22.5.14

Letter to the Editor, NZ Herald.

Dear Sir,

What a breathtaking blast of common sense and vision from British architecture critic Jonathan Glancey at the writers’ conference.

Fancy having the audacity to challenge the oligarchy of planners and businesses who want to foist on Aucklanders their barren, stark and socially destructive Unitary Plan.

Why would they consider what Glancey says happened in a revitalisation of Barcelona, where he states, its people were involved at every step of the way, and the project used architects and people’s ideas, not ‘jobsmiths?’ The result apparently, was that numerous small-scale projects resulted in a beautifully restored city that honours its past. It exudes its history, its culture and its communities.

Stating the obvious he said, ‘If you involve people, you start to win.’ Now there’s a revolutionary idea which surely gives the Auckland developers, planners, and some Councillors nightmares. That would turn their planning scheme upside down allowing a ‘bottom up approach.’

But Auckland City Council, when it existed rarely honoured its past, and the Unitary Plan intends to carry on that tradition with a vengeance. Mr Glancey says the tall buildings are all about making money. And that ‘politicians love to create tall buildings.’

Why do we let them?

Question: ‘What do you fear most about the Unitary Plan?

A number of things in combination make it quite a frightening prospect, but at the core of it is that a Plan is being created which will be foreign to the New Zealand way of life and will be imposed upon us, to our everlasting detriment.

This is the plan to rapidly “densify” large swathes of the region with apartments of 4-8 storeys as the ‘norm’ and high rise possibilities way beyond that.

This Plan is being constructed, largely out of the public view basically by bureaucrats and a few privileged, invited “stakeholders” and minimal input by the elected arm of Council. As a consequence, public understanding, support or opposition is not being created. The public is largely kept at bay from any real insight or detail, simply being told glibly by a few Councillors ‘not to worry’ everything will be fine!

Another matter of major concern is that the government is keen to get a Plan rushed through as quickly as possible and in case there is a major public antipathy to key sections of it, is likely to deny democratic principles even further by restricting or even denying appeal rights.

The pace is dangerous. Like the television message to motorists – ‘the faster you go the greater the mess.’

Question: ‘How will suburbs on the Shore change if this goes through?’

It seems that an “if” is unlikely, unless there is major and co-ordinated opposition to the Plan when it is published.

From current indications it seems that large areas will zoned to allow apartments of at least 4 to 8 storeys. (One “expert” has proposed the demolition of 80,000 houses in the region to allow for more intensive apartment living.) To take the Kaipatiki area, it appears that about 95% of the residential areas will be zoned for 4 – 8 storey apartments.

Results? Either the roads, buses, parks, beaches will become increasingly, perhaps intolerably crowded, or more major highways will be constructed, more transport infrastructure required, more tolls invoked, more restrictions on private traffic created, much more pollution and much more public money spent on stormwater, wastewater, water supply, rubbish collection, policing, welfare, including stress caused by higher pressure living conditions. (The latter sometimes interpreted as “vibrant” living by planners following their O/Es in Europe or Asia.)

Outdoor living around our accommodation (still possible for most of us in some form across the Shore) will be greatly reduced.

Of course, some readers may wish to see these changes because they have bought in to the meaningless cliché of creating the “world’s most liveable city.” To those people I would ask, how would the above effects improve what we already have? How would they make Auckland “more liveable?”

Question: ‘Do people need to accept that their suburbs must change to cope with growth? And ‘What better way could Auckland plan to cope with growth?’

My first response is – why so much growth in Auckland, and are there any alternatives?

Some of the reason for the growth is of course, geographic. Some relates to our unsophisticated, erratic immigration policies.

Further, the run-down of strong regional growth policies to assist people to have viable living and economic circumstances in many other parts of NZ is an important factor. These policies should be revived instead of putting all of the eggs in the Auckland basket – which has been the more recent policy of both the last Labour government, and especially the present government.

To spread the incoming migrants, a well-tried device of employers seeking people with the relevant skills, assisting with relocation and bonding the migrant to stay for 2-3 years is one good method. Similarly, the government and local government could assist with such proposals.

Another option considered by the former Regional Growth Forum was to promote satellite towns of around 100.000 within easy reach of metropolitan Auckland, preferably linked by rapid rail. Places such as Helensville. Huntly and Hamilton are potential areas for expansion if favoured by rapid rail links.

So in answer to the question, no, there is not a fatalistic inevitability to the current thrust of the Plan and the one basket syndrome, provided people are willing to be proactive and organise and argue with local and national politicians about how they want to live, not how some planners, developers and others want them to live.

Question: ‘Do you think there is a housing crisis?’

Yes. Of course there is a housing crisis, but let’s be clear that it wouldn’t be clever to come up with some half-baked quick fixes which simply create a different sort of housing and social problem – like density/high rise slums.

One of the things that disturbed me at Growth Forum and transport debates over recent years was the emphasis on planning major intensification along public transport routes. The key argument being that this would make the transport system more economic, maybe even profitable. So social engineering was the objective to justify the transport ‘solution.’

I know of no large city, no matter how densely settled, where public transport is economic, (be it London, New York, LA, or wherever). Public transport should be there to serve the population of the city, however it is spread, and if the public want it, they have to pay for it one way or another. It needs to be viewed as a public service, not a profit centre.

It is misleading to plan to herd masses together in apartments and high rise on the pretence that this will provide a suitably economic transport system and at considerable social costs.

In any event, there is certainly no guarantee that intensification will provide more affordable (or more desirable) housing forms. In Auckland, the basic problem is the irrefutable laws of supply and demand: – an increasing supply of people demanding use of a fixed supply of land.

Affordability for most people becomes a distressing, diminishing hope because of the above, exacerbated considerably by a portion of immigrants with excessive wealth paying excessive prices. Most locals are being priced right out of the market, be it for purchase or for rental.

There are other factors affecting “affordability” such as our low wage economy, and intensification won’t fix that.

Question: ‘What do you think public reaction will be to the Plan once they see the impact in their neighbourhood?’

Again, how much will they see? How much will they be told? How will it be told?

Even under the best and most open of processes, planning has become quite complex and technical. Most people find the size, language and complexity of the documents pretty overwhelming.

If they had been drawn in to the process from the earliest stages and listened to, they would be better placed.

I suspect that as some of the implications of the Plan become understood, most will be fearful, outraged. Facing the mountain of words and technical jargon, many will feel powerless and will not wish to be intimidated by appearing before any hearings panels.

Perhaps many should be joining and energising residents’ associations to get involved in the debate. These associations and other groups of citizens should be engaging experts to assist them in collating and presenting their wishes and views to Council and even to government, or at least its local MPs.

Once you see the four or eight storey block (or worse) going up next to you, it will be far too late. There could be one either side of you before too long.

Question: ‘What do you think about the facts and figures used by Council in their planning?’

Fanciful. In my view they lack any statistical veracity. The predictions are simply guesswork, or unproveable extrapolations from out of date statistics.

It seems to me that we are being led along a path littered with platitudes about inevitability, growth is good, bigger is better, and it will all lead to the a nirvana of better liveability and we can call ourselves ”super!”

Unhealthy solutions are being created on the basis of shakily argued ‘problems.’ The cart is being put before the horse. Much better research is needed to substantiate human-based solutions and that includes taking the community views into the Plan and involving us.