Auckland special character housing rules: 10 misunderstandings about the villa wars - Simon Wilson

OPINION

The way some people talk, you'd think Parliament's new density requirements for Auckland housing will mean the end of civilisation as we know it.

"Welcome to a future of Soviet-style concrete bunkers, the human version of battery hen living," responded one person to my story about the target="_blank">Auckland Council debate on this last week. Councillor Sharon Stewart said in the debate that the new rules will "completely destroy our heritage". Her colleague Wayne Walker called the Act "draconian legislation".

The Housing Enabling Act requires councils to allow three-story density all over the city, with six-storey density around town centres and major transport hubs. It permits councils to identify "qualifying matters" that mean these requirements can be set aside, and to establish the boundaries of the higher density areas.

Auckland Council wants to make "special character" a qualifying matter: essentially, to exempt villa suburbs from development.

Confusion abounds. Here are 10 things often misunderstood about the new regime:

1. It's not that many

Special character areas (SCAs) already exist in Auckland. In an attempt to persuade the Government it understands the intent of the Act, council plans to remove SCA protection from only about 5500 homes: a quarter of the current SCA total.

That doesn't mean they will all be bulldozed. Some will be, over time. Most probably won't. Development is allowed on more properties than is needed, because while the rules enable, they don't force anybody to do anything.

Typically, growth is partial. Take a look at Remuera and Mt Eden, both of which have experienced growth in apartments and townhouses. Somehow, it hasn't ruined either suburb.

2. Heritage and character are different

Heritage buildings are defined and protected and are not under threat from the new law. In fact, they could be added to: the entire Devonport village, for example, could apply for heritage protection.

Character is a different matter. It has no legal definition and is, essentially, an invention of councils.

Despite the doomsday messaging of councillors Stewart, Walker and others, council is looking for a way to protect most "character homes" from the possibility of development. All six of the leading mayoral candidates say they agree with this goal.

3. It's not that bad

Currently, where density is allowed, it encourages "sausage flats". That's flats lined up in rows parallel to the street, facing onto a concrete driveway or into the windows next door. The new rules will allow more "perimeter housing", where apartments line the street, sharing a garden or courtyard behind.

More privacy and more amenity for those living there, and better streetscapes too.

Having apartment blocks in a suburb is great for long-term residents: if you have to give up the family home, you can buy an apartment and stay living in your community.

4. We need better design rules

The problem with density is not the density. It's that our design rules aren't as good as they could be. The new rules will enable better design, because innovative architects and developers will have to jump through fewer hoops. But they will also enable worse design, for exactly the same reason.

If Mayor Phil Goff had not allowed his officials to abolish the Auckland Design Office in 2019, council would have been much better placed than it is now to insist on better design. That, not density, is the debate we really need.

5. It's not that special

The special character areas include much of Kingsland, Sandringham, Balmoral, Eden Terrace and Arch Hill, where many of the houses have a villaesque vibe. But they're not villas. Very often, the curlicues on the verandah posts and turned-wood balustrades on the deck are only 20 or 30 years old.

These homes were built as workers cottages: plain boxes that are cold and draughty now, despite the best efforts of current owners.

The council has encouraged this fakery, insisting on picket fences and other such trimmings. Now it reinforces that with claims of "colonial character", as if it speaks authentically of the city's history.

Conversely, in suburbs like Devonport and Grey Lynn, many homes that really were villas have kept their façade while almost entirely new houses have been built behind. There's nothing wrong with this, but again, it's not "authentic" history.

6. It's not an accident of history

To date, the villa suburbs in a ring around central Auckland have enjoyed remarkable freedom from development. They also have access to good schools, great parks and many other advantages. And although they need it least, they even have the best public transport, because all the routes from further out run through them.

This is not an accident of history or a reward for some special quality in the people who live there. It's the result of decades of political decision-making to preserve this privilege.

7. Luxury apartments would help

It's often argued that apartment blocks in Devonport wouldn't help ease house prices because they'd be luxury apartments. That's both wrong and irrelevant.

It's wrong because, as Onehunga, Kingsland, Mt Albert and even Grey Lynn show, in the parts of those suburbs where growth has been allowed, it's very possible to have a range of price points.

And it's irrelevant because even if most apartment blocks in upmarket suburbs are themselves upmarket, that helps take the pressure off other areas.

House prices everywhere are up 69 per cent, says the Infrastructure Commission, because there's been no development in places like Devonport. Photo / Michael Craig

The housing market is one market and the housing crisis is one crisis. What happens in Epsom is one end of a continuum that has a record number of people on the social housing register at the other.

As the Infrastructure Commission has reported, the zoning that for decades kept density out of places like Devonport has inflated the entire housing market by as much as 69 per cent. Put simply, wealthy people wanting to buy an apartment have had to look further afield, and developers have indulged them, inflating prices everywhere and pushing everyone else even further away.

8. It's not a government plot

Councillor Greg Sayers said last week, "In my mind it's showboating by the Government. It's politically driven and bipartisan." Whatever that means.

The Housing Enabling Act is supported by Labour, National, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, although that hasn't prevented some fevered opposition by National stalwarts like Danielle Grant of the Kaipātiki Local Board (the lower North Shore west of the motorway) and North Shore MP Simon Watts.

Despite a suggestion this cross-party collaboration was "cooked up", this is a tremendous thing for democracy in beleaguered times. Political parties working together when they know how to do the right thing, but fear an electoral backlash? We need more of it. Prisons next, please.

9. There is an infrastructure issue

It is true that some of Auckland's infrastructure will not cope with growth, unless it is upgraded. But that's an argument for doing the infra mahi, not pretending we can avoid the growth. Besides, while the water and sewage systems of the old swamplands of Sandringham and parts of the eastern suburbs need attention, their problems are not as bad as in, say, Māngere.

For all the reasons – the climate crisis, motorway congestion, road safety, the value of elite soils, public health – Auckland can't just give up growing inside the urban boundary and build greenfields suburbs instead. More density is desirable and inevitable: the question is how the burden and the benefits it brings are shared.

10. It's not inevitable

Some people have said it's outrageous they will now be able to sell their homes to a developer, who will then send all the old kauri to the tip and ruin the lives of their neighbours by putting up a tower block.

You can stop that. All you need to do is get together with your neighbours and agree not to sell to developers.