Heritage, housing we want it all
It’s an interesting time to be involved in the built environment sector as central and local government grapple with the ‘housing crisis’.
In some parts of the country heritage and character areas are being described as impediments to increasing housing supply and affordability.
This is not only reductionist thinking but it is also unhelpful when it would be far more productive to harness the engagement of communities who value their built environment and explore how that sense of connection could be enjoyed by all the residents of Aotearoa’s towns and cities.
Connection seems to me to be what is at stake with the current requirements to increase housing supply and, it is hoped, affordability.
Anyone resident in the Waikato who lived in Christchurch before the 2010/2011 earthquakes will have experienced the sense of dislocation that stems from a widescale loss of the buildings and structures that had established and enhanced the identity of the city over decades.
For many people, buildings are the urban pou [markers] that populate a cultural landscape connecting you with the people and experiences of your past.
That is not to claim the same cultural significance for an 1890s commercial building as a wahi tapu site, but rather an attempt to suggest an equivalence that might shed light on why so many people care about the buildings that a local MP described as ‘old dungers’ in the aftermath of the earthquakes.
In two conversations this week I heard a number of comments about heritage protection, character retention and contemporary housing development that might lead one to think that the current situation is a hopeless one in which no one will come out the winner.
Speakers opined that they choose to live out of Hamilton because it is not a pleasant environment, that developers are only concerned with yield, and that character houses should have their value inflated to give them protection as historic heritage resources.
What was not expressed was a NIMBY [not in my backyard] attitude and I think the reason for that was all of the speakers had a concern for good design and the creation of quality environments.
The 2020 National Policy Statement on Urban Development [NPS-UD] removed the requirement for minimum car parking rates and consequently commercial and residential buildings can now be erected without a single carpark in place. Until car ownership reduces in response to climate change and public transport initiatives that means there will be a lot of cars parked on the street, on berms and in driveways and no one can surely argue these will be an adornment to the neighbourhood.
On greenfields sites, such as the one shown here on the outskirts of Te Awamutu, it is easier for developers to create an integrated design in which cars can be accommodated in a tidy fashion and roading and stormwater infrastructure can be designed for use and amenity.
Here the issue of connection hinges upon the interface between the existing suburban context and new development and on whether the people who will live in the latter will become part of the local community or just come home to sleep there after a day spent at work and school in a neighbouring city.
A swathe of native plantings around a stormwater retention pond and a selection of culturally resonant names whose meaning is not communicated to residents and visitors will not create a sense of connection in the absence of real and meaningful conversation.
Whereas greenfield development is simple in many ways, given that it typically offers an apparently clean slate for an entirely new environment to be created, infill housing is much more complicated because it is undertaken in an existing environment in which many people have a stake.
Last year’s amendment to the RMA allowed for the erection of up to three housing units of up to three storeys in height without the need for a resource consent.
The new Medium Density Residential Standards apply to Tier 1 territorial authorities, including Hamilton, Waipa and Waikato councils, and exceptions can only be made in the presence of a limited number of qualifying matters, which include heritage and natural hazards.
Character streetscapes are not included in the list of qualifying matters.
While efforts to retain such environments is being characterised as NIMBYism, I prefer to think that the concerns expressed have more to do with the evidence that already exists of unsympathetic medium-density development that creates a domino effect in a street; whereby one development incentivises the next and, if they can afford it, existing residents relocate and take with them the sense of place that new residents would likely benefit from.
All in all we seem to find ourselves in a transitional space; one which will hopefully lead to good outcomes but, based on how well we have ‘done’ infill housing up until now, may simply further reduce the liveability of our cities and incentivise the well-to-do to head out of town where they can find more pleasant accommodation and have lots of room for carparking.