Dusko BogunSo much for Len Brown's and Penny Hulse's

championship of the 'compact city' vision.

Andy CawstonI think Mr Brown can wear this quite nicely all
by himself. Penny's views on sustainable cities are well known out West -- and have
been for decades. It was being delivered well by the legacy Waitakere City Council -which is why Westies generally like living here. This isn't a mess of her making.

Dusko BogunAndy Cawston Oh, yes it is. Though I would not call it a 'mess'.
Elements of this project are successful. But what makes this situation 'messy' is the wrong language.
This is NOT 'compact city'. PH, the mayor and the whole council and their planning brigade should
divorce themselves from the 'compact city' delusion because projects like this (and there are about
dozen of them at the various edges of the super-city) show that Auckland cannot, and never will be,
a compact city.
enny HulseThere is a much bigger picture here that all of you who have
P
rushed in to criticise, have missed. The master plan for Westgate has housing, employment
and commercial developments as part of this. The library/community centre is underway.
Park land and recreation areas are set aside and if Auckland Transport ever get their act
together.....the bus transport interchange designed by Waitakere will be builtThe mall has an
open street frontage and the Main Street builds on good urban design. This is a very large

complex long term town build......do not be so quick to condemn. Dusko, people in the nor
west need jobs and with the new busway now on track, why condemn us out west to always
head down the motorway to work. this is about servicing the fastest growing region in
nz.....the nor west needs jobs part of compact city is also building on jobs close to where
people live. This debate was has 15 years ago and these decisions made by Waitakere city,
have a look at the future numbers for Kumue, Huapai and Hobsonville and Whenuapai and
tell me that it makes sense for everyone to head into town to work shop and be entertained.
I am very pleased to see the hard work of Waitakere council coming to fruition for the good
of the Nor west.
Tim StevenThe thing is it does seem a new mall away from
traditional town centres. Many traditional centres are struggling to attract the main
brand retail businesses and thus the people. That's why I think more apartments in
Takapuna will be good for Takapuna - It will get the local foot traffic back into it.
Like Reply
Dusko BogunExactly: "This is a very large complex long term
town build...... this is about servicing the fastest growing region in nz....his debate
was has 15 years ago and these decisions made by Waitakere city..." These decisions
were made long time ago, so all that growth has been in the pipeline. But now more
of such decisions are being made all the time - despite the 'compact city' policy. And
I don't blame the decisions. That's what cities do - they grow. What I have a problem
with is that all that spectacular growth in the NW, N, S and SE direction is happening
faster then ever - while the council is still telling the fairy tale of Compact City. What
a joke! Let's have some reality and use some proper words.
Tim StevenDusko Bogun - Although there was a big push back against the longterm planning for the compact city. Some of it was reasonable some of it wasn't.

enny HulseSo let me then challenge the reality for some of you
P
commentators. A true compact city would allow for denser suburbs close to the city centre
and existing transport nodes and planned public transport corridors (Dominion road light rail
for example) the protection of 1944 buildings and heritage dominates these areas and pretty
much "sterilises" them from increasing density. We have a potential low density ring right
around the city. How do you square away the condemnation of the Westgate future town
(which provides for huge residential growth) with support for the blanket heritage
protection approach? This will be an interesting debate over the next few weeks, can't really
have it both ways and the very tightly controlled increase in the urban/rural boundary is
designed to absorb some of the growth. I await the debate.
J acques CharroyHard to have the debate without
complete plans being published. The blanket heritage protection in inner city
suburbs is a lunacy that's not in the interests of the greater number. Think

protection should be awarded to individual buildings of great character, not run of

the mill old villas.
Andy CawstonPenny has hit the nail on the head, as usual. We

cannot have it both ways and, if we aren't careful, we cannot have either.Cities
struggle with this all the time. When Vancouver built its SkyTrain back in the early
1980s there was one Hell of alot
Bryce PearceHuge residential growth, as long as you can drive

Dusko BogunYes, we can 'have it both ways'. And we ARE

having it both ways. Auckland is growing both up and out. Some intensification is
necessary, but the reality is - for a host of reasons - only about 25% of all future
growth can be accommodated this way. The remaining 75% will have to go out. And
this is precisely what is happening. But mostly in an unplanned way (including some
of it outside the super-city boundaries). The Akl Plan (and Unitary Plan, by
extension) decided to ignore these 'reality forces'. Instead, the Plan opted for a
delusion called 'compact city': 30% of the future development will be outside the
urban land boundary, and 70% inside. This clearly is not working. Four years later,
nobody on the council has the temerity to say so. To say loudly - the Plan was
wrong, we chose the wrong vision. We chose the wrong concept to describe that
vision, and we chose an implementation policy which has only limited application.
And even then is hard to do in our actual conditions ('intensification'). This is not just
about words. This about a fundamental error of focusing attention and resources on
the wrong place and process. Focusing it on the 'mice development' in the central
city, while the 'lion development' is roaring on the periphery and all over the region,
and super-region. As a result of tackling the issue of sprawl in the wrong way, we will
get the 'mother of all sprawls' - from Auckland, to Hamilton, Tauranga and
Whangarei.
Andy CawstonDusko Bogun writes: "only about 25% of all future
growth can be accommodated this way. The remaining 75% will have to go
out."Based on what?? Prima facie, that's arrant nonsense, and it would
automatically preclude proper hi-intensification develop...See More
Dusko BogunThere is plenty of reason. No 1, Akl is not
Vancouver. Attempting to copycat foreign examples will not get us far. No 2, the
sheer physical/spatial capacity of the built-up land area is not the actual capacity for
intensification. If it were, we could accommodate 5 million people in a
Berlin/Milan/Manhattan fashion on our isthmus. No 3, my estimate is not an 'arrant
nonsense'. It's based on 30 years of urban planning experience, on knowing Akl well,
and, as of recently, on the modeling done by D4 Studio (P. Fontein et al). The model
has shown that the actually capacity in Akl for intensification is anywhere between
50 and 150 K units. But our fantasy Plan wants 300 K! (based on '1 M future
residents' translated into 400 K units, 300 K is 75% of that). Without the benefit of

the estimates of Studio D4's modeling, produced in 2014/15, four years ago I told
the council - you can probably fit in about 100 K units (25% of all anticipated growth)
into the existing Akl, and that's it. The rest will have to be outside the urban limits. It
will to be split between 100K into new, greenfield suburbs; another 100 K into
satellite towns in the region; and the last 100 K should go to the satellites in the
outer region - Ham, Tau, Wha... This is - roughly - what IS happening, But in a
manner which is NOT planned. And that's why it worries me - what kind of a supraregional mess of a sprawl the Upper North Island will be one day.... thanks to an illconceived, introvert, ideology-driven, Old World envy-driven Auckland Plan.

Andy CawstonYour first reason isn't a reason at all, Dusko -it's merely an unsupported assertion. As is your second reason. Auckland and
Vancouver have many, many things in common -- including built-in geographical
limitations to growth. We would be wise to l...See More

Dusko BogunAndy Cawston Your reasoning exemplifies the

Akl/NZ cultural inferiority complex: the solutions are somewhere else: we are a
dumb colony, the world knows best (UK and EU especially). The modeling has been
done under various scenarios/assumptions, some more realistic (current rules),
some more aspirational (changing the rules). Models are never perfect, but they are
the best tool we have to bring some reason to Akl planning, and achieve a balance
with Akl planners' travel-insipred dreams of Portland apartments, Barcelona cafes,
Italian hill top towns and Greek fishing villages. I don't know what you mean by 'the
position we are in currently'. We are No 4 on one of the lists of world;s best cities.
What's wrong with that?

Andy CawstonOddly enough, as a foreign immigrant to New

Zealand I have either assimilated the Akl/NZ cultural inferiority complex
extraordinarly well, or there might just be something to it.I have traveled
extensively and lived in real cities. I can name four cities off the top of my head
along the West Coast of North America that would trump Auckland in liveability in
every measurable way. (Vancouver, Victoria, Seattle, Portland.) Those are all coastal
towns with more-than-a-little in common with Auckland.
n that basis alone, anybody who claims Auckland is #4 on a list of
O
the world's best cities is on acid. Auckland is a nice small town with global
aspirations, but it has plenty to be humble about and plenty of scope to learn from
what works well overseas.

Dusko BogunOh well, Andy, it sounds like you should have

never moved from those real cities to this ocean of suburbia. I also lived on the US
WC (2 years in the SFBA) and do not miss it. No doubt SF and Vancouver are better
as real cities. But they belong to bigger, older and wealthier countries. NZ and can
do the 'urban thing' only so much. Putting the urban thing (intensification etc) in ink
on paper (Akl Plan) will not produce the magic. Just delusion. Aspiring to be a
Vancouver, Melbourne or Vienna will only distract us from what we already have
and do well.
Andy CawstonCanada was confederated in 1867. Vancouver
was founded in 1886. While roughly contemporaneous, both New Zealand and
Auckland were each founded earlier.So much for your "bigger, older and wealthier
countries" argument. Arrant nonsense, as before.If you cannot get your easy facts
right, Dusko, why should I expect you to get your difficult facts right?
25% of future growth my ass.
I quite like it here in Auckland, but I'm not blinkered by our city's
limitations -- most of which seem to be self-imposed and virtually none of which
need to be there. We've currently got a few elected members -- like Penny -- who
have the necessary vision and nous to make things work properly, if we let them.
We sent them to The Council for a really good reason, and it wasn't merely for
decoration. I suggest we listen to what they have to say.

THE END