Key Takeaways
- The debate around intensification in Auckland has become highly politicized, with different opinions on how to balance housing needs with community concerns.
- Housing Minister Chris Bishop believes there is a pragmatic and sensible way to approach intensification, and is working to find a middle ground that most reasonable people can support.
- The issue is not about whether to intensify, but about how much to do in suburban areas and elsewhere, with some arguing that towering buildings in residential areas are not the solution.
- The previous Plan Change 78, which incorporated Medium Density Residential Standards, was met with opposition, and the current government has allowed Auckland to withdraw from it, leading to Plan Change 120.
Introduction to the Intensification Debate
The intensification debate in Auckland has been ongoing for some time, with different stakeholders holding varying opinions on how to balance the need for more housing with community concerns about density and development. Recently, Housing Minister Chris Bishop spoke to reporters at Parliament, stating that the debate around intensification "has kind of got lost a bit". He believes that there is a pragmatic and sensible way to approach the issue, one that most reasonable people can support. Bishop’s goal is to find this middle ground and implement it in the next month or so. This approach is in line with his reputation as a "middle ground kind of guy", who seeks to find solutions that work for everyone.
The Politics of Intensification
The intensification debate has become highly politicized, with different parties and leaders holding strong opinions on the matter. Act leader David Seymour recently stated that the issue had become "highly politicized", with residents in his Epsom electorate not being "anti-intensification" per se, but rather concerned about the impact of towering buildings on their communities. Seymour argues that the debate has become symbolic, rather than practical, with people focusing on the idea of intensification rather than the actual details of how to make it work. This is in line with Bishop’s comments, who believes that most reasonable people agree on the need to intensify in certain areas, such as around train stations and metropolitan urban centers.
The History of Intensification Plans
The previous Plan Change 78, which incorporated Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS), was met with opposition from various groups. The MDRS were introduced under Labour and initially supported by National, but as opposition grew, National changed its policy to allow councils to opt out of the MDRS if they could zone for more housing in other ways. Last year, the coalition Government allowed Auckland to withdraw from Plan Change 78, leading to Plan Change 120. This change has given Auckland more flexibility in terms of zoning and development, but has also raised concerns about the potential impact on communities.
Finding a Middle Ground
Bishop’s comments suggest that he is working to find a middle ground on intensification, one that balances the need for more housing with community concerns about density and development. This approach is likely to involve compromise and negotiation with different stakeholders, including residents, developers, and local government officials. By finding a middle ground, Bishop hopes to create a solution that works for everyone, and that can help to address the housing crisis in Auckland. This will require careful consideration of the different factors at play, including the need for more housing, the impact on communities, and the economic and environmental implications of intensification.
Conclusion and Next Steps
In conclusion, the intensification debate in Auckland is complex and multifaceted, with different stakeholders holding varying opinions on how to balance housing needs with community concerns. Housing Minister Chris Bishop believes that there is a pragmatic and sensible way to approach intensification, and is working to find a middle ground that most reasonable people can support. As the debate continues, it will be important to consider the different factors at play, and to work towards a solution that works for everyone. This will require careful consideration, compromise, and negotiation, but has the potential to create a more sustainable and equitable housing market in Auckland.
