Enabling More Homes in Waitemata
A step towards smarter more enabling housing poicies! Yesterday, the local board (which includes a mix of C&R and City Vision, progressives and conservatives) unanimously backed a replacement plan change to Plan Change 78 which enables significantly more homes across Waitemata. The mid-density residential standards with its one-size-fits-all approach to enable three 3-storey homes on every site in the region, even in flood plains or eroding cliffs, has been rejected in order to enable more density close to transport and in walkable catchments of centres.
But the changes mean more buildings up to 50 meters outside the city centre. These heights make sense in metropolitan centres, on main bus corridors (Great North Road is going to be exciting to watch) and in mixed use areas with a legacy of office buildings and light industry, less so in the middle of a special character area, with steep hills or inadequate infrastructure. We have pushed back on some of the anomolies. And there remains a lot of the isthmus in which three storey row housing continue to be the the easiest type of housing to deliver with all the issues they bear of poor outlook and/or overlooking and shading neighbouring development.
To make up for the recommended removal of 50m zoning in some places, we are asking the governing body to do more to enable 4-6 storey housing across the whole metropolitan area, , where there is good public transport and away from hazards. Our goal is to create livable, walkable neighborhoods with more green spaces, even if they're on rooftops or balconies. We're advocating for enabling perimeter blocks, which create more usable courtyards and active street fronts, in preference to sausage flats or the shoebox apartment buildings of the past. We want good options for every age and stage. We don’t need swathes of lock’n’leaves or apartments as investment vehicles. (Investment in productive business please!)
The process has been a scramble, with limited public consultation, which is far from ideal. In fact, it's an outrageously poor process. This kind of rapid, top-down decision-making often misses the mark. It's a missed opportunity to engage a broader range of voices and create a truly inclusive vision for our city. In the long run, a precinct approach focused on developing neighborhoods with a mix of housing, amenities, and public spaces would likely deliver more homes in a more coherent and well-designed way.
Looking ahead, we're hopeful that the upcoming AUP refresh will be an opportunity to get this right. We can and should be able to deliver more homes without sacrificing quality. This might allow conversations about whether the balance of special character is right. I do think taking a preservationist approach is valuable in some areas but it might also be that some residents who want to take the Houston approach and decide together they prefer to release the value of the land. Others may be nervous about what this means. Form codes and pattern books would build confidence. We can start by demonstrating how good mid-density can be in Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zones. Ultimately, we want thoughtful densification that is easy to deliver and includes ample trees, less overshadowing, and plenty of usable outdoor space for everyone. The future of our city depends on getting these details right.
What we have done this week though is a step towards delivering a lot more homes, and those currently locked out of the housing market have genuine cause to be hopeful. All the other local boards will be providing their feedback and then it is over to the Governing Body to make their decision.