Productivity Commission report: low emissions economy

A few quick reflections on the Productivity Commission's draft report  on a low emission economy. (Note 1)

First up, why does the report  say ‘economy’, not ‘society’ or ‘country’? Sounds like we just need to make a few economic adjustments (for example, better price carbon), otherwise we can carry on as normal. Perhaps that reflects the basis of the report - apparently the Government asked the Commission to identify options for how New Zealand can reduce its domestic greenhouse gas emissions through a transition to a low-emissions economy, while at the same time continuing to grow income and wellbeing.

But of course the report does not say that only a few adjustments are needed. Rather, there are big changes needed that will affect incomes, wellbeing and communities.  Feels a bit like a mountain to climb. Four big actions are noted:

1. getting emissions pricing right, to send the right signals for investment;
2. harnessing the full potential of innovation and supporting investment in low-emissions activities and technologies;
3. creating laws and institutions that endure over time and act as a commitment device for future governments; and
4. ensuring other supportive regulations and policies are in place (including to encourage an inclusive transition).

Do any of these big changes relate to urban planning?

Changes to urban form to encourage lower emissions are given short shift by the Commission. Not surprising given previous reports from the Commission on  miss-behaving planners and urban designers. The low emissions report says: “Overall, evidence reveals modest emissions reductions associated with a transition to more compact urban forms, provided that this occurs in tandem with changes such as improvements in accessibility and public transport. However, rigidly enforced, urban planning policies that seek to contain growth can be detrimental to housing affordability and run counter to the housing and location preferences of most New Zealanders. In addition, achieving increases in the type of density that reduces vehicle travel is not straightforward. The process is gradual, so any material benefits are likely to take decades to eventuate”.

There is also the normal rider that cities are all too complex to manage other than by way of efficient markets, but let’s not worry about that comment.

I tend to agree with the Productivity Commission that urban form changes can be slow, and by themselves may not amount to much in terms of lower emissions.

But on the other side of the coin, correctly pricing carbon suggests big, and potentially rapid (disruptive even)  changes for households and businesses. The report rather shyly notes:

The mitigation policies recommended in this report could increase the costs of household energy, food and transport.

Change transport costs and urban form changes. Increase other costs and money available for housing shrinks, all else being equal. If transport costs go up, and money available for housing goes down, then expect households to want smaller sections and houses closer to public transport. Sounds like compact city.

Of course, we all might switch to electric vehicles, so higher petrol costs don’t matter; while less restrictive planning schemes will reduce land costs for housing, so some higher energy and food costs don't matter either.

What about electric vehicles? Elsewhere, others have noted that the domestic electricity grid that serves most homes is not set up to have all houses in a street recharging their vehicles overnight.  For example, this is from Vector (see Note 2):

"the amount of power required to charge an EV with a long-distance battery, at home in the suburbs, would put a strain on existing infrastructure. The perception that networks can absorb the uptake of EV charging is only true for the short term while batteries have a short-range capability, customers are satisfied with long charging times and chargers are evenly distributed across the network".

An electric bus fleet may be more likely. But a bus network that meets 50% or 60% of trip demands is a lot different from the network that we have today.  There will have to be a degree of clustering of homes and businesses into a multi nodal city for a network to work - less of the current dispersed pattern of home and work places , but not as concentrated as some might contend.

But wait, there is more. The Commission’s report notes that: “Transport has been the biggest contributor to New Zealand’s rising emissions over the last thirty years. Yet, the wide range of mitigation options already available for transport means it can play a greater role than other emitting sources in achieving a low-emissions economy”.

“More broadly, investment skewed towards roading and a failure to price negative externalities from private vehicle use has led to high private vehicle travel and inefficient vehicle choices. More cost-reflective pricing of vehicle externalities would lead to more efficient and lower emission outcomes. Finally, with a level playing field for investment in infrastructure, the transport system would better support rather than stifle shifts towards low-emission modes”.

So travel by private vehicle may be priced more highly for other reasons and less and less new road space built for cars. It is a double whammy - higher prices and less road space. This is quite a fundamental shift.  This may be especially so for our mid sized cities - places like Dunedin, Tauranga and Hamilton, even Napier and Hastings, places without the critical mass to support good quality, frequent public transport.

What about building design and things like heating? Any pressure there to change urban form? Here I also have to agree with the Commission that building design may have less of an influence on green house gas emission than other measures. For example, there is some evidence that taller buildings consume more energy than low rise buildings (think lifts and pumps and lighting and heating of common areas like hallways and lobbies in apartments), while the larger roof area of stand alone dwellings versus people accommodated mean there is more scope for energy needs to be met by solar power, for example. Steel and concrete are ( I think) more carbon intensive building products than wood.

So a bit of a tension here between different transport modes and urban forms.   Perhaps there is a meeting in the middle - 3 or 4 storey wooden apartment buildings built to conserve and generate energy, structured around a bus-based transport network. Space will also need to be found to grow food and manage wastes in less energy intensive ways. So also big changes in open space networks?

In short, urban form will respond to a high carbon price / low GHG emission society and to be fair the Commission aren’t against the planning system accommodating these ‘consumer-driven’ changes.

To me, what is more at issue is the potential contradiction with other outcomes identified by the Commission for urban planning and affordable housing; actions like more greenfields land for housing and reducing the costs of housing by freeing up urban land markets, even if that means paving over some good vege growing land. If these ‘cost reducing’ actions are taken at the same time as the measures to fully price carbon, then good. But if they are not, and the carbon price bit comes later, then there is the real prospect of a ‘shot in the arm’ for poor urban form (low density car dependent subdivisions) just before the costs of this approach start to skyrocket. This is a recipe for a major government liability.

Moreover,  it is interesting that in other areas of the economy, the Commission notes the need for countervailing policies and actions (actions to slow the high carbon ship and to lessen the costs of transition to a low carbon waka). For example: 

“The transition to a low-emissions economy will require policies that lean against path dependencies that can lock-in polluting technologies and patterns of production. These dependencies arise from market size, scale economies, the cumulative nature of knowledge, network effects, sunk investments and political pressures from vested interests.”

To my mind most urban development falls into the path dependent categories listed (market scale, sunk investments, vested interests). So in one area of the economy there is a need to help with a transition (a plan even!),  but in another it can be left to the market. This is not to say that compact urban development should be ‘forced’, as there is a difference between help and compunction, but you would have thought that the Commission could have come up with a bit more of a considered response as to how urban areas will need to transition and the different tools and techniques needed.

I get the feeling that they got trapped by their previous reports.

Note 1: https://www.productivity.govt.nz/sites/default/files/Productivity%20Commission_Low-emissions%20economy_Draft%20report_FINAL%20WEB%20VERSION.pdf

Note 2: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/102240245/power-network-may-struggle-to-deal-with-electric-vehicles

Houses, flats and apartments (5) - the muddle in the middle

More on the 'middle' - medium density housing in the middle ring of suburbs and the return of the sausage.

I don't think Auckland has a missing middle to its density profile; I think the issue is more of a muddle as to how to manage the steady upwards shift in density in the middle.  We need to look 10 to 20 years ahead and work out how to accommodate more density across large swaths of the city, as we finish off one super cycle of  economic activity and start to enter another cycle.

The old way of managing infill and site-by-site redevelopment may have run its course. Hopes of some sort of publicly-initiated, grand redevelopment of whole suburbs that can replace the old methods of incremental infill will never get traction. So site-by-site redevelopment will continue to occur. Will the sausage block return or is there a new middle way for the middle?

It is interesting to look back at the analysis done for the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan as to possible development typologies in  the Mixed Housing zones. Was the plan alive to the issue of the modern day sausage block?

A number of different lots sizes and layouts were modelled. I want to look at the larger lot size, which is more conducive to a modern day sausage block.

Below are some  images from work Council presented to the Independent Hearings Panel. The 1,000 sqm hypothetical lot is a bit of an odd shape, but never mind.

The building itself can't be more than about 6m wide, given the driveway and turning area is about 7m wide and the open space areas 4m deep, leaving 6m out of the 17m lot width to build on. A 6m wide building seems a bit narrow, but never mind.  What is interesting in the concept, three blocks of two units, with gaps in between. Driveway down one side and outdoor living areas the other side.

And here is the three storey version, which is just the two storey model lifted up one floor.

The idea of the breaks between the groups of buildings was probably trying to address the possibility of sausage blocks.  The proposed Unitary Plan described these breaks as managing the length of buildings to visually integrate then into the surrounding neighbourhood.

That idea did not pass the scrutiny of the IHP Panel.

The funny little cut outs on the ground floor provide for the required 6m outlook area from the main living area. More than likely,  outlook areas will be positioned so that they extend over the driveway (being a space about 6m wide in most cases), allowing the building to spread out more on one side.

What is more, the modelled building only occupies 27% of the site area, not the 40% possible under the proposed rules.  Also interesting are the notes to the left of the diagram (sorry, the above scan is hard to read). These notes say that there are design criteria that will ensure that the building addresses the street and that the building's form will be modulated. Some hope.

So what was presented was a slender, broken up sausage, which doesn't look like a very realistic prospect.

Taking a step back, perimeter block layout is kind of the preferred layout of medium density development -  keep the buildings hugging the street edge of the block, forming a  built perimeter; keep the interior of the perimeter as green, private space.  Even the Auckland Design Manual refers to this as a preferred form:

All buildings should have a public front and a private back. It is better to align buildings with public streets or open space and create a defined street edge, and to maximise back to back distances with other buildings. This pattern of development allows for ‘perimeter blocks’ which reinforce the street edge and maximise the available open space within the centre of the block.



But is this urban form suitable for Auckland's hills and its steep sided valleys and ridge lines? Perhaps on the flatter areas?  

The Proposed Unitary Plan took  a number of steps to promote more of a perimeter block layout.

An alternative height in relation to boundary control was introduced as an option which allowed more bulk at the front of the site. The diagram below shows the extra building form possible at the front although not all of this is exploited in the model.

But application of the alternative standard requires resource consent. Furthermore, there is no obvious link with keeping back yards clear of buildings (more bulk at the front, keep the green space at the back), you just end up with more bulk at the front and lots at the back. The alternative height in relation to boundary control now kind of languishes in a 'no mans' land.

The proposed plan also used minimum density controls. Those controls were manipulated to allow more dense development on sites with greater road frontage. Again this was designed to promote buildings fronting streets, rather than be 'side on'. But the density control got removed in the rush to provide capacity.

The requirement for an outlook area from the main living area could also be used to orientate buildings so that they either face the street or a generous back yard. A 6m deep outlook area is required, but that dimension means that more often than not, the 6m can be squeezed into a standard suburban site, as part of a side yard or over a driveway. 10m would be better, but calling it an 'outlook area' tends to imply it is about on-site amenity - if people want a compromised outlook, then that is their matter. Meanwhile rear yards can be as small as 1m.

So some half hearted proposals to address 'side on' development blocks were introduced, but some didn't last the distance, with others are only half baked. Hence, a bit of a muddle?