Urban Growth, Liveability and Quality Urban Design: Questions about the efficacy

What is it about?

A B S T R A C T Preventing sprawl and concentrating future urban growth at transit centres, typifies many urban planning strategies in a number of Australian, New Zealand and North America cities. Newer iterations of these strategies also argue that compact development delivers public benefits by enhancing urban ‘liveability’ through good urban design outcomes. Where neoliberal economic conditions prevail, achieving these aims is largely dependent on market-driven development actions requiring the appropriate urban planning responses to ensure these outcomes. However, there are growing concerns that urban planning approaches currently used are not effectively delivering the quality urban design outcomes expected and enhancing residents’ liveability. This paper reports on an evaluation of three medium density housing developments located in areas designated for intensification in Auckland, New Zealand. Examined is the extent to which the development outcomes are aligned with the statutory urban planning requirements for quality urban design. The results indicated contradictions and points to limitations of the statutory planning system to positively influence quality outcomes, leading to enhanced residents’ experiences.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Urban Growth, Liveability and Quality Urban Design: Questions about the efficacy of urban planning systems in Auckland, New Zealand *Dr.LEE BEATTIE1, Dr.ERROL HAARHOFF2 1 &2 School of Architecture and Planning, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand E mail: l.beattie@auckland.ac.nz , E mail: e.haarhoff@auckland.ac.nz A B S T R A C T Preventing sprawl and concentrating future urban growth at transit centres, typifies many urban planning strategies in a number of Australian, New Zealand and North America cities. Newer iterations of these strategies also argue that compact development delivers public benefits by enhancing urban ‘liveability’ through good urban design outcomes. Where neoliberal economic conditions prevail, achieving these aims is largely dependent on market-driven development actions requiring the appropriate urban planning responses to ensure these outcomes. However, there are growing concerns that urban planning approaches currently used are not effectively delivering the quality urban design outcomes expected and enhancing residents’ liveability. This paper reports on an evaluation of three medium density housing developments located in areas designated for intensification in Auckland, New Zealand. Examined is the extent to which the development outcomes are aligned with the statutory urban planning requirements for quality urban design. The results indicated contradictions and points to limitations of the statutory planning system to positively influence quality outcomes, leading to enhanced residents’ experiences. CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS (2018) 2(2), 12-23. https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2018.3667 www.ijcua.com Copyright © 2017 Contemporary Urban Affairs. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Among others, an important goal of urban planning is directing future development towards outcomes that will deliver enhanced social, environmental, cultural and economic benefits. A number of urban planning approaches that restricted urban sprawl were thus initially promoted on the argument that this would preserve the natural environment and rural character surrounding cities as a necessary amenity for urban dwellers (Ingram, et al, 2009; Haarhoff, et al, 2012). The higher density development that is a consequence of containing urban growth within an urban boundary was subsequently justified by evidence that a more compact urban form reduces fossil fuel consumption and noxious emissions, and leads to enhanced sustainability (Newman and Kenworthy, 1989; 1999). Characterised by Quastel et al (2012) in their study of Vancouver as ‘sustainability as density’, the outcome is also argued to deliver benefits to urban dwellers. These arguments are key to underpinning urban growth management plans in many cities across Australia, New Zealand and North America including the cities of Auckland, Melbourne, Brisbane, Portland and Vancouver (cf. Auckland Council, 2012; Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure, 2002; Department of Infrastructure and Planning, 2009; Metro Portland, 2012; Nikoofam, & Mobaraki;Metro Vancouver, 2010). They all establish urban growth boundaries to contain urban sprawl, and concentrate the greater part of future development to designated areas within walking distances of public transport, as transit-oriented development (TOD’s). These transit centres (activity centres in Australia, town/metropolitan centres in Auckland, station communities in Portland) as points of concentration also play a role by providing local employment, services and a range of retail and public amenities. The concentration of future development in, and around, transit centres requires the deployment of multi-unit housing typologies to achieve the higher densities, contrasting with lower density detached housing that has, and indeed still does, dominate most cities in these countries. This intention to concentrate growth is made explicit in the Victoria State government’s growth plan for metropolitan Melbourne where it is seen as ‘… the lynch-pins of a multi-centred structure …where people can enjoy the benefits of living closer to work with less congestion on the roads and public transport networks’ (Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure, 2010, p. 5). There is now sufficient evidence to demonstrate that these policies are being successful in terms of increasing the number and proportion of higher density, multi-unit housing options in Australian and New Zealand cities (Bunker et al, 2002; Buxton and Tieman, 2005; Randolph, 2006; CHRANZ, 2011). Indeed, in Australian cities this change is seen by Randolph as ‘a revolution’ where ‘little over a generation ago living in flats (apartments) was a minority pastime’ (2006, p. 473). Despite this apparent success in delivering higher density options, critics argue that this is not necessarily delivering fully on the aims of the associated urban growth management plans for a number of reasons. This include resistance to living at, and with, higher density, market reluctance to invest in the higher density housing typologies, and argument that this form of urban growth management negatively impacts housing affordability (Haarhoff et al, 2012). A newer area of critique suggests that the urban planning system and current approaches themselves may be faulty. For example, despite urban growth management plans requiring concentration of new development at activity centres, there is evidence of slippage in meeting this goal (Bunker et al, 2002; Buxon and Tieman, 2004; 2005; Woodcock et al, 2011; Haarhoff et al, 2012). Phan et al. (2009), in their study of the spatial distribution of new residential construction between 2001-2006 in the City of Clayton in the Melbourne metropolitan region, found that the goal of directing development to activity centres has not yet been achieved. Much of the residential development occurred as urban sprawl beyond an 800-metre walking distance of activity centres. For Melbourne as a whole, Woodcock et al. argue that ‘seven years into the implementation of Melbourne 2030 … not only has there been very little intensification of activity centres in established suburbs, but there have been few urban design visions that might engage the public imagination or that of the development industry’ (2011, p. 95). Indeed, they assert that higher density housing is being approved ‘almost anywhere’ despite concentration being mandated within walking distances of ‘activity’ centres (Woodcock et al, 2011). This suggests a weakness in the urban planning system to fully deliver outcomes that are well aligned with the urban growth management plans. This point is also made by the Victoria State government’s own 2007 audit of Melbourne 2030, that found a lack of specific urban planning tools to direct development into the designated ‘activity centres’ (Woodcock et al, 2011). On this issue, Buxton and Tieman (2005) suggest that the ‘urban consolidation of Melbourne 2030 will be undermined where there is policy confusion involving some signals which seek urban consolidation and other signals which allow urban dispersal’ (Buxton and Tieman, 2005, p.155). These assessments are related to a perceived failure on the part of the relevant urban planning systems to comprehensively direct new development towards areas within walking distances of designated activity centres. In part, shortcomings also result from a failure to provide the infrastructure on which transit-oriented development depends, especially on the urban peripheries (Buxton & Tieman, 2005; Jain and Courvisanon, 2008).

Perspectives