The Auckland Plan refresh is out for consultation. I have spent the last few blogs looking at whether there is a missing middle in the density profile of the city, and started to look at the associated urban design issues. Does the refreshed Auckland Plan signal that the 'middle' of the city (medium type densities in the middle ring of suburbs) needs to get a push along?
Well kind of yes - the refreshed plan shows a number of development areas that are scattered across the middle ring of suburbs, These are areas where the plan anticipates a lot of urban redevelopment will occur.
The plan says that redevelopment in these areas will be of scale and require substantial infrastructure investment. That looks positive.
Quick thoughts are:
- Where is the money is going?
- Where is the money coming from?
- What happened to urban design?
- Where are the jobs and where is the housing?
- Is the plan too much strategy and not spatial enough?
What do I mean by the above?
Where is the money going?.
The Plan is accompanied by the draft 10 year budget. That document makes more interesting reading than the Auckland Plan refresh. The question is: are these strategies aligned? Does the spatial plan go one way and the funding plan go the other way? This is not an idle question. There is always a tension between where development is best to go versus where it actually goes. Read any previous growth strategy and the overriding impression is that the plan says “growth should go here”, but the reality is that “growth goes over there”. In no small part this is because infrastructure spending has followed the people, not the plan (and what is more, often the people benefiting from that infrastructure do not pay for all of that investment).
Take for example, Direction 4 of the Auckland Plan: Provide sufficient public places and spaces that are inclusive, accessible and contribute to urban living.
Sounds good. I presume this type of action is linked to the Auckland Plan’s development strategy and its objective of enabling urban redevelopment in a number of areas across the city, not all of which will be easy markets for urban redevelopment to take hold. Some parts of the city will need an injection of public amenity to help spark redevelopment, redevelopment that will be necessary to accommodate growth, but also to ‘spread growth around’. Then we have the following statement:
Planning and investment will be targeted and prioritised to these areas where the greatest development capacity is taken up.
Is that development that will be delivered by the market or development enabled and stimulated by public investment? Will that be investment in the development areas identified by the plan, or anywhere where growth springs up. Bit hard to untangle these questions, but there is a very big difference between these options.
Elsewhere is the following:
Investment must therefore be specifically targeted at:
• those areas that undergo significant growth and where population densities are increasing
• those parts of Auckland that are currently under-served and where it will make the most difference to quality of life.
So another objective is added (which is hard to argue with). We now have three objectives for infrastructure investment:
- Investment to help stimulate urban redevelopment
- Investment to support and follow along after market-led development
- Investment to help existing areas ‘catch up’, but not really provide for future growth.
So quite a lot of investment needed then, and not much of the city is untouched by the above objectives. So is there really a strategy here?
Two things to look at in more detail with regard to the principle of identifying urban development areas - first is investment in parks, open spaces and community facilities. I often think this is the type of investment that is needed more than others to help support quality urban redevelopment. Density around amenity is the call, not density around transport hubs.
Look at the 10 year budget . Deep within this is an infrastructure strategy and a 10 year financial strategy.
Under the heading 'Community assets (parks, recreation and community facilities) to support growth and development', three options are outlined:
Option A: Limited provision of new community assets (parks, recreation and community facilities) to provide for growth and diversification. Results in a lower level of provision than identified in the council’s adopted strategies and guidelines.
Option B: Moderate additional provision of community assets (parks, recreation and community facilities) to provide for growth and diversification.
Option C: Provision of community assets (parks, recreation and community facilities) to provide for growth in the areas identified in the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy for Decade 1 only.
Guess which option gets recommended? Option A. So not much joy there. At least the focus is not just on the future growth areas (Option C), but Option A is hardly designed to tip the playing field towards urban redevelopment through amenity improvements.
But what about public-led regeneration efforts? That is tied in with the new Housing and Transport Minister’s call for 10 to 15 large development areas to help deliver his Kiwibuild.
Perhaps the money is going to go into property acquisition, site amalgamation, private-public partnerships and the like in the identified development areas. There is a section in the infrastructure strategy with a heading: ‘Panuku Programme Options 2018-2028’. That also sounds promising.
There is even this statement: “Successful regeneration and development requires investment in amenity and infrastructure upfront to build community support, homeowner demand and private sector interest”. That sentence would be ‘on the money’..... if there were any money.
Then two options:
A: Funding requirement of $344 million over 10-years.
B: Funding requirement of $942 million over 10-years.
Option A completes legacy projects. Option B is said to meet the level of likely capital returns expected from Transform and Unlock locations. I think that means that Option B would stimulate a lot more development which would benefit council coffers. Which option is recommended? Yes, Option A.
I know that there is always a gap between aspirations and funding, where choices have to be made. And at least the infrastructure and funding strategies are making some choices. But you wonder about the focus on transport and fixing up stormwater problems (which are the two big ticket items in the strategies that soak up any new funding) which have crowded out other priorities.
Not all transport investment will help stimulate redevelopment in the identified development areas, in fact much of it may be elsewhere, for example trying to keep up with growth out in the greenfields and across the suburbs.
The headline numbers for transport investment under the preferred option are:
- Roads and footpaths $26.3 billion capital expenditure and $23.8 billion operational expenditure
- Public transport $18.0 billion capital and $42.0 billion operational.
Is that the right mix to support the middle, rather just spreading growth around?
But note the lurking issue over funding of the escalating operational costs of public transport compared to roads in general. Something needs to be sorted out, as the operational funding demands may be the break on the amount of capital invested.
Much of the money going into water quality is to fix historical problems in the western Isthmus which experiences constant wastewater overflows. Can’t argue with that as I live in the area, but there is not a heck of a lot of growth going to happen in the inner west. The outer west gets heaps more growth (at least that is what the plan says).
So are we back to investment following people (voters) who may not necessarily pay for all of that investment, and investment not really following the spatial plan?
Where is the money coming from?
The fact that investment in infrastructure follows the people rather than the plan may just reflect the futility of plans and planners. But it may also reflect the fact that people’s housing, transport and related choices are shaped by the costs and incentives that they face. Give them infrastructure that they do not have to directly pay for, and they will head off in all sorts of directions, knowing that the infrastructure will follow them. Furthermore, if people’s locational choices are shaped by costs and benefits that tend to be short term, lopsided and often incomplete in nature, then there is a role for plans to compensate for these deficiencies in the interests of overall urban efficiency. But if proactive public investment (like more parks and urban regeneration programmes) that seeks to compensate for bad price signals is limited, then the plan needs to amend the price signals that influence people’s locational choices. So the question of where the money is coming from is as increasingly important as where the money is going.
The financial strategy mentions a more ‘growth pays’ type approach to funding. Petrol tax and targeted rates are identified. I think these are positive, albeit tentative, steps to leveling the playing field between expansion and intensification. The realm of value uplift capture taxes or charges (which may require legislative changes) is not explored.
But the discussion is mostly about how to fund more infrastructure, not manage demand for infrastructure and how to shape locational choices that will result in improved urban efficiencies, longer term. For example, the petrol tax is a blunt tool in terms of providing price signals about how to use the transport system.
What is also not explored are the spatial responses from people facing a greater proportion of the costs of their locational choices. As transport and infrastructure costs rise, then households tend to move closer into the centre to limit these costs. Getting people to face the costs of greenfields development is important, but there must be the choice for them to find a home closer to inner areas. Hence the need for preparatory investment in these 'move to' areas.
In some cases, if the better pricing leads to more efficient use of infrastructure, then businesses may move further out. If roads are less congested because of road pricing, for example, then the business may use the travel time savings to shift to larger, less expensive premises further out.
Funding streams will become more ‘dedicated’ - targeted rates gathered in greenfields areas have to be spent on infrastructure in those areas. But will it be so easy to impose targeted rates in existing urban areas to fund upgrades when there is complex issues associated with new and existing residents? Here the danger is that the greenfields infrastructure gets funded but not the necessary brownfields infrastructure upgrades. In other words, it will be easier to fund infrastructure in places where growth wants to go, rather than where it ought to go. To get it to go where it ought to go will require carrots and sticks. Sticks from the costs of going elsewhere (the targeted rates), but also the carrot of the incentive to go to where there are multiple benefits (a targeted subsidy?) What we need is some 'transfer' taxes. Should the communities who perceive a benefit from not growing (eg eastern seaboard and heritage suburbs) but still get upgrades (like better water quality and PT services) pay for the privilege, and so help generate the funds to provide the subsidy needed to get other, existing urban areas ‘ ready for more growth’?
What happened to urban design?
The refreshed plan makes the standard statement that Auckland will take a quality compact approach to growth and development.
Then this at page 182:
The quality aspect of this approach means that:
• most development occurs in areas that are easily accessible by public transport, walking and cycling
• most development is within reasonable walking distance of services and facilities including centres, community facilities, employment opportunities and open space
• future development maximises efficient use of land
• delivery of necessary infrastructure is coordinated to support growth in the right place at the right time.
Hmmm…. I thought quality related to quality urban design, which does have a locational aspect to it, but also an equally important aspect of supporting quality public environments. Ever more so with the difficult design issues associated with small scale, site-by-site redevelopment of middle ring areas into medium density environments.
But there is this later on:
Embedding good design in all development. Good design includes the attributes of:
• functionality
• attractiveness
• longevity
• innovation
• legibility.
It needs to be integrated at all scales of development. It includes the quality of the city structure, the design of public places and spaces as well as building and house design.
But how to implement this? The refreshed plan says that the Auckland Design Manual provides guidance on good design and best practice examples. Is that it? Nothing about Council leading with good design; the work of the urban design panel; monitoring the implementation of the Auckland Unitary Plan and whether a basic level of ‘quality’ is being achieved?
This all feels very under done. If the public will not invest much in the public realm in areas of change and not undertake many development projects themselves, then the private realm needs to shoulder more of the burden of its impact on the public environment. Urban design needs to be given more emphasis, especially small scale developments supporting a safer, better quality public realm.
Jobs and Employment
Cities are not just about jobs and employment, but they are critical issues. Auckland has gone through a number of cycles of economic growth and decline - in terms of location and make up of jobs. Another cycle of change is around the corner - the refresh does mention the “4th industrial revolution”.
But does the refresh get to grips with the implications, beyond some bland statements about need to be flexible to address coming disruption?
There is some acknowledgement of the spatial issues involved. The refresh says:
The city centre is expected to remain the primary business centre for Auckland. However, the Development Strategy’s multi-nodal approach establishes several other centres. This has the potential to create opportunities for local jobs and educational opportunities.
The word ‘potential’ in the last sentence is fairly weak.
Later on in the Development Strategy there is the statement that the north-south State Highway 1 corridor has a concentration of businesses making use of this corridor to access other parts of Auckland and New Zealand. As a result of this concentration, employment is currently concentrated in some parts of Auckland but is under-represented in the eastern and western parts of the urban area.
So Albany might take off as an employment area, but Westgate which is identified as a sub regional centre? Last time I was out at Westgate, it was all shops. Perhaps these things take time.
The Auckland Plan seems to have a focus on employment being in centres, which sounds nice and tidy, but does this really match reality, and what may be around the corner, as we move towards AI and automation, but also an economy built on services and increasingly tourism?.
You get the feeling that the Plan doesn't really know what to do.
The quality compact approach to accommodating business growth in the future is to make the best use of existing business land, as well as create new business land in greenfield areas. Making the best use of existing business land means repurposing and intensifying centres and business areas, especially those in accessible locations. Existing business land, particularly important industrial areas, will be safeguarded. Once lost to other uses, such as housing, it is difficult to replace.
Nothing about mixed use corridors; small businesses in neighbourhoods; more employment in the south; the growth of the gig economy; the rise and rise of the service sector focused on residents needs where they live (like health, education and recreational services); of the inevitable shift out of inner areas of large footprint industries to the edge.
Is the Newton / Great North Road area - an area that is seeing a lot of apartments and mixed uses - a “development area”, for example? Newton is part of the Inner west development area, but there is nothing really said about it.
And what about the southern coastal fringes of the Isthmus dominated by former industrial areas; are these Auckland’s real “docklands”? These areas are in the 'middle'. Now dominated by warehousing and distribution businesses and numerous service activities, at some point soon they will transition over into mixed uses and housing as current business shift to locations with better transport options. Try to imagine a point equidistant between Auckland, Tauranga and Hamilton, in population and travel time weighted terms, from which driverless trucks can be dispatched in the dead of night to distribute or pick up goods and you probably end up with a spot just north of the Bombay Hills.
Rather limply the plan says that it is necessary to hang onto industrial areas, while more industrial land (or more correctly perhaps more space for land intensive employment - think big sheds) will be identified as part of structure planning for greenfields. But my experience tells me that without strong direction, this will not happen in greenfields. But it has to happen, if urban Auckland is to continue to redevelop.
Has the plan forgotten its roots?
Finally, but not least, has the plan lost its ‘spatial-ness’
The Auckland Plan is an odd mix of strategic planning and spatial planning. The refresh looks like it down plays its spatial component, but reference back to the guiding legislation shows that the plan is, first and foremost, supposed to be a spatial plan. Here is section 79 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. That section says that the Council must prepare and adopt a Spatial Plan, not a strategic plan.
The spatial plan must—
recognise and describe Auckland’s role in New Zealand; and
visually illustrate how Auckland may develop in the future, including how growth may be sequenced and how infrastructure may be provided; and
provide an evidential base to support decision making for Auckland, including evidence of trends, opportunities, and constraints within Auckland; and
identify the existing and future location and mix of—
(i) residential, business, rural production, and industrial activities within specific geographic areas within Auckland; and
(ii) critical infrastructure, services, and investment within Auckland (including, for example, services relating to cultural and social infrastructure, transport, open space, water supply, wastewater, and stormwater, and services managed by network utility operators); and
identify nationally and regionally significant—
(i) recreational areas and open-space areas within Auckland; and
(ii) ecological areas within Auckland that should be protected from development; and
(iii) environmental constraints on development within Auckland (for example, flood-prone or unstable land); and
(iv) landscapes, areas of historic heritage value, and natural features within Auckland; and
(f) identify policies, priorities, land allocations, and programmes and investments to implement the strategic direction and specify how resources will be provided to implement the strategic direction.
Does the refresh do all of the above? In particular, is it clear about environmental constraints and landscapes and natural features that need to be protected? Is the development strategy too much about where growth should go, rather than about where it should not go? If the plan is going to struggle to get growth to go into the areas it thinks growth should go to because of a lack of effective tools, then the plan needs to be very clear about the areas where growth is to be avoided. I think it is time to be very clear about the ‘no go’ areas on the edges of the city, especially with the rubbery RUB of the Unitary Plan now in place.
