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?

LRT and transport / land use integration

Proposals to run light rail between Auckland CBD and the airport have been in the news with the Labour-led government saying that it is a priority. So too does Auckland Council, but its not clear who is going to put up the funding.

An interesting question is whether LRT to the airport is a  'pet' transport project in search of some land uses to fund it, or some hoped for land uses in search of a transport system to support them. I am never that sure when plans talk about land use / transport integration they mean  land uses should integrate with the transport system; or does the transport system need to integrate with the land use!

The preferred LRT route goes down Dominion Road, then along SH 20 to Onehunga and across Manukau harbour to follow alongside SH 20 and SH 20A to the airport. This is a transport investment that the Auckland Plan does signal as being helpful for land use intensification along the corridor, so it is not just about getting from the airport into town. In fact when you read the reports, the genesis of the project seems to more about relieving pressure on the central area from too many buses trying to get in and out at the same time. High capacity transit on Dominion Road will take out some buses and it is relatively easy to run LRT into the central area along Ian Mckinnon Drive and Queen Street, compared to trying to bring LRT in from Mt Eden Road or Manukau Road via Symonds Street.  Well, at least that is what I took from scanning the Central Area Access Strategy (note 1)

As one report puts it: "For bus operational and cost reasons it was concluded that LRT would first be built on Dominion Road and Sandringham Road, with other corridors not required until an unspecified later date". At some point the airport LRT link seems to have been added from the bottom of Dominion Road, replacing previous proposals for heavy rail to the airport. Now the project is transforming itself into a city shaping project.

The fact that the transport project is morphing into a land use project is not surprising, given unknown funding. Apparently Minister Twyford has spoken about the possibilities for public-private partnerships, value capture uplift in areas benefiting from rezoning and transport infrastructure investment and/or area-based rating schemes to help fund the project. Some sort of "Special Purpose Vehicle" to finance the project is possible.

Down Dominion Road, LRT will  apparently run in the existing road corridor in the two central lanes, leaving the two side lanes for cars, buses, trucks and cyclists. I dont think there will be any kerb side parking.  At stations, there will be build outs of footpaths so there is only two lanes. Other traffic may just have to wait for LRT services to stop and drop off and pick up people (just like the trams of old) before they pass through. 

LRT is not the only option for access to the airport. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is also an option. I think the idea of BRT would be that the buses would run along the outside lanes, which would be dedicated bus lanes 24/7. BRT may not be cheaper than LRT. BRT may require a lot more land along corridors to fit in 'in-set' bus stops  designed so that buses that do not want to or need to stop can get pass buses that are stopped, without the through bus moving into the central lanes.

Which is better from a land use perspective - LRT or BRT? The greater Auckland website listed the following differences between LRT and BRT:

LRT is better where:

• Corridors with particularly high bus volumes and projected future demand
• Corridors serving constrained, high-amenity locations where expanding road space for extra capacity, loading or turnaround facilities is particularly difficult
• Corridors with lots of good opportunities for transit oriented developments and intensification.

Bus Rapid Transit is better where:

• Lower demand corridors and those serving less constrained locations
• Corridors where there is huge value in being able to implement an improvement incrementally and leverage off existing infrastructure
• Corridors with less opportunity for transit oriented development and intensification.

The differences in terms of land uses interest me.

In simple terms, you might say that LRT helps to concentrate land uses along the corridors served. In contrast, BRT tends to support more dispersed land use patterns in the wider area served. The way I like to look at it is like this:  LRT runs on a defined corridor that has a start and a finish. It also uses defined stops. If the LRT is fast and serves many employment, educational and recreational activities, then being close to the LRT line (ie about 400m) is better than living further away from the line. What is more, the fixed line and stations provides certainty to land uses that the LRT will be there for the long term. There is even a theory that due to the investment in fixed assets required, no public agency is going to walk away from the LRT service once installed, even if it is not very profitable to run.

In contrast BRT systems tend to work by a number of bus services from a wider area joining the BRT line at various points. The BRT line is not necessarily the start or the finish of the bus trip. There may be transfers from feeder services to line haul type services, or services may just leave the BRT line and get onto local streets. Either way, the transport benefits tend to be more widespread than LRT (ie less concentrated and more spread out over a wider area). Also there is often a question mark over the longevity of a BRT system. Will bus services be taken off or re-routed at some point? Will the green paint get removed?. This may dampen some excitement over land use benefits.

Of course in both cases, to help stimulate and support land use development, both systems need to provide some sort of transport benefit. It will not make much difference to people’s locational choices if a shiny new LRT service takes just as long as the clunky old bus it replaces, in terms of travel times from A to B. It is also necessary to have some latent demand to unlock. LRT is probably not going to turn around a declining area by itself. At least we do have lots of housing demand in the area.

What either transport option does for the environment along a corridor is not very clear.  LRT sounds good, but the carriages may be up to 66m long. Nevertheless, for some reason LRT seems to fit better with shared space type arrangements than buses, perhaps because capacity is greater, so services are not so frequent. Buses will be frequent and occupy the kerb side lane - never great for pedestrians or cyclists.

If one of the benefits of light rail, compared to the alternative of bus rapid transit, is the support that light rail provides to land use development along corridors, then that extra development may help to off-set some the effects from loss of parking and the like for small businesses along the corridor, ie much more local foot traffic. BRT may not be so kind to local businesses, as benefits to land uses are more widely dispersed.

Bring in funding issues and LRT begins to look better than BRT. Due to the geographical concentration of benefits from the LRT line, it is easier to ascribe a connection between the transport investment and uplift in land values, sale prices, rents and turnover. Getting lots of growth to happen close to LRT stations will be very important if Minister Twyford is going to fund the project by targeted rates, value capture and the like through his "SPiV" (Special Purpose Vehicle).

So a lot depends upon the land use pattern that will integrate with the transit system. If LRT is the preferred mode, then there are some pretty important implications to work through.

As the LRT reports on AT website notes, ‘this area is highly dependent upon the Auckland Council Unitary Plan permitting increases in density in the vicinity of LRT (or BRT) stops. It is imperative that the policy framework supports the delivery of these benefits otherwise projected wider economic benefits will not be realised. Most case studies of transit schemes that have achieved economic uplift have included frameworks for increasing land use density near them. Conversely, transit investments that did not include such frameworks have often failed to achieve an economic uplift e.g. Sheffield Supertram”.

You would therefore think having some sort of idea of future growth potential would be very important to the decisions around LRT. Should the LRT route be looked at more from the point of view of the potential for land use intensification,  than what route is the easiest to stick some tracks down?

It is useful to look at possible LRT routes between Onehunga and the Central Area. There is really only one route from Onehunga south to the airport. In terms of the airport to Onehunga leg, a route beside a motorway is never a great starting point from a land use perspective, but I guess that is the only realistic route?

From Onehunga north to the Central Area, the preferred route is a dog leg route  west along SH 20 then north along Dominion Road. But this is not the only choice.  The Central Area Access Strategy also says Manukau Road could have LRT in the future, but getting LRT into the heart of the central area (through Newmarket and Symonds Street) is a bit too complex, so best start with Dominion Road services. But would Manukau Road be a better bet for land use intensification along the corridor and key points like Newmarket, Onehunga and what is beginning to get going around Greenlane (like the Alexandra Park development)?  A Manukau Road route may be shorter and faster (therefore more of a accessibility benefit) and may be able to support more land use intensification.


As an aside, the Airport to CBD study looked at two different BRT routes from Onehunga into the Central Area (Manukau Road and Dominion Road), but only one LRT route (Dominion Road). This was because previous decisions said that Dominion Road was to be first cab off the rank. Does that feel a bit lopsided?



So at the moment, Dominion Road is the preferred route. Sure enough, the Auckland Plan refresh shows a ‘development area’ down Dominion Road. But is looks pretty spindly.

The following is from the Auckland Plan refresh

A light rail service along Dominion Road would act as a catalyst for development around future stations. The area has a number of established centres, including Balmoral and Valley Roads, with large amounts of mixed use along the corridor. There are good bus routes with high levels of established public transport patronage as well as some cycle connections to the city. There is feasible capacity of approximately 1,800 dwellings which could increase following the completion of light rail.

Mmmmm.. 1,800 dwellings doesn’t sound like much. Of course this is not the only area that will be served. There is Onehunga itself and Mt Roskill / Three Kings is also a likely redevelopment area. But then Three Kings Quarry is being developed now.  The Auckland Plan shows no development area around Mt Roskill. Surely there needs to be a big node at the southern end of the Dominion Road route to help anchor this 'pivot point' on the route?

Benefits of LRT to the development of Onehunga, the largest potential 'node' away from the central area, will be very dependent upon travel time benefits, both north and south. If you were a resident of Onehunga would you be very happy with the dog leg route of the LRT into the central area? You may just stick to the normal bus route.

What do the numbers say? Well this is where it is hard to get a handle on possibilities.

The South-Western Multi-modal Airport Rapid Transit Study (draft 2016) (Note 2) has some numbers in it. This report looked at LRT via the Dominion Road route versus BRT on the Manukau Road route. From Onehunga to the airport, the route was basically the same.

Travel time are listed as follows to / from mid town (the new Aotea Station on the Central Rail Link) to the airport:

• LRT (via Dominion Rd): 38-41 minutes assuming 80km per hour on ‘segregated sections’ of the line
• BRT: (via Manukau Rd) 40 minutes.

I dont know why there is a range for LRT and not for BRT.

There is no breakdown of travel times from Onehunga north, nor any comparative stats of travel time for LRT on Manukau Road, or BRT on Dominion Road.

The Manukau Road route is about 2km shorter than the Dominion Road route, by my rough calculation.  So using average travel times, maybe Manukau Road would be quicker for LRT than Dominion Road (but then there is more ‘road running’ on the Manukau Road route. From Onehunga, the Dominion Road LRT route hugs SH 20 for part of the way and can presumably zip along this section).

Currently,  the journey times for the airport Airbus from the airport to the city is reported to be between 48 minutes and 53 minutes, so a 40 minute trip is a healthy saving and should be reflected in increased demand for housing and business space near the final corridor.

But what about land uses? Which route offers the better set of circumstances for intensification?

The 2016 Multi-modal study has some numbers in terms of people and employment in the catchment of the stations, as of 2013, but the numbers look a bit shonky. Plus it is a static picture.

If you look at the Unitary Plan zonings, and compare the two routes, then Manukau Road looks a bit more positive for on-going redevelopment than Dominion Road. Dominion Road looks like it has quite a bit of Single House zoning  until you get to SH 20, while for Manukau Road, the Single House zoning is more to the side of the corridor  The  map below shows Single House zoned sites in yellow and the two corridors.

At the opposite end of the residential density spectrum, the following map shows Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zoning.

Using my trusty (more like rusty) GIS skills, I have compiled the following table of Unitary Plan zonings for land 1km either side of the Dominion Road and Manukau Road routes, from the edge of the Central Area to Onehunga. The figures are hectares.  I did not count all the different zones, just the main ones. I also did not look at issues of accessibility and walkable catchments to specific stations, I just took a simple 1km buffer either side of the route (not the stations). A more detailed look may say that some land on the southern side of SH 20 is not easily accessible to LRT stations on the northern side, for example. Nor have I turned on the 'Overlays' and looked at what constraints exist like heritage listings and volcanic viewshafts.

AUP Zone	Dominion Road	Manukau Road
SHZ	357.7	252.3
MHS	415.6	265.8
MHU	382.7	152.1
THAB	206.8	237.6
Mixed Use	180.4	204.1
Town Centre	38.6	41.8
Metro centre	0	45.2
Industry	69.7	29.1
Open Space	251.8	315.5

Overall,  the Dominion Road route covers more land than the Manukau Road route, being longer.
But Dominion Road has more Single House zone than Manukau Road. Manukau Road has more Terrace Housing and Apartment zoning , Mixed Use and centre-type zoning - all zoning that supports intensive residential development. The Manukau Road corridor also has more open space zone land along it, something that may be attractive to apartment type developments.

Dominion Road does have a bigger pool of mixed housing zoning, especially its southern leg through Mt Roskill / Three Kings.

 It would be good to correlate the two routes with the land values that I have previously developed in my trigger point blogs.

To the left  is a 'heat' map from Auckland Council's GIS showing land values per square metre around the northern part of the Onehunga to city corridor. This data is based on 2014 valuation data so a bit out of date, but the pattern may still be ok. The redder the colour, the higher the land value. Interestingly, the eastern (Manukau Road) side of the isthmus looks like it has higher average land values than the central part.






So there is some interesting choices here in terms of land use redevelopment. The Manukau Road  route looks like it would support more apartment type development, and while having a smaller overall ‘redevelopment’ footprint along the corridor because of the shorter route, there may be more housing units overall. And these units would better suit an urban form of taller buildings close to the corridor.

Dominion Road’s real benefit for land uses is its southern leg and the options for medium density development along the SH 20 corridor, given its northern section is so constrained by heritage areas. But is there much new capacity in this southern section? LRT may well lift property prices along the Dominion Road route, but will it be enough to support the redevelopment of sites near a major motorway corridor on the south side of a ridge? And what of Mt Roskill area,  are there options for significant rezonings in this area?

And what about the lower income households that may get displaced by any resulting gentrification? Are there going to be positive options for them to stay? Would that gentrification choke off further redevelopment? Is there enough open space to support good quality intensification and redevelopment?

I think the principle of LRT on key arterials  in the central Isthmus is great and hopefully in the long run we are likely to get LRT services on both routes - Dominion Road and Manukau Road. Which one to start with? This needs some serious analysis. I would pick the one that has the best chance of succeeding, in the short to medium term, in supporting and enabling good quality redevelopment along the corridor that can help fund the required infrastructure. To do that, there have to be transport benefits. If the funding loop cannot be closed early, then I get the feeling that funding for more LRT lines will soon dry up.


Note 1: https://at.govt.nz/media/1913570/cap-programme-business-case.pdf
Note 2: https://at.govt.nz/media/1927342/draft-smart-indicative-business-case.pdf

Houses, flats and apartments (4) - the evolution of the middle

A further post on the 'middle' and the resurrection of sausage block flats.

The middle -

medium density in the middle ring of suburbs - has got to get going if Auckland is to stop spreading out. So far I have looked at building permit data which suggest a growing  middle market - townhouses, units and terraces around the 100 square metres of floorspace mark on smaller plots of land. These type of units are more affordable than (non shoe box) apartments or stand alone houses.  But they also represent the most expensive category of house on a per square metre of floorspace basis. As someone said (cant remember who) you get half the size of a  stand alone house for two thirds the price. So some competition and more players in the field may help.

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?

Auckland Plan refresh (2)

This is a short post with an update of 'where the money is going'.

In my last post I looked at the Auckland Plan refresh and the associated Long Term Plan (the 10 year budget), and asked the question as to whether the two plans are aligned. 

Having looked at the Long Term Plan in a bit more detail, it is useful to compare projected capital expenditure in the 2018 long term plan with the projections in the 2015 version of the same plan. Have priorities changed due to the Auckland Plan refresh or the Unitary Plan being settled, for example? 

The following are the 30 year projections of capital expenditure, by infrastructure, for the 2015 and 2018 long term plans. The numbers are billions of dollars. Running a city is not cheap!  

Table 1: Total 30 year projected expenditure by infrastructure type ($ billions)

Infrastructure type	2015 plan	2018 plan
Roads	16.8	26.3
PT	6.8	18.6
Wastewater	10.9	10.2
Water	9.6	9.6
Stormwater	3.9	4.5
Community	11.1	13.9
Total	59.1	83.1

The graph of the above figures looks like this. 

Figure 2: 30 year Capital Expenditure $ Billions

Total projected capital expenditure has increased by $24 Billion for the 30 year projection period, between the two plans. This extra expenditure has been identified in the 3 years between the plans. What gives? Is this increase in response to the rapid population growth experienced over the past 3 years; the plan to open up a lot of greenfields land for housing; a shift in priorities; or just a better idea of what is needed? Is it all of the above?

Interestingly, other council documents like the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy  (see this blog) identified the need for $20 billion dollars of infrastructure for greenfields areas, although that figure included NZTA spending on motorways. 

What sticks out is the huge increase in spending on 'roads’. Passenger transport also gets a big lift in investment and as an infrastructure class, sees the biggest percentage increase. Roads don’t just carry cars, they also provide space for buses, trucks and cyclists, so it not like the budget is all about ‘cars, cars, cars'. But due to the large investment in both roads and passenger transport, the combined transport categories now take up over 50% of the capital expenditure. As the graph shows, not much else changes. 

The following is the 10 year projection, again in billions of dollars. The 10 year budget allows for a bit more of a break down of the ‘community’ infrastructure category in the 30 year projection. 

Table 2: 10 year capital expenditure ($ Billions)

Infrastructure type	2015-25	2018-28
Transport	7.9	12
3 Waters	5.6	7
Parks and Community	2.4	2.6
Centres development	1	0.3
Other	1.8	1.8
Total	18.7	23.7

Here is the graph….

Figure 2: 10 year projected capital expenditure ($ Billions)

As I said in my last blog, it seems wrong that infrastructure that would add real amenity to an intensifying city - like more and better parks and open spaces, improved town and local centres and associated public spaces - gets so little investment. 

Once again, we seem to be letting transport investment dominate development and spending. Some of that investment will be helpful to the pattern of development suggested by the Auckland Plan refresh. But you do wonder about the mix between roads and passenger transport, and between these two classes of investment and the 'softer' infrastructure that is so important.

The worry is that the lift in investment in transport between the two plans reflects the work of AT and central government in identifying and planning for the future transport needs of a larger, more expansively developed city.  Good on them for doing this work. But has the same level of analysis and planning gone into identifying the 'soft' infrastructure needed, especially in the existing urban area? My guess would be: no. And that is why the above figures for community infrastructure essentially 'flat line' between the two budgets. Hopefully I'm wrong.

What gets funded, gets built. What is not funded, does not happen.

Auckland Plan refresh and the missing middle

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:

1. Investment to help stimulate urban redevelopment
2. Investment to support and follow along after market-led development
3. 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.