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?