Lawrence Smith / Stuff
OPINION: Can an authority for urban development reach a neighborhood near you and should you be worried?
The answers are: maybe, and: hopefully not, but stay informed.
UDA is the latest acronym in the turbo charging discussion of building new homes in Auckland, rebuilding and modernizing entire communities of 5-10,000 homes.
It would be a new, powerful entity – an almost one-stop shop – with the powers to plan, finance and control the redevelopment of neighborhoods in existing urban areas.
* Pirie: Bureaucracy duplicated in displacement urban development
* The Auckland Council rejects Twyford's criticism of housing performance
* Wellington council members give UDA idea green light
In Auckland, the Minister for Housing and Urban Development Phil Twyford talked about 12 to 15 such areas, mainly where the state has large blocks of existing housing. Northcore, Mangere and Mount Roskill are often mentioned, and the newly acquired UNITEC site at Point Chevalier.
The idea has been under investigation for several years and was taken seriously at the beginning of last year when the then nationally led government called for the submission of the UDA concept.
There is plenty to think about. A UDA can be allowed to contribute to much more generous planning rules than would otherwise be the case in the environment. One city, two rules. Perhaps 6 stories high instead of three, as a hypothetical example.
Auckland Council last year gave his thoughts to the Ministry of Business, innovation and employment, largely in favor of the idea, but with numerous conditions.
In short, it is supportive, but not that a UDA should be able to operate in conflict with the Council's ambitions.
According to him, the council should have the right of veto on some issues and that in Auckland, municipal authorities such as Auckland Transport and Watercare, a role should play a role in determining the parameters of a development.
Also, as the name suggests, the UDA should only be able to operate in existing or already planned urban areas, and not in infrastructure-rich rural areas.
The concept of one city, two lines & # 39; is not new to Auckland, and the first iteration has yielded mixed reviews.
The government-controlled Housing Accord (2013-16) created Special Housing Areas (SHA) that put quicker, more intensive density rules in the context of the Unity Plan in the pipeline. Professional rights were seriously impeded to ensure undisturbed progress.
However, the most important difference between a UDA and an SHA is important. SHA was a policy and left the free market to decide whether to seize and build the opportunity.
A UDA would be a government-driven entity that would deliver the homes that are needed in a city that is estimated to be 45,000 short.
Twyford makes the most, but not all, the right sounds.
A UDA would naturally go hand in hand with the council, he insisted.
But in the case of Auckland, it is a council in which he still has no public trust, and places a large share of the blame on the city council for the substructure of houses in the past decade.
"It is largely the fault of town and country planning, which is the responsibility of the council," said Twyford.
That is an accusation that mimics the lines of his predecessor, National Nick Smith, and who does not win favor within the council.
Twyford said that the most important details on how a UDA could work could come about within a few months, legislation next year maybe next year, and a UDA maybe a year later.
Do not worry, pay attention to what you should do.