Island Life: My way or the highway
58 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
I think I have a bit of an idea what urban sprawl is, but surely it cannot (and will not) continue indefinately, for a whole bunch of good economic and environmental reasons, and that smart developers will (and some already do) recognise this.
It certainly can't continue forever, but when the factors that make far-flung suburbs unliveable (say, when petrol prices reach twice their current levels) really kick in, the social consequences could be devastating. It's true that "urban development [would] change to reflect the needs of a changing community", but you can't just shift houses around or build transport infrastructure overnight, which is why we need to plan for it now rather than waiting for the market to correct.
It all depends upon what you mean by "smart" developers. To my mind, the smart ones would be the ones who build high quality medium-density housing close to shops, amenities and public transport nodes. But from a purely financial point of view (and property developers aren't generally known for their altruism) the "smart" thing to do is make a quick healthy profit and move on. Property fortunes are made by looking maybe five years ahead, not the fifty or so we need to plan sustainable communities. That's why I have little faith in "unrestricted urban development" delivering intensity and diversity.
-
Tom,
FWIW, I have seen first-hand that there are a group of developers who are ahead of the government curve on this, and are actually being hampered by local government in their desire to deliver more sustainable, high quality, mixed density housing, in conjunction with existing or planned economic, social, and transport hubs.
So, in some cases, I'd be willing to argue that the 'market' is actually being held back on urban development.
By 'smart' developer, I mean one who has recognised that building for a sustainable community actually delivers more business return in the long-term than making a quick buck and moving on.
But I take your point that, on the whole, under current state of play of development industry and government regulations, the likely outcome of unrestricted urban development will be more of the same unsustainable sprawl. Until, of course, it is no longer possible to sprawl. More like a crouch.
-
merc,
I'm guessing you mean Cornerstone and their proposed development at Waimauku? Look, there's alot more going on than umitigated sprawl, greed and stupidity. For example, go to ARTA.co.nz, read and if you don't agree....MAKE A SUBMISSION!
-
Merc - no I didn't mean the Cornerstone development, but thanks for the pointer - another good example.
I guess that the best urban development solution will involve a combination of government and market forces (PPP anyone?).
-
I'm guessing you mean Cornerstone and their proposed development at Waimauku?
I'm not too familiar with Auckland region developments, but from what I can gather from a quick squizz at the website I'd say that the reasonable density and location on a railway line are good, but it's still greenfield development. It's better than the sort of "unrestricted" development that Pavletic & co want (i.e. ad hoc subdivisions), but I still think we need to develop the centre more intensely rather than spread even further out into the hinterland. I was thinking more of things like the Beaumont Quarter, though I haven't seen that first hand.
So I'm willing to concede that there are forward-thinking suburban developers (and that's what Cornerstone looks like it'll be - there's no mention of workplaces, so I'm guessing it'll be a dormitory "village") that are being held back, but there are a lot of things that need to be considered before allowing such a development.
-
merc,
Man if I could live and work locally, that would be great. Working from home I don't like so much. If John would bat for my train from Waimauku to Mt Eden I'd be stoked. Also, can't find the link, but I saw this neat new train/ bus combination on Boing Boing I think.
So we need,
1. regional development incentives (Warkworth anyone?)
2. cheaper, real broadband for home work
3. integrated rail to open up the hinterland (Helensville anyone)And yes all this can be achieved with the motoway budgets and working cross councils, Govt, developers, business and residents (I pay 2k PA rates and I don't get nothing, really).
Utopian, cross communication, maybe. Maybe intelligent John should start thinking about this stuff rather than building virtual ghetto's where there are none. -
i think The John is more of a Lord Quimby type - mayoralty is clearly not enough for him is it?
i also agree with those revolted by Toyota Ad Nationalism, it has always been there to sell something, be it toilet paper or an invasion of your neighbours. it has never had anything to do with anything like the enormous complexity that might begin to describe people's actual sense of belonging to a place.
as for land, well the truth is without land you don't have the means of obtaining security, let alone means of production and all the power that goes with it . you can put nationalist or spiritual glosses on it if you need to, but land is the foundation of all the shit that makes up a complex society.
but getting back to the original topic of this thread, what strikes me the most about Shiney New His Lordship's speech was how tragically bereft of ANY originality it was (kids' lunchboxes aside of course - the vision of the man!)
twee nationalism, privatisation and market solutions, tough on crime, i love poor people, get rid of the bureaucracy, i mean christ not ONE original proposal. i would have thought someone so clever had at least one new idea, or at least the decency to dress up some of the staler items on the menu with some kind of whizz-fang fusion sauce? it's almost contemptuous the way he seems to think tired old bullshit and crooked white middle class smiles will be enough to fool enough of them.
i mean since when have we identifed with millionaire bankers as the embodiment of who we are? unless we're like fay or richwhite of course. it's oddly both pathetic and offensive all at once. i guess that's one novel aspect to his speech
-
What a cool discussion.
But
When you folks discuss it you are trading ideas and theories and entertaining the concept of being wrong in part or in whole. You tolerate each others differences of opinion and contribute ideas.
But I don’t believe for a second that John Key has any such thought when he opines on the subject of a New Zealand identity. For him it is a tool to achieve power, to be manipulated and abused. Yes that is a cynical view but it is based on a reasonably good familiarity with the way politicians have used “national identity” as a tool in the past.
So by all means continue discussing the nature of what it means to be a human in this land. But don’t trust that any politician means any such thing when they use such phrases like “the kiwi way”.
As for my opinion on what it means to be here – now – and part of this culture… well for me the thing about living in NZ rather than living in Texas or California is that here I see many many different versions of human every day. In those other (strange) lands I saw monocultures. Different monocultures in different places. But each town lacked and in some sense rejected diversity. In Texas it was conservative that dominated, In Davis California it was “hippy” that dominated. But in both places there seemed less tolerance of diversity. So for me the thing I note (and like) about New Zealand is diversity and tolerance of diversity. But that's only my idea of what it means to be human in this land.
Cheers
BartPS If you think suburbia in NZ is not diverse you need to see suburbia in the US where every house is exactly the same, with even house colour dictated by the local monoculture.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.