Spread out!

Auckland is one of the biggest cities in the world in terms of area with one of the smallest populations for a city. Our city is vast, and sprawled out. I never noticed this until I started needing to come into the city every day for university- it was then that the 1 hour bus ride made me realise that Howick- although it is apart of Auckland is really far away.

                                    All Images show the view of the city from where I stay. This is at the edge of                                             the metropolitan urban limit and therefore shows the sprawl of the city. (Sourced: MacDowel. 2011.)

I was talking to a friend about how sprawled our city was, and why it is so different to most other cities in the world. We compared it to cities such as London that are extremely dense in the centre of the city and slowly decrease in density the further you get from the city centre. Looking at the above photos, you can barely even see the city centre from where I am (the cloud doesnt help) yet supposedly I live in Auckland city?

Auckland needs to be fixed- i have already written about this before and what seems to be an impossible task. What needs to change first is the typical kiwi attitude that everyone should have 1/4 of an acre of land and a detached house- most people living in cities around the world do not have this. If you want it, you move to a smaller city or the countryside. Auckland is meant to be New Zealand's biggest, and most important city with regard to international trade and our economy and it should be developed in a way that reflects this. It needs to become a city that has intensive development in the central city so that more people can fit in that zone and less suburban housing that is consuming our surrounding countryside.

There is a fear that with the expected population growth of Auckland in the near future, our city is going to expand more towards the Waikato and many talk about Hamilton and Auckland becoming one city eventually because of the sprawl of Auckland. If we can see this now then we can prevent it.

"Uncontrolled urban sprawl brought inefficient demand for transport, water, waste removal and other social and physical infrastructure demands and these costs fell on the wider community through traffic congestion, environmental degradation and rates rises" (NZ Herald. 2008).


I retrieved the above quote from an old New Zealand Herald article which mentioned the adverse effects sprawl has had on Auckland, and will continue to do so as long as we expand our city horizontally. It can be read at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10488176


As a part of the next generation of planners, I hope that we are able to adopt more sustainable development that encourages building up rather than out and we are able to reduce the costs of our city and its development so that we can have a more effective and successful economy but also protect our natural environment.

Butts Everywhere

Why is it, that everyone is aware that littering is bad for the environment and it is frowned upon to do so, but the same thoughts are not with people dropping their cigarette butts all over the place?

This is something I have noticed over the last couple of years- predominantly whilst I have been spending more time in the central city for university. It is something that shocks me, but more importantly I am shocked by the sense of acceptance that Aucklander's have with regard to this issue.

Does everyone not know that whatever you drop on the street will most likely get picked up by stormwater and get taken directly to water sources such as the harbour?? Aucklanders are constantly complaining about the state of our harbour and its lack of aesthetics because of the tank farms and ports of Auckland. Surely a good start (and an achievable one at that) would be reducing the amount of cigarette butts we are letting get into our environment.

Everyone knows that smoking is bad for our health, so if it is bad for our health then it must be bad for the state of our environment and the health of species living within it. I did a bit of research with regard to this, and found an Australian site that outlined the adverse effects of cigarette butts on the environment.

• "When it rains, cigarette butts lying in our streets and gutters are carried via storm water directly into our harbours, beaches and rivers.  The chemicals contained in these butts and the butts themselves impact on our water quality and can be deadly to marine life.

• Flicked butts can cause fires. When thrown from a motor vehicle into dried grass, butts can start a grass fire or even a bushfire.
• Cigarette butts can take up to 12 months to break down in freshwater and up to 5 years to break down in seawater.
• Littered butts seriously reduce the aesthetic quality of any environment. Butts have been found in the stomachs of young birds, sea turtles and other marine creatures."

 I would have thought this was all very obvious to people, but apparently not. Below are some images showing the issue expressed in society.

Ciggarette Butts scattered through the sand on beaches. The Beach is meant to be New Zealands iconic feature, representing our natural environment and how lucky we are to have so much access to it. This photo shows the lack of appreciation there really is for such important landscapes.

This photo shows how cigarrette butts have the potential to dominate public open space and totally destroy the beauty of the built environment as well as the natural environment. This photo was taken on the Kapiti Coast where they brought in the ban of smoking in public places- an action that they have found to significantly reduce the amount of cigarette litter around the area. Image sourced from Kapiti Coast News.

I think the thing that annoys me the most is how contradictory it all is. New Zealander's pride themselves in the clean green image and Aucklander's jump on this band wagon however do nothing much to contribute to actually creating a true reflection of the image. People need to wake up, and realise that dropping cigarette butts is just as bad if not worse, for the environment as dropping other litter.

Here is the article of the adverse effects on the environment and the article about what has been happening in the Kapiti Coast
http://www.cleanup.org.au/PDF/au/cleanupaustralia_cigarette_buts_factsheet.pdf
http://www.kcnews.co.nz/story.php?storyID=1868

Lack of resources

An element of planning is allocating resources is it not?
Why is it that the planning building has a lack of computers- more specifically why does the 3rd and 4th year studio have less space and less computers than the 1st and 2nd year studio?

This seems like some bad planning does it not??

Where is the greenery?

As I was casually talking to a friend about things we don't like about Auckland, the issue of a lack of greenery and enjoyable/nice open green space was raised.
Sure, we have the Auckland Domain, Victoria and Albert Parks in the central city- but what can you actually do at these places? For the amount of people these spaces are serving, there really is a lack of space and opportunity to get out and really feel as though you are outside of the city.

Describing his own personal experience and thoughts on the issue, my friend stated that "you spend 40 minutes of driving to get anywhere of worth. This is something that must change if Auckland wants to become the world class city that the council is striving for through the Auckland Spatial Plan.

Open space is hugely important to the overall quality of life people living in an area experience. An abundance of open spaces results in higher well-being and  " contributes to the way people feel about where they live and impacts strongly on the sustainability of the natural environment."Big Cities, 2007. The Quality of Life Report examines 12 different cities around New Zealand and proves what my friend and I had thought, "All but one city have more than five hectares of council managed green space for every 1,000 people (Auckland was just slightly under at 4.9 hectares per 1,000 residents)."  Big Cities, 2007.

 When I think about life in Auckland city in comparison to other cities I have visited, I have less enthusiasm with regard to the built environment. Some say that it is because I live here and it is always different when you live in a city rather than visiting it. But, in the case I beg to differ. When I visited Christchurch earlier this year (BEFORE the earthquake), I spent quite a bit of time in Hagley Park and in civic squares through the city- it wasn't just me doing this- on a normal working day there were locals out enjoying the spaces in their lunch breaks because of how accessible they are but also because of how many there are. 


Think of the spaces in Auckland that I have already mentioned. How many people actually utilise the Auckland domain or Victoria Park? Albert Park is a hit in the warmer months, especially for university students- it is an idea example of what Auckland should further establish throughout the city rather than massive parks that have a lack of uses because they are actually just green space with no sitting areas or use of edge spaces. I remember in my first year of my Planning degree we focused a lot on the theories of Bentley et al (1985) and how public spaces are best used when edge space is used and acts as an encourager for people to stop and spend time in the area whether it be through cafe seating or simply park benches.

Auckland needs more interactive, space that is 'of worth' and encourages activity rather than just a means of getting to a destination as a through route.



If you want to read more about the quality of life report, check it out on this link.

Big Cities. Quality of Life Report. 2007. Accessed at:
http://www.bigcities.govt.nz/pdfs/2007/Quality_of_Life_2007_Built.pdf 

What!!!

As I was casually trolling through the New Zealand Herald website this evening I stumbled across a headline that grabbed my attention "Far-right group plans Auckland Anti-Asian march". The initiator of this protest, Kyle Chapman, is a white supremacist from Christchurch who believes that there is an 'Asian Invasion' in Auckland, specifically suburbs of Howick, Pakuranga and Northcote. Chapman believes that there should be essentially lock downs on the amount of Asian immigrants coming into New Zealand because they are stealing jobs and destroying white New Zealand heritage and culture.

All I can say is what the heck is going on!! What makes someone think that it is OK to tell people of other ethnicities that they are not allowed into our country?

The first thing that springs to my mind is that every single person in this nation has descended from an immigrant. No one was just here, everyone arrived whether they came by plane, boat or waka- we are come from someone who immigrated to New Zealand at some point in time. So then HOW does someone take the stance that they have the right to control and dominate this country?

This semester at University we are looking at cultural diversity and how to plan for it now and in the future so that we create inclusive communities. This article screams out exclusivity to me and is such a deterrent for our nation. In the globalised world we live in today, should we not all be welcoming of every culture?

As a person who lives in Howick- supposedly under going an 'Asian Invasion' I don't see the problem. If anything having the vast range of different cultures at my door step makes my community so much more interesting and attractive. I am the first to admit that there are a lot of people from Asia in my nearby communities but there is also a lot of people from South Africa- but they are white so is this why its not a problem?

This is such an extreme form of racism and it may be a harsh comparison, but did Hitler not start off hating on the Jews because they stole jobs from the German people?

Planning for social aspects of communities and their development is such an important part of the planning profession especially in communities that are increasingly becoming more and more diverse in cultures and ethnicities. The system should work in a way that means no one is superior or inferior to anyone else and everyone is accepted. Is this just an ideal or is there a way that planners can tackle issues of racism in our communities to avoid disputes happening and allow us to live happily as one with one vision?

If you want to read the actual article here is the link:

 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10724994

"Fix" Auckland?

So yesterday I was talking to someone who was interesting in the fact that I am studying planning and that I want to be a town planner. Whenever I have this conversation with people they immediately ask if I am going to fix Auckland and make it a better city (because lets face it, it doesn't really work at the moment because of how sprawled out it is). It got me thinking, I always say I won't fix Auckland because I really have no intention of staying here when I finish university because it is a planners nightmare. 
While I was talking to this girl I was wondering HOW they could ever really fix Auckland without bulldozing it and starting again. I found this quote from IPP that states:

"The way forward requires all of Auckland – government, business, communities and tängata whenua, to develop a region that is liveable and prosperous. To do this, we need to build infrastructure and social systems that are resilient and adaptable, and we need to begin to live within the limits of our natural environment. We also need to make sure we provide enough public open space for future generations to enjoy, and to protect important landscapes, especially in coastal areas, and unique plants and animals." (IPP- see website at bottom)

Although this does suggest the general direction Auckland needs to take in order to become a region of greater livability and prosperity, it is suggesting things that seem impossible when we already have infrastructure in place that affects how we can change the networks to make them better. For example, a few years ago there was a proposal for a new transport link  to go down Ti Rakau Drive near Pakuranga but to do this they were going to have to purchase and knock down several properties to make the space on the road layout- naturally this did not go down well and so years later still nothing has happened in terms of creating better transport connections. 

Auckland has a huge dependency on private transport- our motorways and arterial roads are continuously jammed up and lack in efficiency. I was reading through the Auckland Transport Blogs and found this statement which I think summed up what Auckland should be aiming for.

"Properly integrated land-use and transport planning should result in reduced automobile dependency, it should result in less congestion and greater public transport use and it should result in more sustainable communities." (Auckland Transport Blog. July 2009)

But how do we make this all better and follow suggestions for a more sustainable Auckland when we are already developed? Will we need to bulldoze some properties for the greater good?

I think firstly there must be a shift in attitudes toward intensive development. Combining land-use and transport planning so that they complement each other is one step to improving the city and its functionality. Creating high density development around public transport nodes such as train stations and bus stops will encourage a greater use of public transport as well as make people more connected to areas of the city. Whenever an Aucklander hears 'intensify development' they squirm, a part of what is awesome about living in NZ is the fact that we get to have these big houses on large amounts of land- however these people still complain about how disconnected the city is and how hard it is to get from A to B in your car let alone public transport!

Aucklanders need to open their eyes to realise you cannot have both ways- all the world class cities around the world have extremely dense development in their city centres and even in the outer suburbs there is reasonably intense development- it is only when you go into the countrysides and small towns that you are able to find large houses on big properties. It is this feature that allows a city to function but for Auckland to adopt such an attitude the people need to acknowledge this and decide what they want, a sprawled out city with decent sized properties and houses or a more intensified city with efficient and reliable systems.

References.

Auckland Transport Blog. July 2009

http://transportblog.co.nz/tag/howickbotany-line/page/3/

IPP- Key Issues for the Auckland Region.
www.ipp.org.nz/.../Key%20Issues%20for%20the%20Auckland%20Regions.

Lacking transport

http://transportblog.co.nz/2009/02/20/the-east-auckland-problem/

I just found this blog post from the Auckland Transport Blog and thought it was quite interesting to read... maybe thats because I am from Howick...
Its cool to see that people have noticed that there really is the worst public transport for us out here and it really needs to become a priority of the Council to connect Eastern suburbs with the city better because 1 hour on a bus into the city really isn't good enough.