Todays Herald Editorial argues that the planning profession would have opposed the Bridge and Motorways that have made possible the Auckland we know and love, a large world class metropolis. They are probably right, but two persnickety comments: They are wrong about Auckland sprawling. Auckland is actually very dense city by new world standards, denser than all Australian cities except Sydney. They are wrong to say that what we have is due to a lack of planning. People forget that in the 1950s and 60s, a piece of land of your own with a back yard that you could quickly get to by car, and a CBD for working with little in the way of residential property WAS the planning goal. Thats why getting residential property into the CBD has happened relatively recently and haphazardly with complaints about poor quality apartments and pressure on CBD infrastructure. Cities back then won planning awards for achieving what modern planners call sprawl. All of which is to say, be careful what you wish for, with transport technology constantly improving, whos to say that the current drive for intensification will not one day be viewed with the same dumbfoundedness as current planners view the 60s? Given we dont know as much as wed like to think we do about the future, a smarter long term approach is to price infrastructure correctly so that their are not blow outs and accidental subsidies from one rate payer to another, respect peoples property rights (e.g. right to do what you want notwithstanding immediate physical threats such as traffic, noise and shading to neighbours) and otherwise let the city grow naturally.
Posted on: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 21:24:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015