More trouble for Len

As if Len Brown hasn’t got enough on his plate with the POAL dispute and Matt McCarten’s vile hatred, he also has major problems with his Auckland Plan.  The tipline has run so hot over the weekend with information about the mayor’s “visions” for Auckland that I’ve literally run out of paper to print it on.

So much information has come across my desk that it is difficult to find the time to read all of it and it is also hard not to fall off my chair laughing at some of it.

The main issue is the retention of the urban limit. Greenie planners despise removing the urban limit.  They also masturbate over heritage as Len Brown’s chief media mouthpiece, Bernard Orsman, wailed in Saturday’s Herald.

This gnashing of teeth and argy bargy between greenie environmentalist planners has come about because a leaked report on the Auckland Plan by third party consultant developers hired by Len’s council has pretty much said that Len’s intensification model for Auckland is not going to work unless some major changes occur in land zoning and demolition of heritage housing.  Yep, massive re-zoning and demolition of heritage housing.  Remember the outcry from greenie environmentalists when Len stood by and watched those outdated, decrepit old houses torn down in St Heliers?  And what about the reaction from greenie environmentalists in Saturday’s Herald when that old rust bucket in Freemans Bay was going to be demolished?  City Vision’s Shale Chambers (a Labour Party hack) called it a “sick joke”.

Well get your bucket ready Shale because here’s another sick joke for you, and for your party’s leader.  The consultant report said this about Mt Albert:

Substantial intensification opportunities exist. The Unitec site could be substantially master-planned to a high density Campus, similar to the British Columbia University in Vancouver.

This area is capable of supporting substantial market-led intensification, with bold up-zoning.

Mt Albert will be a litmus test for political resilience.

Prepare an intensification master-plan for Mt Albert. Communicate the Plan clearly with the Community.

Council should not believe intensification will occur without major upzoning. Without boldness, intensification will be ad-hoc and low in number.

Mt Albert is a litmus test for political resilience. Without major up-zoning intensification will be sporadic and low quality. Quality upzoning could make Mt Albert a vibrant intensified precinct.

I can’t wait to see David Shearer standing in front of the bulldozers when the developers start demolishing those 80yr old houses in Mt Albert for semi-detached townhouses and units.

As the tipline has been running so hot this weekend on this stuff, I will reproduce more material in coming days that will show Len’s compact city model is, to quote Shale Chambers, a sick joke.

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • ConwayCaptain

    Dont forget that Loopy wants to put 1 million EXTRA people into Akl in the enxt 30 yrs.  The transport system cant even handle what they have got.

    To put new housing into a suburb all the water, sewerage etc has to be upgraded.

    Why dont they start getting people and businesses to nmove OUT of Akl and remove the pressure

  • Lesley

    Hmmm. Are there any AKLD Council plans for the Devonport Peninsula area? (Takapuna, Hauraki, Belmont, Baywater and Devonport). In five years time the Navy land in Takapuna, Hauraki, Belmont and Bayswater will be in total ownership of Ngati-Whatua to develop. (Helen Clark’s govt gave first refusal to Ngati Whatua under Treaty of Waitangi Settlement to buy the Navy land (not the houses). This is prime land with good views of the inner harbour.
    Ngati Whatua closes in on navy land settlement http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10755442  I understand Navy tenants have been told that their rental/lease contracts go for another five years then the Navy houses in these areas will not be needed by Navy. What will Ngati Whatua do with the land? Whatever happens must be open and transparent and nearby residents need to be informed every step of the way.
    The Deed of Settlement Schedule: Property has the detail of the lots involved. http://nz01.terabyte.co.nz/ots/DocumentLibrary/NWOOinitialledPropSched.pdf
    The OTS website has the details: http://www.ots.govt.nz/
     

  • Gazzaw

    Can’t wait for Rudman to get back from leave.

  • Quintin Hogg

    I’d start with Ponsonby – Grey Lynn. i.e start at the centre and move outwards.
    Push the all the villas over and start again. 
    The area needs intensification if mass transport is to work.

    • Gazzaw

      Fat chance Quintin. You’re talking about flattening Liberal-Leftyville. Mass transport is for the masses not for them.

      • Colin

        Gazzaw, you are right.  It would upset Nicky Kaye. 

        The best place to start would be Burnley Terrace. 

        It is a heritage street in the Mt Albert electorate.  Although the houses are described as heritage they have all felt the renovaters hammer and are really ghastly hodgepodges of assorted styles.  Consequently they could all be pushed over with little loss to Aucklands heritage.

        More importantly it would piss Shale Chambers off as he lives in the street. That would be fun.

  • Orange

    Once you visit Europe you realise how ridiculously young all our buildings are and how superficial it is to load so much “heritage” value to them.

  • Pingback: Is the Draft Auckland Plan a Lemom – Another Blogger Blogs « View of Auckland()

  • From the Auckland Council Chief Planner:
    [But the council’s planning chief, Dr Roger Blakeley, said the Birkenhead image should not be misinterpreted.”These are scenarios that have been developed,” he said. “That’s not saying that’s what will happen. It’s like asking what-if questions.”It’s saying that if the 75:25 split is in the final document, that’s the sort of intensification that will be needed to deliver that.”You’re putting too much emphasis on what the future of Auckland will look like. That’s one input about the future ratio of intensification versus greenfields development of Auckland.”You should not take anything in those documents as fixed in stone.]Err unless the central planners and the centre-left roll over to the people and submission then I thought the 75:25 was rubber stamped and the entire submission exercise was nothing more then a farce that Council and bureaucrats will ignore (not all councillors are ignoring the submissions though) So can we take it from the Chief Planner that the ratio can be flexi, the RUB softened or abandoned and the a bit more common sense to this whole approach?I wait with abated breath Auckland CouncilAnd am covering the thread as WO has linked above

  • Hakim of Phut

    From Chesham in rural Buckinghamshire and the furthermost tube station to Baker St in centrol London is  41km.
    From Auckland  Britomart to Papakura central is 31Km.
    Now you know why we need intensification. Its far too expensive to extend the water , sewerage and roads to 50km out from the CBD

    • Sewage goes to Mangere some 15km away on the direct route and water comes from the ranges 10mins to the South of Papakura, or the Waikato Pipeline which runs right beside Papakura, oh and the treatment plant is in Manukau East about 3mins direct from Papakura.

      Nope no problem with infrastructure there per se – the main stuff is already there at Papakura

31%