Posts by Marc C
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Sacha,
This is the problem, under present market conditions in Auckland, apartments will not be the so much talked about "affordable" housing as they cost even more to build per square metre, no matter how you try to cut or spin it. Only if you allow blocks of tiny units, in rather high rise typed of developments, may these become "affordable", but that is like building the ghettos of the future.
To achieve affordability again there would have to be a massive supply to be built, that would drive existing property and land prices down, but that is not wanted, for economic reasons, as this will badly affect those owners that now sit on rather expensive homes and land. We are in a catch 22 situation, thanks to the government in Wellington, and thanks to Council having also failed to keep up with things.
And where will be the affordable homes for those going into retirement, who may not match the wide spread baby boomer image of the do well generation? Those without savings and assets will be condemned into poor homes for the elderly, living in misery.
Some baby boomers will leave their inheritance to their daughters and sons though, the ones that will have a good start in life already, in a New Zealand that is more class focused and divided along those lines as it may have been for generations.
The Auckland Unitary Plan will solve little, I fear, damned little, once it will be put in force.
We may have to look at tough new taxation laws, and at only allowing individuals to own one or two homes, not for investment, only to live in. Tax on land that is underused and homes that the rich own as additional patches or investment may need to be brought in. And the state may have to step in to build housing again, and to be a social landlord. Multi unit landlords may get tax exemptions only if they let homes that are affordable. With present conditions we will only get more of the same and more social division for the present and future.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Sacha,
So which experts are they going to summon, those that cannot agree even on the capacity modeling, that now has many holes shot through it also?
Quote:
"Other particular concerns relate to whether It is reasonable to use three year old sales figures in this model rather than factoring to bring the prices closer to current prices; inadequate identification of the current housing deficit; and noting that any development capacity numbers used in a shorter period (e.g. 10 years) will require a different assessment criteria to be applied to the ACDC Model.
Finally, those members note that the failure to provide information in a timely manner has frustrated the ability of the Group to reach a consensus and cast doubt on the validity of the output."Even the expert group is divided, between developers having their interpretation and criteria for modeling, and others having different ones.
So Housing NZ can march in in their usual expert arrogance, but I see little being achieved with their attempts to push intensification, where it may not even be wanted.
This is all far from over, and I see this going to the courts, no matter what happens, either Auckland 2040 and some others will be unhappy, due to their members and supporters screaming “unfair”, or those like Housing NZ will go to the court, trying to have it their way. Prepare for an extension for the hearing, or for court action to go into another year or two after mid year 2016.
And much of this mess is due to a laissez faire, hands off government, that simply let the Auckland housing market get out of control, by not using policy instruments to control the demand side of things. At least one good thing will come out of it, a likely change of government in 2017, I was rather impressed with the three opposition leaders on ‘The Nation’ today, looking more like a government in waiting, sufficient ideas and alternative plans in common, for a change.
Also I went for a bit of a walk today, more homes are up for sale again, I wonder, is this now the rush before the crash, or will there be a revival of more speculation, as some buyers want to snap up homes in areas zoned for intensification, to flick them off for a neat gain again in a few years time. I have see a few homes sell repeatedly over recent years.
-
Hard News: Paths where we actually ride, in reply to Russell Brown,
I understand your enthusiasm for the Grey Lynn route and so, but what is needed is a culture change and big plan to enable cycling along all major and not so major main streets and roads in Auckland, and this must be done by creating separate, designated cycle lanes, for safety reasons.
I have been cycling for much of my life, having grown up in the country and cycling to school and back daily for 8 kms there and back every week-day, rain or shine. I also took up cycling when moving to Auckland in the 1980s, but then having been hit by a bus, ending up in hospital, and prior to that having had endless close encounters on streets and roads in the city and further out, that finally told me, leave the bike at home, use the bus.
And to this day, I am not that convinced when I see such shared lanes or lanes along streets and roads, where you are often only inches away from cars, trucks and buses going past, that this is the solution.
People will travel along main routes to shops, to the city and out, to whatever destination, also their work. So it is realistic, I think, that in future many cycle ways will be alongside streets and roads, but they need to be clearly separated, for safety reasons. AT are still working on future planning and improvements, and I hope they will take my concerns on board.
One major challenge though will be funding, as most taxpayers are still motorists, and they will not like having to pay extra, same as ratepayers, to build a network of cycle lanes that will simply cost a lot.
But after all this is an investment in the future, same as train networks, which will in the end pay off, it is just the start up investment that will be high, people have to accept that. It is a political challenge to get more people on our sides to support all this and agree to pay for it, so let us see where this will end, hopefully for a positive outcome.
-
Hard News: Paths where we actually ride, in reply to Russell Brown,
Yes, I read the post, and I note how some good improvements are being made in the area where you live. But so far we get only some projects in certain areas, and there is this approach of "radiating out" from the inner city into the suburbs, that I read, that AT seem to follow, by gradually extending existing networks.
So I do not want to rubbish AT for the work they are doing and anticipating, and plans being made so far, but it is all rather limited to certain priority areas, where there is also likely to be more of an uptake of cycling. This though leaves very many suburban areas out of the picture, where only few routes have been built or are being planned. I am looking at the greater picture, and that is also involving the challenge of getting people out of cars, in larger numbers.
Some commenters on PA want more intensification of Auckland, and more public transport and cycling and walking being encouraged. What we get though with Council's present planning is still not enough, in the way of providing investment and planning for the infrastructure. How can we rezone, intensify and so forth, when it will still give priority to cars, which seems to be the case.
In their evidence for residential zone hearings in the AUP hearing process, Mr Nick Roberts as Auckland Councils commissioned planner presented this marked up document (see link further below), where proposed changes (many proposed by developers and construction businesses and other vested interest parties) were adopted by Council and presented for the Panel to consider.
What struck me and a few others, who care to look at the detail, was that storage provisions that were notified for a number of residential zones, including MHS, MHU and THAB were suddenly DELETED. Parking for bicycles is also not that much enabled, so only dwellings of 20 or more units appear to require safe, long term parking for bicycles. Where does this leave smaller developments and people living in them? Ok, if you already have a garage, you can store your bike, but if you may have to, or choose to live in an apartment block that is not so large, you may have NO storage and parking for a bicycle.
How can they plan in such a manner, expecting people to take up cycling, I ask?
The marked up version for the relevant residential parts in the PAUP:
https://hearings.aupihp.govt.nz/online-services/new/files/IRePCVxDR8JOu7YsWO1BeWKCArh94AthZta8MwFIRePC
(that is what Council now seems to have settled for)Look under development controls and sections 7.21, 8.22 and 9.20 for instance, where storage that was notified with the plan has been completely deleted.
Parking is covered by another topic 043 and 044, and see the info in Council's marked up version for the changed plan here (see page 15 and Table 5 the requirements for cycle parking):
https://hearings.aupihp.govt.nz/online-services/new/files/QfJw9i2kBTTPyXvOSzBGWvShTKBeqC3J8BYQ9U8NQfJwAlthough there is slow improvement over what we have so far, I think they need to be much bolder and enable much more bicycle parking, so people can not only ride their bikes, they can also park and store them safely. That is not yet happening, I fear.
If I want to cycle, I want to keep it in a safe place in my dwelling, or in a storage and parking spot outside, where it will not be stolen or damaged. It is all fine for the ones who already have homes with garages, sheds and other storage, but with new developments not needing more storage or parking, we are not going to encourage cycling where it should be.
Another Council stuff up, giving in to developers who want less rules, and do what they like. You can see by the many changes, how much they departed from the notified PAUP text - in these and other topics.
-
To get me back into cycling again AT and Council will have to do a heck of a lot more than what they have done so far, and what they have been proposing. Routes going through or past parks, and through various scenic or not so scenic routes through the suburbs may be nice for some to use, especially on leisure rides.
But I expect that we will one day have cycle networks as they have in much of Europe, along major streets and roads, all over the show. Cars need to be replaced, need to be put into more restricted lanes on existing streets and roads, to give way to more dedicated bus lanes, perhaps trams and definitely cycle ways, that go the same way as the streets and roads, forming paths on the right and left of them.
It will have many benefits, health benefits, it will save costs as cars cost a lot to buy and run, and it will get people out in the environment, where they face each other, so they will perhaps start communicating a bit more, face to face, rather than sit in cars and text each other messages.
But to get there, it will be a long, long way, it requires a real culture change, that I sadly cannot see happen yet on a larger scale.
For safety reasons and for convenience I will continue using buses for most my travel within Auckland.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Sacha,
Ah yes, that is a good excuse, most people are busy during weekday afternoons. Thanks for mentioning this, as that is what I thought myself, when noticing that Council and the Independent Hearings Panel had set all the mediation meetings on various topics for exactly such day-times during weekdays, where few ordinary citizens have time and means to be there, to take part.
And hence we have had endless mediation and hearing meetings attended almost exclusively by the vested interest holding big players and submitters, with their expert and representative entourage, the lawyers, the planners, the various other “advisors” they have, that is during all the hearings for the AUP.
So if this may be unfair to young people, is it then not also unfair to all others, that have to work, study and do other chores?
Thanks for pointing out how appallingly we get treated by those institutions (Council, the Panel), as interested Aucklanders, who are thus virtually shut out of much of what happens in regards to planning and organising our future. Democracy and public participation are dead, stone dead, I must note.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Sacha,
The people that were there in larger numbers were from places like some Eastern Suburbs, where more out of scope zoning was proposed by Council, and this was done this late in the hearing, and mostly covered areas rather far away from any significant centres or the CBD. So naturally those from those suburbs that attended were a bit astonished about such comments.
And as I remember, that meeting was meant to address the question whether that additional rezoning was acceptable and in line with natural justice principles, i.e. whether process was followed. So making wider or more general comments sounded more like just making political statements.
I did not mind those, but they did not address the real core issue that the meeting was meant to resolve. And what some failed to realise is that there has already been an substantial increase in so-called feasible capacity, with changing development controls, also allowing higher densities, more heights and so forth in MHU, THAB and also to some degree the MHS zones.
Again, why did Council not do all this capacity modeling before drawing up and notifying the plan, and come with such late zoning changes just before the whole hearings are about to come to a close? We are back to square one, a chicken and egg discussion, I presume. In my view Council stuffed up by going too far with additional rezoning, and the ones affected stood up and said, enough.
Good night, and have a good weekend, we have to agree to disagree on some matters.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to nzlemming,
I note then that you must have been there then, since you are so sure. I was talking about some in the media commenting on “shouting down”, I never denied that there were interjections. Go and watch the whole video of the whole meeting, to get a real impression of how it went, there was a bit of anger and some not so friendly "shouting" at the beginning, yes, but that was definitely not what happened through most of the meeting, as the people were soon reminded to be considerate and let people speak. Every person had their say, whether others liked it or not. “Shouting down” was commented by others, which sounds like people were shouted down so they could not speak, which is rubbish. Also did some applaud the speakers from the Youth Panel and Generation Zero, they had some audible support also.
But in New Zealand we do not like robust debate, I gather, better keep your heads down, that is when there is no alcohol involved.
I sometimes wonder whether I am on the left of centre version of Kiwiblog on some blogs that want to be progressive, and when reading some comments, where people are blind-sighted on one eye, only wanting to see and hear what pleases them, or what furthers their personal views and arguments.
As for the shouting or interjections, as I would rather describe it, I did not like it, but that is what you get at some public meetings. And while there were more people over 40 or 50 and into their 70s there, nobody stopped the younger persons that were concerned to attend, so why did they not make the effort?
But I am sure, going by your comments, I will not change your view, so feel happy with what you want to believe, that is all your choice. Have a nice weekend.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to nzlemming,
Well, cutting all the interjections out of a meeting lasting well over six hours and putting them in a 5 minute video, showing this in condensed and also edited, lopsidedly commented form, that is of course representative of the whole meeting, I suppose?
Nobody said there were no interjections, but the claims by some that speakers were shouted down are nonsense, as that sounds as if they were stopped from speaking. And when the speaker from Generation Zero and some others make comments that are also not quite factual, like the claim that they would be shut out of housing near the city and near centres, that naturally caused some anger. For instance Glendowie (one of the areas where out of scope zoning was widely applied) is not really close to the city, is it? What occurred was in a tense atmosphere, but it was by far not as frequent and excessive as some try to make out, and I was at the meeting, as I was interested in what was being discussed, so I saw and heard what went on.
Let us discuss facts and what matters and end this silly generation and other blame gaming, I may suggest. The hearings will continue and Council will have some opportunity to speak also re the residential rezonings. If the planners simply refuse, or their experts cannot talk by focusing on what they should now comment on, then it is their incompetency and attempts to seize or block the hearing process.
-
Having followed the reports on the US primaries and caucus votes, I despair, but find myself proved right again, here is Mr Oliver's take on it, that is the Drumph phenomenon:
The internet has not led to more enlightenment and intelligence, it has proved to be nothing more than an extra communication channel, which just as well serves the ends and interests of those that want to dumb down ever more people, welcome to the not so bright future.