Research

Engagement

Insight

Unitary Plan housing simulator: Key themes and results

Prepared for:

21 June 2013

Prepared by BP&A 09 445 0164 benparsons@bpanda.co.nz www.bpanda.co.nz

Unitary Plan housing simulator feedback.docx

Page 1

Research

Engagement

Insight

Image 1: Screen shot of the housing simulator

Unitary Plan housing simulator feedback.docx

Page 2

Research

Engagement

Insight

Executive summary
The housing simulator formed part of the Shape Auckland digital hub, and was designed to encourage input on the draft Auckland Unitary Plan. Overall, there were 637 simulations, provided by 621 individual participants. In each simulation, participants selected the level of development they felt was appropriate in a number of areas and zones, to accommodate an additional 400,000 homes. The main results were: Many people suggested height limits towards the upper end of the scale for the city centre - almost half selected the maximum city centre height limit and the average was 30 storeys. Views were mixed regarding height limits in metropolitan centres and town centres, with around half selecting somewhere between 10 and 20 storeys in metropolitan centres and around half selecting between six and 10 storeys in town centres. Most people selected height limits towards the bottom end of the scale for local centres, with three quarters suggesting height limits of two to five storeys. Most wanted to see a fairly minimal amount of countryside converted into residential development. Most of the comments regarding residential development were in favour of greater intensification and increased housing density in certain zones, as they felt this would enable more efficient public transport, more vibrant urban centres, and less suburban sprawl. However a number of people raised concerns about some of the potential effects of greater intensification and density, specifically around having high rise developments in suburban areas and local centres, and the need for good quality design. There was a lot of discussion about the Rural Urban Boundary, and expansion into green field areas and the countryside. Most comments were in favour of protecting rural areas as much as possible and limiting urban sprawl. These people were generally in favour of increased density within the central city, with less development into outlying rural areas. However some expressed a different view, in favour of using outlying rural land for development rather than having an overly dense metropolitan centre. Many of the comments around transport were centred on the need for good public transport, and the potential positive impacts of greater urban density
Unitary Plan housing simulator feedback.docx Page 3

Research

Engagement

Insight

on the public transport system. There were also a number of comments on transport in Auckland generally, and the need to ensure that the transport system is well planned to cope with the increase in congestion caused by a growing population.

Unitary Plan housing simulator feedback.docx

Page 4

Research

Engagement

Insight

Contents
Executive summary..........................................................................................3 The housing simulator......................................................................................6 Public input ......................................................................................................7 1. Participant demographics ......................................................................7 2. Simulation data ......................................................................................9 3. Housing simulator comments...............................................................11

Unitary Plan housing simulator feedback.docx

Page 5

Research

Engagement

Insight

The housing simulator

The housing simulator was part of the Shape Auckland digital hub Auckland councils website for online engagement around the draft Auckland Unitary Plan. The simulator was designed to provide an interactive model to demonstrate the challenges and potential options around housing an additional million people in Auckland over the next 30 years. The site was live during the engagement period from its launch on 5 April to 31 May 2013. Participants were told: Auckland is projected to grow by a million people over the next 30 years. Planned properly, that growth can help make Auckland the world's most liveable city. Have a go at choosing where you think the approximately 400,000 homes needed should go. We encourage you to share your solution with friends using the links below. Participants were invited to test a number of scenarios to create an additional 400,000 homes by adjusting the following: The height limit of buildings in the city centre (the minimum was 15 storeys, and the maximum was no height limit, which was expressed as over 30 storeys in the data output) The height limit of buildings in metropolitan centres (the minimum was 5 storeys, and the maximum was 30 storeys) The height limit of buildings in town centres (the minimum was 2 storeys, and the maximum was 15 storeys) The height limit of buildings in local centres (the minimum was 2 storeys, and the maximum was 10 storeys) The percentage increase in large and small residential homes (the minimum was 0%, and the maximum was 59%) The mix of homes (the minimum was 33% small or multi unit homes and 67% large homes, and the maximum was 67% small or multi unit homes and 33% large homes) The amount of countryside converted into residential (the minimum was 0 homes built in the country, and the maximum was 160,000 homes). Participants were also able to comment on their preferred housing mix. The above statistics, and peoples comments have been analysed, as outlined below.

Unitary Plan housing simulator feedback.docx

Page 6

Research

Engagement

Insight

Public input
1. Participant demographics

Overall, there were 637 simulations, provided by 621 individual participants (13 people provided two different simulations, and one person provided four). 1.1: Participant demographics Participants were asked to provide some demographic detail, and most did:
Number of participants Proportion of participants Statistics NZ Percentages 2006 census 20% 19% 21% 17% 12% 7% 6%

Participant demographics Age 15-24 years 25-34 years 35-44 years 45-54 years 55-64 years 65-74 years 75+ years Prefer not to say Total Ethnicity European Mori Pacific Peoples Asian Latin American, African Other Prefer not to say Total

76 176 131 100 65 41 14 18 621 490 17 8 34 14 4 47 614

12% 28% 21% 16% 10% 7% 2% 3% 100% 80% 3% 1% 6% 2% 1% 8% 100%

55% 11% 15% 18% 1% 8%

As above, housing simulator participants age profile was broadly similar to that of the wider Auckland population (except there were fewer people aged 15-24 years, and more people aged 25-34 years than the wider population). However the ethnic profile was considerably different to the wider Auckland population, with a much greater proportion of European participants.

Unitary Plan housing simulator feedback.docx

Page 7

Research

Engagement

Insight
Statistics NZ Percentages 2006 census 7% 4% 4% 0.1% 8% 6% 9% 6% 5% 6% 5% 6% 6% 3% 4% 4% 3% 1% 3% 5% 5%

Participant demographics Local Board Albert-Eden Devonport-Takapuna Franklin Great Barrier Henderson-Massey Hibiscus and Bays Howick Kaiptiki Mngere-thuhu Manurewa Maungakiekie-Tmaki Orkei tara-Papatoetoe Pakapura Puketpapa Rodney Upper Harbour Waiheke Waitkere Ranges Waitemat Whau Other area Total participants

Number of participants

Proportion of participants

78 35 19 2 25 34 41 40 12 16 35 27 9 19 9 33 19 6 28 52 32 21 592

13% 6% 3% 0% 4% 6% 7% 7% 2% 3% 6% 5% 2% 3% 2% 6% 3% 1% 5% 9% 5% 4% 100%

While there was a good geographic spread of participants, the housing simulator attracted a relatively high proportion of participants from central and north Auckland, and somewhat fewer from South Auckland.

Unitary Plan housing simulator feedback.docx

Page 8

Research 2.

Engagement

Insight

Simulation data

As described above, participants were asked to adjust the potential height limits and other factors across a number of areas in an effort to allow an additional 400,000 homes. 2.1: Simulation modelling data
City centre - height limit (storeys) 636 15 Unlimited (40 in data) 14% 47% 30 30 Metropolitan centres height limit (storeys) 636 5 30 Town centres height limit (storeys) 636 2 15 Local centres height limit (storeys) 636 2 10 Increase in residential homes (% increase) 636 0 60 Countryside converted to residential (homes) 636 0 160,000 Mix of homes (% of small homes) 636 33 67

Number of simulations Minimum level allowed Maximum level allowed Simulations giving the minimum level Simulations giving the maximum level Average level across all simulations Median level across all simulations

14% 17% 17 18

12% 11% 7 6

17% 10% 5 4

11% 9% 34 35

36% 14% 87,893 120,000

13% 20% 53 52

Note: The default response for all of the above options was the minimum, so if a participant did not select a level, their response is recorded as the minimum. Hence it is impossible to distinguish those who wanted to see the minimum level of development in each case, from those who did not specify a level. 53 participants (8%) selected the minimum level for all options (or may not have specified a level for any option). Some caution must therefore be exercised in interpreting these findings.

Unitary Plan housing simulator feedback.docx

Page 9

Research

Engagement

Insight

City centre height limits: On average, people selected a height limit of 30 storeys, compared to a maximum of no height limit (expressed as 40 storeys in the data). Almost half selected the maximum city centre height limit while only 14% selected the minimum, and the median was 30 storeys most participants selected a level towards the high end of the development scale. Metropolitan centre height limits: On average, people selected a height limit of 17 storeys, compared to a maximum of 30 storeys. There was a wide spread of views around the appropriate height limit, with 14% selecting the minimum height, 17% selecting the maximum, and around half selecting somewhere between 10 and 20 storeys. Town centre height limits: On average, people selected a height limit of seven storeys, compared to a maximum of 15 storeys. There was a wide spread of views around the appropriate height limit, but around half selected between six and 10 storeys. Local centre height limits: On average, people selected a height limit of five storeys, compared to a maximum of 10 storeys. Most people selected height limits towards the bottom end of the scale, with three quarters suggesting height limits of two to five storeys for local centres. Increase in residential homes: On average, people selected a 34% increase in residential homes, which was about the half way point between the minimum (0%) and the maximum (60%). There was a wide spread of views around the appropriate increase, but most selected somewhere between 20% and 50%. Countryside converted to residential: Most peoples selections were towards the bottom end of the scale, with half selecting either 0 or 120,000 new homes built in Greenfield areas (these were the two smallest options). Mix of homes: On average, people selected a mix of about 53% small homes and 47% large homes. There was a wide spread in views however, and around half selected somewhere between 40% small (60% large) and 60% small (40% large).

Unitary Plan housing simulator feedback.docx

Page 10

Research 3.

Engagement

Insight

Housing simulator comments

Participants were invited to comment on their selections, or on the process generally, and there were 413 posts received. The comments from these posts have been coded into the councils Unitary Plan topic themes, so they align with other types of feedback and input. 3.1: Main themes

Base: 413 housing simulator posts. Note comments may have been coded into multiple themes, so responses add to over 100%

As shown above, the primary points of discussion were around the residential zones, the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) and transport. There were also a number of comments that did not fit into the councils coding framework, and have been coded as miscellaneous. These themes are discussed in more detail below.

Unitary Plan housing simulator feedback.docx

Page 11

Research

Engagement

Insight

3.2: Comments regarding residential zones As above this was the most frequently mentioned theme, and the discussion was largely focused on the pros and cons of residential intensification. Most of these were in favour of greater intensification and increased housing density in certain zones, as they felt this would enable more efficient public transport, more vibrant urban centres, and less suburban sprawl, as per the following quotes1: With high density centres we can move towards much more efficient public transport with high patronage and much more cost effective infrastructure compared to sprawl. I don't think the Unitary Plan mix is achievable in regards suburban intensification. Centralised high density will support more vibrant economic and social centres within the City. Building height is something to encourage. We need to intensify the metro/city centres - be closer to the main transport hubs and significantly limit the urban expansion. I have no issues with taller buildings in the town centres - limits of 8 storeys is fine with me; even local centres too. Some higher density housing makes sense to me. I believe it is selfregulating to a certain extent. Higher buildings will only be built if there are people who are prepared to live in them. Reluctant to convert countryside to residential. Need more density across existing region. I believe the main CBD can continue to have high rise apartment buildings, as you go further out from the city the density of housing should decrease. Building housing out in the country side will only put more strain on the motorways. More houses in town and metropolitan centres close to business areas, so that people can save time, fuel, and money in travelling. CBD can be mix modal as it is now. Multi unit large houses in suburbs with common recreational areas. Auckland seems to be filling up by adding single-level houses on the backs of existing residential sections - this is unattractive and doesn't add much density overall. More terraces and low-rise apartments would be preferable.
1

Throughout this document verbatim quotes have been selected to illustrate common themes Page 12

Unitary Plan housing simulator feedback.docx

Research

Engagement

Insight

A number of people raised concerns about some of the potential effects of greater intensification and density, specifically around having high rise developments in suburban areas and local centres, and the need for good quality design: Building too many high rise blocks will cause their own sets of problems in future years, as I saw first hand in London. Nearly all of the high rises built in the seventies were gone or in process of being demolished in the late nineties! I think this plan will be a even one. I live in Papakura and I would like to see growth but No! 10 plus storeys high rises..... I would please ask that places like Papakura see buildings of a max height of 8 storeys high. I think this is a good start. Not agree with excessive high rise apartments,15 storeys high, living above retails shops, next to railways. For health and other reasons, need space to create gardens, oxygen, children to have own yard to play in, be safe near parents. The transition to a high density city does not have to be achieved overnight, The current plan should move in that direction but still be mainly traditional housing that we want, not Addison style developments which are not north orientated!!! Keep the high rise to larger centres and encourage development of low rise residential in suburban areas. Mews-style properties can have high density but pleasant living conditions. Please don't make the mistakes of England with residential towers. 3.3: Comments regarding the addendum / RUB As above, there was a lot of discussion about the Rural Urban Boundary, and expansion into green field areas and the countryside. In line with the simulations modelled above, most comments were in favour of protecting rural areas as much as possible and limiting urban sprawl. These people were generally in favour of increased density within the central city, with less development into outlying rural areas: We need a compact city served by a high frequency world class public transport system. No more than 30% rural expansion. Focus on better use of what we have. Apartments can be done well. Leave the green bits alone.

Unitary Plan housing simulator feedback.docx

Page 13

Research

Engagement

Insight

Create green belt zones to prevent urban sprawl and all the issues these create. Vibrant cities need density to work effectively. Reluctant to convert countryside to residential. Need more density across existing region. Go up not out. Maintain our green image, utilise & grow central & hub transport systems Lifestyle is why we live in Auckland, if sprawling housing destroys the country why bother living here! I would far rather see greater inner-city and suburban density than the city spreading further and further and further. Significant infrastructure costs on public transport et al should be concentrated on a better job within existing city limits. Countryside is countryside and m.u.l's should ensure we contain the city to ensure infrastructure is best utilised. Development contributions should be abolished and spread across the entire community to help lower costs of housing. Dont build on country side. Yuck cheap houses that leak. If we spread Auckland out even further it will just create more traffic to travel. Its bad ATM. We need rail loop to airport. From Manukau- to airport then attached at Onehunga, city loop a joke. Due to geography of Auckland, converting the countryside into residential will not be able to provide public transport to these new areas, continuing reliability on the private car. Increase intensification and improve PT in existing. Think it would be best if we do not grow out into the country areas. The height limits for the town centres should vary to a certain degree depending on the area. Urban sprawl needs to be averted at all costs, the conversion of additional countryside nipped in the bud. Any successful city has successfully created critical mass in 10-12 storey buildings that create efficient transport, park and commercial hubs. However a number of people expressed a different view, in favour of using outlying rural land for development rather than having an overly dense metropolitan centre. Some of these want to see more satellite centres, on the outskirts of Auckland, connected by good public transport systems:

Unitary Plan housing simulator feedback.docx

Page 14

Research

Engagement

Insight

Auckland doesnt have to build up to meet its demand of more housing for its growing population. There are many cities in the world where this has happened. We can build upwards in some areas such as Orewa but building outwards should be our main plan. Develop & promote Wellsford & other rural areas, cheap land = more affordable housing. Get a proper balance between using rural areas for expansion - we've got enough land! Go out, not up. Loads of room! Need more countryside development. Existing suburbia should be left relatively untouched. As much as possible [growth] should be in greenfield sites near existing/new rail corridors as they have the huge advantage of allowing proper planning for schools, parks, sewage etc. Forget compaction, plan satellite towns of 30000 in Waimauku, Helensville, Kumeu, Waitakere township, Pukekohe, Waiuku, Drury, Bombay and Pokeno. All on the existing rail! A few more with some small rail extensions, Muriwai/Clarks Beach then use ferries. This does not provide all options. Should be significant increase in ruralresidential living options plus further medium to low density housing in greenfield areas combined with more intense living in the various business centres. Too many high rise small units create inner city slum areas like in overseas cities. The best thing about Auckland is low population allowing bigger houses and higher standard of living. Better to spread out than overcrowd existing suburbs. More efficient transport so that people can be housed up to 30kms out use of express transport. Encourage small suburbs to design their own 'village' atmosphere and local community activities. Sustainable streets community gardens. Do not destroy the character of the inner city suburbs! We want to live in the inner city area as it is NOT like New York or London. STOP pushing the central city and filling in the gaps! Spread, DONT contract! Supercity was a BAD idea!
Unitary Plan housing simulator feedback.docx Page 15

Research

Engagement

Insight

3.4: Comments regarding transportation Most of the conversation around transport was centred on the need for good public transport, and the potential positive impacts of greater urban density on the public transport system: With high density centres we can move towards much more efficient public transport with high patronage and much more cost effective infrastructure compared to sprawl. Intensify population in central areas and develop public transport. Auckland is already a huge city but lacks the transport systems of other big international cities. Lets get some things built, let's get another million people in Aucks, let's get a rail loop and start being able to compete with other major cities! Build up in town centres and use the increased density to then plan rail links to other parts of the city, like a spread-out NYC or London, where you can get most places through (somewhat) reliable subway links. Increase intensification, improve PT, build around stations, build the city rail link. I want to buy a warm comfortable home and continue to live in AKL. Why get bigger? Increase density and push for more workable public transport solutions. There used to be a ferry dock at Howick beach in the days when travelling overland was more challenging. Why not again? Denser city centres lead to less transportation=less traffic and carbon emissions. Make the buildings green/ energy efficient enough and they can eventually pay for themselves. Please focus on solutions that will improve public transport rather than relying on cars. There were also a number of comments on transport in Auckland generally, and the need to ensure that the transport system is well planned to cope with the increase in congestion caused by a growing population: Please tell us is there a 30 year transport plan. Without such a plan Auckland will not be moving anywhere. The other day it took me 30 minutes to drive by car from Greville Link roundabout to Tristram Avenue turnoff. Where is the plan to increase the transportation links between Botany, Sylvia Park, St Lukes, New Market, and the city centre? Get the TBM's in
Unitary Plan housing simulator feedback.docx Page 16

Research

Engagement

Insight

the ground, cost should be allocated WITHIN current budget. Needs to be completing as the build happens. Before more houses can be built on the Devonport peninsular the roading infrastructure needs to be drastically improved. 40 minutes from Bayswater to the motorway is a disgrace. Buses cannot get there any quicker by the way!!!! With this many houses we will need lots of roads. We have such a beautiful city it would be a shame to congest the city with high rises that just get bigger and bigger taller and taller. Do wonder about how all these new people will travel to work...the roads are getting much worse recently.... 3.5: Miscellaneous comments There were a wide range of comments coded as miscellaneous, concerning topics such as the consultation process, the housing simulator tool itself, arguments about the need for population growth, and other comments: There seems to be a lot of talk and community consultation. This is good, but the housing crisis is with us right now. Get on with building houses and improving processes to make building easier and cheaper. (No more leaky homes though! Please!). We both know that no matter what we, as Joe Public, say or present, you as the bloated bureaucracy masquerading as a citizens council will continue to tax the living daylight out of those who might be able to pay and most likely will, to fund the sociali....[comment ended there] Great simulator, thanks very much! Can't adjust the residential homes (large & small) scale to eliminate 300 shortfall, but that is my intention. The model is flawed because there is the need to create a different mix of centres.. metropolitan, town & local - city of many villages to build community... model focuses on height and sprawl which does not create community. We need to get real like Sydney did in the 1990s faced with similar issues. Why do we have to grow by 1million people in 40 years? Come to NZ by all means but you can't live in Auckland for 5 years. There are other places you can live & work in NZ.

Unitary Plan housing simulator feedback.docx

Page 17

Research

Engagement

Insight

What are you thinking? The reasons we live on the North Shore is because we don't want to be all jammed in like Central and South Auckland. A million new people? Why would the stay? Our own children won't stay because there are no jobs, jobs, jobs. The height limits for the town centres should vary to a certain degree depending on the area. Include inclusionary zoning and look towards innovative solutions like backyard neighbourhoods, pocket neighbourhoods and enabling small 2ary dwellings, and doubling the height of existing houses to add more space or another dwelling on top/below. 3.6: Other comments While the main themes have been discussed above, there were also a number of comments regarding business zones, other zones, and general comments in support or opposition to the proposed plan. Statements of general support included posts such as: The way I see it at the moment, it seems a good plan, Auckland cannot keep spreading, plan for the future, the past and 1/4 acre sections has well gone. As an NZ citizen (originally from Glasgow where I spent my first 25yrs) I am excited about the Auckland Unitary Plan. High density living creates stronger, healthier communities through the compassion you feel towards those you SHARE your space with. I strongly support the Unitary Plan. However, I would prefer an even greater emphasis on densification, especially around transport nodes. Statements of general opposition included posts such as: The unitary plan is a plan to turn Auckland into a future slum. If it goes ahead in the proposed form, the council will not have to worry because Aucklanders will leave and immigration will stop, they will stay in their own slums. I am strongly against intensification and increasing building heights in general. There is inadequate infrastructure at present. e.g. narrow roads. Solution stop immigration. I am opposed to non-notifiable high-rise development proposals.

Unitary Plan housing simulator feedback.docx

Page 18

Research

Engagement

Insight

I'm dead against the Mayors plans, what about all of us in lovely older homes with lots of trees & he wants to put up 4/6 story apartments, I would never see the sky let alone the sun, which is the main reason I brought here. Why the rush? Business zone comments mainly focused on the degree of intensification in various zones: Devolve work places to regional centres. The CBD is a dinosaur from last century. Have people commuting close to home or work from home (as I do). This solves the traffic "problem" and our roading will function more effectively. Work with our unique geography by incentivising major businesses to locate in selected metropolitan & local centres, promote medium rise housing developments in the same areas, max benefit of transport projects by relieving future capacity & town centres. Some metropolitan and town centres more suited to height than others. More height should be provided for within the "desirable" centres e.g. Takapuna where quality residential living is more likely to result, less in other centres. Turn metro centres into thriving retail/business centres offering broad range of services, so orgs are encouraged to create hub business/satellite areas for employees so they are closer to home, less commuting/reduce traffic congestion. I think the growth needs to be added to the places that are already condensed and set up with facilities, transport and amenities. Business needs more people in the city in order to survive. Spreading growth out to the rural areas is not appropriate. Comments around all zones were mostly in favour of urban design standards to promote good quality buildings: Definitely need more apartment blocks but must be well designed and human friendly - not the terrible blocks that still seem to be going up. Consider ensuring that these are phased in and sensitive to neighbouring homes. Generally in favour of intensified housing, so long as developments are well planned and executed, with appropriate controls in place around quality of the build, and provision of services and amenities.

Unitary Plan housing simulator feedback.docx

Page 19

Research

Engagement

Insight

Keep Auckland a great place to live by focusing on building up the city centre and leaving the suburbs green. But inner city apartments have to be better quality that the majority of the shoe boxes that have been built in recent years. Quality of Build; that basic cost is similar whether an expensive or lower cost area. MUCH LESS "discretionary" developing. Well thought out and stringent laws for developers. Please ensure there are controls over the design and quality of materials used - essential to create better building stock.

Unitary Plan housing simulator feedback.docx

Page 20