Posts by J Browning
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: A plea for sanity on the…, in reply to Chris W,
I've had a different experience (online and meetings)...there seems to be a general opinion amongst supporters that if you oppose something in the plan you don't know what you're talking about - something I've observed
Absolutely agree...
-
Hard News: A plea for sanity on the…, in reply to Kumara Republic,
And chances are the loudest opponents of the Unitary Plan otherwise have no time for the Resource Management Act. What's the real reason for their whining, then? Property cartelism? Snobbery (which is a form of social cartellsm)? Or just sour grapes about John Banks not taking Auckland? Or even all of the above?
Most people care about themselves and themselves alone...how many people do you know who care about the effect of the Unitary Plan on our city as a whole?
I'm not sure you understand where I'm coming from - I'm not in favour of the Unitary Plan because I believe it to be poorly written, without consultation or consideration of the broader picture.
I certainly do not support the views of those trying to stir things up for political advantage (which is generally the only basis for debate in this country currently).
-
Hard News: A plea for sanity on the…, in reply to Russell Brown,
But that's less a problem with the Unitary Plan than the design of the Super City, surely?
Ummm...well, yes and no.
The Super City structure is most certainly to blame for the siloed approach.
However, it also reveals the blinkered manner in which the Unitary Plan has been developed and why it is flawed.
How can you write a rule book to fulfil Strategies and Plans you are not even aware of?
You have to ask - what is the purpose of the Unitary Plan is if it's not to fulfil the Auckland Plan?
Or, more importantly, what is the point in the Auckland Plan?
Does Council merely exist to write rules to control and manipulate public behaviour?
Are they serving us, or are we serving them?
-
Hard News: A plea for sanity on the…, in reply to Sacha,
Indeed...although I'm not sure it was entirely divided by function...the duplication of effort is astounding.
-
Hard News: A plea for sanity on the…, in reply to Sacha,
Evidence - Melbourne CBD is an example close to home.
We need to remember - car ownership is not the issue; people's reliance on cars to get them everywhere they want to go is the issue.
I own a car to take me to places for recreation and sport not serviced by public transport (West Coast beaches, for example)...otherwise I walk or cycle everywhere around town.
Without my car, I would be forced to live a very closed existence in town or be reliant on friends and family driving extra miles to pick me up and drop me off...
This is the reason why places with parking limitations attract a different type of resident to the 'burbs...
-
Hi Russell - I agree that there is a lot of hysteria in some quarters, but as one of those rare Aucklander's who has read the entire document in detail - and those related to it - I am very concerned about the Unitary Plan.
Not only are most Aucklanders unaware of what is contained in the Unitary Plan, they also seem unaware of how it fits with the Vision and various Strategic Plans it is supposed to support (such as Auckland Plan).
In fact, I've consulted directly with Planners responsible for the Unitary Plan and even they were unable to explain how it fits with the Auckland Plan, Visitor Plan, Transport Plan etc...
This lack of overall consultation and approach within the multitude of Council divisions is what's fundamentally wrong with our city.
This, and of course the fact that the Unitary Plan is essentially a rule book that appears to have been thrown together - I agree that some rules have been relaxed, but many have not been.
Everyone has become fixated on one aspect - rules related to buildings - but there are also rules that are being changed that will have unexpected consequences.
Take the changes to parking requirements for new developments in the CBD and fringe suburbs - new developments in these suburbs will be given a maximum number of parking spaces, instead of a minimum number. This is an attempt to force people out of cars and into Active means of Transport and Public Transport.
Sounds good in theory, right?
International learnings point to the fact that dwellings without carparks have unexpected consequences - instead of creating affordable, sustainable housing developments, they attract transient populations (such as students who stay for short periods) which means strong communities do not develop...strong communities means sustainable communities that are connected, safe, walkable etc...
Oh; I could go on...but you get the picture...