Posts by Graham Dunster
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Banished From The Universe just popped up in my inbox with a free download mixtape thingy - http://banishedfromtheuniverse.bandcamp.com/?utm_source=Human+Beings&utm_campaign=8122ad84f0-ALBUM_COMPILATION8_2_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_2cb5fcaa5a-8122ad84f0-89431821
-
Selling The Dream is a cool book, looking forward to getting this one too. Thanks for getting it made.
-
Southerly: Getting There is Half the Fun, in reply to Bart Janssen,
+1
-
Southerly: Getting There is Half the Fun, in reply to Emma Hart,
Amman?
Laughs heartily (but quietly).
Nah, it's not that bad, as long as you're not heading to Cairo or similar.
-
This post in the NBR, whilst not as amusing, still may have some merit - http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/christchurch-political-shambles-set-go-weekend-review-nk-142674
-
Hard News: Media3 will be away for a while, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
+1
-
My mate Geoff's feedback. (Mine's too long and boring):
This Plan is NOT entirely terrible.
It may be premature, it maybe too politically timed, it may be giving us incomplete information, and indeed not enough information to make truly informed decisions, but some of the concepts contained within it are very good.
1. This plan is TOO SOON. We are still living in Rodney Hide's Auckland. We haven't had a chance to look at the way the wards are divided, the nature of the Local Boards, until the census figures come out in December we don't even know how many people live in Auckland and where they live.
How can we plan properly if we notify something that's not even based on up to date information?
The boards of the CCO's are all Government appointees meaning they are not controlled by the Council. Aucklanders were never even asked if we wanted to be a Super City, it was foisted upon us. We are not living in an Auckland run by Auckland yet. Until we are, this plan is ahead of itself.
2. This plan is TOO RUSHED. With the Council refusing to extend the process it looks more and more like a Political Plan rather than something good for the residents and businesses. A robust, transparent plan should work for everyone, whatever the results of the upcoming Local Body elections.
3. This plan LACKS INFORMATION. How the existing infrastructure, some parts over 130 years old, will handle the new demands placed upon it is not explained.
4. This plan WITHHOLDS INFORMATION from the Public. The prime example is the mythical Urban Design Manual, a fabulous beast that was "(to be developed) by December 2012 to sit alongside the Unitary Plan"- from the Auckland Plan.
This has not happened. This essential piece of equipment to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated is slated for release in September 2013 at the the same time the Plan is notified.
Where is the democracy, the transparency? Any submissions in support of this unseen manual must seem naive in the extreme.
5. This plan MISSES IMPORTANT PARTS OF THE AUCKLAND PLAN. In his introduction (page 3) the Mayor himself states
"Each community will consider the appropriate degree of compactness and level of intensity that goes with this. Our emphasis is to build on local character, and to create vibrant, creative places and inclusive communities"
None of this is in the Unitary Plan, on the contrary- the Plan is supposed to be active just before the elections, the window for appeals has been shrunk and communities have no say in how they grow.
The Vancouver Plan, lauded by the UP Planning Team, has grass roots, "Community Led" development. This was very successful.
The Dutch have ‘Welstandscommissie’. Independent bodies, appointed by the council of each city, who advise the Council regarding building consents. Community members have places on these bodies ensuring local buy-in.
The Draft UP has no such democratic provisions. It needs them. 6. This plan DEGRADES BUILT HERITAGE.
Section 4 (Development Design) says "Dwellings should be designed and located to respect and complement the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood." It then contradicts itself with-
d. Development adjoining or across a road from an identified historic character area should be designed and located to respect rather than replicate the prevailing character of the area. Notwithstanding this, new and contemporary interpretations in form and detail may be used.
e. Development adjoining or across a road from scheduled historic heritage places should be designed and located to respect rather than replicate the key historic heritage design and location elements of that building. Notwithstanding this, new and contemporary designs may be used.
Which is it? Things are further confused by-
"The design of buildings should contribute to the local streetscape and sense of place by responding to the planned
future form and character of the surrounding area and significant natural landforms and landscape features." So we don't have to design to respond to our existing built form, but the planned future form must be respected?
Surely a time machine would be the only way to accomplish this.
The Urban Design Manual could even offer some clues. Unfortunately we are not allowed to see it during the submission period.
88% of Aucklanders regarded Heritage as Important or Very Important in a 2011 people's Panel survey. (Fig. 1) This plan effectively discounts that whopping majority.
Fig. 1 (sorry can't post diagrams...)
7. I support the CITY RAIL LINK. CRL now! Single most important transport project. We don't need another Harbour crossing (bridge or tunnel) we need the rail system to make sense. This above all else will save us. It
benefits everyone, especially Motorway users, as every person traveling by rail is one less car causing congestion. 8. I support the SKYPATH across the Harbour Bridge. This is the single most important cycling/ walking project.
9. In English please?
"4.1.3.5
“To determine the overall activity status of an activity, the user must review all the relevant provisions that apply to the site or proposed development, including the zone, Auckland-wide
provisions, and any relevant precincts or overlays. The most stringent activity status will apply unless the precinct or overlay specifically makes the same activity more enabling.”
10. The Heritage provisions border on useless. There is already an unofficial rule with AC that people are not allowed to build extensions in the style of the house (making a mockery of the current rules), but that it MUST be contemporary.
This alone accelerates the destruction of the built heritage that has survived thus far.
Not only should "matching" extensions be allowed, they should be encouraged. The PM163 Design Guidelines show very good examples of this.
These Design Guidelines also show how to build sensitively in heritage areas. See FIG 2
(sorry can't post diagrams...)
What we are getting increasingly is FIG 3.
(sorry can't post diagrams...)
This is a BAD OUTCOME whichever way it's measured. If we are getting this under the current rules, how much worse will it be under the new, weaker rules? (see point 6 above)
11. LOCAL FLAVOUR. Auckland is not an amorphous blob, it is a collection of villages each with their own history. There should be some variation in the future development potential of Metropolitan Centres, Town Centres and Local Centres based on their particular characteristics rather than blanket rules across all of these key centres.
12. Minimum Parking Requirements. Ditch them ALL.
13. ZONE BORDERS. Where the terrace/apartment zone butts up against other zones it will be possible for a neighbour to get consent for a 4-6 storey development without informing you, as there is no requirement for notification. This seems to be a complete lack of democracy.
14. HERITAGE OVERLAYS. Demolition consent for a pre 1944 house can still be sought, with heritage assessments provided by the developer. But with no notification, the decision will be made solely by council staff, with no input from neighbours, local boards, or community heritage groups. Most of the historic inner city suburbs haven’t yet had full heritage assessments, this is a one-sided process, and will still lead to significant heritage loss. -
Hard News: A plea for sanity on the…, in reply to J Browning,
"So I’ll ask the question again – what Strategy or Plan does the Unitary Plan correspond to?"
From the draft Auckland Unitary Plan:
The dUAP specifically states that the Auckland Plan sits at the top of the strategic framework and describes the 30-year vision of Auckland as the world’s most liveable city and provides the strategic direction for other council plans and strategies. It further states that the dUAP is Auckland’s key resource management document prepared under the RMA, and is one of the most critical parts of the strategic framework. It plays a key role in the successful implementation of the Auckland Plan, by identifying:
existing and future residential, business and industrial areas existing and future locations of critical and social infrastructure areas for protection significant to Auckland and New Zealand. (Part 1 Section 1.4)So if the government does water down the RMA then this will have a specifically deleterious effect on Auckland's future via the Plans.
-
Hard News: A plea for sanity on the…, in reply to Kumara Republic,
A capital gains tax to curb the seemingly never ending profits to be made by speculating in property would be a good start to make housing affordable.
-
Hard News: A plea for sanity on the…, in reply to Russell Brown,
Indeed, just wanted to clarify Tamara's post.
And who knows if things change during the process...