Hearings on the Auckland Spatial Plan have now begun, and over the next month thousands of Aucklanders will get the opportunity to elaborate on the submission they made. One of the most contentious issues up for debate will be the shape of Auckland’s future urban growth: should we grow out, should we intensify, should we have a mix of the two, what level of mix should we have? The Draft Auckland Plan ‘had a bob each way’ on the matter, proposing that 75% of development should occur within the existing urban limits (which is different to the existing urban area as it includes areas already approved to be developed over the next few years) with the other 25% of development occuring through urban expansion.
While some ill informed politicians have berated the Plan for not allowing enough urban sprawl, when you look at the number of dwellings proposed for development outside the current urban limits – approximately 100,000 (roughly equivalent to the number of dwellings in Manukau City in 2006) – it’s pretty clear that the Auckland Plan will provide for quite a lot of urban expansion. The ‘sprawl’ areas, as well as what’s now being called the “Rural Urban Boundary”, are shown in the map below:
One of the main criticisms of urban limits is that they reduce housing affordability, by driving up the cost of land and therefore the cost of housing. There is certainly an element of truth to this claim, as over the past 10 years the urban limits have contributed to nowhere near enough dwellings being constructed in Auckland: therefore driving up the cost of housing quite significantly. The relationship between housing affordability and land-use planning restrictions is discussed in quite a bit of detail in this technical report, which helped inform the Draft Auckland Plan.
Another technical report which helped inform the Draft Auckland Plan is entitled “Towards a Preferred Urban Form” and seeks to shed some light on this most fundamental question facing Auckland Council when it makes final decisions on the Auckland Plan over the next few months. As well as noting the obvious criteria for clear “no-go zones” for urban development (particularly for environmental/landscape reasons), the report notes the justification for a slightly more fluid Urban Growth Boundary:
From an economic perspective, the matters of infrastructure provision and correcting for inherent factors that encourage urban sprawl appear the most compelling. Another technical document which supports the Plan highlights the economic difference of urban sprawl compared to intensification:
Those are some pretty massive numbers we’re talking about – although it’s not particularly difficult to see how it can add up. When you think about the “new town” of Flat Bush for example, the Ministry of Education has had to spend tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars providing new schools. The former Manukau City Council spent huge sums on building wide roads, putting in new pipes, acquiring reserve land and so forth. It’s pretty obvious that spread this number of people across the existing urban area in smart locations would have required a whole lot less additional infrastructure.
I think you can make the argument against urban sprawl on economic grounds quite compellingly. But does that mean urban boundaries are the best way to prevent sprawl – or perhaps we should actually start to push for finding better ways to achieve more efficient urban outcomes by pricing development properly (if people are willing to pay for the extra cost of urban sprawl, perhaps we shouldn’t stop them). To properly account for the transport costs (especially in terms of congestion) that urban expansion would create, some form of road pricing scheme would probably be necessary, and also we may find it more efficient to simply focus on encouraging redevelopment of the existing urban area – getting rid of many of the barriers to redevelopment that currently exist (although obviously keeping the important ones!)
In the long-term, I think urban limits shouldn’t be necessary – except for defining those ‘no go areas’ that are important to retain in their current form for environmental/food production reasons. We should be able to work out a way to price urban development much better, so that the inherent efficiencies of intensification are made obvious – giving people the choice of urban sprawl, but only if they’re willing to pay fully for its costs (both in terms of servicing and traffic). However, until we have a road pricing system (and a much better public transport system) I think it will be incredibly difficult to feasibly (politically and practically) to ‘properly’ price urban development to resolve the issue. Until such a time it will be important for us to have an urban growth boundary – whether that’s called an urban limit or whatever.
But if “sprawl” is so catastrophically expensive, then how on earth did we afford it in the first place? You know…back when only Dad had to work, and we were supposedly so much poorer and less efficient.
But I agree with the user-pays principle. I also think people who want to live in high density areas should have to pay their own way too, when and as they require demolish-and-rebuild for capacity. But the costs should be detailed so that people can have the choice to escape from them, such as providing your own water off the roof, etc. And certainly I agree with road charges to control demand and to allow a “natural” split between buses and cars, etc.
Also beware of “costs” that should not be included such as claims that people are less productive in low-density areas. Because even if this were a reality, costings like that equate to “we have the right to force you into conditions that will make you work more” reasoning, which is a nonsense and is literally moving in the direction slavery (without meaning to be too dramatic).
Have we really been able to afford all this sprawl though, or has it actually been that the sprawl has sucked up all our money – which explains why (for example) we have never been able to build a proper public transport system?
” then how on earth did we afford it in the first place? ”
It’s not that we can’t afford it, it’s about spending money wisely. What else could the council spend their money on if they didn’t have to provide for sprawl? How about reducing rates?
I could buy a new BMW if i wanted… but then i wouldn’t be able to afford to go on holiday.
Well, transparent costings are what we need. And then from there let people buy what they want and within reason have them pay their own way.
I’ll also note that there are new innovative opportunities with sprawl development, in particular with recent transport developments (and how about telecommuting communities?). For this reason also I think it’s important to create a level playing field so as to let sprawl be as expensive or cheap as the market wants it. The thing is we many never know how costly modern sprawl is, as such, but the game can clarify itself if we just switch to that user-pays model…which you may agree with(?).
Yes I agree transparent costings and a level playing field are what’s needed. However, until such time as we have that (and road pricing is a necessary part of it) then we need an urban limit to act in this role, even if it is a blunt instrument.
When you turn countryside into sprawl, how do you price in the loss to people living in the existing city? They used to have the countryside on their doorstep, now it’s far away.
For many of the great cities in the world, what makes them so great is their compactness and the closeness of the countryside.
Barcelona, one moment you are in this great vibrant urban area, a 20 minutes PT ride later you are away from the city at the beach, surrounded by the natural environment.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Barcelona,+Spain&hl=en&ll=41.421362,2.28344&spn=0.177637,0.41851&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=17.969195,53.569336&vpsrc=6&hnear=Barcelona,+Province+of+Barcelona,+Catalonia,+Spain&t=m&z=12
Interesting look at how much sprawl is cost and how the cost is borne by current taxpayers in an area – although this is based on Jacksonville, Florida so it will have some differences between there and here.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-nov-the-price-of-sprawl-are-we-bankrupting-our-future?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MetroJacksonville+%28MetroJacksonville.com%29
to my mind, an important issue is Auckland’s ability to feed itself, Auckland soils are highly productive and we need a reliable food source close to home
This from Melbourne on density…. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/does-melbourne-need-more-high-density-housing/story-fn6bn88w-1226180379353
How big are their sections- 700m2?
Right back to the CORRECT thread.
The report from Studio D4 and Jasmax came across my box yesterday and was uploaded into my blog
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78112799 The article at Scribd?
Your thoughts on the report please?
Only had a really brief look but have some quick critiques. Many of the areas have a similar problem of there not being a lot of large sites readily available for development, I think this can be overcome but it would involve the council getting quite involved in purchasing land, possibly forcibly in some cases to make larger sections that could then be developed. There is a bit of precedence for this as it has been happening in New Lynn where the council was acquiring shops to knock down and develop into new commercial areas and I think they used the public works act to do it even though the site was then being on sold to Infratil to do the development. I believe it even went through the courts and the council obviously won. Overall it seems to only look at what would happen if we kept doing things the same way we have and with the council taking a fairly hands off approach.
Here is a post I did over a year ago looking at Glen Eden, there is a heap of low density sections yet if that land was combined you could easily get 300 nice sized apartments and they would be right next to the train station. http://transportblog.co.nz/2010/12/01/guest-post-developing-glen-eden/
They also look at Oratia which is almost comical, Oratia is mostly semi rural and much of it is protected by the Waitakere Ranges registration, it also isn’t really in that growth corridor in the map above and the areas they talk about aren’t even in Oratia but Sunnyvale.
Also where is the look at places like Henderson, Pt Chev, Panmure, Sylvia Park, Pakuranga etc.
Ben I think you need to consider political motivation when sourcing material. Is the author Patrick Fontein the bankrupt property developer, or another Patrick Fontein?, I don’t know, but it looks to me like a document with an axe to grind, one with a pre-conceived conclusion that it is searching to support. Anyway, the short answer is that we, and the council, can mandate for whatever kind of development we want.
And the fact remains that the proposed plan isn’t doesn’t even represent that much of a change. It still mandates quite a lot of sprawl along with encouraging filling in some of the gaps in the existing city limit. Hardly a revolution. Still, all change is opposed by those with vested interests in the satus quo or unbending ideologies that they perceive as being contravened.
And I am more than a little suspicious about the Jasmax attribution, the people there that I deal with are the very reverse of critics of urbanisation…. doesn’t ring true to me.
It is a very interesting document – straight PDF is here: http://transportblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/78112799-Auckland-Council-FGA-Report-2011-12-22-Final-2.pdf
Like Patrick, I’m somewhat skeptical about the extent of Jasmax in many of the conclusions made in the report. It seems that they simply did much of the grunt work behind the scenes and pointed out what changes to current planning rules would be needed to achieve such outcomes.
My submission on the Auckland Plan highlighted some similar points: that it needed to focus more on market attractive areas, particularly around inner isthmus corridors. Actually making intensification happen in areas that aren’t market attractive (for example, Manurewa), or areas built relatively recently (Farm Cove, Unsworth Heights) is extremely difficult.
http://transportblog.co.nz/2011/10/26/my-auckland-plan-submission/
Existing zoning allows for a maximum of up to 6 stories. The report has the most intense proposed zoning as 15 stories but with only very little land in this zone, most appears to remain 3-4 story. Clearly far more intense zoing must occur around railway stations/transport hubs/corridors that the report suggests. Smaller lots will have to be combined to allow it to occur, the report doesn’t appear to allow for this either.
Apartment buildings in China, Hong Kong, Singapore are typically 30-50 stories and there is no reason why they couldn’t be built here.
Good points Anthony. It makes you wonder why we even have height limits in growth nodes, or throughout much of the CBD. Aside from viewshaft concerns, if a developer wants to put a 200 metre apartment building up in Newmarket, out the back of K Road or on top of the mall at Sylvia Park – why should that be a problem?
I agree Peter, but still most of the intensification that Auckland needs is likely to only mean shifting from low to medium density, outside of the areas you mention [+Takapuna], and 6 stories is more than enough to achieve this. See what has happened in Melbourne, encouraged by planning changes, including the lowering of minimum parking requirements. Excellent increase in intensification along transit corridors- and increase in livability and local commercial viability [more people=more customers].
One technique they used to transition to higher densities in Fitzroy was to offer existing residents parking permits but the new medium/high density apartment owners couldn’t get them as there is a finite resource of street parking, yet these buildings provided a max of one park per apartment. Therefore the locals, many who had no offstreet, didn’t object to the new buildings, well not about losing parking amenity anyway.
This has led to a lower use of cars per capita in the whole hood, the springing up of weekend car rental deals for locals [as Melbournites love their cars no less than Aucklanders] and much more cycling, scootering, and of course transit bursting at the seems. And a hugely desirable neighbourhood with a variety of dwelling sizes, ages, and affordability. And a whole lot of extremely busy local businesses. I met people who don’t own a car, but have a bach on the Great Ocean Road for example, they hire a car to get there when ever it suits. It’s cheaper over all for them and they never pay to store, maintain, licence, one. Now this is new, 20 years ago this wasn’t happening in Melbourne. People will change when it is rational to do so.
Control cars and car parking, remove anti-density regs [setbacks, some height and coverage restraints], and bingo, the market will take care of itself. But do it all intelligently, bring the existing locals on board with techniques like the above example.
Further on this matter, there’s an interesting piece in today’s Bob Dey Property Report on the document prepared by Mr Fontein & others. http://www.propbd.co.nz/afa.asp?idWebPage=8338&idBobDeyProperty_Articles=17173&SID=356462371
This bit is particularly interesting:
I hadn’t thought about it before, but ironically this seems to be a pretty key argument for urban limits, in that they encourage the revitalisation and re-investment in lower amenity suburbs. In situations where you don’t have urban limits you can end up with Detroit-like situations where significant chunks of the existing urban area are progressively run-down and eventually abandoned – all while further development takes place on the urban edge. Urban limits ensure that we efficiently use all parts of the city.