn’t.
The key point is that we planners worked out codes of ordinances for such developments and then got the architects upstairs in Council to build within the rules to see if they made sense. This is seldom done and we learned a great deal – especially with some of us actually living in them.
MIke King’s Block
Mike King, who graduated about the same time as I did from the school of Architecture, was living in one of the townhouses on the Hepburn street block when he was given the job of designing this whole block which is the one you are interested in.
This was a clean slate without any Star Flats.
The idea was to develop a tighter community based block generally with smaller rooms and tighter open space to reduce land costs.
When Dame Kath Tizard, the Mayor of Auckland, moved into one we celebrated our success in turning a slum which was about to be totally cleared, into a desirable inner city suburb.
From the lessons we learned in developing these codes of ordinances we developed codes for redeveloping existing 10 and 12 p sections with “infill” or courtyard housing based on designs being promoted by a famous Greek architect at the time.
Once it became legal to build on these small lots natural restoration and redevelopment took place and large scale clearance was abandoned.
28 Hepburn Street
After a couple of years in the townhouse I bought this old villa at 28 Hepburn Street for 9,000 in 1972.
I effectively gutted it and did up the fences and built decks at the back and put in new kitchens and tarted it up with new finials and fretwork.
Our marriage ended and I moved out to a house on the beach at Karekare. A couple of years later my ex wife sold it for about 27,000 and moved down country.
I suspect it is now worth half a million or more.
It is now listed as a Heritage Building. So I wouldn’t buy it now because doing anything to it would be such a hastle. It dates all the way back to 1972!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Here’s some thoughts for you Owen. In Christchurch we have older suburbs on a square grid and newer ones on the cul-de-sac pattern. I find the cul de sac areas have bad karma: they do something to me (add artificialness and confusion). Any thoughts? I understand that a grid makes it easier to site houses for the sun?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jarbury Says:
July 9th, 2009 at 11:17 am
So what? Our densities are still well below European cities. Auckland has plenty of potential to intensify further – particularly in regional centres like Manukau City, Takapuna, Henderson, New Lynn, Onehunga etc.
………..
European cities predate the motor car and our cities have a weaker architectural heritage so we intensify amongst crap, producing twice the crap (or that’s how it seems to me).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh Says:
July 10th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
> Here’s some thoughts for you Owen. In Christchurch we have older suburbs on a square grid and newer ones on the cul-de-sac pattern. I find the cul de sac areas have bad karma: they do something to me (add artificialness and confusion). Any thoughts?
I don’t like regular grids either, because the streets seem to stretch on forever, giving no feeling of enclosure or sense of place.
But Cul-de-sacs have bigger disadvantages – they actually mean that you have to travel a much longer distance to get from place to place, and it’s hard to work out which street to take to go in a particular direction.
I think the best compromise is an irregular grid, where the streets are not dead ends, and are straight or have one bend in them, but there’s still some variation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The tangata whenua were powerful and pragmatic in their expectations and it was great to see younger people roll out the banners in the room calling for tino rangatiratanga and mana motuhake.”
Tino rangitiratanga: but aren’t the Greens lying low this round of Foreshore and seabed; could it be they don’t want to be unpopular during the up coming referendum?
The Green Party is being outflanked by actions such as those by influencial people like Gareth Morgan and, realising the importance of policy he has commissioned Infometrics to review the emissions trading scheme (eventually we will have a better choice as per parties or individuals with an environmental platform)
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/07/08/opinion-emissions-trading-and-the-danger-for-nz-exporters/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In rolling countryside culs-de-sac reduce the need for earthworks as the road goes up the valley floor and the house sites slope up to the ridge.
Grids are great on the flat plains. Culs-de-sac are great in the hills.
Some people like culs-de-sac because they create a sense of place and they can identify people who don’t belong so feel more secure.
People are different and like choice.
Also it is hard to build up speed in a cul de sac so kids are safer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In Christchurch the older cul-de-sacs (eg Burnside) are getting tatty, they are anonymous rabbit warrens and it looks as though this has been a case of sqeezing as much in as possible. They also feel disorganised. Part of the problem perhaps is the traditional 1/4 acre section lifestyle being cut down while maintaining a low single story design…… (which could perhaps be the answer to the ugliness we have inherited)? Your delightful old two story type house with cottage garden and picket fence didn’t need a double driveway and lots of asphalt either.
“People are different and like choice. ”
if they are rich otherwise they have to choose what has been built or a section already laid out.
I tend to agree with this:
“The cul-de-sac layout so ubiquitous in suburban neighborhoods can be partly explained as a collective-action problem. But any explanation of its dominance must also acknowledge that developers use the cul-de-sac layout because it is cheaper. Developers get more homes for less asphalt.”
and the comment:
“You leave out that the additional asphalt covers over land that could be sold as lots. I remember reading an analysis of this in a surveyor’s trade rag back in the 90′s: “Do you want to sell it, or pay to pave it?”"
and
“Another benefit of connectivity you forget to mention is that neighborhoods with good connectivity will likely mature better. If part of a cul-de-sac subdivision begins to decline, it seems much more likely that the rest of the neighborhood will decline as well. Also, it seems harder to redevelop cul-de-sac neighborhoods, since any new use would likely require redevelopment of the whole neighborhood. In a traditional grid neighborhood, it is possible to redevelop part without destroying the whole. So it seems that living in a cul-de-sac subdivision requires making a large bet on the future of the subdivision since a small amount of blight and decline could bring down the whole neighborhood.”
http://www.austincontrarian.com/austincontrarian/2009/03/why-developers-prefer-culdesacs.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Tino rangitiratanga: but aren’t the Greens lying low this round of Foreshore and seabed; could it be they don’t want to be unpopular during the up coming referendum?
How do you define lying low?
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/20985
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/21188
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/21431
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/20913
And our solution is here:
http://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/Te%20Ture%20Whenua%20Amendment%20Bill%20final%20%20DOC.pdf
Fact is our position hasn’t changed a jot, so there isn’t a lot new to say.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m really glad this conversation has shifted on from “intensification vs sprawl” – it is good to have a planning debate that involves more than simply that argument, which I doubt we’re ever really going to agree upon.
Firstly, about Freeman’s Bay. I do like the area, and the way that it clearly integrates a wide variety of housing styles together. There are a few significant problems though, which I think are largely a result of poor 1960s architectural/planning thinking. The first is how many of the developments turn their back on the street – the most obvious example being the Housing New Zealand superblock between Hepburn, Wellington & Howe Streets. The same level of density could have easily been created by breaking that block up into smaller blocks and putting terraced houses, each with a small yard, along all the street frontages you created. The housing pattern around Sheridan Lane works far better in my opinion. The other issue I have with Freemans Bay is also how there is no housing frontage to Franklin Road between Napier St and Wellington St on its southern side. This is one of Auckland’s nicest streets yet it has a giant gash in it due to the big long fence that goes along this area – once again you could have either kept the villas like what has happened to the rest of the street or you could have built a row of townhouses. Nothing is worse than a big long fence as a street frontage.
For cul-de-sacs, clearly curvy roads are necessary in hilly areas, and you’ll probably need to have a few cul-de-sacs when it gets too hilly. I don’t have a problem with that. However, when we have cul-de-sacs on flat land it is horrible – due to the reasons very well spelled out by jh and kahikatea. It’s also very difficult to efficiently service cul-de-sacs via public transport.
I am also probably the biggest fan of a “deformed grid” street layout. Something that is quite natural, like inner London. The street layout in Paris is pretty fantastic, with the big long straight boulevards offering great sight-lines and linkages between places, but the rest of the network being fine-grained enough to be interesting yet easily navigable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis asks
“How do you define lying low?”
Do these nodes go out as press statements?
Where are the frogblog posts with their usual fiery rhetoric?
“Some factions within Maoridom, Turei told me, might regard this as a restraint but in her view, it would be consistent with the guardianship role that Maori have always played with respect to the land and its resources, on behalf of future generations.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/communities/the-wellingtonian/2574713/The-foreshore-and-seabed-dilemma
That is factually inacurate
“New evidence now suggests that it may have been the most rapid extinction ever brought about by primitive people.”
“… human hunting and habitat destruction drove the eleven species of moa to extinction less than 100 years after Polynesian settlement of New Zealand …”
R. N. Holdaway & C. Jacomb, Rapid Extinction of the Moas (Aves: Dinornithiformes): Model, Test, and Implications, Science, March 24 2000
http://www.terranature.org/moa.htm
Just how much foreshore and seabed do you envisage will have a tribal name (“in perpetuity”) over it? [Time without end; eternity. for ever]
New wave of Maori foreshore claims
STUFF 04 August 2003
Maori claims on coastal areas have swollen to cover five million hectares since a Court of Appeal ruling on the foreshore and seabed. Figures supplied to the National Party show huge areas of the North Island coastline are subject to claims. They include 314 kilometres of the Taranaki coast and 23km of coastal Gisborne.
The number of applications for title had exploded from three to 19 in four weeks since the Court of Appeal ruling. Some claims extended to the edge of the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. An estimated 5.2 million hectares (13 million acres) of foreshore and seabed and 2413km of coastline was affected. New Zealand’s coastline is 18,200km.
http://twm.co.nz/maorisea.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Do these nodes go out as press statements?
Yes.
Where are the frogblog posts with their usual fiery rhetoric?
I guess the Party works to it own schedule, not yours. The matter is far from settled with many rounds yet to go, so be patient and I’m sure you’ll get more to whet your indignation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kahikatea, and JH
You have every right to dislike culs-de-sac. But you do not have the right to say that no one else can have them. The fact is that many people love them.
The extended travel argument is a myth. Most culs-de-sac open on to a through street. There are hundreds of dead end streets in cities and towns and the countryside. They are those streets and roads with “No Exit” on the signpost. Oneriri road is a no exit road and is about 30 k long.
The fact is many people prefer culs de sac and there are no reasons to deny them their preference.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jarbury says;
“Firstly, about Freeman’s Bay. I do like the area, and the way that it clearly integrates a wide variety of housing styles together. There are a few significant problems though, which I think are largely a result of poor 1960s architectural/planning thinking.”
For goodness sake. We inherited a District Scheme under the T a CP Act which allowed for nothing but single family homes and sausage flats. We were developing a new plan which was to allow town houses etc and against fierce resistance. We developed these blocks as experiments and demonstrations and test beds. We tried to provide as many examples as we could. This was new territory.
jarbury
“The first is how many of the developments turn their back on the street – the most obvious example being the Housing New Zealand superblock between Hepburn, Wellington & Howe Streets.”
The maisonettes turn their back on the street because they are southern aspects or eastern but shaded by huge plane trees and the hill. Sensibly they face north or west and into the park. These are roads – not Jane Jacobs multi-use small scale inner city streetscapes. This is basic architectural design. Seems you are the one hung up on theory of the sixties and seventies – but the wrong theory.
The only development by housing NZ were the Star Flats. The Maisonettes and town houses were all by the ACC Architectural Division.
jarbury says
” The same level of density could have easily been created by breaking that block up into smaller blocks and putting terraced houses, each with a small yard, along all the street frontages you created.”
Blame that on the Ministry of Works housing division. They spotted the star flats around and we had to work around them. read my notes to the PLanning lecturer in Melbourne.
jarbury says
” The housing pattern around Sheridan Lane works far better in my opinion. ”
That was the block which did come with a clean slate. Hence it is a more comprehensive design. However, when I had the choice I preferred the three bedroom townhouse in Waiatarau Place because it had bigger rooms and a more generous courtyard. Others preferred the Mike King designs. But we were trying out different approaches and were trying to maximise choice. Which now seems a heretical idea to so many.
jarbury says
“The other issue I have with Freemans Bay is also how there is no housing frontage to Franklin Road between Napier St and Wellington St on its southern side. This is one of Auckland’s nicest streets yet it has a giant gash in it due to the big long fence that goes along this area – once again you could have either kept the villas like what has happened to the rest of the street or you could have built a row of townhouses. Nothing is worse than a big long fence as a street frontage.”
Traffic movements were markedly different then. This is before Prof Buchanan came out and before I developed the whole system of street networks and environmental areas so as to exclude through traffic. Franklin Road was a dreadful street to live in because of traffic noise from trucks thundering up to Ponsonby road. (Just as Newmarket was a disaster until the viaduct took all the heavy traffic out of it). The fences were noise barriers.
I can only presume that the fences are there because the residents still like them.
And we were not chasing density. We were experimenting with new housing types and wanted acceptance from the city fathers etc. The Herald’s response to our town house ordinances was a big drawing of Coronation Street type smoky dirty row housing and a headline like “Planners want Aucklanders to live like this!”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks for the insights into how things in Freemans Bay happened Owen. I can see how it must have been pretty revolutionary for the time – even now it’s difficult enough to push through intensification. I hope you realise that by poor 1960s thinking I was more meaning the narrow-mindedness of the District Scheme/Plan you had to work with, not what you were trying to achieve.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The other elephant is population growth and it’s spread over as migration which then translates to an expanding greenbelt and the need for this and that. Does Catherine mention tthat in the above or is that “Nationalistic jingoism”
The PI’s have outsripped their islands carrying capacity, no?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)