Why three is now such a critical number
OPINION: Even ignoring the temporary Covid-19 alert level 3, the number three is becoming an increasingly important one in the future shape of Auckland.
The government proposal that would enable higher-density housing across much of Auckland – three, three-storey dwellings on most residential sections – is the latest instalment in the government’s ‘‘Three’’ trilogy.
The government wants to accelerate the building of new homes, and by doing so, increase the supply of more affordable homes.
Auckland, uniquely, has already provided for increasing housing density in many areas, as part of the hotly-debated Unitary Plan, created between 2013 and 2016, shaping the future development of the city.
The annual rate of consenting for new homes has climbed from the post-Global Financial Crisis depth of just 3600 in 2012, to an annual rate now at a record 20,000.
The government wants to turbo-charge that. For most of residential Auckland, the building of three, three-storey homes on a section is either not allowed, or could take lengthy and costly haggling with the council.
It plans to make that an entitlement for major cities in Aotearoa, from August next year, and has given councils three weeks – that number again – to respond to its surprise announcement.
Auckland Council has been cool on it, instantly critical on the lack of consultation and the lack of detail.
The government mandate would be a loss of sovereignty for Auckland in deciding the future shape of suburbs, including older, character neighbourhoods that some want to protect. And may still be able to.
It would reduce council ability to influence design, and quality, and growth might occur closer to the city fringe, demanding transport and other investments.
The flipside is being argued by those in the development and urban design sectors.
By reducing the arm-wrestling over details such as how wide a balcony should be, or the colour and nature of cladding, less time and money will go into the paperwork needed before the first concrete is poured.
Reducing the need to sweat the small stuff would allow the council to focus more on what it should be best at – ensuring the amenities in neighbourhoods are improved in line with growth populations: Pocket parks, cycle lanes and more space for pedestrians.
A developer looking to build three, three-storey townhouses will have more options. The quest for a site could become much quicker and easier.
There are other inconvenient truths for Auckland Council. Developers may want to build in areas where the water and wastewater systems can’t cope with higher populations.
Who will then pay for the needed upgrades? Enter the third leg of the Three trifecta:. Three Waters.
Auckland mayor Phil Goff is hotly-opposed to the government’s other reform, which would merge council water operations into just four public-owned entities nationwide.
Goff argues it’s a raw deal for Auckland ratepayers, who built up the assets over generations, and that there would be less community control and influence in a single, Bombay Hills-andnorthwards entity.
However, the housing three-by-three plan underlines that providing future water infrastructure could become a significant liability.
No one has done serious maths yet on whether Auckland would be better off not owning its water, wastewater and stormwater systems.
Thousands of Aucklanders are already living happily in modern three-storey town houses and terraces, and the needs of future generations deserve being given priority in a debate often dominated by their elders.
Auckland Council should focus on what only it can do, to make those higher-density neighbourhoods good places to live and move around in, at a time when cars will play a decreasing part for many, in daily life.