A further post on the 'middle' and the resurrection of sausage block flats.
I have also looked at other cities like Montreal that emphasize middle level type densities. They are a typology that can provide very liveable communities. The Auckland Plan refresh also suggests that redevelopment on the middle ring of suburbs is likely and needs to be given a push along. The middle ring doesn't have the heritage constraints present in the inner ring, while middle ring suburbs sit between the central employment hub of the city centre and the peripheral employment areas to the north and south, so provide good accessibility to jobs. There is also a reasonable amount of open space in these areas and often good access to coastal areas so density around amenity is possible (a market winning strategy).
I know the term 'sausage flats' is not very flattering and may be taken to mean that I don't like them. But that is not the case. The issue is more of how to get the best out of them.
Time to look in more detail at the urban design issues present. Here it is interesting to speculate a bit on the evolution of infill housing in the city.
If we take an imaginary residential street of 800m2 sections (20m wide by 40m deep) and step along that street with different types of infill housing, then we might get the following. (I know, my Sketch Up skills are pretty limited!).
To the far left is the standard single dwelling on the the large section with the garage at the back. A rare sight these days. Next along to the right is a 1960s sausage block - single storey, perhaps 3 or 4 units occupying about 40% of the site. Generally the buildings were in the middle of the site with a driveway down one side. Third along and we have the single level infill of the 70s and 80s.Here, minimum densities have come into play. The house at the front may have been the original house with the infill unit added at the back. Next along (fourth from the left) and minimum lot sizes have reduced in area, so two units can be added at the back. In this case the units are two storeys.
From the street, this transition sees a bit of change in character, but all the housing is kind of aligned to the same grid, being perpendicular to the street. This alignment hides the new density at the back of the sites, but starts to generate neighbour to neighbour issues. However given that development is two storeys at most and spaced out a bit on the site, maybe impacts are not too bad. More dwellings have been fitted in with upsetting too much the character of the street (and perhaps the neighbourhood).
Now comes the fun part. Fifth along, with the removal of minimum densities (but with outlook and open space and landscaping requirements), a two storey block of flats is now possible. The same grain of development is maintained with development side on to the street. My Sketch Up model is not 100% accurate but the basic outline is there. The driveway and outlook areas all sit to one side. Not much of a back yard remains.What is next in this evolution?
Three storeys is the obvious next step. Take the same 'grid' as the previous two storey development and go up one level. Simple
At this point, the question arises as to whether the grain of development needs to pivot so that the main bulk of the building is at the front of the site, parallel to the street, not perpendicular to the street.
This is what the mock up of the last three sites tries to explore.
What I am basically saying is, is it time to make a trade off between more bulk at the front of the site but more open space at the back?
If you occupied the single level house between the two units, which typology better provides for your amenity? The side on block to the left which overlooks all of your site, or the 'end on' block to the right which has less of a sense of overlooking?
If you lived in the flats, which offers the better outlook? Even with a 6m outlook space there is potential for a similar set of flats to go on the single house site to the right of the side on units. The flats orientated to the street would have outlook over the street or the back yard, while the side on units end up with a 'backs-to-fronts' muddle.
Of course there are pros and cons. The flats orientated to the street fill most of the front part of the section. There would be more shadowing of the front part of the neighbouring sites. But the back yard is clear of buildings, so perhaps a sunnier back yard than might otherwise be the case.
Where do the garages go in the flats that are orientated to the street - at the back, or the front? If the front, is the ground floor facing the street all garages? If the at the back, how do you get access?
What would the internal living areas be like in the two different models?
What about trees and 'green space'. With the flats side on to the street there is still potential for trees and vegetation to fill the side boundaries and for there to be views from the street of the trees between buildings. In the flats that are aligned to the street, the trees and vegetation at the back is more hidden from the street, but may create more amenity for the occupants and neighbouring sites.
In short, infill and redevelopment has been managed to date by trying to fit in more housing without upsetting too many outcomes - neighbourhood character doesn't change that much when viewed from the street, neighbours don't loose too much of their amenity, while the on-site amenity created is constrained, but not too bad. Everything gets compromised a bit more each step up in the development 'ladder'.
But is it time to rethink this classic strategy of 'compromise all round' given the prospect of a new round of more intense infill happening?
