MARA leader Wayne Pearson says there was no need for the village upgrade to turn into the nightmare it has become

In the second part of our series on the village upgrade, Mt Albert Residents’ Association (MARA) chair Wayne Pearson has a message for Auckland Transport: If you’re going to do something, do it properly or not at all.

OPINION: It started with a hiss and a roar, the collective efforts of MARA, the community, the business association, the local board and others to drive for an upgrade to our village to not only provide a hub to rival neighbouring suburbs but to allow our local businesses to flourish.

We wanted something we could be proud of that would endure for generations, and there were many public consultations with the experts along the way, debating over right-hand turns, cycle lanes and pocket parks.

Then the real work began.

Disruption after disruption caused many delays and heaped more pressures on local businesses who were struggling to survive even in a normal economic environment, let alone one where their clientele couldn’t find a parking space for love or money.

The inner workings of the various local bodies created many of the issues, but throughout the process we believed from our meetings with Auckland Transport that they were trying to deliver on what they had promised.

However, what they promised and what has been delivered are now some distance apart. Even more so, what has been delivered falls well short of our expectations.

There are still many issues to be addressed but the biggest disappointment is that, from AT’s perspective, their job is done.

We at MARA have tried to keep in contact with the previous project manager. His reply has been that he no longer has any involvement and our queries should be addressed to the general inquiry line. We may as well shoot arrows into a black hole.

We successfully met with AT’s elected-member relationship manager but after what appeared to be a promising admission that there were still some issues that needed to be addressed, we were advised we should be working through our local board; AT could not provide a future point of contact for MARA. Interestingly, the local board’s position is that AT should be the ones responsible.

The passing of the buck from local body to local body is of no use to anyone. All it does is reinforces the frustrations people have with overly bureaucratic organisations whose role, it seems, is to complicate matters.

There was no need for this to turn into the nightmare that it has become.

Frustrations are spilling over on Facebook as light phasing and other issues receive regular updates. It’s clear the community has had enough.

People are avoiding our town centre to shop, they are looking to drive through side streets instead of using the main arterial routes because of the massive delays they experience, and are generally not happy with what has been created because it still looks like a work in progress.

It all leads to the question: Why at local government level does nobody put their hand up to accept responsibility to properly finish the job?

Surely there is someone with the foresight to take the bull by the horns and say, “You know what, this might not fit with our internal procedures but it makes a whole lot of practical sense — so let’s just do it.”

We all take that approach in our personal lives and in the world of commerce. Why should the only way forward appear to be forcing AT and the local board into a locked room together and not let them out until they’ve got an agreement on what should happen and who should take responsibility.

It’s all very well for AT to walk away; they don’t have to live here. Jacinda, this is your electorate and your community. And Melissa, can you say that walking through our village fills you with a sense of pride?

We need to have a village that will deliver not only on what was promised, but on what we want as well.

The pocket park is an abysmal cold concrete blight. We were promised colour and local artwork.

The traffic lights just don’t work and AT’s own congestion mapping clearly shows this (although, not surprisingly, it has been skewed to focus only on a few minor improvements).

There are still so many things to be finished off, such as parking, rubbish collection, issues around street dining, fixed seating, lighting to make the centre look inviting and so on.

In our view the old adage applies: if you are going to do something then do it properly or don’t do it at all.

Is the upgrade a good thing for Mt Albert? Some would say no, because of the disruption. But the upgrade was necessary if we were going to really help our village to take off.

Local businesses are a core element of our economic value and also drive non-tangible benefits like a community feeling when they have a town centre to be proud of.

We will keep pressuring AT, the local board, the council and our local politicians but we need your support to do so. Get involved, have your say and use us as your voice so we can co-ordinate to reach a solution we will be proud of.

The series so far:

Monday: It’s time for AT to keep its word

Tuesday: Business cry: we’ve been duped

Tomorrow: The local board has its say

Mt Albert was promised a town centre upgrade to be proud of. Instead, it is left with a concrete wasteland and, three months after the “opening”, Auckland Transport is still fiddling around. In the first of a series of perspectives to be published this week, Mt Albert Inc editor Bruce Morris argues it’s time the council-owned agency kept its word.

OPINION: When Auckland Transport chairman Lester Levy told a Mt Albert audience back in May that he hadn’t been happy with the way the village upgrade was handled, there was some optimism the future would repair the wounds of the past.

Dr Levy was at the official “opening” of the upgrade and shared the podium with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.

The PM, with Mayor Phil Goff nodding at her side, was quite effusive about the upgrade, elegantly side-stepping the 1001 complaints over everything from the time taken to complete the project to the harm to businesses from the loss of parking and intrusion of cycle lanes.

But Dr Levy was very direct. He said he had instructed his new CEO to find a new model for future town centre projects so they could be completed more quickly and with less upheaval.

As he was talking, the Saturday morning traffic was banking up in all directions, but there was hope in the late-autumn sunshine that everything would work out well.

Just remember the project promise on the AT website, presumably on behalf of Auckland Council: “Mount Albert town centre upgrade will revitalise the heart of one of Auckland’s older suburbs, celebrating its unique character while creating a safe, pleasant, lively environment that locals can enjoy and take pride in.”

So much for all that hope.

As the autumn morphed into winter, local disquiet began to grow, with the achievement gap between concept and application widening. The trust placed in the offices of Auckland Transport and the council to produce an upgrade Mt Albert could embrace became more eroded as each week passed.

Dr Levy’s scalding words at the performance of his own organisation should at least have brought a commitment from AT that it would leave Mt Albert in the best possible shape before moving to its next local project.

But three months later, even under a relatively new CEO promising to change the aloof culture of the rambling organisation with a million balls in the air, the performance of the council subsidiary continues to cause dismay.

The naysayers can now bray, ‘I told you so’, and point accusingly at those in the community who accepted the town centre design laid before them.

Is that fair? Was it naïve to simply believe what we were told by the experts? Maybe, but don’t we have the right to expect that a council agency using ratepayer money can be trusted to do the job well on behalf of the citizens who elect their political masters?

When we look back, there was some community and business challenge to cycle lanes and trying to turn Auckland into the Copenhagen or Amsterdam of the South Pacific. Personally, I would have preferred canals. But we let that go in the face of a strong cycling lobby and AT’s own philosophical direction, accepting the argument that cars wouldn’t rule the future as they had the past.

There was also deep concern from businesses over the loss of parking spaces, outcry at the proposed elimination of the right-hand turn into Mt Albert Rd from New North Rd, and worry at the single straight-through east-west lanes that were forced on the plan by the drive to accommodate cyclists.

But we went with the “trust us” message, not really understanding that small-scale design drawings and nice artist impressions gave no real understanding of how wide those footpaths would be — and the sacrifices needed to accommodate them.

In the end, we did put our trust in the experts. Without private expert analysis and legal challenges — all costing big money that no one would want to spend — what else could be done to finally get the upgrade moving?

And lest we forget, something had to be done. The town centre was becoming a disgrace, having been slowly decaying over 20-odd years, and the project — more than 10 years on the drawing board — was really a design for the future.

Overnight, it wouldn’t change some of the shoddy shop frontages or retail mix, but the idea was to smarten up the basics to create a more inviting precinct, encouraging private enterprise to then step up and make it really work.

It may be hard to imagine now, but multi-storey apartment blocks with (hopefully) quality business and retail outlets below will probably dominate the village in 15 or 20 years. That’s a Unitary Plan aim and part of the way forward for the supercity: high-density housing alongside railway stations and main roads.

When that happens — and when shared driver-less cars, light rail and cycles join buses and trains as the dominant ways of avoiding tolls and getting around the city — those wide footpaths will be welcomed.

But life is not all about tomorrow and AT can be accused of failing to grasp that as it progresses its philosophical perspective. While we wait for the Unitary Plan to do its thing, there needs to be an acknowledgement and understanding that life goes on.

The growing cynicism towards the upgrade we suffer today is no surprise. After the initial optimism, laced with business anxiety, we are left with a starkness that demands the inviting design touches of a decent modern urban development.

It should be attractive and vibrant. Instead, it is austere and unwelcoming, though perhaps the winter has something to do with that.

In the three months since Dr Levy had his say, we might have expected a sense of urgency and willingness on the part of AT to polish the project, add some nice touches and turn around the public perception.

But since that late-autumn day, with the mopping-up work dawdling on, the agency responsible for $19 billion in public-held assets — our assets — shows no great concern for local feelings on what, in the greater scheme of things, was a tiny undertaking.

In their cocoon, Dr Levy’s team and the wider council will wonder why the community is still banging on, months after the last of the orange cones disappeared. Bombarded with more complaints than on any previous project, their view seems to be, “What on Earth are they moaning about?”

Well, here’s a short list: Why did it take six weeks to start policing the clearway zone? Why were the signs inadequate from day one and flawed in a legal sense – and why is that still so? Why are the clearway signs not more prominent? Why is the pocket park such a cold, bleak corner when it has so much promise? Why are the wide footpaths so drab and lonely when we were seduced by the artist impressions of some Mediterranean idyll? Why are the rat-runners not being deterred? Why are the two bus stops on the city side heading up to the village not merged to provide an extra couple of car parks? Why is the bus stop outside Albert’s Post still not completed? Why is the carpark behind the ASB still laden with park-and-riders? Why are the P60 signs not being policed? Why are there not short-park zones providing a space for 10 minutes to pick up takeaways or drop off dry cleaning? Why aren’t the lighting and security measures in the tennis-club carpark and behind the ASB better?  Why are the illegal (and potentially lethal) right-hand turners from Lloyd Ave not being hammered?

The list could go on and on, yet everything should have been ticked off months ago. No doubt AT and the council would argue that businesses need to step up, and that some items do not fall within the project budget or its responsibilities.

But businesses are really struggling; some are on their last legs, having had no council help during the past 18 very punishing months.

Anyway, signs, lights, flowers, boxed shrubs, lattice work, hedging, hanging baskets, extra seats, rubbish bins — these are not high-expense items, and landscapers could lift the area almost overnight.

Then, of course, there’s the traffic.

We now have serious peak-hour congestion. Yes, we know the upgrade wasn’t designed to improve traffic flows, but it wasn’t intended to make them much worse either. It is disingenuous for AT to suggest volumes are less than before the upgrade and the arrival of the Waterview tunnel, as if the changes are miraculously responsible. Volumes are down because everyone is rat-running through previously peaceful side streets to avoid the clutter.

AT has stuck rigidly to its view that there is no merit in a proposal put forward by this website, dealing with the east-west flow between Carrington and Mt Albert Rds.

On the surface, that suggestion could deliver a near-doubling of the east-west movement when flows are at their heaviest. It would allow the right-hand-turn lanes from both directions, which carry very few cars, to share the same — short  — phase; the through phase would also be shared, giving double the present flow in the same overall time.

The agency’s officers will not explain why it wouldn’t work, saying only that “initial traffic modelling suggests little to no benefit”. When as few as four or five vehicles slip through on a peak-hour phase, leaving a 200m or 300m backlog, the benefit seems clear to everyone except AT’s engineers. Besides, isn’t the promise of even a “little” help worth a go?

We always wondered about the loss of carparks, and may now have some reservations about the reduced traffic lanes and wide footpaths as we wait for cyclists to put their wheels where their mouths were. Still, there’s no going back, and when the apartment buildings start to rise, they will be appreciated.

In the meantime, it’s the starkness that really gets to me, and it doesn’t need to be that way. Of course, winter doesn’t help, and a few tables out on the pavement in front of the restaurants when the sun starts shining will make a big difference, even if Auckland’s weather will limit that appeal.

But AT and the council itself need to step up — to finish off with urgency the work that should have been completed back in May, and then to find some extra dollars to “pretty up” the stark concrete wasteland it has created.

The promise of an upgrade that would rejuvenate the town centre and make Mt Albert feel good about its heart has been broken. It’s time now for some professional pride to win late goodwill from a hurt community whose patience has run out.

The Tasman Ave view of Housing NZ’s proposed development at 90 Carrington Rd.

Rose Dowsett challenges Housing NZ to stop pushing the rules on one of its Mt Albert developments… and become a good neighbour.

 

OPINION: What rights do we have when Housing New Zealand decides to shoehorn a development into a site that just isn’t big enough for it to fit and comply with planning rules?

The answer, sadly, seems to be no rights at all.

Just one local example is the proposed HNZC development at 90 Carrington Rd and 3-5 Tasman Ave.

The corporation has submitted a proposal to Auckland Council for resource consent to replace an existing duplex containing two single-bedroom units and a two-bedroom house, with two, three-storey apartment blocks containing a total of 18 one-bedroom units.

The council has created new planning rules for increased density under the Unitary Plan and, as a large landowner in Auckland, the corporation reportedly pushed during the process to squeeze in more units per square metre. They got what they wanted – and now they need to stop pushing for more.

This is not about nimbyism (“not in my back yard”); I happen to live across the road from this development and Housing NZ and its tenants are part of this neighbourhood. Rather, it’s about complying with the new rules.

The corporation needs to be called out for their use of non-notified, resource consent submissions where they continue to push the already increased density “boundaries”.

Put yourself in the shoes of the single-storey home neighbour whose north boundary (their sunny side) is on the boundary of the proposed three-storey development.

The new rules contain a height-to-boundary requirement that offers some reassurance that winter sun can still get through.

However, HNZ is opting for an alternative height–to-boundary consent that is highly concessionary and, therefore, should only be acceptable if the affected neighbour is consulted – and if it’s the only non-complying rule.

In this case the corporation’s scheme is also non-compliant with rules dealing with landscape, outdoor living space, daylight and front yard rules.

What this shows is that HNZ is attempting to shoehorn a development into a site that just isn’t big enough for it to fit and comply.

If the corporation is not held to account by council planners (which I still hope will be the case) or by the public, this type of “push until you get push back” approach will become their normal way of operating. If that happens, any neighbour’s north boundary is at risk.

Separate to this planning approach, the corporation needs to up their game in the treatment of existing tenants.

In this particular case consideration must be given to a tenant of 31 years who may be forced to re-settle (he has already been given three months’ notice).

If this development goes ahead in some form or other, an HNZ representative, with the power to act and with the tenant’s welfare in mind, needs to have a face-to-face meeting with the tenant to provide reassurance that like-for-like accommodation within the same community is there for him if that’s what he wants.

So, Housing New Zealand – how about communicating, consulting and becoming good neighbours?

Sir Harold Marshall: ‘Introducing a further 4000 dwellings will inevitably distort the fabric of the suburb.’ Picture: Julia Thorne (Copyright – Julia Thorne Photography)

Sir Harold Marshall is one of Mt Albert’s most distinguished citizens. He is Mt Albert through and through and lives on land that was once part of his his great grandfather’s farm. Sir Harold, co-chair of the Mt Albert Residents’ Association (MARA), has closely followed the planned Unitec development and was a powerful local voice during the Unitary Plan hearings. He hopes for an outstanding urban development, but worries about the social needs of a site that will carry up to 60 per cent social and low-cost housing – and whether they will be met.

 

OPINION: Most mornings as I ride on my exercycle I watch television. UKTV is the station of choice  and The Bill is a favourite.

As often as not there is a scene in The Bill in which the police seek a criminal in a four-storey walk-up social housing block known as “Sunhill”. Access is via external balconies running the length of the cheerless units behind their locked doors.  There is a pervading sense of hopelessness. Crime is everywhere.

This gloomy picture is the fear that no one is willing to confront in the Unitec development, though talk of a “slum” captures some of the angst.

Nobody wants that outcome. Rather, as I wrote earlier, “MARA’s concern is that this must be a beautifully conceived and designed new town development. There MARA is on the same page as the Government and the city.”

That’s the aspiration. There has been no lack of comment in the various media. Bloggers on the right such as Hooton, and Hosking are predictably negative, even comparing the density to the poverty and slums of Mumbai.

Discounting these there are more useful and thoughtful articles – even overlooking the somewhat censorious tone of some of them. “Yes, and you need to get over it regardless” was the quote from Mathew Prasad’s piece in The Spinoff (and reproduced on Mt Albert Inc) and is symptomatic of someone who claims to be the originator of the original master plan.

But what is more disturbing is the deception of the “visual” of the developed campus. A glance at the satellite view in comparison with Harrison Grierson’s wide-open green spaces fudges the issues around 4000 dwellings on this site.

The only thing honest about this picture (shown here) is the congestion of the tertiary education remnant behind what is today Building 48 (centre).  The green open spaces and playing fields are a fiction in the context of 4000 dwellings and the resolute refusal of the city during the Unitary Plan independent hearings panel process, to include more parks because of the costs of maintenance.

A more interesting and thought-provoking  comment on Housing Minister Phil Twyford’s announcement was on the RNZ Insight programme on April 8, after the minister had outlined the Government proposal for 40 per cent “affordable”, 20 per cent social housing and 40 per cent “market” housing. The programme dealt with the housing needs of Maori and Pasifika people.

Talking about social (or state) housing from an urban Maori perspective, Hurimoana Dennis, chair of the Te Puea Marae in Mangere Bridge, noted that providing the bricks and mortar was the easy part. It was the “software” – the support – that was more difficult.

While 10 families may be put into 10 lovely homes, the question was: how long are they going to last and what do they bring to the neighbourhood?

“That’s something that’s missing,” he said on the radio programme. “It’s all been focused on bricks and mortar – the good sell, opening doors and cutting ribbons… that sort of stuff.”

Not a lot of thought was going into the “character and dynamics” of the whanau entering those homes.

A lot of those families had complex needs, he said, and the upshot was that those tenancies could become unmanageable in months because “dad has a drinking problem, mum’s gambling and the kids are going off the Richter scale”.

The result: warnings, eviction and homelessness.

Mr Dennis, whose marae houses families in 25 cabins while they wait for a permanent home, said that until the bricks and mortar were balanced with the right support it would be difficult to achieve much.

Not all state tenants are Maori or Pasifika, of course, though a high proportion are, and Huri Dennis was recounting his experience of perhaps the most disadvantaged group in the country – deprivation few of us can even imagine.

But with the plan for the Unitec block now to hold (on the basis of a 4000-unit development) 1600 “affordable” KiwiBuild houses and 800 state units, there is little doubt that social support will be needed – right from the start. It must be embedded in the fabric of this development.

As an illustration, nearby, also in Mt Albert, the Atawhai Lane social housing development of about five years ago – even with the support of the St Luke’s church community, and the Mt Albert Methodist church – soon needed the establishment of the Beneficiary’s Advisory service..

In the nine years of the previous Government accessing the support of Housing NZ – especially for people with limited English – this service proved invaluable in dealing with a confrontational bureaucracy. In the words of the Housing NZ  Board chairman, Patrick Snedden: “The Government remains focused on improving the effectiveness and efficiency of social services provided to New Zealanders, particularly vulnerable citizens. It expects stronger performance from government agencies and is seeking new ways to do more with less, within a restricted funding environment.”

I leave you to translate that but certainly it has nothing to do with compassion.  One hopes the new regime will be proactive in this new housing venture and embed the helping agency where it is needed.

In addition to the possible 800 social housing dwellings, let us not overlook the 1600 low-cost KiwiBuild dwellings we can expect to be occupied by first-home buyers.

This provision of support is the “software” Mr Dennis referred to, and he had some interesting responses to these questions I put to him:

• So where in the Wairaka Precinct do you put the social housing?
• Is it mixed in with  the “affordable” 40 per cent? Is it grouped together with community facilities?
• Is there a triage system for the allocation of social housing?  Or a civic training/budgeting service preparatory to being allocated a house?

His reply:

“While there is a current shortfall of available warm and safe homes, they would need to be placed where community facilities and utilities can be accessed and close to support services, whanau, and networks. This will offset a whole lot of other expenses and needs for whanau moving into the new homes.

“In the context of today, availability of good land that fits the above plus more is hard to come by. Clever town planners and architects will be right across this and designing purpose-built facilities that can alleviate some concern around safety, environment, presence, access, and cultural/manawhenua sustainability and relationships.

“The people who occupy the homes? This has always been a concern for us here at the marae, which is the bulk of our mahi and effort as many come with a wide range of issues, many of which have contributed to their current homeless situation.

“That being said, it would not be helpful to believe that, while they may be homeless, it does not mean they are bad people or looking to cause more issues. Some have ended up in their situation simply because of forces outside their control.

“In any case, they are all good people and we treat them all in a manner that is consistent with the tikanga of the marae and our Tupuna, Princess Te Puea Herangi. She is our inspiration and many other old people of this whare who have since passed on. They just got on and helped people, didn’t matter what color they were or where they were from – manaaki tangata was always on hand.

“This could look like a cup of tea and cake, a growling from the old people, a warm blanket or just a smile.

“Whatever the leadership of our country decides, [we need] a comprehensive strategy that has two parts: bricks and mortar and social service provision and mindset.

“Change needs to be front and centre. Otherwise we will just be re-cycling people in and out of the system, which commences the generational issues and welfare dependency.

“… There is an extensive triage system that takes place before whanau move into homes and, in our case, ongoing follow-up while they are in the home. Our model requires us to work very closely with agencies and we do, they are co-located here at the marae and we have very strong relationships (trust/confidence) and partnerships (business) with them. We are very proud of this and know we can’t do it on our own.”

Beyond all these questions is the form of the settlements – and many more questions. Can the “perimeter block” advocated by Dr Morten Gjerde (as outlined in the Newsroom article and reproduced by Mt Albert Inc) play a part in promoting a sense of community? And what of protection for the dead-end streets that I advocated for in the Unitary Plan hearings?

Where I live – on a remnant of my great grandfather’s farm – I‘m a near-neighbour to the issues I have been discussing.

I can remember these streets – Fairleigh and Springleigh – unsealed and before there was curbing and channelling. I remember when the state houses were built in Renton, Rhodes and Laurel streets. Progressively these have become privately owned and now in a rush of market madness have a median value of about a million dollars.

The effect of introducing a further 4000 dwellings will inevitably distort the fabric of the suburb – a fact recognised by the Unitary Plan independent hearings panel in its insistence on an integrated traffic assessment before any development or subdivision.

But as Mr. Dennis says, the hardware is the easy part of the Government’s initiative. The difficult part is the “software” provision for the social needs of both the newcomers to this showcase housing settlement and the surrounding community.

These are the questions which must be answered now if the “Sunhill” experience is to be avoided here.

Mt Albert residents have shown in the past that they are ethnically diverse and want the best outcomes for their suburb.

Mr Twyford needs to encourage the planners and iwi to liaise with our groups as we address all the questions.

It’s all about providing choice says Housing Minister Phil Twyford

Dr Morten Gjerde and his perspective 

The views of urban designer Matthew Prasad

Urbanist lessons from high-density Europe

 

 

 

The bridge to the Unitec land from Great North Rd… what does the future hold for the development on the other side?

Mt Albert Inc publisher/editor Bruce Morris offers some thoughts on the Government’s Unitec housing development plans. How big will the project be, when will it start, when will it finish… and will we be happy with the final result?

 

OPINION: Nothing quite like a bit of nostalgia and a line of slogans to sell a political plan, and there was plenty on show at the Government’s unveiling of the vast Unitec residential development.

The name of the 1972-74 Labour Prime Minister Norman Kirk popped up and so did his belief that “all Kiwis want is someone to love, somewhere to live, somewhere to work and something to hope for”.

Then there was Housing Minister Phil Twyford, who called the huge project “a showcase for the best of modern urban development” before outlining the aspiration “to create a place for people to put down roots and to live, work, learn and play for generations to come” and build “a supply chain of beautifully built modern homes for Kiwi families”.

Plenty of other talk, too, from Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern (“It is about rebuilding homes, but it’s also about rebuilding communities”) and Mayor Phil Goff down, about an attractive, modern response to keep people warm and happy.

Fair enough. After years of housing-market neglect from a National Government that did little to encourage stronger supply and virtually nothing to quell demand, the Labour-led coalition is rolling up its sleeves and starting in Mt Albert.

As Mr Twyford declared: “This Government will not sit around while children are living in cars and families are cramped into overcrowded housing. We need bold action to solve this.”

But let’s not get too dewy-eyed. Or too rah-rah.

The vision of a lasting 21st-century equivalent to the state house programme that began in the 1930s under Michael Joseph Savage is at one end of the spectrum (without quite the emphasis on “state”). That’s the romantic end.

In the middle are major concerns over how 3000 to 4000 dwellings can be built in an inner-city suburb — one of Auckland’s oldest — that is already struggling with choked thoroughfares at peak hour and what effect the extra traffic will have on local streets, especially the little culs-de-sac and feeder roads that will eventually be opened up. And, of course, the hassle over many years of the construction work itself for those who live nearby.

On top of that, toss in worries about whether existing schools will be able to cope with the population gain, along with such standard issues as sewage, stormwater, shops and having enough green space, room to move and community facilities to support the grand vision of a place that everyone will love.

At the very end of the spectrum — as far away as you can get from the dream of a modern urban utopia — is the fear that it may all turn pear-shaped.

It’s easy to label someone an elitist spoilsport for daring to suggest a high-density, low-cost (for most) residential development has the potential to fail if care is not taken. But the last thing any Government wants is a brand-destroying legacy that looked good on paper but turned ugly.

The awful phrase “tomorrow’s slum” is already being bandied about by those who would probably like to see Labour fall flat on its face – and the Government must surely be aware that, despite the need for haste, great care is needed to give its answer to the housing crisis the very best start.

So, what do we know thus far? In a nutshell, Minister Twyford tells it:

• The start in about a year on a programme to build 3000-4000 dwellings — apartments, terraced homes and stand-alone houses — on 29ha, which is all the land on the site zoned residential. Most will probably have two or three bedrooms.
• Between 30 and 40 per cent of them will be built under the KiwiBuild banner, giving first-home buyers the chance to own a house for between $600,000 and $650,000 or an apartment for about $500,000. (The average price for a Mt Albert house is well above $1 million.)
• Around 20 per cent (600 to 800 units) will be state houses or units.
• The rest (on the minister’s arithmetic, that’s probably between 1400 and 1900 houses) will go to private buyers on the open market.
• Buyers unable to raise a big enough deposit or without the ability to service a large mortgage will be helped through a shared-equity arrangement, where the Government, a bank or some other investor provides funds to support the deal in the early years.
• A ballot system will initially be used to allocate homes under KiwiBuild, which will not be means-tested. But the Government says that as the programme gathers momentum, supply will more closely match demand and the need for balloting will disappear.
• Rules will be introduced to prevent buyers under KiwiBuild from quickly flicking their properties for capital gain. Labour’s own website says owners will have to hold for five years (or pay back any capital gain), but Mr Twyford is now saying “we are still working on that”.
• The Government will be partly relying on prefabricated, off-site manufacturing to constrain costs and produce more houses of better quality.
• Auckland iwi will be invited to bid for the development rights and will become central to the project.

The initial instinct is to suggest that a Government in a hurry to satisfy its electoral promise of 100,000 affordable homes over the next 10 years, half of them in Auckland, will aim at the 4000 figure. But that seems high, especially when added to the likely 500 or so units Ngati Whatua will build on the perimeter of the precinct.

The minister has talked about a fully developed site that would have houses or apartments covering 63 per cent of the land. If 4000 is to be the target, that’s a lot of units to build on 18ha or so, and suggests that apartment blocks rising seven and eight storeys (and possibly higher because the zoning allows for taller buildings in certain spots) may dominate parts of the development, particularly the KiwiBuild and state-housing segments. There’s plenty of scope there to get the slum agitators going unless the architects are outstanding and the unit dimensions are sensible.

In the end, as reported by Mt Albert Inc, the need for an integrated traffic assessment (ITA) to measure the impact of vehicles and come up with solutions to keep things flowing may force the Government to pull in its target.

It could be that 2500 or 3000 units (plus the 500 or so on the Ngati Whatua land) will be all that Auckland Council allows if its engineers worry about the ability of local roads to handle the extra traffic.

But who knows?

Mr Twyford (also the Transport Minister) made much of Mt Albert’s “superb transport links”, with the future promise of light rail to Pt Chevalier at the northern end of the land. He cheekily noted that developers might even take the view that “you don’t need to own a car to live there”.

That appeared almost an invitation for council planners to take a long-term view — when the city rail link is finished, bus services are further ramped up, light rail is around the corner and cycle lanes are as common as mud.

Auckland Transport would love the idea of a development that swings the city away from car-centric to public transport and bikes, and in a decade or so, when the project is finally completed, that may not seem so crazy.

But there is an ocean of water to pass under the bridge before anyone can start imagining the role of the Unitec land in Auckland’s unlikely development as the Amsterdam or Copenhagen of the South Pacific.

It is plain the Government is still thinking on its feet, with 1001 issues yet to be discussed, let alone resolved in this first major crack at delivering the election campaign goods when construction capacity is awkward.

Apart from the sale of the land (presumably at a cost that gives the Government accounts some leeway and does not stretch the economic case too much), it seems virtually nothing of this project has yet been finalised, though the very precise reference to buildings covering 63 per cent of the land is interesting.

The Tamaki Makaurau Collective is a key player as a development partner and the Government will take it slowly until it can form a binding agreement. That could take a month or two, and despite Labour’s impatience to get affordable housing moving, the development must fit in with Unitec’s own transition to its 10ha future site.

No one is talking timelines, and the minister’s suggestion work might start on the first houses in about a year seems optimistic. But a bit of optimism to interrupt the pessimistic tone in the business of housing is no bad thing.

The original Unitec master plan for the site will no doubt be there for the Government’s agents (possibly Housing NZ’s expert subsidiary HLC, which handles the job at Hobsonville) to develop if they want it.

But until it is refined and settled – pinpointing what is to be built where and when – there will be no contracts to let and no great physical movement on the site.

Then, of course, the architects, engineers and other site experts and developers will get involved and the council will start looking at consents and judging those applications alongside the traffic assessments.

For a project of this size, even if the dimensions finally come down to 2500 or 3000 dwellings, it is a long, involved process where nothing will happen overnight. Most likely the development will progress in a series of stages spread over seven or eight years; it may be a full decade before the job is over.

That will frustrate a Government looking for runs on the board, and it will infuriate locals putting up with years of construction hubbub.

But time taken now to get things right — to find the appropriate density with ample open space, appealing design and a decent mix of medium-rise apartments and terraced and stand-alone houses – will deliver the best chances of an enduring outcome accepted by the community and still appreciated in 50 years. Fingers crossed.

A new internet cafe will soon open where Mecca Souq once stood. What will it do to the vision of a village shopping strip, post-upgrade, designed to revitalise the town centre?

By Bruce Morris

So here we are, just a week or two away from the end of the village upgrade project, and along comes a bit of news that is as welcome as an eliminated slip lane or right-hand turn.

The upgrade is intended to revitalise the town centre – to help, over time, create a smart precinct that pulls locals back to a strip that was starting to look shoddy.

In the medium to long term, the Unitary Plan will do its thing, drawing developers to replace some of the unappealing buildings and replace them with multi-storey blocks: shops below and apartments and offices above. Like it or not, it is the way of the future along rail links.

In the meantime, the hope has been that all commercial and retail tenants and landlords will respond to the upgrade by cleaning up their acts and making their shopfronts more attractive.

Of course, many have always taken pride, realising an attractive front to a business is an added incentive for customers to walk in the door. But the simple truth hasn’t been endorsed by everyone.

Then there is the mix – the food bars, restaurants, noodle houses, pizza places and liquor stores that sit alongside the professional offices and some of the smarter-looking operations.

Everyone seems to pine for the good old days – mainly pre-St Luke’s mall but also through the 1980s – when locals shopped in the village because of the range of outlets.

Those memories of what it used to be like, how it deteriorated and what the upgrade would mean were always raised at meetings and in street chit-chat.

But as the upgrade nears its conclusion, who would have guessed that the latest new businesses to be drawn to the village would be a laundromat (at the very end of the eastern side of the strip, opposite Ballast Lane) and an internet cafe (in the shop previously operated by Mecca Souq).

Do we really need another internet cafe? And isn’t one perfectly satisfactory existing laundromat quite enough in a small shopping precinct?

No one should blame new businesses for giving it a go; they risk capital and sleepless nights in the spirit of free enterprise.

But what about the landlords?

Some of them are progressive and see the logic of searching for new businesses that don’t duplicate the place six doors down and will be an attractive magnet, bringing more people to the centre.

But others plainly don’t consider the wider issue of trying to make the strip more attractive to a wider pool, bringing future demand (at a higher return) to their door. They apparently see their landlord business as a simple matter of keeping the lease cash flowing and will accept tenants who want to try their luck, no matter what the enterprise.

This is frustrating to everyone because the forward-thinking landlords are probably outnumbered. How fair is it to expect them to wait for a tenant that nicely complements the shopping mix when another operator takes a “first-in-first-accepted” approach?

With offshore landlords in the picture – and language and cultural matters an obstacle – it will be a hard nut to crack. But in the post-upgrade era, before the Unitary Plan has its expected impact, few issues are more important to the future of the village.