People usually want the best of all worlds. If asked to choose between low-density housing and the curbing of Auckland's sprawl, most would covet both. But sometimes choices have to be made. Thus, the regional growth strategy drafted two years ago by Auckland local body politicians decided that urban sprawl was the worse of two evils.
Most growth would henceforth take place within the existing urban limits and be focused around town centres and major public transport routes. Those eager to protect the environment, especially the coastline, applauded the decision. Blissfully, they also overlooked the implication - that Auckland would build up, not out. Their contentment has evaporated with the unveiling of the Auckland City Council's plan to use Panmure as a test site for a new style of low-cost four to six-storey apartment blocks.
The outcry is as vociferous as that which initially greeted infill housing, another response to a booming population. In this instance, though, there may be more legitimate cause for alarm. The regional growth strategy notes that high-density living is sometimes assumed to be synonymous with crime and poor social conditions. But it contends that anti-social behaviour is more closely associated with economic conditions - income, employment and so on - than housing type. High-rise living, it seems to be saying, is not intrinsically harmful. Indeed, the city council reckons on creating "liveable communities."
The areas earmarked for the most concentrated development include the eastern suburbs of Glen Innes, St Johns and Panmure, Otahuhu in the south, the central suburbs of Newmarket, Newton and Kingsland, then Mt Albert, Avondale and Blockhouse Bay. Those areas' chance to become "liveable" obviously owes much to their location on corridors chosen for improved public transport.
In working-class Panmure, the plan is to have 90 per cent of streets containing single and double-storey homes rezoned for high-density apartments and townhouses. The danger of such vast reconstruction is that much of the suburb will, in fact, become unliveable.
It is drawing a long bow, but probably not too long, to compare such development with the tower dwellings that sprouted in Britain after the Second World War. They, too, seemed a tidy solution. Unexpectedly, they prompted social and psychological damage and undermined the contention that there is no link between overcrowding and crime.
Inside such apartments, many of the occupants felt too large for their living space; outside, the giant blocks dwarfed them. There was no way for children to play naturally, and the lifts and passages between the characterless flats invited violence, vandalism and insecurity. As the towers decayed, so did the mental and physical welfare of those who lived there.
High-density housing undoubtedly has a place in meeting the demands of the increasing number of ageing people, one and two-person households and childless couples. None the less, there is good reason to question its widespread application. Most of Britain's tower blocks have long gone. The trick, of course, is deciding upon more appropriate housing.
A recipe for a minimum standard of comfortable living should include each house having its own outdoor living space and privacy from neighbours. Given that, could it be that terraced housing is an acceptable compromise? Modern architectural and building techniques mean that such developments need not smack of Coronation Street.
In all likelihood, they would strike more of a chord in a country whose people remain alienated by the prospect of ticky-tacky boxes reaching towards the sky. They would also help to retain Auckland's character. Unusually for a large city, housing developments blot out few views of the physical environs. Aucklanders appreciate that panorama as much as they like to keep their feet close to the ground. For reasons both rational and prejudiced, the city council may have to think again about how it plans to set up house.
<i>Editorial:</i> High-rise flats are not for Auckland
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.