tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post1830291450822217570..comments2024-01-14T06:16:50.475+13:00Comments on Cities Matter: Desperately Seeking SubmissionsPhil McDermotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06869744647213369964noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-1523199421829696892011-04-18T15:20:39.216+12:002011-04-18T15:20:39.216+12:00I work to model of decision making that sees counc...I work to model of decision making that sees councillors/governors as the people we elect to make decisions in the public interest (or int he interest of the corporation they govern in the private sector) based on imperfect information. <br /><br />There are three broad sources of information that councillors need to respond to: (1) the wishes of the community at large (consultation, engagement, lobbying), (2) managerial knowledge (of the law, finance, charter, organisational capacity, etc) which will constrain what can be done; and experts (planners, enginers, scientists of various sorts).<br /><br />The latter group rarely agrees on the hard issues (as you know from the Environment Court) and none of them have a monopoly on wisdom, let alone "the truth".<br /><br />The councillors are faced with a difficult balancing act, then. Hopefully, they can work through this and make decisions by listening carefully, discussing openly, and deliberating responsibly -- together. Collective bodies generally achieve a level of wisdom that individuals don't. <br /><br />Unfortunately, some elected members(although not as many as in the past) believe they are there to exercise their prejudices or represent a particular viewpoint rather than to make informed decisions. <br /><br />Their task can be made easier (1) if there are clear lines of delegation which mean they are not distracted by areas in which they do not need to be involved (i.e., more straightforward, routine decisions or implementation of decisions already made); and (2) if they are presented with choices which reflect, perhaps, the diversity of community wants and needs, differences in expert views, and simply the uncertainty that planning and policy must deal with; and (3) if they are informed by some collective ideology (including various shades of left or right)which provides some consistency of direction and effectively simplifies decision making. <br /><br />Whether or not the decisions made are the "right" ones we can only really gauge by hindsight - hence I favour conservative decisions when, for example, large sums of money are involved, large sections of the community will be impacted, or environmental risks are large. <br /><br />As a planner myself, and having been involved in giving a bit of advice over the years (and having to implement very little of it!) my view is that we inform decisions to the best of our professional and analytical ability and our knowledge, but cannot assume that we would make better decisions than those we inform! <br /><br />And as far as intensification goes, we all too often try to provide a neat package with all the loose ends tied off when the world (and particular the consumers of housing) does not work like that. <br /><br />But I very much agree with your notion of enabling (rather than enforcing) and promoting intensification where the amenity values and views justify it. Unfortunately, the experience is that higher density housing cannot often be justified financially on such sites: it is too expensive for the majority of the market except for very high value harbourside apartments). Cost is why we end up so often with inferior apartments on inferior (often brownfield) sites. <br /><br />From a physical point of view, medium-rise apartments lining the waterfront (Waterfront Drive, East Coast Bays) below the cliff edge would make a lot of sense - more people enjoying Auckland's real amenity values. I can't see it happening in a hurry.Phil McDermotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06869744647213369964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-44808432312324180312011-04-17T00:15:40.882+12:002011-04-17T00:15:40.882+12:00I often get the impression that commentators belie...I often get the impression that commentators believe that decisions that politicians make are the direct result of proposals that planners recommend. In my opinion, more often than not, politicians pick the bones out of informed decision making and leave a sort of half mess that the planners involved in the process then get blamed for. Many planners, myself included, believe intensification should be enabled where accessibility is high, good amenity and views are available and where land values support it. However, many politicians believe that intensifying in these areas, while a reasonable idea, will only upset their most supportive constituents with a risk that they would have them out on their arse in 3 years. Conversely, politicians sometimes believe they can "assist" poorer communities by intensifying them in terms of high density housing and related investment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-68702466809373367362011-03-25T08:23:55.396+13:002011-03-25T08:23:55.396+13:00Lots of good points in this post thank you Phil.
...Lots of good points in this post thank you Phil.<br /><br />I think planners need to base their research/plans primarily on the question "How do you want to live" as opposed to "How do want everyone else to live".<br /><br />It would be a much more honest (and effective) form of demand-responsive planning, I believe.Andrew D Atkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-84671462900295821822011-03-24T15:57:26.518+13:002011-03-24T15:57:26.518+13:00Phil
I agree the world is changing. Including empl...Phil<br />I agree the world is changing. Including employment patterns and technology.<br /><br />I primarily work from home, and generally use phone conferencing for meetings (allows me to multi-task while others drone on:) )<br /><br />hence life-style will become more important.<br /><br />Everyone targets the well educated/productive employees IT/science etc etc - what are their drivers? They are an international commodity, and will generally earn international level financial rewards.<br /><br />I suspect if you looked at these people, they would put education for their children as the top priority. Then work challenge/interest/lifestyle.<br /><br />So having a top education system available to them is key. May not matter whether public or private. <br /><br />But this is where we can get conflicted policy - with intensification around Grammar, we've seen the rolls expand drastically, and a lot of parents have gone off the school.<br /><br />On the Nimby front - re-zoning is not going to be pretty. Developers will pick off what they can - whack up 3-4 floors. The house next store is then devalued. the planners use nice artwork showing a constant form. But in reality it may take 20years of mess/downgraded amenity for many, until that is realised.<br /><br />the other paradox is affordability. If you restrict/ration land, prices rise. Unless you have exceptional economic growth they become unaffordable, and we end up with poor quality as the compromise.<br /><br />I've always argued first examples of intensification shouldn't be Panmure but Remuera!Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-7298848469773941672011-03-24T14:29:52.945+13:002011-03-24T14:29:52.945+13:00Mark
I haven't been though the document in any...Mark<br />I haven't been though the document in any detail yet, either, although from what I see its the same old same old ...<br />The world is changing around us though, and I would expect to see a drift back towards higher density living in some quarers. Unfortunately, the plannnig we have had for the past decade or so may not cater so well for that, though. When peak oil and ageing really bite the question will be which suburbs will be transformed and how, not how many people are going to live in or around the CBD and secondary targets. I'm not sure how well the plan provides for that (e.g., what about the Hibiscus Coast?) and could easily compound the problem of mis-specifying future public transport needs through pouring public money into rail with its focus on the CBD (just 12% of the region's employment)and the inflexibility and limited reach of fixed lines.<br /><br />I think you are right about NIMBYism: people do have a right to protect their property rights and amenity expectations. Plans(and compensation) need to be compelling to justify whoelsale transformation of people's neighbourhoods - and lives.Phil McDermotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06869744647213369964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-13200489402406139032011-03-24T12:40:10.154+13:002011-03-24T12:40:10.154+13:00I haven't had a chance to go through in detail...I haven't had a chance to go through in detail yet - but previous plans lacked a proper analysis of key current drivers. eg how much land does business need? what type of land? where are future growth in businesses going to come from? type/needs etc<br /><br />Planners usually have no real world commercial experience, and few ways of researching it. They tend to concentrate on what they know ie residential life and cbd office work.<br /><br />The population won't grow if jobs don't grow.<br /><br />They also don’t seem to understand the issue around the aging community. Key to this document should be a very good understanding of what the retirement industry intends to do. Will they build low rise 3ha fringe type retirement centres? Or will they do inner suburb apartments/medical? what are the economic constraints on them? eg land building cost in apartment areas.<br /><br />And lot of "growth" can be accommodated without bowling suburban properties, by getting single retired people out of 4 bedroom bungalows and into apartments in their own suburbs.....<br /><br />Re Nimbyism - that is a simple way people have been attacked for protecting their residential amenity and property rights. And is the last resort for the unprepared planner.....<br /><br />Finally what's the real issue? if we're already 5th most liveable city, what's the point in saying we're going to be more "liveable" - what really is the marginal benefit of getting to no. 1? and at what cost. And why emulate the housing supply of much lower cities? wouldn't that drop us down that scale?<br /> <br />I agree planners should identify trends and support them where appropriate - but they won't "create" anything. <br /><br />Their growth plans often target the poor, ie west or south. Ak city did that with Panmure. Brown is protecting South Auckland now, but they don't target the Shore/East Auckland......(based on media summaries)<br /><br />Consultation from Council's is always a sham. consultation at the end of preparing a document is just "explaining"Marknoreply@blogger.com