Posts by Marc C
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to Sacha,
Thanks for that, I listened to the audio track on RNZ, and I cannot accept Penny Hulse's dishonesty, or misleading response (close to 18 min. into the interview or track), where she is asked by Lynn Freeman re the MHU (Mixed Housing Urban) zone. Penny goes on and talks about people in areas like Glendowie still being able to do what the legacy plan allows, and mentions building up to two storeys high. Now, we all know by now, that the MHU zone allows up to three storeys or 11 metres in structures. Why does Penny Hulse mislead the listeners and talks about only two storeys, when according to the new rules and zoning up to three storeys will be allowed. Those that do not know these details will feel misled by her, once they will be confronted with the new realities.
And she suggests that residents affected by out of scope up-zoning should contact and join groups like Auckland 2040 to be enabled to have their say, as Auckland 2040 is a major submitter and can take part in the hearing. She leaves out the fact that any evidence and hearing contribution is limited to the scope of the original submission of a submitter. So how does this address the concerns of those that have issues with the recently presented up-zoning by Council?
And yes, Generation Zero and some others submitted for wider intensification and zoning, but did not specify this for geographical areas as far as I am aware. So their submission being used by Council as a justification to up-zone areas that were not so under the notified AUP is also questionable.
It will be up to the Panel to make the hard decision re what to rule in or out, while still following natural justice principles. As I have followed the hearings, I am under the impression that the Panel is not quite as independent as we are made to think, in their majority they seem to favour what Council proposes, that is more and wider intensification through expanding zones for MHU and also by having no or less density rules for MHS zoned areas.
Their Interim Guidance shines light on how the Panel and its chair think, and it seems to support more rezoning. It will be very interesting to see their recommendations in July.
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to Marc C,
And I suggest there is more space and potential in regions that have been neglected for years, if only a government would have the guts to pass laws and also invest into regional development. To encourage new migrants to get points by moving to regions is a humble start by this government.
Why do we have to simply allow most migration to head into Auckland, it makes NO sense.
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to Sacha,
Closely half of it by historic records, but likely to be less (natural growth) in future. But even if you try to defend that, you may sound like the Pope, trying to defend high birth rates. Look at how well that worked for the Philippines, or even Bangla Desh.
It is not a solution to simply accept and allow growth that cannot be sustained, no matter what arguments you try to deliver.
Birth control was not invented for entertainment reasons only.
-
Re the water situation in Auckland, and what Watercare has done, trying to resolve future demand pressures:
https://www.watercare.co.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/AllPDFs/Waikato-River-Fact-Sheet.pdf
http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/66519932/Auckland-water-application-could-take-up-to-a-year-to-process
https://www.watercare.co.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/AllPDFs/Tapped_In_Winter_2015.pdfIt seems there are limited opportunities to provide the additionally needed future water to supply another 400,000 households and another 700,000 to 1 million population, and it all seems to depend on access to the Waikato River, which so far has not been resolved.
In the meantime planning goes on, and hearings go on, and Council simply hopes that all will be resolved, but no assurances have been given, none at all.
How can you grow a population, intensify many areas and forget to ensure the water for the residents is going to be there?
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to Sacha,
Yes, that is fair enough, but MHU went up from 11 to 17 percent of total zoned residential areas, a 50 percent increase, add MHS, and there is significant intensification planned, according to Council's current position, which the Panel will have to review and make recommendations on, also considering the many submissions put before the IHP.
Housing NZ have their interests, and they push hard to get their submissions heard and considered, they want intensification on a large scale.
What should never have happened in Auckland was the massive sprawl we now have, and what should really happen is that the city SHRINKS, but as that would bring immense economic costs with it, and major losses for property owners, the Council has decided to nearly double the population.
That though is not sustainable for the Auckland region, as we will have very serious problems with funding for the needed additional transport and many other infrastructure and service needs. And I wonder if any person has considered that without another 200 million litres of water a day that Watercare is trying to get access to from the Waikato River, we will not have the water to supply the anticipated larger Auckland population.
Many reports have already shown that Auckland's water resources are limited, and the only feasible option seems to be to get that extra water from the Waikato, or else we will look at a desalination plant costing more than 3.1 billion dollars, I wonder whether anyone here has bothered considering that humble bit of stark reality?
The extra pipeline and treatment plant for water from the Waikato may cost 360 million instead, but the application by Watercare for more water from the Waikato RC is lingering on, still due to be decided, for over two years now, and there seem to be issues with over-allocation, as local Waikato applicants come first, and the Watercare allocation will lead to too low flows for the river.
All this planning, but few bother with the basics, I fear.
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to Sacha,
If it is zoned Terrace Housing and Apartment Building (THAB) it will be up to 5 or seven stories, and some Housing NZ properties are proposed to be THAB, as I understand it. Or have they an official kind of policy to only build up to three levels? I know of no such policy by HNZ.
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to Swan,
Housing NZ is keen to up-zone for various reasons. In some cases it allows them to build more blocks of units or apartments, which they have already started in some places in Three Kings in Auckland, same as other places, and in other cases it allows them to sell properties that they prefer to sell for the best prices.
I wish that people representing Housing NZ, same as politicians and local body representatives would stop talking about "houses" when they go on about "social housing" that they want built. That is simply very dishonest, as in more and more cases we will not be talking about houses, but units that are in multi-level residential dwellings.
Politicians from both sides of the fence do the same misleading of the public. Future "social housing", and that includes remaining state housing, that is going to be developed, will in increasing numbers be multi-unit developments, possibly up to four levels, perhaps in some cases more.
"Homes" may be more appropriate for that, but that does not mean people needing affordable housing will get houses, they will most likely get units or small apartments, mostly without any garden use.
"Houses" sounds so nice, so many out there think, hey, here we go again, tax-payers pay nice homes for those that could not bother saving for it themselves. The BS that goes around never seems to end.
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to Sacha,
Thanks for providing that link to the other Transportblog post, which is interesting. Yes, such inner city heritage residential areas are offering some good examples of more intense residential development, and what can be done.
But while this is so, why do we then have such groups as this, of people cherishing living there oppose much of what Council propose and want?
http://www.greylynnresidents.org.nz/
I suppose they only speak for “some” residents, but they seem to have significant support.
Or do you have blind support for developers, who are responsible for many failed developments in the past, to do a better job in the future? Do you support Housing NZ, simply wanting enablement to use the land they have to build up higher, no matter what, as long as it is economical, means cheap, for "social housing" future ghetto dwellers?
Let us look at the successful track record of HNZ over recent decades.
We need good provisions and rules, to avoid that future mistakes happen, I think, and so far I am not sufficiently convinced by what Council has presented so far (not all is bad, but there are too many concessions to developers and builders now).
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to Sacha,
I see two levels, if there is a garage under the ground, or half under the ground in perhaps one home, that does not equal a three storey residential home, I would think, certainly not for the majority on the photo.
As for the chart above the photo, it shows that MHU has increased from 11 percent of total zoned residential areas to 17 percent, that is in itself a roughly 50 percent increase on what was notified, not that marginal, I would think.
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to Sacha,
Well, putting in a photo of two level suburban homes, and putting this below it does basically suggest what I wrote:
"According to those opposing the Unitary Plan, these are high-rise and shouldn’t be allowed."So I stuck to the facts, which is what was written in Matt's blogpost!
http://transportblog.co.nz/2016/02/16/the-unitary-plan-roller-coaster/
It seems it is acceptable to exploit visual imagery and present misleading information when it comes to the Transportblog, Generation Zero and others supporting what you prefer, but it is not fair, if Auckland 2040 may in some cases do the same.