Udale urges community rethink on housing
"The lack of engagement so far speaks volumes."
Featured commentMartin Udale is one of several urban intensification proponents urging Aucklanders to embrace the city's new unitary plan.
Mr Udale, a director of merchant bank Cranleigh and the head of its property team, says “the debate needs to focus on how to produce 220,000 new homes, which will need to be delivered through infill and brownfield development".
"It is likely these will largely comprise attached and terraced housing and low-rise apartments throughout much of Auckland’s current urban area.
“Not everyone might embrace this view, but it is housing that is acceptable in many other countries and cities. If we want to house another million people we have to accept this is a good form of property that many people will be happy to live in and embrace.”
The unitary plan envisages that by 2040 there will be demand for 400,000 new dwellings. About 260,000 are earmarked to be built within Auckland’s urban area as defined by the 2010 Metropolitan Urban Limit of 57,780ha.
Mr Udale is critical of residents who oppose new developments or infrastructure in their neighbourhoods.
“Bad housing consequences have been created through bad legislation and regulation. New approaches are needed to sort the crisis out – the unitary plan must provide some of these.
“If we are to increase our housing stock, a robust debate around housing of all types in all locations needs to move beyond the not-in-my-backyard, green and heritage brigades.
“The political conundrum will be to convince the broader community that intensification can be achieved in a way that enhances the city, improves housing opportunities for many, and addresses valid environmental and heritage concerns.”
Mr Udale has served on many property or urban design related groups, including:
- The Auckland mayoral taskforce on urban design.
- Tamaki transformation programme, committee for Auckland.
- Property Council urban issues and infrastructure committee.
- Auckland City urban design panel.
- NZ government taskforce on urban intensification.
- NZ government sustainable urban development unit working group.
- NSW urban taskforce.
More by Chris Hutching for NBR NZ Property Investor
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Latest
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Comments and questions10
Having served on numerous bureaucratic planning talkfests is no recommendation. Over-ruling neighbours' objections on an arbitrary, top-down imposed way is just par for the course from these people.
There should be a principled definition of neighbouring property owners' rights. Then leave individuals to negotiate deals that suit their circumstances and allow the market to operate freely and equitably.
Get these all-powerful bureaucracies and vested interests out of the picture.
Martin Udale actually has a serious track record as a private sector developer so should not be dismissed as a mere participant in "bureaucratic planning talkfests" - do your homework before attacking the man. Dispute the ideas by all means, as many will, but argue from the facts about how to realistically accommodate growth and not mere NIMBYism.
The problem with the Unitary Plan is it is pitched at too high a level covering everything and nothing, and it just appears as grey background for most people. The lack of engagement so far speaks volumes. It follows that the sudden appearance of terraced or low-rise apartments will come as a shock to most people and they will react negatively. Overseas experience shows that getting residents to work together and plan housing styles that will meet their future needs in the areas where they live will produce constructive dialogue and consensus outcomes. Where is the mechanism for this in Auckland today? It should be the local boards, but they are too cash strapped or have politically vested interests and cannot be relied upon.
How to have your cake and eat it? The city has engulfed what were once surrounding villages and there are obvious benefits to those now living in these areas. The flip side is that village life is difficult to sustain in a metropolis. Those who really can't face the reality of city life may need to consider moving out away for a life in the rural areas of NZ - but good luck finding a job with decent pay.
Why live on top of each other when there is plenty of land? Why subject ourselves to the problems of cities with high-rise apartment living? Any cost benefits will be short lived as the cost to build is high - eg, sq m rate for high-rise apartments is greater than a light timber dwelling.
I think the important issue is most thinking Aucklanders just do not want office block housing destroying our lifestyle.
Mayor Brown should listen - for example, the whole Milford community mobilised itself to make this point. The risk for the mayor is his job in the event the community does not like the proposal.
More urban sprawling, more roads, more expensive infrastructure, more pollution, more being stuck in the car for hours every day trying to get from A to B is clearly not the future for Auckland's ever growing population.
If you want a nice lifestyle block then move to a rural area outside of Auckland.
Check Melbourne, folks - you can clearly see how urban intensification brings a city to life. The future is not the quarter-acre section.
While principles maybe applauded at a macro level, thus far the unitary plan execution is very poor. How is four storeys set back 3-5m from a two-storey zoned property good urban design? Surely a road, park or a steam would be a sensible transition between suburban and intensive, not a 10mm wide fence paling.
The problem is getting any decent candidate to stand in the forthcoming local body elections-- who would want the job as mayor when they can stay in corporate nz-- or the professions-- and not have to deal with half wits or clerks with fancy titles in local council offices.
If u dont have to live in AKL (ie the retired) then the best thing is to get out and move to the Tauranga/Mt Maunganui area where all the facilities exist
errrr wrong ... "the debate needs to focus on how to produce 220,000 new homes, which will need to be delivered through infill and brownfield development".
A couple of important words are missing, like quality and affordable. Let's try rephrasing that statement like this:
"The debate needs to focus on how we create a culture change that enables 220,000 quality affordable homes to be built while delivering innovation in the building sector."