Shape Auckland and Social Media Feedback

Research
Engagement
Insight
Unitary Plan consultation: Feedback from the Shape Auckland digital hub and other social media
Prepared for:
5 July 2013
Prepared by BP&A 09 445 0164 benparsons@bpanda.co.nz www.bpanda.co.nz
Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx
Page 1
Research
Engagement
Insight
Image 1: Screen shots of the Shape Auckland digital hub
Page 2
Research
Engagement
Insight
Executive summary
This report covers analysis of commentary received through the Shape Auckland digital hub and wider social media channels regarding the draft Unitary Plan. In total this included 6,540 posts and comments (1200 through Shape Auckland and 5,340 through other social media channels). The Shape Auckland digital hub was Auckland councils website for online engagement on the draft Auckland Unitary Plan. It provided a mechanism for people to take part in the conversation about the plan and share their ideas and feedback. Overall, there were 1200 posts from 376 participants between 24 Feb and 1 June 2013. The main results were: On average people posted three comments on the site, but some were highly engaged and posted dozens of times. Three per cent of participants posted more than 10 comments, and their posts made up 44% of the total conversation. Participants age profile was broadly similar to that of the wider Auckland population, however there were a greater proportion of European participants than the wider Auckland population. While there was a wide geographic spread of participants, the Shape Auckland digital hub forum attracted a relatively high proportion of participants from central and north Auckland, and somewhat fewer from South Auckland. The primary points of discussion were around residential zones, transport, all zones (comments around built design quality and site setback rules), business zones and the addendum (Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) and housing affordability). There were also a large number of comments that did not fit into the councils coding framework, and have been coded as miscellaneous (including back and forth conversation between participants that was off topic, conversation about the consultation process and some comments about the pros and cons of population growth). Much of the discussion on residential zones focused on the pros and cons of residential intensification and apartment living in particular. A number of people raised concerns about the potential for an increase in terraced housing and apartments and the implications this would have for Auckland, while others countered this view and discussed the potential positive aspects of apartment living.
Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx Page 3
Research
Engagement
Insight
Most of the conversation around transport centred on the need for good public transport, the potential positive impacts of greater urban density on the public transport system, and the need to ensure development occurs near transport nodes.
Comments around all zones were mostly in favour of urban design standards to promote good quality buildings and ensure that apartments in particular were designed and built well. There were also a number of comments regarding set back and height to boundary rules and the implications these could have on the amount of shading, as well as the transitions between zones and the impacts these could have.
Business zone comments mainly focused on the degree of intensification and building heights in various zones, and there was some discussion about the pros and cons of encouraging greater density within the Auckland city centre vs having a number of medium density satellite town centres, connected by good transport networks.
There was some discussion about the Rural Urban Boundary, and expansion into green field areas and the countryside. Many comments were in favour of protecting rural areas as much as possible and limiting urban sprawl, however a number of people were in favour of using outlying rural land for development rather than having an overly dense metropolitan centre.
There was also discussion about house prices in Auckland and the pros and cons around providing affordable housing.
Auckland Council was also interested in the level and content of social media discussion about the Unitary Plan. During the engagement period, 5,340 social media posts about the Unitary Plan were tracked, from a range of platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, blogs and forum pages (in addition to the 1200 Shape Auckland posts as above). These posts were made by over 1400 authors, who between them had a combined reach of over 1 million followers (some of whom would have received multiple messages and posts about the Unitary Plan). The draft Unitary Plan was a highly canvassed topic in the social media sphere, with some people posting 50 or more tweets, some high profile people posting several tweets, a high number of re-tweets of popular stories, some participants posting 10 or more Facebook posts, and a number of blog sites posting several detailed articles and opinion pieces.
Research
Engagement
Insight
The social media commentary was different to other forms of feedback in that a high percentage of the posts were furthering the conversation, talking about the consultation process, encouraging others to take part, pointing out interesting articles and blog posts, and passing information on to their followers and friends rather than providing the authors actual opinions on the proposals in the draft Unitary Plan, or what they wanted to see happen in Auckland. This was especially true of Twitter posts, while Facebook and blog posts often did contain detailed commentary about the authors opinion on the plan.
Other than posts talking about the consultation process, encouraging people to take part, talking about meetings they were attending or had attended, or otherwise forwarding news about the Unitary Plan engagement process, the most frequently mentioned topics were residential zones, the RUB, housing affordability, transport and business zones.
While these conversations were varied, the main themes of discussion were similar to those posted on the Shape Auckland digital hub, as described above.
A number of people responded directly to Aucklands Councils Twitter and Facebook requests for feedback on the Unitary Plan, and these have been included in the analysis below.
Overall, from both the Shape Auckland discussion and wider social media commentary, the most frequent topics of conversation in relation to the Unitary Plan have concerned residential development, and the pros and cons of urban intensification. There was strong debate across all of these channels between people in favour of greater urban density, those not in favour, those in favour of containing development within the metropolitan centres (and limiting urban sprawl) and those who wanted to see greater development in outlying greenfield areas. There was a common call for improved public transport services, and development to occur alongside transport nodes. Likewise there was a fairly consistent view that if Auckland was going to see an increase in terraced housing and apartments then urban design standards would be extremely important. Over and above these content related posts, the wider social media discussion has mostly served to promote interest and involvement in the Unitary Plan, with people talking about how they are getting involved, and encouraging others to take part.
Research
Engagement
Insight
Contents
Executive summary.......................................................................................... 3 Consultation and analysis method ................................................................... 7 Shape Auckland ........................................................................................... 7 Social media ................................................................................................. 8 Shape Auckland input ...................................................................................... 9 1. Shape Auckland participation level ........................................................ 9 2. High level Shape Auckland comment themes...................................... 15 3. Shape Auckland comment detailed themes...................................... 16 Social media input.......................................................................................... 52 1. Social media participation level and influencers .................................. 52 2. High level social media comment themes............................................ 61 3. Social media commentary detailed themes ...................................... 62 4. Commentary through Auckland Councils Facebook and #ShapeAuckland accounts .................................................................. 78
Page 6
Research
Engagement
Insight
Consultation and analysis method

Shape Auckland
The Shape Auckland digital hub was Auckland councils website for online engagement around the draft Auckland Unitary Plan. It was designed to house all the information Aucklanders would need to learn what the draft Unitary Plan proposed (including versions of the plan, videos, maps, and the e-plan) as well as provide a range of ways for people to take part in the conversation about the plan and share their ideas and feedback. In particular the Shape Auckland site posted a series of blogs, written by Auckland Council, covering a number of topics relevant to the Unitary Plan, and invited people to comment on these. This was intended to encourage people to share their views, interact with each other and engage in a fairly informal and interesting way (through commenting on each others posts, developing their own discussion threads, reading other peoples ideas, plus engaging with the moderators, asking questions etc). The discussion on the forum was moderated by Auckland Council and BP&A staff. This was not about censorship or restricting comments, but more around clarifying points, answering questions, responding to specific points and generally keeping the discussion moving and on topic. On average participants raised around three or four questions each day that moderators tried to respond to, often by seeking clarification from the Unitary Plan planning team. Over the course of the discussion, moderators removed a handful of comments, as they were abusive or inappropriate. In addition, Shape Auckland also contained the housing simulator (see separate report for feedback on the housing simulator), a link to the online submission form and had a live feed displaying the latest tweets on the Unitary Plan from Twitter. The site was live from mid February, but most activity occurred during the draft Unitary Plan engagement period from 15 March to 31 May 2013. During that time 88,684 people visited the Shape Auckland website and 376 of those posted their ideas and feedback (in total there were 1200 posts). The content of these posts has been coded into the councils Unitary Plan topic themes, so the analysis aligns with other types of feedback and input.
Page 7
Research Social media
Engagement
Insight
In addition to the feedback received directly by the council, through Shape Auckland, the submission form, meetings, letters etc, Auckland Council was also interested in the level and content of wider social media discussion. Social media content was filtered using key word searches through the Radian6 social media search platform, and provided by Ogilvy. Radian6 incorporated a wide range of keyword based mentions from across the open web. The process searched social media content for a number of key words as agreed by Auckland Council (including words such as Unitary Plan, Shape Auckland, Auckland Plan, etc). This included content from Twitter, Facebook, blogs, and other online forum platforms. It did not pull data from private or password related profiles such as privacy protected Facebook profiles and LinkedIn accounts. During the Unitary Plan engagement period, the council actively promoted the consultation and the Shape Auckland website using its Facebook page and #shapeauckland and #aucklandcouncil Twitter feeds. Responses and comments made to these sources are included in the analysis. In addition, the Radian6 search method has included a wide range of other social media commentary about the Unitary Plan that was not directed to an Auckland Council social media platform. In total across all of these sources there were 5,340 social media posts included in the analysis. Note that this excludes matching duplicate posts (which had the same author, content, platform (Facebook / Twitter etc) and time of posting), some of which were originally included in reports produced by the Radian6 key word search process. Also note that the social media commentary included in this report does not include mainstream media articles (e.g. New Zealand Herald articles), Shape Auckland posts (as these are included in the Shape Auckland section of the report) and posts made by Auckland Council (e.g. council Facebook and Twitter posts). This commentary has also been analysed using the councils Unitary Plan topic themes, so the analysis aligns with other types of feedback and input.
Page 8
Research
Engagement
Insight
Shape Auckland input

1. Shape Auckland participation level
During the engagement period 88,684 people visited the Shape Auckland website to access information about the draft Unitary Plan and 376 of those posted their ideas and feedback (in total there were 1200 posts). 1.1: Number of posts per participant
Number of posts per participant 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% One 2-5 Proportion of participants
Base: 1200 posts by 376 participants
63%
44% 31% 19% 11% 5% 6-10 Proportion of posts 3% More than 10
26%
Most people contributed once only (63% of participants), while others made over 20 posts (the top two contributors made 241 and 91 posts respectively). On average, people posted three different comments. While only 3% of participants posted more than 10 times, their posts made up 44% of the total conversation. As below, people came back to the discussion over several days.
Page 9
Research
Engagement
Insight
1.2: Number of posts per week

Number of posts by week 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 23 45 64 95 87 57 48 52 124 103 110 96 159 137
Base: 1200 posts by 376 participants
Conversation on the site was most active in the weeks after the launch of the draft Unitary Plan (mid March to early April) and towards the end of the engagement period.
Page 10
Research
Engagement
Insight
1.3: Blogs and responses From the start of the engagement period to 12 June, 57 blogs had been written and posted to the Shape Auckland site to encourage discussion and update participants, as shown below.
Blog topic Kia Ora Tatou Youth video competition Govt reforms risk taking power away from Aucklands communities Two weeks till launch Thanks for your entries Come along to our public launch Were making an e-plan Why I want to meet the Housing Minister Were pleased with Government report Mayor launches draft Auckland Unitary Plan Video competition finalists Rip roaring start to public feedback Young say No thanks to suburban house and garden More choice in where we live Heights in our centres Busting 5 myths on apartments Protecting our rural areas To grow or not to grow? Not really the question. Youth video finalist 1 Help shape Auckland with the new housing simulator Housing and productive rural areas Detailed factsheet on centres: building heights and setback controls What are the draft residential zones all about? Unitary Plan: The state of play What impact will the Unitary Plan have on rates? Calling young Aucklanders: Make your voice heard 3D video models of possible growth across Auckland Community meeting Auckland Town Hall See West Aucklands first high-rise New lease of life for Aucklands oldest house Attention to design will create the X Factor Property owners are in control of their properties One month left to have your say Place based rules added to draft plan Young Aucklanders making their voice heard on Unitary Plan
Date posted 24/02/13 27/02/13 28/02/13 1/03/13 5/03/13 7/03/13 12/03/13 14/03/13 14/03/13 15/03/13 18/03/13 19/03/13 20/03/13 21/03/13 25/03/13 27/03/13 28/03/13 2/04/13 4/04/13 5/04/13 8/04/13 9/04/13 10/04/13 12/04/13 15/04/13 16/04/13 16/04/13 18/04/13 23/04/13 24/04/13 30/04/13 30/04/13 1/05/13 2/05/13 3/05/13
Comment numbers* 48 0 1 0 1 3 4 5 2 1 0 4 31 37 74 46 10 3 2 4 6 23 24 3 14 69 0 1 28 8 4 4 0 1 30
Page 11
Research
Engagement
Insight
3/05/13 3/05/13 9/05/13 10/05/13 13/05/13 14/05/13 14/05/13 14/05/13 16/05/13 21/05/13 22/05/13 23/05/13 27/05/13 28/05/13 28/05/13 29/05/13 29/05/13 30/05/13 30/05/13 30/05/13 6/06/13 12/06/13 12 0 16 56 3 101 31 1 22 77 26 9 2 26 14 7 2 19 5 4 0 1
Vancouver: Showing us the way Unitary Plan local board area fact sheets We are planning for not proposing more people in Auckland Auckland housing needs balanced approach Plan puts priority on quality design Unitary Plan myths busted Getting parking right for Auckland Auckland Plan wins award More than just housing No chance of Auckland full of high-rise homes Unitary Plan illustrations in todays NZ Herald incorrect One week to feedback on draft Unitary Plan How does the draft Unitary Plan affect my property? Mixed housing whats allowed Next steps on draft Unitary Plan Advantages of a more compact Auckland How to give your feedback on the draft Unitary Plan Population revisited 10,000 Aucklanders have a say on draft Unitary Plan Back to basics: Zones vs Overlays The Future has won Final feedback numbers for draft Unitary Plan
* Note this tally of comments includes any moderator comments.
As above, the five blog posts with the most comments were: Unitary Plan myths busted 101 comments No chance of Auckland full of high-rise homes 77 comments Heights in our centres 74 comments Calling young Aucklanders: Make your voice heard 69 comments Auckland housing needs balanced approach 56 comments
Page 12
Research
Engagement
Insight
1.4: Participant demographics Of the 376 active participants, 117 provided some demographic details about their age, ethnicity or location, and these are analysed below.
Number of participants Proportion of participants Statistics NZ Percentages 2006 census 20% 19% 21% 17% 12% 7% 6%
Participant demographics Age 15-24 years 25-34 years 35-44 years 45-54 years 55-64 years 65-74 years 75+ years Prefer not to say Total Ethnicity European Mori Pacific Peoples Asian Latin American, African, Middle Eastern Other Prefer not to say Total
18 25 23 25 16 6 2 2 117 103 2 0 6 2 0 3 116
15% 21% 20% 21% 14% 5% 2% 2% 100% 89% 2% 0% 5% 2% 0% 3% 100%
55% 11% 15% 18% 1% 8%
As above, Shape Auckland participants age profile was broadly similar to that of the wider Auckland population, however the ethnic profile was considerably different to the wider Auckland population, with a much greater proportion of European participants.
Page 13
Research
Engagement
Insight
Statistics NZ Percentages 2006 census 7% 4% 4% 0.1% 8% 6% 9% 6% 5% 6% 5% 6% 6% 3% 4% 4% 3% 1% 3% 5% 5%
Participant demographics Local Board Albert-Eden Devonport-Takapuna Franklin Great Barrier Henderson-Massey Hibiscus and Bays Howick Kaiptiki Mngere-thuhu Manurewa Maungakiekie-Tmaki Orkei tara-Papatoetoe Pakapura Puketpapa Rodney Upper Harbour Waiheke Waitkere Ranges Waitemat Whau Total participants
Number of participants
Proportion of participants
14 9 5 0 5 5 5 7 0 1 5 12 1 3 2 6 5 1 7 13 7 113
12% 8% 4% 0% 4% 4% 4% 6% 0% 1% 4% 11% 1% 3% 2% 5% 4% 1% 6% 12% 6% 100%
While there was a wide geographic spread of participants, the Shape Auckland digital hub forum attracted a relatively high proportion of participants from central and north Auckland, and somewhat fewer from South Auckland.
Page 14
Research 2.
Engagement
Insight
High level Shape Auckland comment themes
2.1: Main themes

Shape Auckland posts: Number of posts mentioning each theme Residential zones Transportation All zones Business zones Addendum / RUB General statement of opposition Natural environment Heritage and historic character General statement of support Parks and community Infrastructure Rezoning requests Rural Maps Coastal Landscape E-Plan Precincts Miscellaneous (out of scope, consultation process, population growth, etc) 0 48 44 43 39 30 29 16 13 7 7 2 2 1 427 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 108 100 94 250 424
Base: 1200 Shape Auckland posts. Note comments may have been coded into multiple themes, so responses add to over 1200.
As shown above, the primary points of discussion were around the residential zones, transport, all zones (comments around built design quality and site setback rules), business zones and the Unitary Plan Addendums (the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) and housing affordability). There were also a large
Research
Engagement
Insight
number of comments that did not fit into the councils coding framework, and have been coded as miscellaneous (including back and forth conversation between participants that was off topic, conversation about the consultation process and some comments about the pros and cons of population growth). These themes are discussed in more detail below.
3.
Shape Auckland comment detailed themes
Commentary and debate around each of the major themes shown above has been analysed in detail. 3.1: Comments regarding residential zones
Residential zones posts: Number of posts mentioning each theme Terraced Housing and Apartment Zone Intensification Mixed Housing Zone Single House Zone General - Residential Height Large Lot Residential Zone Auckland Plan - Residential Retirement villages Rural and Coastal Settlement Zone Minor household units 0 8 2 1 1 1 50 100 150 200 250 18 74 61 59 128 204
Base: 424 Shape Auckland posts about residential zones. Note comments may have been coded into multiple themes, so responses add to over 424.
As above this was the most frequently mentioned theme (other than miscellaneous comments). Much of the discussion focused on the pros and cons of residential intensification and apartment living in particular. A number of people raised concerns about the potential for an increase in terraced housing and apartments and the implications this would have for Auckland as a whole, their
Research
Engagement
Insight
particular neighbourhood, the residents of the apartments and their neighbours, as per the following quotes1: You can't apply a blanket approach to a city as interesting as Auckland. There is a reason we are the second most liveable city in the world, and this goes against it. There are very important areas that need protecting such as our heritage suburbs, and there are other areas which lack heritage, or quality buildings and spaces that can really benefit from QUALITY development. I am in my 20's with a young family and really value our house in the suburbs with a big back yard. You don't get a quality home in an apartment, you get a small, cheaply built home that may be closer to the (loud and dirty) excitement of a city. As soon as you grow tired of staying out partying etc, such as when you have a family, you appreciate the tranquillity and community that comes with a suburban neighbourhood. Sure, intensify pockets where it will benefit the surrounding area, but don't kill the richness, diversity, and culture of the whole city! No, you haven't got the balance right. I live in an already highly populated area in Royal Oak, with traffic problems, school overcrowding and a nice ambience and view where I live. This will destroy our view, make us feel 'closed in' and make parking in the street and supermarket a nightmare. Please rethink and re-plan where you are going to zone for terraced housing and apartments. The term "terrace housing" is usually used to describe two to three storey row housing. The unitary plan allows 14m height or (four storeys plus roof) in the so called "terrace housing" zone. Calling this Terrace housing is frankly incorrect and misleading. Terrace housing would have quite a different look and feel to what is actually being proposed which is four storey apartment blocks or flats. I agree with James. To have a four storey building overlooking and shading one's garden and home would be a substantial loss of amenity, privacy and light. This aspect of the Unitary plan needs to be refined and rethought with stricter controls on height to boundary issues, light privacy and shading between the terrace housing zone and the mixed and single housing zones, or there will be many unhappy Aucklanders. I urge those affected to ensure they understand what
Throughout this document verbatim quotes have been selected to illustrate common themes. Participants names have been removed to protect peoples privacy Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx Page 17
Research
issue.
Engagement
Insight
it means for their homes and gardens and to put in submissions on this
Should be:- "Myth 10: If a terrace house or apartment is built next to me, I will experience shadowing, loss of privacy and sunlight. Fact: The draft Plan has specific rules that will protect the privacy, sunlight etc. of neighbours that apply to all such new apartment developments. They include height in relation to boundary (daylight access rule) and privacy rules." Isn't this also just more misinformation? If a 6 storey apartment building is built next door to a house there is no way the council can stop that house being overlooked. A building of that height is bound to cause over shadowing and bound to blight many views. Given this why is Len Brown not being honest about this but instead trying to under play the effects on peoples lives?
I totally agree with you regarding lack of living quality in apartments and high density areas turning into slums. I'm from Europe where these types of slums are very common because of short sighted planning. I love the amount of houses on their own sections in Auckland and don't want this to change.
Just seen on the draft unitary map that my cosy suburb of 1-2 storey houses are to be rezoned for apartment and terrace housing alongside mixed housing. Not keen. Not keen at all. You might find a lot of people very quickly become informed and register caveats on properties around their areas to protect themselves from anything taller than 2 storey buildings, with sound and light caveats or more. I'd even consider Only allow sub extending my home loan to do it. Keep terrace houses, gated communities and apartments close in to the main part of the city. divideables of 2-3 low level units in the outer suburbs.
A number of people countered this view however and discussed the potential positive aspects of apartment living, and also talked about providing a choice of different housing options: Well people who want to do those things probably won't choose an apartment. That isn't a problem for my family as we have only the 4 blood relations in NZ as such my mother lives in an apartment. I agree, I think we need vastly more apartment zones, basically the entire frequent network service line should be zoned for 4 stories.
Page 18
Research
Engagement
Insight
I have just moved here from regional New Zealand to Parnell, and am loving the ability to get around with out a car at all. However for more people to do this need to be able to build more quality apartments in the city and suburbs close to the city. Would be a great help for city transport if lots more students were able to live within walking or cycling distance of the university. Great to get some more apartment suitable for student flat living, most of them seem to be one bedroom so expensive.
If you are single and have no pets. Apartment is a wonderful option. It's more secure than the house. They have swipe cards to access the building. CCTV every corners of the building. 24/7 security guards. Building managements fees and some taxes are cheaper since more people share the ground. Also internet service providers prefer people live in the apartment (same effort required to install fibre optics in a house can be used to provide internet for much more house holds).
My apartment is 5x6 and it's liveable. It's not huge obviously but you get used to it and we love it in our apartment. If you want heaps of space you get a house, train to work etc.
I think the design of individual living spaces, and the quality (very important keyword), are what is going to swing people around to higher-density living. European-style apartment buildings, built of (yes) quality materials with (yes) decent-sized rooms, are still MUCH more space efficient than classic suburbia, and a pleasure to live in. The nay-sayers among us HAVE been burned by appalling developments in recent years. You might not live in the past, Ludo, but some of us still look at it every day! High quality apartment living would be the best thing ever for this city. Let's see what you've got!
A lot of people actually like this kind of living. They have no interest in having lawns and gardens. Urban residential sited correctly with commercial zones and public transport makes for convenient living. Try to remember that a large part of the city comes from urban environments such as those in Asia where the 1/4 acre paradise means little and they're used to living close to others. Modern suburban dwellings tend to be a huge house on a small plot, which tends to remain unused due to size and lack of interest. Those people would be better off in apartments and the land put to better use.
Page 19
Research
Engagement
Insight
We need more pet friendly apartments! It's all very well to increase the number of apartments but if they're not friendly to the family style then what's the point. The high intensity apartments are horrible... no one wants to live there long term. So building quality apartments that are well looked after with noise limits, no parties etc is the way to go as people actually want to live in that environment.
In addition to comments about terraced housing and apartments, there was a lot of discussion about the pros and cons of residential intensification more broadly: Whilst there is merit in planning at the higher end of the scale I believe that to retain the lifestyle and culture many of us Aucklanders want we also need an active approach to try and contain the growth of Auckland. I don't want to live in 16 floor blocks and neither do many of the people I know and I believe many still aspire to the "quarter acre paradise", albeit a somewhat shrunken version. Auckland is already quite different to much of NZ and I don't want it to become totally alien to the rest of our country. Just how we contain the growth is quite another question and needs the support of the Government as well, in particular to help attract businesses in particular away from Auckland. Many businesses already have increased cost by being in Auckland and, by creating an awareness of better places to do business, this may slow our growth without too much detriment to our city. Let's have a big but liveable city that is still recognisably NZ in character and form, not some condensed, high-rise clone of some overseas megalopolis. So plan for growth by all means but act to stay as small as we can. It's all very well for these older people to resist intensification because they're worried about the value of their million dollar houses in their trendy suburbs, but we're the ones who will have to pay for all the pressure on the infrastructure that the sprawling city they want. Just because they were lucky to be born at time when you didn't have to spend 60% of your income just to get a roof over your head doesn't mean we should be punished. Auckland needs the CRL, it needs more planning, it needs to have some intensification of housing, it needs to have a council that recognises the importance of these things and that isn't afraid to invest in our city. We've had enough dottery old white men who preach fiscal conservatism while our city has become a wreck that people can't wait to leave. Enough.
Page 20
Research
Engagement
Insight
More urban sprawling, more roads, more motorways, more cars, more pollution is clearly not the long term future for Auckland given the ever growing population. Higher density housing with improved publish transport while using existing infrastructure is much better long term in my view.
Most are not myths, the responses are pure spin. Myth 1 might or might not be literally true, but life may be so unpleasant you will effectively be forced to sell. Myth 2 doing nothing to discourage it, by promising massive amounts of high density housing which will benefit developers and place a lot of strain on the environment, and put rates and taxes way up. Why should people who can't afford to live in Auckland, live in Auckland, at the taxpayers and ratepayers expense? Are there lives worthless if they are not in Auckland? What about the negative effects of Auckland depopulating the rest of NZ? What are you actively doing to discourage Auckland's growth, which is not a desirable end for most of us. Why pretend that building more housing will make them cheaper or better? Myth 3 how big is a neighbourhood??, what is it and where is it?? bet high density will be coming near you and will affect you more traffic, rates and taxes coming your way wherever you are. Myth 4 not a myth at all, how high is high? 2 is fairly high, anything over, or joined together en masse, is objectionable, no matter how you define high. Many would reasonably equate high density with high rise. Myth 5 the vast majority of people would like a stand alone home. They'll only go for unitary plan rubbish if they are too poor or too decrepit. Ever see a Mayor or town planner living in a GI apartment???
Comments about the mixed housing zone were largely focused on potential building height limits and the confusion over whether this was 8m or 10m, and also on the potential for people to exceed these limits: Gosh, [forum participant] ....no need to shout. The 8m is not the issue. It is the discretionary, non-notified resource consent that will take it up to 10 and the extra storey they you folk so conveniently forgot to mention, that is at issue. Obfuscation is the polite word. I cannot believe this mornings herald article, that the mixed housing zone has an actual height limit of 10m, before the public can have a say. What else is hidden in the fine print! There should only be 2 types of activities, either permitted or non complying, so it's totally to clear to all, what is allowed and all the council does is enforce the rules, and not make decisions behind closed doors, with developers providing the only input
Research
Engagement
Insight
when considering restricted discretionary. So there should only be permitted or non-complying activities, no more restricted discretionary, and therefore no more only council making a call when the rules are broken. Wake up council and listen to the ratepayers and residents. I think you are missing my point, 10m high apartments have a different impact to 10m high houses. I am comfortable with 8m high apartments next to existing homes and so is the council as its a permitted activity. Its only when the development goes beyond 8m I believe the community should have input. Its only my opinion and I hope I am allowed to voice it, without it becoming personal. I am all for housing choice, I am all for community involvement in planning our city. You still havent answered my question, why shouldn't the community have input into developments that are not permitted activities? In the mixed housing zone there is a two storey permitted height limit. It is possible to apply for resource consent to build up to three storeys. Whether that consent is granted will depend on the dominance and shading of the proposed building. It is already possible to do this in residential areas across Auckland under the current planning rules so the Unitary Plan would not be changing much in that regard. Lowest angle of the sun (mid day) is 29.7 degrees (call it 30) from horizontal on June 22nd - shortest day. Unless the 4 storey building was within 75 metres of you to the North, chances are that - at most - you'd lose your mid day sun for about a week / year - or if the building was to the northwest, the last 15 minutes before it sets. Of course for most of the year the sun is overhead and it would take a VERY tall building to put you in the shade. Work it out for yourself. No, open to the planners' interpretation, not the developer's. Also, given that you live in Auckland half of the houses on your street exceed 8m already, whats the big deal? Difficult to know why one of the lowest lying areas in Auckland city, Pt England, has been designated for mixed housing right up to the water's edge. The height above sea level of Riverside Drive varies from 1 to 4 metres. Here we have a zone that is vulnerable to flood from any of a number of events, with at least one primary school and 3-4 preschools in the immediate area. Most roads leading away from the water are partially
Research
Engagement
Insight
blocked by traffic calmers and planting. Why would you want to intensify housing in this zone? I tried to find out about concomitant disaster planning and evacuation schemes but no one at the council including the planning people knew anything about it. [forum participant], you need to read the documentation carefully, I have spent 50 years in the housing development industry in NZ. Clearly in the Unitary plans description of the Mixed Housing Zone specifies apartments albeit low rise. How these apartments are going to fit into the character of single house streets is beyond me. Developers will buy 2 or 3 sites to exceed 1200m2 so that there is no density restriction and build at least 3 levels with multiple units on each level. This is an apartment block and will create very ugly streetscapes and slum housing. Mixed Housing Zone areas needs to be phased in, in a controlled way. Areas like Mt Wellington first where there is large sections, cheaper old houses and close to rail. Rather than end up with hotch potch pockets all over Auckland. Areas like Botany has new expensive houses no rail and already a congested roading network, intensive housing in established streets should be delayed in Botany until there is a rail network into Botany. Flat Bush will provide all the sites necessary for intensive housing in the immediate future. Why put 18 storey apartments in Botany and low level apartments in areas like Ellerslie, Mt Wellington and Panmure that are much closer to the CBD and have rail networks. Does not make sense to put more density further out from the CBD with more cars, longer travelling times and no rail. Papatoetoe and Middlemore has similar older cheaper housing and rail networks. I can see a lot of work for the legal profession opposing planning and resource consents if the Unitary Plan is adopted as is. Comments regarding the single housing zone covered potential minimum lot sizes, set back rules - particularly in relation to the transition between the single house zone and the terraced housing and apartment zone and discretionary activities, among other things: I suppose it comes down to whether the 10% is what was intended to be the key number here, and that is desired coverage of land that falls into that zone that the planners were intending. Take my example of a 5 acre lot, or 20,000m2. A 400m2 house is basically the maximum you can build, this is only 2% land coverage!!! What the rule is doing is more restricting the size of a house you can build, than producing an average % coverage density, is
Research
Engagement
Insight
that the intent? Once again per my original post I feel this is in fact someones error, or it has not been thought through at all. I suppose my feedback will reflect that. Single Housing Zone subdivision size: Single Housing Zone land size for subdivision size of 500m2 each should be made to a more reasonable size. Certain checks and conditions can be added to allow smaller subdivisions and or to allow 2 dwellings in this zone. The size requirement of 500m2 should have a provision of about 10% less size as a discretionary activity and or similar rules to that of Mixed Housing: (a mixture of different kinds of houses). Flexibility can be strengthened by the owner, who can justify voluntary protection of areas within the land that is of a high significant ecological importance and who meets a recessive design and development. A blanket rule (straight transfer from 2B zone) is not fair to landowners such as us where our neighbours already have 2 dwellings due to past rules. Current 2B rules are preventing us to carry out subdivision or build a proper new dwelling. In our case another dwelling can be put on without much impact on landscape and environment and an average site area of over 470m2 can be easily achieved. Also please note that this size rule without flexibility will cause neighbours to combine areas of high significant ecological importance to come up with the 500m2, where as flexibility of size and voluntary protection will preserve these areas while harmoniously catering for another dwelling. Just look in the neighbourhood areas where strange sections and house layouts have been created just to meet the section size requirement rather than minimising the impact on landscape and environment. We hope that fairness and justification prevails over blanket rules so we can create the Unitary Plan together and make Auckland the world's most liveable city. Myth 10 answer is incorrect! Our familys house is in the proposed single house two storey zone. On three boundaries we have proposed a six storey terrace apartment zone. The setback applying to the apartment zone is totally inadequate. 3m for first two storeys, 5m for storeys 3 and 4 and 7m for storeys 5 and six. By comparison we have to be 2.5m + 45 degrees away from the boundary this would be 22 metres for six storeys. So how can you say that rules allowing six storey houses 7m from our boundary, protect light and privacy!
Page 24
Research
Engagement
Insight
3.2: Comments regarding transportation

Transportation posts: Number of posts mentioning each theme
Public transport
115
Roads, rail and state highways Parking, loading and access, cycling, end of trip facilities, driveways and vehicle crossings Intensification 39
84
61
General transportation
34
Auckland Plan - transportation
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Base: 250 Shape Auckland posts about transportation. Note comments may have been coded into multiple themes, so responses add to over 250.
Most of the conversation around transport was centred on the need for good public transport and the potential positive impacts of greater urban density on the public transport system. There were also comments about the need to intensify around existing or proposed transport hubs or nodes: Not everyone wants the city to keep sprawling like you obviously do. You seem obsessed and have prejudices towards family homes when you have to realise a lot of people just live by themselves or 2 to a home. A lot of people want to live close to the city not miles from anywhere. This plan gives more housing options for all types of people not just families. Families who want homes can still buy stand alone homes. Better transport options are more efficient if people are more compact. No need for a car then. Freedom to go by public transport anywhere like overseas. If your model went ahead transport would continue to be inefficient and expensive and you would be moaning about that for sure. Let alone the congestion of more homes with 3 cars in the house. Oh yes that's right they won't drive anywhere but stay in their suburb.
Research
Engagement
Insight
Rail to the North Shore! I am young, it will be my city in 30 years. 1 million more people! We need better public transport.... motorways will not work. Reliable and cheap public transport like any great city.
Train system linking through all of the north shore and going into town. We need trains coming out east please! More cycle lanes! Suss out public transport and I think we're fairly happy. Do not build a second Harbour Bridge. I feel as though Takapuna should be being built up as a centre like the Auckland CBD. We have potential to do that out East as well. Minimise the demand for cars, especially commuting into the Auckland CBD. We can get rid of car parks and build something more useful in place! Community gardens and parks! And sustainable buildings! Let's install water recycling!
Improve public transport - inner loop, critical. Cycle routes that connect Nth/Sth East/West and are car free.......sharing a road with a bus is not a cycle lane. More family cycle lanes for younger kids. Dense city housing and create and promote a green corridor ring around Auckland. Dense housing - more efficient public transport = eureka! Bring back the waterfront stadium. Bring back the waterfront- buy port of Tauranga and trans-ship or invest. Dredge Whangarei and supply jobs up North. Support train line down to AKL.
Well done Pippa. I agree with the provisions outlined above as a start. But I think there needs to be a more explicit hierarchy of infrastructure priorities. A clear statement that safe, high quality infrastructure for active transport is higher priority than parking (with the exception of providing access for people with disabilities) would reduce the number of compromises that occur to active transport safety (and convenience) in order to retain parking.
Please build a train system (underground). It's the best investment I can imagine. If there's going to be 600 people coming every week, soon our roads will just be stuck. Please don't build more roads so we can fill it with more cars! I will stop driving if I could catch a train. It would be much more exciting way to get to work. Seriously!!
We need medium-density housing that is actually desirable to live in. The city is full of apartments for rent at prices that aren't unreasonable. The problem is, however, that no one wants to live in what amounts to three linen cupboards bolted together. Reduce the dominance of cars in the city
Page 26
Research
Engagement
Insight
and get the CRL built as soon as possible. Using public transport has to be seen as being the easier option than driving. At the moment, that's not the case. Public transport. City Rail. A compact quality city! We are the youth. We are the ones who will be living in Auckland in 30 years! Listen to what we want Auckland to be like in 30 years. We need to intensify the metro/city centres - be closer to the main transport hubs and significantly limit the urban expansion. I have no issues with taller buildings in the Town centres - limits of 8 storeys is fine with me; even local centres too. There were also a number of comments on transport in Auckland generally, and the need to ensure that the roading and transport system is well planned to cope with the increase in congestion caused by a growing population: Yes not every household has 2 cars but most have at least one. One of the major problems with new apartment block is the lack of parking. This is seen most patently in Hobson Street just before 6pm with residents trying to find a parking space close to their apartment. Which adds to traffic congestion in the area. It may be OK for young students not to have a car but for most New Zealander need one for work and or social reasons. People may use public transport or not, but very few people do not need their own car, as public transport is slow and for many people not available. The northern motorway is a disaster and unpredictable at any time of day and any day of the week (incl weekends). Just this morning, just B4 9.30am, it took nearly 10 mins to get ONTO the motorway at the Constellation onramp. This is an outrageous situation. Forget the trains and extra buses for the future; we need an extra lane on the northern motorway now! It would cost far less than the money spent on the exclusive bus lanes. Buses and trains won't take school kids to sports events etc; daily commuters going to work or study, are only a part of the congestion problem, but Council seems unwilling to recognise all the other private transport needs and usages. Obviously transport routes need to be protected. However, the plan fails, because although there are some rules that planners can point to and say, problem solved. The reality is arterial roads are not a place for intensive
Research
Engagement
Insight
housing, people want to open doors and windows, sit on the deck etc. There will be ongoing dissatisfaction. I recommend people look at the plan maps with the infrastructure layer turned on... this makes it very clear that unfortunately most of the intensive development is on arterials and is going to repeat the mistakes you are trying to live with. Bottom line is, apartments and arterials are not a good combo and should be the exception not the rule! If we want people to have a pleasant existence in intensive housing, instead of placing it on arterial roads, lets at least put it next to real amenity like a park, beach, harbour, marina, golf course etc.
3.3: Comments regarding all zones

All zones posts: Number of posts mentioning each theme Built design quality 65
Setbacks / shading
33
Sustainable building design
10
Design statements
Definitions
Signs
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Base: 108 Shape Auckland posts about all zones. Note comments may have been coded into multiple themes, so responses add to over 108.
Comments around all zones were mostly in favour of urban design standards to promote good quality buildings and ensure that apartments in particular were designed and built well: Auckland has a number of extremely talented architects (an example of a (non-residential) development that includes a number of sustainable and
Research
Engagement
Insight
green elements as well as innovative and interesting design aspects is Ironbank on K'Road http://www.ironbank.co.nz" and it would be great to see a variety of them offer some design solutions within the Design Manual following the guidelines AC have set out and, even more importantly, to have a number of them on the panels that decide the fate of proposed developments. It is up to AC to set the rules but I shudder to think what would happen if they had sole say over aesthetics - we'd end up with the apartment versions of Pakuranga and Botany Downs - two suburbs that architecture forgot. The demographic of our city is changing and our housing needs are changing at the same time. The Council is right - I don't mind apartments but I don't want ugly slummy apartments! New Zealand town planning in general and Auckland "planning" in particular pays too much attention to RMA issues and functionality, and far too little attention to aesthetics. While design may be a subjective matter, the council has been and appears to be continuing to endorse ugly, East Berlin style towers. Further, while I am certainly not against apartments, the experience of the 1960s planners in Greater London who built a succession of high rise blocks of flats as affordable or social housing should be learned from; the result was isolation and social breakdown, ghetto-isation, poor quality of life and a hideous city-scape. I cannot think of any new builds in Auckland CBD that offer much architectural merit and certainly will not be regarded as historical places in the future. The people of Christchurch have lost so much and are to be admired for fighting for their heritage. The people of Auckland need some decent architects and fewer social engineers. Design creates liveable buildings and spaces, and Auckland has no design vision in this grand unitary plan. Building in the inner city doesn't mean we have to make way for "greedy property developers wanting a quick buck". I agree apartments in the city are needed. But decent, well thought out, well designed, properties across a range of price brackets is needed. There is a need for "shoebox" apartments to cater for the very large (and growing) student population in the city serving our two universities. But there is also a need for larger more expensive apartments to cater for the young professionals that wish to live in the city.
Page 29
Research
Engagement
Insight
I hope the apartments will be well soundproofed so you don't have to listen to people on all sides going about their lives. Vacuum cleaners and heavy tread above, bedroom noises beside you etc. Soundproofing has never been very strong in NZ apartments so far, nor has double-glazing, which helps with sound reduction, maintaining stable temperatures. Will there be regulations to cover these aspects of building apartments?
Bring on a smarter city, with well-designed density. I would love to not need to have a car because I could get everywhere I needed to go with walking, cycling and public transport. I would love to live in a well-designed apartment complex with well-designed communal space. I'd hope it would be near a well-designed public open space, and there would be some heritage buildings preserved in the area for me to admire. It's a shame that so many poorly designed developments have been allowed to go ahead in Auckland over the last couple of decades, which understandably has a lot of people freaking out about intensification. There are a lot of great examples of functional, sustainable multi-unit dwellings around the world that will hopefully inform the approach to intensification in Auckland.
Why is getting it right so hard? This has been going on for years. I think putting people in 8/6/4 level units is wrong too crowded too much can go wrong. We need good quality 2 storey units that are safe warm and eco friendly. We need the people in them to keep them to a high standard. We need outside spaces. NZ kids should be able to go out and have fun running around getting dirty, we put them into a box then where are they getting there fun from? TV X box drugs etc.
Obviously affordable and easy to use transportation and housing is the way to go. Realistically this needs to focus on where the jobs are and as a consequence going up is the best option with some affordable homes in outer areas for people with different preferences such as family. There does need to be a focus on good quality apartments and personally I still feel given our population that we can afford to stipulate a minimum of 50sqm min which will also reduce the poor social effects of overcrowding. Also the assistance needs to be available for all people, not just beneficiaries in relation to affordability to pay rent and buy in Auckland. Invest in our future and give people a reason to stay, along with stopping foreigners buying up all the rentals and pushing up rents. Give loyal kiwis some incentives to stay and grow.
Page 30
Research
Engagement
Insight
There were also a number of comments regarding set back and height to boundary rules and the implications these could have on the amount of shading, as well as the transitions between residential zones and the impacts these could have: Pretty sure [forum participant] is correct. My house is only 1.5m from boundary plus 3 metres an A/TH from boundary so l can have a 4 story apartment 4.5 m away from my house no setback cause its not a boundary next to mixed housing. My point is there doesn't seem to be an angle setback between sites in the same terrace /apartment zone, which will be fine when all sites are built to a 3-4 storey level but until then there will be houses being overshadowed by their new neighbours. And I'm not sure they will pop up that quick if a developer has to buy out 2 - 3 properties in a row to get the required 2530m street frontage. I don't think so. I think something like 4 levels will only project shadows onto the road, just look at the two trees as reference and look at the proposed set back rules in one of the blogs here. Unfortunately, I looked up the plan a bit late. I thought that the fact we were a quiet street in Remuera totally made up of character 1910-1930 transitional villa/bungalows we would have nothing to worry about. I was wrong. I could not believe it when I saw that the Council wants to extend the zone allowing for four storey apartments right down to the house next to ours. We are on the southern boundary and no set-back rules would save us from losing both our sun and our privacy. I believe the value of our property would drop due to the uncertainty of what could happen next door. We are now looking at houses for sale as if this plan goes ahead we will have to leave. [Forum participant], one would hope the rules would eliminate shading however, I think what people are concerned about here is the inadequate setback rules for the terrace/apartment house zone and therefore a resource consent process will be of no benefit in this situation. You may find it useful to read clause 4.3.1.4.4.2.2 "Yards and building setbacks...". The Plan says: "2. Where sites in the Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone adjoin the Single House or Mixed Housing zone, buildings must be set back at least 3m from side and rear boundaries for storeys one and two and
Research
Engagement
Insight
The idea of using roads to transition
5m for storeys three and four." between the zones is a good one.
I notice in the plan that there are large areas of terrace/apartment zone right next to the industrial zone in Wairau Valley. How will this work with noise, light, odour, reverse sensitivity etc? What setbacks, sound insulation will be required?
Page 32
Research
Engagement
Insight
3.4: Comments regarding business zones

Business zones posts: Number of posts mentioning each theme City Centre Zone Metropolitan Centre Zone Intensification Town Centre Zone General - Business Local Centre Zone Heights Mixed Use Zone Light Industry Zone Auckland Plan - Business 0 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 2 4 6 6 11 18 20 27 27
Base: 100 Shape Auckland posts about business zones. Note comments may have been coded into multiple themes, so responses add to over 100.
Business zone comments mainly focused on the degree of intensification and building heights in various zones. In many cases, people attitudes towards intensification in these business zones is driven by their attitude towards residential intensification as well: I am not against housing intensification but I was horrified to see the map with 18 storeys buildings in the outer suburbs. Terraced houses and nicely built apartment buildings 3-6 storeys high was what I expected to see in outer suburbs like Henderson. High rises for commercial buildings in the CBD would be quite acceptable to me with residential towers up to 6-8 storeys. In many large cities e.g. Montreal and Paris residential high rises in outer suburbs have been built to reduce housing costs but in many instances it has also created situations of economic and social inequalities by concentrating the population on lower income in those areas. A unitary plan, not a divisive one! In addition, I am from overseas and what struck me when moving to Auckland was the beauty of the city with houses built on
Research
Engagement
Insight
one to 2 levels, in harmony with the many hills and the islands around the city and harbour. Lets not spoil the city landscape. I think going high in the CBD and keeping things at a max 3-6 storeys high in the inner and outer suburbs could still work aesthetically with the landscape. The plan is to add 1 million people and there is a lot of residential intensification, what I fail to see is the corresponding increase in retail and commercial zoned land from the local centre level and town centre level. There is talk about being a walkable city, but it appears that all these extra people will have to drive to a metropolitan centre for everyday shopping and services. We need to increase our local villages. Then there is the issue for schools, sports fields and playgrounds and public schools. I can't see where all the thousands who are meant to live in the new high-rise areas from Mt Albert, Avondale, New Lynn, Glen Eden to Henderson are going to get these amenities without queuing! Metro centres aren't going to develop at equal pace but it is important to know where our main business, retail, restaurant, entertainment hubs will be in the future. One of the reasons for this is sustainability and catchment area to support it. More people equals more business and metro centres are gathering points for all sorts of activity. I agree that good mass transit networks are enabler for much of the development to go ahead. There was some discussion about the pros and cons of encouraging greater density within the Auckland city centre vs having a number of medium density satellite town centres, connected by good transport networks: "Can you name a single city comparable to Auckland in which your plan has worked?" I'd say most successful cities have more than just the city centre, they are all multipolar, with good transport links this can also be represented as a city and satellite towns. Think of New York with Manhattan, New Jersey, Brooklyn, The Bronx etc. The problem Auckland has is that all its current district centres are effectively full due to lack of building space and the limitations of the transport network. At least by building in centres a little more remote the only constraint is transport, not building space. Calculating the area per person for Manhattan gives 38.7sqm; for Paris Metro, it's 38.2. Barcelona's centre (example) has 30 sqm per person... Yet, I am not so much interested in what other cities have done, but rather what
Research
Engagement
Insight
could be our outcomes assuming different rules. And I haven't said that towers don't increase density - I am saying that it's doubtful whether they do within our exiting planning framework, and would like to be presented with real evidence for this. Pointing to cities that have towers (of whatever height, and whatever planning framework) and are presumably denser isn't evidence. I want to see this modelled for Auckland, assuming a) 18 storeys in centres with appropriate side setbacks = x density, b) 6-8 storeys in centres with relevant side setbacks = y density. Unrestricted building height in the CBD shall worsen the traffic jams in the motorway and city, living in those tall building is not easy to access the sunshine nor the fresh air, those tall buildings might incur more panic and damage once a big earthquake hit the Auckland area. Auckland is currently struggling to cope with traffic chaos everywhere, not to mention the overloaded water and sewer systems. The sensible option would be to make Manukau and Albany city centres or CBD's. Manukau and Albany should be allowed similar status with regards to building as the Central Auckland CBD, that is high rise office blocks along with high rise apartment buildings along with the associated retail complexes. By allowing Manukau and Albany to intensify would reduce pressure on the transport systems. These three CBD's would be connected by high speed motorways and rail systems. A city that has done this is Tokyo there are three CBD's connected by high speed railways and motorways. You have this big emphasis on MORE CHOICE IN WHERE WE LIVE, what about More Choice in Where we Work. Auckland does need jobs and I have been studying Southern Auckland rather closely. While the Metropolitan Centres might not be up for debate I believe they should be and here is why as an example: With Southern Auckland containing 2534% of Auckland's population (depending on which statistics). That is a significant proportion of Auckland and getting them on the move (via transport) would be a nightmare. While not keep our Southerners closer to home and where it is also a sense of place and space for the Southerners (Auckland) and make Manukau a fully fledged CBD. Would as a bonus be great for the environment in cutting down excessive cross city commuting both physically and socially "http://voakl.net/2013/04/08/manukau-as-thesecond-cbd-of-auckland/"
Page 35
Research
Engagement
Insight
The conversation around the town centre zone focused on building heights in the zone, and how an area was classified as a town centre: If Devonport is classified as a small town centre" when it has banks, post office, hardware shop, offices, supermarket, cafes, car repair shops, liquor outlets, community centre, clothing shops and many other services, how can little tiny Belmont, with a couple of cafes, a fruit shop, MacDonalds, fish shop, and NO banks, NO supermarket, NO hardware shop, NO post office and NO library be classed as a "town centre"! A town centre to most people would be a place where you could do all your food and other shopping, pay all your bills, go to the bank and library. It's claimed that high density zoning correlates with major transport links. Where are these in Belmont? They only have a small bus stop like anywhere else. From your explanation of "small town centre" it would appear that the few little shops in Belmont wouldn't qualify it as any kind of town centre at all. I am for it due to my strong interest in urban planning. Highbury is a pretty well connected area on the shore, ripe for development, and in need of regeneration. I personally think that 6 stories would complement the skyline nicely, though I respect your counter point regarding a green skyline. I am also, not massively fussed about 6 versus 4 in Highbury, it is just that many of the people who do complain are basically saying 'I don't want apartments near me, because they are apartments', and I like to dispel that nonsense where possible. As you state above many trees grow higher than 6 storeys but when they are of this size or bigger they can cause problems with shading, drainage, footpaths etc. My reasoning is that I like Aucklands green skyline and having 6 storeys in Highbury will in MY opinion cause it to lose its character especially with it being on one of the highest points on the shore as well as being very visible from the city side. For myself having a green skyline rather than buildings sticking up all over the place is why we have this great city; having lived in a number of large overseas cities I feel that Auckland is very special and while we need more housing and expanded business areas there are a LOT of other areas that this can be achieved in. Why are you so for higher buildings in Highbury?
Page 36
Research
Engagement
Insight
3.5: Comments regarding the addendum / RUB / housing affordability

Addendum posts: Number of posts mentioning each theme
RUB
49
Housing affordability
39
Satellite towns
13
Council should prevent sprawl
No issue with sprawl
10
20
30
40
50
60
Base: 94 Shape Auckland posts about the addendum. Note comments may have been coded into multiple themes, so responses add to over 94.
As above, there was some discussion about the Rural Urban Boundary, and expansion into green field areas and the countryside. Many comments were in favour of protecting rural areas as much as possible and limiting urban sprawl. These people were generally in favour of increased density within the central city, with less development into outlying rural areas: Penny [Hulse] keep the boundary. Extending it will only leave one group better off: the developers, who will quickly generate an artificial shortage of land to keep land prices high. Closer to workplaces there's at least no crippling petrol bill in addition to the high mortgage, not to mention hours spend away from family in ever increasing traffic jams! The most important aspect of the Spatial Plan is the rural-urban boundary (RUB). Auckland is one of the world's largest cities in geographic size, yet has a mere 1.4 million inhabitants. This sprawl makes transport difficult, decreases vibrancy, and spreads ratepayers too thinly to contribute
Research
Engagement
Insight
The RUB has the
adequately to local facilities and infrastructure. Auckland needs strong policy to encourage intensification over expansion. potential to achieve this by placing a ring fence around the city's maximum dimensions. It has, however, been subject to intense scrutiny. Prior to the release of the draft spatial plan, the intensification to expansion ratio was set at 75:25. By the release of the draft, this had been downgraded to 70:30, with leeway provided to 60:40. Even this has been viewed by some as burdensome on liberties; with the National Party saying to Auckland Council: "if you don't remove the boundary altogether, we'll do it for you". Don't stand for bullying, stand for strong policy that favours intensification. This is the key to Auckland's future. Note that mention is made of the south of the urban area but little has been said about the major rural area of the city to its north. Leave the existing farms alone and intensify the existing urban areas (but not extend upwards beyond the level of existing properties in the area around) and do not extend the RUB for any area beyond that prescribed in the existing plans for any reason at all. We almost need to reduce urban sprawl significantly and perhaps the best way of doing this would be to remove the rural countryside from the control of Auckland City. The Council are authorising far too much urban sprawl under this plan. You basically want to accommodate the population of Wellington outside of our current urban limits. Auckland is ripe for high quality intensification. The generation that will be inheriting this city want to live close to the action, and not be stuck in endless motorway traffic on the commute from the urban fringe. Like the principals outlined within the plan Auckland needs to maintain their heritage neighbourhoods and villages, while ensuring our arable and productive lands are maintained. I am concerned with the proposed maps which show continuous urban sprawl from Massey to Huapai consuming the village of riverhead. For Riverhead, Kumeu and Huapai this seems counter to the principals outlined within the plan as this sprawl would result in loss of village character. Case in point is Albany village where urban sprawl has resulted in the village becoming a suburb of Auckland. I don't want to see this happen to the nor west villages. If the urban sprawl is limited to the extents of the Westgate development and the Westgate development is modified to ensure that residential development is
Research
Engagement
Insight
incorporated with places of employment the city can begin to develop communities which won't require to drive anywhere for work, while providing the required housing and not need to spread to the villages. Save our green space Auckland, and concentrate residential development within the existing urban areas where there is public transport and places to work. Keep Riverhead as it is - the last bastion of village life in the Auckland region. I have shared a comment regarding the extension of the RUB out west and build some estimated 30,000 new homes without alignment to the proposed Auckland transport plan. So we will be ending up with a single school, no public transport, no traffic lights, no roundabout, nothing whatsoever as the transport plan never included the area. Transport should be aligned with unitary plan. But it's not. Riverhead School has now approx 500 kids. What would 30,000 homes add to it? And what about buses to Westgate, or trains? Trying to merge onto SH16 in the morning can already take 5 minutes. Wait for the development and see what will happen. However a number of people expressed a different view, in favour of using outlying rural land for development rather than having an overly dense metropolitan centre. Some of these want to see more satellite centres, on the outskirts of Auckland, connected by good public transport systems: Hey! Why not demolish your house, and all the houses around it, so the people around your area can enjoy a better view? Oh that's right...you have a right to a place to live too. Please understand that it's not hard to build out in good taste. Sprawl doesn't need to be ugly. And at only 1 part in 125 of the nations land area, it barely affects agricultural productivity. You heard me right - 1 part in 125: A figure you will hear quoted from our Ministry for Environment, but NEVER from the Green party, or Auckland council, or any other anti-sprawl movement. Funny that. They want you to "have your say" but they don't want you to know the critical facts. Yes, especially when it is being paid for by the developer. Greenfields development should allow for proper planning and direction for new communities and associated infrastructure. A modicum of intensification can be allowed for in existing communities but not at the scale proposed. Moving the RUB North of Albany is essential. Albany is a designated
Metro area but you havent taken advantage of the land immediately North
Research
Engagement
Insight
for future residential. Silverdale and Dairy Flat is fine but also Albany Heights has plenty of land that can be developed which is much closer to this metro area. I for one try to avoid going into the city, it is cold and impersonal and there is nothing attractive about it at all - except the night lights when viewed from a distant suburb on the North Shore. I agree with [forum participant] and others that encourage sprawl around areas such as Albany and Dairy Flat. Has anyone been to the new Silverdale Town Centre lately? countryside living zone that is financially unproductive. Between Albany and Silverdale (with its' new park and ride being built) lies a lot of Changing the zoning to allow decent sized residential properties would create thousands of possible new dwellings and an influx of new properties on the market would surely force prices down due to supply? New residents could then choose to travel 7 minutes to Albany or 7 minutes to Silverdale, with maybe a few nearby shops (e.g. petrol station and dairy) for convenience. And wouldn't the Weiti forest make a great recreation area for mountain bike trails, and walking tracks - save us going all the way out to Woodhill. There was also discussion about house prices in Auckland and the pros and cons around providing affordable housing: Auckland currently has three to four years supply of properties? 2000 currently available now, which if the general consensus of 10,000 dwellings per year is required for Auckland seems slightly out of balance. A quick search on a local website will show you that there are very few developable Auckland sections for a under $300K. If the average section is above $300K I would suggest that increasing land supply at an affordable price would in fact increase housing volumes. I think its clear that the affordability of Aucklands current land supply would imply an over demand and under supply. A specific approach would be nice. Buying a house in Auckland is hard these days - perhaps the council could do what councils over in the UK do and become landlords? The council makes money, renting families can be secure in that their kids won't be moving house every year, and the council can ensure that there's a mix in each apartment block/terrace row - families, and smaller apartments for young single people and accessible housing for the elderly.
Page 40
Research
Engagement
Insight
I have been eagerly awaiting this plan and must say this is LUNACY. Pretty much no development north or west, only central and south.... This will push pricing in central and northern Auckland even further up as people get anxious that no further land to be released in this areas........
Apartment style living only works if it the accommodation is regrettably not low end market stuff. The outcome of "affordable" high-density housing really equals high rise slums that offer future generations of Aucklanders little more than vertigo and battery hen syndrome. Ask yourselves, would John Key move so he could live in an 18 storey "affordable high density housing project? Go figure.
Auckland needs affordable good rental accommodation. These should be in high quality blocks of flats not necessary high rise but sustainable eco friendly and with a low energy requirements. All this is available and not necessary to expensive. The high rise apartment buildings we have now are shoddily built and have a life span of only 50 years. We need to look at what Europe is doing and see some of their projects, why reinvent the wheel? I wonder how many architects have gone to the exhibition on building in Hamburg this year. There is so much info available. All we seem to get here is badly build houses which a far to expensive for what you get.
Page 41
Research
Engagement
Insight
3.6: Miscellaneous comments

Miscellaneous posts: Number of posts mentioning each theme Out of scope UP consultation process Miscellaneous - other Population growth Rates/ spending/ economy/ betterment taxes/ house values Ports Editorial UP timeframe for notification Sustainability Height 3D/ Modelling UP engagement with youth Intensification Bylaws - liquor, other Housing simulator tool 0 15 15 13 13 9 8 7 3 2 1 1 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 44 68 60 183
Base: 427 Shape Auckland posts coded as miscellaneous. Note comments may have been coded into multiple themes, so responses add to over 427.
A wide range of comments were coded as miscellaneous under the councils coding framework. Many of these involved Shape Auckland participants conversing with each other, and/or asking questions which were not directly related to the Unitary Plan: I accept it isn't a good idea. I don't accept that it is being proposed. Ok, so you have no specific criticisms of my logic, and have simply told me that I am wrong, that is pretty unproductive. Would you care to actually true and argue this point? [Forum participant], I couldn't agree more. This is an excellent idea.
Page 42
Research

Engagement
Insight
Pls just use the facts then and ignore the lies. The amount of misinformation the herald is producing is appalling. It is beyond incompetent. I only wish Auckland had a credible world class news paper.
Care to explain what you are referring to?
Other comments under the miscellaneous topic concerned the consultation process itself, arguments about the need for population growth, and other comments: "We are asking for feedback on the draft plan to help revise the plan before we formally consult on it later this year. There is no railroading going on, Aucklanders will have another chance to have their say and give feedback" Feedback on what? You are providing very little details. When people extrapolate what you have divulged, you just say, no that's wrong. This is not an honest consultation. Much more clarity and information would be needed before this could be described as a bon fide consultation exercise. If your decisions are based upon guess work, as they seem to be all through this entire planning process, then what validity has any of it got? That's why I say the decisions are being railroaded through. Valid feedback requires a valid input, and there hasn't been one. How many Aucklanders were written to explaining why this matter would have a large impact on their city? Isn't the small amount of feedback received so far a sign that the measures taken to communicate with citizens on this matter have been inadequate? Do you deny that 11 weeks of consultation on the draft, effectively allowing the electorate to write the plan is putting it to the electorate? So this 11 weeks of consultation that the council have offered, on top of what has happened in similar situations before, isn't the council listening? This is the community input. If we are talking about consultation - yes, I agree that comprehensive and effective community consultation should be the goal, and along with many others, I take whatever opportunity that is offered to inform myself and provide feedback. The 31st May deadline - as I understand it - is for the end of submissions for the DRAFT Unitary Plan. All feedback received by that date will then be incorporated into the decisions made to create the actual
Research
Engagement
Insight
Unitary Plan document which will be released in Sept. The public will then have another opportunity to make submissions on that Sept document. This preliminary consultation process at the Draft Stage has been a concerted effort by Auckland Council - while limited by the legislative timeframes - and should be recognised as such. I understand also that no other local government in NZ, has undertaken this consultative approach to the DRAFTING of their regulatory documents. Apart from that explanation, we seem to be getting off topic. I'm not an oldie, but I do have some concerns with the process. I am surprised that Councillors seem to be rushing to support a plan that is only very draft and accusing those that raise concerns of being 'nimbys'. I would prefer we heard what young and old had to say and then if the plan is good, it will stand on merit. There were also a number of comments about the potential population increase Auckland faces, whether it is realistic or desirable to expect a further 1 million people, what could be done to limit this growth and where this growth will come from: "Aucklands population is expected to grow by a million people in the next 30 years. This is not a council policy, its a Statistics NZ forecast, with nearly two-thirds of this growth likely to come from our existing population. Short of putting barbed wire around our city and telling Aucklanders to stop having babies, this growth is likely to happen, and so we need to plan for it." So are you saying that two thirds of population growth will come from existing Aucklanders?" You clearly don't understand what you are talking. No one who understands these things is saying that existing Aucklanders will produce a 50% increase in population over the next 30 years. We would need to be seeing average families with over 4 children to see that. The fact is the vast majority of increase in population will come from migration into Auckland. Given your total misunderstanding of the numbers, how can any one trust you to come up with a solution? Anything that can be done to reduce population growth should be pursued For existing residents intending to remain in Auckland the long term costs far outweigh any benefit. In earlier decades, many average income residents could achieve the kind of housing in an area and environment that many truly aspire to but competition driven by population growth means that the majority who are not already established now have to settle for
Research
Engagement
Insight
something much less liveable. Lower income residents who could previously still own a house now settle for group rentals or a flat, again less valuable and less liveable. Population growth leads to growing congestion at considerable cost to existing residents for a reduction in the rate of deterioration. Whilst growth is more interesting for leaders and for planners and can create solid wealth for a few who see and seize opportunities, for the majority of residents Auckland and in particular the dwelling and location and the surrounding environment that residents can achieve become less liveable. Anything that can be done to reduce population growth should be pursued. Do you have a single suggestion for how to limit population? Even if we close the border there will still be 600,000 more people in Auckland, just from New Zealand, and its wombs. Auckland cannot help that the other regions are not attractive places to live, only the govt. and other councils can. Again, you say this is a cop out, but just like all other opponents have no solution. By the way, my reason for living in Auckland is that it is a large vibrant international city. This plan reinforced my reasons to live here. If we don't implement growth restrictions, we're ultimately going to destroy the very reason people live in Auckland. Authorities endeavour to control every other facet of our existence but ignore over-population as the main contributor to; pollution, loss of arable land, loss of marine life (kai moana), deforestation, crime increase, disease. Immigrants came and still come to NZ seeking refuge from political persecution, poverty, unemployment and for a better lifestyle. That's great but if we do nothing to manage this unrestricted growth, we will replicate the same conditions here. Saying 'there is nothing we can legally do' is not an answer but a resignation. This same attitude has created generations of people who recall; the plentiful fish in the harbours, the magnificent orchards, the unpolluted beaches, uncongested roads, smaller schools, locally produced foods, a less stressed lifestyle. I believe these things worth protecting. I completely agree with [forum participant] - ACC are destroying the very reason for living in Auckland. I suppose if you want to replace the existing NZ born population with immigrants, this plan is the idea means by which to achieve this. Your response that "there is nothing we can do about it" - with regards to the increase in population is just pathetic - it is meaningless and a cop out.
Research
Engagement
Insight
The 1,000,000 people is worst case, more likekly to be 300-700,000 according to council and stats NZ, so why not plan for 500,000 and replan in say 15 years. This way we dont have to build out, and we can be sensible about how we are zoning our centres and not scaremonger everyone unnecessarily.
They come from Statistics New Zealand and reflect government policy and economic reality as are expected to happen. Also, you are arguing with professional statisticians.
Assuming you are talking about population expansion, 600k is new kiwis being born or moving to Auckland, 400 k is foreign immigration, and more importantly only the government can do that, not council.
3.7: Other comments While the main themes have been discussed above, there were also a number of comments regarding the natural environment, heritage and character, parks and community, infrastructure and general comments in support or opposition to the proposed plan: What distinguishes a liveable town? Well, beauty, fresh air, lovely things to look at, nice places to sit, beautiful views. Within this are heritage trees and in all the planning everything in any city it so much nicer with decent trees around. Currently developers rape and pillage grounds, razing trees left right and centre in the interest of profitability. The unitary plan lacks any real respect for the place of established trees in making a city the worlds most liveable. As I drive from Browns Bay to Henderson I pass at least half a dozen examples of this. Above the back of Albany, amongst dense and beautiful bush a whole area has been razed and townhouses put in. Why couldn't one twentieth of that development, have been required to save small groves of say five trees, per1000 sq metres? I'm talking trees of a certain age. Large beautiful rimus sawn down. Carry on along the motorway there is the next Westgate? Massey centre. Acres of bulldozed orange clay. Surely its not too much to ask that the odd tree stays, and so its carries on all around Auckland. Sydney, which is a beautiful city, is in the process of the doubling its tree canopy realising that trees are of value to communities. The larger and older the tree the more the value, Vaguely recalling the details it is something like 2500 litres of stormwater can be used up a by a large tree and 2.5 kilos of air pollution. Not to mention the general wellbeing
Research
Engagement
Insight
to the local community. As well as living areas I also question the wisdom of developers being allowed to chainsaw down every tree in an industrial area so that as you look over an 'industrial valley" it lacks any sort of greenery. This should be unacceptable. There is no reason why at least some large trees should not by legislation made to remain on industrial estates. Plant fruit trees or native plants only on council-run land! Encourage the birds to come back- I'm loving the tui that are already here!! Move to closed water systems where possible, not the extremely wasteful water system we have at the moment. Things like the Living Machine. The significant ecological area and tree overlays provide an important protection for people who have chosen to live in areas of native bush. Without the SEA and tree overlays, developers will have a field day. In many areas SEAs replace previous residential bush protection zones. People who are concerned to protect their local native bush environment are encouraged to provide feedback to Auckland Council covering the following points: (1) Support in principle the Natural Heritage protection components of the Unitary Plan, especially: (1.1) Support SEA (Significant Ecological Area) and Tree Protection Overlays to help protect urban bush from unsympathetic developments which would want destroy the bush-clad ecology and appearance But with refinements to ensure that home-owners can at no cost and with minimal delays: apply for approval for minor works such as paths, seating, playhouses that are (a) not within 10 metres of the boundary (b) do not impact significantly on the ecological integrity of the bush (c) meet the same standards that Council uses in bush reserves AND (d) apply for rates relief when covenanting areas of bush of ecological significance (2) Support stronger controls on invasive pest plants particularly those which are likely to be dispersed into private or public property - particularly native bush or wetland areas (3) Support stronger controls on discharge of toxins or heated water into bush streams (4) Oppose provisions which would allow any buildings or other construction in natural heritage areas and in other reserves without notification. In most Auckland suburbs you can still wake to the sound of birds singing, and many have at least a few species of native birds resident. Decreasing garden space and trees will have a major impact on wildlife. I'm supportive of the plan in principle, but very much against fast-tracking its approval until
Page 47
Research
Engagement
Insight
we are absolutely certain we've considered the broader impact of an extra 400,000 homes. Better to get it right than get it quick. Comments about heritage and character included posts such as: It is a nonsense to say that 100 year old homes will be knocked down for apartments. There is greater protection of heritage in the Unitary Plan than in the existing plans. It's great that [forum participant] has started this discussion. But please don't let it degenerate into a debate between generations - us oldies (50+) mostly have children and some grandchildren and we care passionately about them - where they can afford to live, what jobs will be there for them, and whether our grandchildren will have to go to school in high rises and have concrete playgrounds like British city schools. We also want to preserve some (not all) of the heritage that Auckland has for your children to experience - the look of the inner city suburbs of villas and bungalows we love. If this draft unitary plan goes ahead as it is, 6 storey apartments can be built next to a historic villa without the neighbours being consulted. It can all be decided by a council planner, who can make a demolition order on various criteria -including cost - if it costs more to renovate or restore that build a new building. This is licence for demolition by neglect in our inner city heritage suburbs. Its good to see everyone getting involved in this discussion, and really great to see the next 30 year inhabitants of our wonderful city committed to getting it right. I have lived here for most of my life and its really changed from when I was a kid, most change has been good (more people, more atmosphere), but some not so good i.e. Botany. However one of the things that I love about our city is its identity and some of this is due to its heritage. I have always loved buildings and the history behind them, a have visited allot of Europe just to get really amongst history. I just hope whatever the end result of this plan, that the current and future inhabitants of our wonderful city will on balance value our historical heritage and preserve it for future generations to enjoy and be able to indentify with. This doesn't mean preserving everything, but my call is if its 90-100 years old (which only a small part of Auckland is), is it worth sacrificing for a couple of townhouses?
Page 48
Research
Engagement
Insight
Comments about parks and community included posts such as: There needs to be great infrastructure and nearby parks to the increased density living. I would like to see a focus on building good quality dense housing, with requirements on the distances to open areas, increasing the amenity of areas with many parks and playgrounds, opportunities for people to interact, and maintaining our rural area. Comments about infrastructure included posts such as: Is this going to be putting too much pressure on all the other services? i.e. Power, Water, Waste etc? Intensify the areas that we already have existing infrastructure first and prioritise improving that infrastructure in the LTP first to accommodate growth. Auckland has very poor public transport and roads at the moment. Before build the new homes, need to concentrate the infrastructure of Auckland based on the projected population. Otherwise its gonna be an over crowded city. Statements of general support included posts such as: I love Auckland and this idea of making it the most liveable city. Building up is the only way to go. They need to put a final belt around Auckland and stick to it. We are New Zealands Metropolitan City and high rise buildings are a must. I do believe however they need to design these new Apartments with the surroundings in mind and mix them up in the different areas. Make them appealing for people to live in. Roof top terraces especially with the 4-6 storey height controls. Vertical gardens. 2 car spaces minimum per place. Whether it's Modern or historic. European style. Colourful. Shutters. Organised household waste bins. The younger generation are very accepting of change, this is who you need to target to get into City and Apartment living. This is Auckland's time to shine and the council needs to be brave. Here's one. I agree with the plan. I have lived in North-Eastern US cities and visited European cities and they are fabulous to live in - much better than LA criss-crossed with freeways and taking hours to get wherever you need to go. Apartment living is great, so long as they are big enough, there
Research
Engagement
Insight
is enough outdoor space to escape to, and they are designed well and built from quality materials. Aucklanders acknowledge that we're going to get more people here - what are you suggesting - we build a wall and keep people out? Not likely. The best cities in the world are not in Scandinavia they are Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand. It's time to accept that change is coming and working out how best to deal with it, rather than burying your head in the sand and trying to keep things the way they are. Well done Len, shame the government won't allow the UP to take effect on notification but this is a step in the right direction. Statements of general opposition included posts such as: That's nothing, mate. This fantastic Unitary Plan allows an eighteen storey building (designated "Metro") to be built right next to a suburban back yard (designated "single house")!!! Good stuff - Wouldn't want the paint on the house to be faded by any sunshine... Lack of sun will help keep the grass down too... I do not agree with the Unitary Plan. Auckland Council should expand the city outward but not upward. Young people have spoken in support of the draft unitary plan. Has
anyone considered that in 20, 30 years time these young people will no longer be young? They will most likely be married with 2 children, a dog and two cars. They will be more interested in access to good schools Many (increased population in central suburbs will lead to the reduction in size of school zones and pressure on the intake in private schools). Auckland school zones are already under pressure i.e. Auckland Grammar. People with children need two cars and cannot rely on public transport to get their children to school, go to the supermarket, doctor, vet etc). Most people with children are aware that apartment living is not for people with children. The increased population density will lead to more pollution, under pressure hospitals and emergency services. More traffic in the suburbs leads to more car accidents and more issues for cyclists and children walking to school. I live in a lovely suburban street in which every house was built between 1900 and 1930. The council want to rezone the properties at the top of my street so that four level apartments can be built. Yes, there is a historical overlay but that only means that the historic nature of the building needs be considered before consents are given. The
Research
Engagement
Insight
Auckland Unitary plan will be a good thing for the Auckland council, property developers, young people of the future, immigrants who don't mind apartments and real estate agents. However, for everyone else it will not be a positive change. Great aspiration and words, but I don't believe the proposed plan will come close to achieving this. Unfortunately 99 zones as clumsy as it, provides a much wider choice than 5. Going forward, 5 zones maybe simpler but unless we are careful there will actually be less choice and big compromises. I realise Council are trying to run to an agenda that they are not solely responsible for, but I do hope we give this enough time, effort and proper process to get the job done well. I hope that consultation is not followed by a brush off and sales pitch.
Page 51
Research
Engagement
Insight
Social media input

1. Social media participation level and influencers
During the engagement period 5,340 social media posts about the draft Unitary Plan were captured and included in this analysis. This includes 2,773 tweets on Twitter, 1,839 Facebook posts (including 896 to the Auckland Council Facebook page), and 728 blog posts, forum posts and other commentary. These posts were made by just over 1400 separate authors (although please note that the same person may have a different name for their Facebook and Twitter accounts so would be counted as two authors, so these numbers are indicative), so that works out as an average of around three and a half posts per author. In many cases (but not all) the social media data output included the number of followers reached by the post, and in total there were over 1 million followers some of whom would have received multiple messages. Please note that it is impossible to estimate the amount of overlap between each authors followers it may not be 1 million separate people. 1.1: Number of posts per week
1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 25 61 311 283 253 120 262 275 376 215 802 616 475 Number of social media mentions by week 1264
Base: 5,340 social media posts
While there was a fairly high level of weekly activity during the engagement period, this increased considerably towards the end of May as people
Page 52
Research
Engagement
Insight
encouraged others to get their feedback in, and discussed what they were submitting to the council etc. 1.2: Twitter participants and influencers During the consultation period, there were 2,773 tweets tracked regarding the Unitary Plan (excluding those from @AKLCouncil). In terms of volume, the top ten most frequent tweeters on this topic during the consultation period were: @BENROSS_AKL (an interested member of the public) 249 tweets (up to 179 followers) @RICHARDHILLS777 (Kaipatiki Local Board member) - 75 tweets (1405 followers) @AKTRANSPORTBLOG (campaign for better transport blog) - 74 tweets (up to 840 followers) @GEORGEWOOD2013 (Councillor, North Shore ward) - 64 tweets (330 followers) @AKANESINGATA (an interested member of the public) 44 tweets (365 followers) @KAUPAPA (Sacha Dylan, commentator, disability advocate) 41 tweets (2718 followers) @ALLABOUTAKL (an interested member of the public) 38 tweets (265 followers) @RUSSELLCLARKNZ (Labour candidate for Massey/Henderson) 35 tweets (675 followers) @SUDHVIR (Sudhvir Singh, Generation Zero) 34 tweets (1395 followers) @JULIEFAIREY (local body politician, Puketapapa) - 34 tweets (1118 followers) However, some of these have few followers, so their reach and impact is limited. In terms of potential reach (i.e. number of tweets x number of followers), the following were the top ten biggest influencers during the consultation period: @PUBLICADDRESS (Russell Brown, blogger & journalist) 29 tweets to 11,000 + followers. Topics included commentary about the Unitary Plan by other media, as well as visibility of the consultation process. (e.g. Anyway,
Page 53
Research
Engagement
Insight
summary of the obvious: where current councillors live has no bearing AT ALL on the merits of Aucklands long-term Unitary Plan.) @NZHERALD 4 tweets to 65,000+ followers. Topics have included the need for Auckland Council members to "harden up" and fight for the city's unitary plan, and keys facts about the Unitary Plan on launch day. @NEWSTALKZB 18 tweets to 8,000+ followers. Topics have included reporting Cr Dick Quax saying officials silenced him, reporting Les Mills criticism of the UP, meetings between Nick Smith and the Mayor. @MILLIELIANG (real estate professional in Auckland CBD) 5 tweets to 23,000+ followers. Topics have included negative comments about the length of the UP Auckland Unitary Plan is a Clunker 1854 pg. @KAUPAPA 41 tweets to 2,500+ followers. Topics have included commentary on central governments engagement with the UP (e.g. mentioning that there were no Ministers at the launch event, updates on the discussion between John Key and Phil Twyford), and input on the overall proposals in the UP (e.g. compact city, design controls) @RICHARDHILLS777 (Kaipatiki Local Board member) 75 tweets to 1400 + followers. Topics have included encouraging participation in consultation, particularly youth, and visibility of issues raised during the consultation process (e.g. Awesome turnout for the @GenerationZer0 & Youth Advisory -Unitary Plan meeting. Planning for the next 30 years!) @MAYORLENBROWN 10 tweets to 7,700+ followers. Topics have included updates on events and activities and how to take part. @AKTRANSPORTBLOG 74 tweets to 840 followers. Topics have included links to Auckland Transport Blog posts with commentary on the Unitary Plan, and visibility around the consultation process. (e.g. Hey @aklcouncil there seems to be heaps of misinformation out there on the Unitary Plan. People thinking it zones for high-rise everywhere.) @JULIEFAIREY 34 posts to 1100+ followers. Topics have included promotion of consultation activity, and discussion around education and schooling in relation to the plan Scary to find out last night that MOE have requested all school sites be zoned in Akl's Unitary Plan. Makes them far easier to sell
Page 54
Research
Engagement
Insight
@ONENEWSNZ 2 tweets to 23,000+ followers. Topics have included Housing Minister Nick Smith offers olive branch to Auckland Mayor Len Brown over the city's Unitary Plan.
Of the 2773 tweets, 997 were retweeted. The top ten most retweeted tweets were: RT @sudhvir Check out the @GenerationZer0 quick guide to submitting to the #unitaryplan #shapeauckland retweeted 28 times RT@@publicaddress New post: A plea for sanity on the Unitary Plan retweeted 20 times RT @aklcouncil What do you think of draft unitary plan? Yes, no, needs changes? Tweets count as feedback, use #shapeauckland - retweeted 18 times RT @aklcouncil Misleading @NZHerald story today, unitary plan allows 2-3 storeys in suburbs, as is norm now, for basements/attics. Heights remains 8m - retweeted 17 times RT @aklcouncil We're NOT proposing for our city to grow by 1 million people, we're PREPARING for it http://t.co/ajdGZax4JV #shapeauckland retweeted 14 times RT @AkTransportBlog More than 10,000 people have submitted on the Unitary Plan so far, have you? If not you can use this easy form retweeted 12 times RT @aklcouncil Unitary plan images in @NZHerald today photoshopped by student http://t.co/zePgSHBICM Incorrect & not possible under plan #shapeauckland - retweeted 12 times RT @aklcouncil We've made this 8 page overview of the Unitary Plan to help you get your head around it http://t.co/A9mOpHN2Ti (PDF) #shapeauckland - retweeted 11 times RT @pv_reynolds That great reverse barometer Don Brash opposes the Unitary Plan. So it must be good - retweeted 11 times RT @richardhills777 Retweet to get people submit to the Unitary Plan. We need the voice of all Aucklanders! More young people especially! retweeted 11 times
Page 55
Research
Engagement
Insight
1.3: Facebook participants and influencers During the consultation period, 1,839 Facebook posts were recorded, including 896 on Auckland Councils Facebook page. The remaining 943 posts were from other Facebook pages tracked through the Radian6 word search process. Apart from the Auckland Council Facebook page, the top ten Facebook pages during the consultation period, in terms of volume, were: Auckland Unitary Plan - Submit Now (set up to encourage people who dont like the Unitary Plan to make a submission, administered by Jan OConner, Grant and John Gillon) - 114 Posts - 141 followers/likes. Topics included coverage of consultation activity and reposting of key Unitary Plan media stories (e.g. Unitary Plan Fact # 1 Just when we thought it was safe to go back into the neighbourhood again we discover that another of Council's assurances is wrong. Public meetings are being told that the Unitary Plan is empowering and not compelling. Low density development is discouraged and mid-rise multi-unit...) Ben Ross: Auckland (interested member of the public) - 109 posts - 74 likes. Topics have included commentary about Bens participation in consultation events and his position on various elements of the Unitary Plan (e.g. UP to Youth - a Youth Forum on The Unitary Plan Yes I am going UP to Youth - Unitary Plan Youth Forum Looky here! This is the forum you've all been waiting for...) George Wood (Councillor) 34 posts 66 followers. Topics have included commentary about consultation events, as well as reposting of key media articles on the Unitary Plan (e.g. Old style Town Hall meeting at the Northcote Resident's Assn AGM last night. Great debate over Unitary Plan and Harbour Bridge SkyPath project) Broadways Astutevision (interested member of the public, Newmarket Business) 14 Posts - 20 Followers. Topics have included commentary raising concerns around aspects of the plan, including intensification and the consultation process involvement...) Mt Eden Village Inc (Business Association) 12 posts 107 followers. Topics have primarily included encouraging the local community to participate in consultation events.
(e.g. The opposition to several items on the
Unitary Plan especially it being rushed without proper community
Research
Engagement
Insight
Penny Hulse (Deputy Mayor) 11 posts (number of followers unknown, personal account) Topics have primarily included commentary about Pennys participation in the consultation activity (e.g. What a wonderful night.....sensible and balanced and well informed debate at our Glen Eden Unitary plan meeting tonight (Westies know their stuff))
Whale Oil Beef Hooked (Facebook page of Whale Oil Blog) 11 posts 469 followers. Topics have included commentary around the bloggers concerns about aspects of the Unitary (e.g. Do youth really want to live in a compact Auckland?: As we know, the evidence to support the draft Unitary Plan is shaky. Despite the lack of credibility surrounding analysis - and the lack of any real analysis - our local politicians continue to make statements that are untrue. Today on Radio NZ Auckland...)
Brendan Waters (Interested Member of Public) 10 posts
(number of
followers unknown, personal account). Topics have included commentary about the consultation process and reserves in the Unitary Plan in relation to the Takapuna camp ground (e.g. Aucklanders visit online " Auckland Unitary Plan Feedback " fill it out say you want to "Save Takapuna Beach Holiday Park " do it now it only takes a few minutes of time "just do it ") Cameron Brewer (Councillor) 10 posts (number of friends unknown, personal account). Topics have included commentary about Cameron and other Councillors involvement in requesting amendments and more information around the consultation process (e.g. There is growing comment from council staff and politicians pushing for more high-rise and infill housing that only some old people are concerned and that younger Aucklanders aren't terribly fussed! The Orakei Local Board has another Unitary Plan meeting) Christine Fletcher (Councillor) 10 posts 483 Friends. Topics have included commentary about Christine and other Councillors involvement in requesting amendments and more information around the consultation process (e.g. The mayor needs to extend the time for submissions on the Unitary Plan or commit to a fresh process that will stage the roll out. If he doesn't do this councillors may need to express their lack of confidence in the politicians and staff currently leading the process). However, whist quite active, some of these have few followers (or likes) so their reach and impact is limited. In terms of potential reach (the number of posts x
Research
Engagement
Insight
number of followers or likes), the following appear to have been the top ten most influential throughout the consultation period (NB: This excludes Facebook pages that have been set up as individual profiles and with privacy settings that mean we are unable to determine how many friends/ followers or likes they have): International Travel College of New Zealand 1 post to 86,539 followers about the Unitary Plan Youth Video Competition Len Brown 4 posts to 6,338 followers including promotion of the consultation process AUT University 1 post to 21,648 followers/likes promotion of consultation for the unitary plan to AUT students Auckland Unitary Plan - Submit Now 114 posts to 141 Likes/followers about a range of activities and events in relation to the consultation process, reposting of key media articles NZ on Screen 1 post to 13,952 followers about their own article on the Unitary Plan, and whether Auckland would be number one of the worlds most liveable cities with the Unitary Plan Newmarket Experience 1 post to 11,157 friends/likes about the consultation process in Newmarket Generation Zero 4 posts to 2,764 followers about their role in presenting a youths perspective on the Unitary Plan debate Organic NZ Magazine 4 posts to 2,162 followers about a council meeting on the GMO inclusion in the Unitary Plan Ben Ross: Auckland 109 posts to 74 friends/likes about a range of Unitary Plan issues including links to Bens own participation in the consultation process and Unitary Plan perspectives on his blog Cllr Michael Goudie 3 posts to 2,437 followers about the Youth video competition, and consultation process on the plan. 1.4: Blogs and forum replies and influencers During the consultation period, there were been 728 articles, posts, forum replies, discussions or comments posted on blog sites and forums tracked regarding the Unitary Plan. In terms of volume, the ten tracked sites that published the most articles/blogs on this topic were:
Research
Engagement
Insight
voakl.net (Talking Auckland, Ben Rosss blog site) - 115 articles published. Topics have included Bens perspectives around specific issues and opportunities on the Unitary Plan, including the Southern Rub and participation in various consultation processes.
Transportblog.co.nz 49 articles published. Topics have included transport related aspects of the Unitary Plan including the Karaka/Weymouth Bridge along with the discussion around minimum parking requirements.
Interest.co.nz 23 articles published. Topics have included articles around housing affordability and housing supply in relation to the plan.
Voxy.co.nz 18 articles published. Topics have included the reproduction of various press releases around the Unitary Plan.
Gracejamesroad.wordpress.com 16 articles published. Topics have included the Southern RUB and large lot sections.
Whaleoil.co.nz 16 articles published. Topics have included questioning the inclusion of some elements of the plan and the lack of transparency of its development.
Piha.co.nz 8 articles published. Topics have included encouraging the local community to participate in the consultation process, particularly around what is proposed for Piha
Eyeonauckland.com 7 articles published. Topics have included articles around Nimbys in the consultation process, as well as profiling technology used in the plan including 3D maps and the housing simulator.
thestandard.org.nz 6 articles published. Topics have included the local government vs central government debate around the plan, along with promoting the consultation process.
Piha.org.nz and cameronbrewer.co.nz - 5 articles published each. Topics have included promotion of relevant consultation activity in the Piha area; Covering views from the consultation period along with Camerons own press releases.
This report is unable to comment on the number of readers that each site above has, however in terms of level of participation/engagement, some of the articles posted generated a number of comments from readers. The top ten blog posts in terms of readers comments were:
Page 59
Research
Engagement
Insight
Transporblog.co.nz Should Auckland continue to grow so much? A post discussing the merits or otherwise of population growth (following a NZ Herald article). This post generated 234 comments.
Transportblog.co.nz A Karaka-Weymouth bridge? - a post discussing the proposed Karaka-Weymouth bridge as part of the Southern RUB initiative. This post generated 200 comments.
Interest.co.nz as part of their regular Top Ten with NZ Mint post, an article was included about the Delaying, denying and distracting on Auckland property that talked about the National Government decision not to approve the plan for early notification. This generated 189 readers comments.
Publicaddress.net Hard News: A plea for sanity on the Unitary Plan, an article covering some of the issues being raised during consultation. This post generated 140 readers comments.
Eyeonauckland.com We hate Nimbys discussing the responses from those who dont want what is proposed in their backyard in the Unitary Plan. This posts generated 132 comments.
Interest.co.nz Len Brown urges Aucklanders worried about greater density to look at Vancouver's 'urban density done well' despite its housing affordability woes. This post generated 132 readers comments.
Interest.co.nz Here's the RUB; How Auckland Council wants to make greenfields land available in a planned way over 30 years to avoid the sprawl of the 1970s. This post generated 127 readers comments.
Publicaddress.net Hard News: Competing for Auckland covering the Mayoralty Race and the Unitary Plan. This post generated 127 readers comments.
Transportblog.co.nz The NZ Herald: Whipping up fear discussing the Heralds coverage of the Unitary Plan and consultation. This post generated 124 readers comments.
Eyeonauckland.com We hate Nimbys 2. Overview of Generation Zero and their aspirations for the future Auckland. This post generated 115 comments.
Page 60
Research 2.
Engagement
Insight
High level social media comment themes
2.1: Main themes

Social media posts: Number of posts mentioning each theme Miscellaneous (consultation process, out of scope, etc) Residential zones Addendum / RUB / housing affordability Transportation Business zones All zones General statement of support Parks and community General statement of opposition Natural environment Heritage and historic character Infrastructure Maps Rural Coastal Rezoning requests E-Plan Landscape Urban Growth Treaty of Waitangi Precincts 0 380 281 165 118 83 80 66 61 56 49 45 18 16 15 13 9 4 4 1 1000 2000 3000 4000 834 3807
Base: 5,340 social media posts. Note comments may have been coded into multiple themes, so responses add to over 5,340
Page 61
Research
Engagement
Insight
As shown above, the social media commentary was different to other forms of feedback in that a high percentage of the posts were furthering the conversation, talking about the consultation process, encouraging others to take part, pointing out interesting articles and blog posts, and passing information on to their followers and friends rather than providing their actual opinions on the proposals in the draft plan, or what they wanted to see happen. In this sense the social media commentary can be seen as largely about the Unitary Plan conversation, more than actually providing detailed content on what people want to see. This is driven by the need for brevity in the social media space (such as 140 characters in a tweet) and the nature of the platforms. Blog posts typically tended to be more specific and provide detailed commentary about the authors opinion, and many Facebook posts did as well (see below).
3.
Social media commentary detailed themes
3.1: Miscellaneous comments As above, almost three quarters (71%) of the posts were coded as miscellaneous using the Councils Unitary Plan coding framework. The vast majority of these were posts talking about the consultation process, encouraging people to take part, talking about meetings they were attending or had attended, or otherwise forwarding news about the Unitary Plan engagement process: New Post: Unitary Plan Submission period almost over -
http://t.co/h1wq0l9fze. RT @[Name] Have you submitted on the Auckland Unitary Plan yet? Make your voice heard, Check out http://t.co/oObW7g5SHP #unitaryplan #shapeauckland. Auckland is going through an important phase of its planning development over the next few months with the consultation period for the Unitary Plan opening up to the public. Mayor Len Brown's Twitter account reports that the submission period has gotten off to a great start which is unsurprising with the... A very social occasion. Around 400 turned up on Sunday afternoon to a well-publicised public meeting in the hall at Takapuna Grammar School. They had feedback forms on their chairs. Interestingly, as I came in outside
Page 62
Research
Engagement
Insight
the school building I was approached by a young guy and handed Auckland Council's "Unitary... Unitary Plan is to be revisited, Mayor Len Brown announced today. So, last Friday the 15th I went along to the Wynyard Quarter to see the launch of the draft Auckland Unitary Plan. On the way in, a couple of diversions. First -- a 100% electric car (or so it says on the side). Quite a cool look to it. Just inside the convention centre's foyer -- a model (which looked old... Monday, 29 April 2013, 2:26 pm Press Release: Joint Press Release Auckland councillors Wood, Quax, Brewer, Penrose, and Stewart 29 April 2013 Councillors say transport funding document very poorly timed The hype around the alternative transport funding document released today by Mayor Len Brown is an attempt... Step by step guide to help you leave a comment on the Auckland Unitary Plan coming......... We want to work collaboratively as we believe that is more powerful than trying to do it alone. A couple of reminders - please make a submission to Auckland Council's Unitary Plan before 31 May. Individuals and groups are encouraged to contribute. Also there is a Universal Design Conference being held in... Any Westies out there interested in having a say on the Auckland Unitary Plan? Waitakere Housing Call 2 Action are hosting a workshop tomorrow discussing what it might mean for you and how you can feedback on what the current proposals mean for Auckland's housing. Here are the details: 2pm, 22 May, Vision... Head on down to the viaduct on the 16th of March Auckland Unitary Plan be part of the conversation In March, you get to have your say on the draft Auckland Unitary Plan - the rulebook that will shape the way Auckland grows. Papakura Local Board will be holding meetings in Papakura area: - Joint Papakura/Franklin Public Consultation Meeting on the Rural Urban Boundary on 30 April 6:30pm at 8:30pm at Drury Hall (10 Tui St, Drury) Unitary Plan Public Consultation Meeting on Metropolitan Centre, Intensification, Transport on 6 May...
Research
Engagement
Insight
Have a read of our submission on the draft Auckland Unitary plan http://www.ageconcern.org.nz/sites/ageconcern/files/council/age-concerncounties-manukau/20130528-ac.
The Auckland Council Unitary Plan Road Show is happening tomorrow (May 1st) from 11am to 1.30pm outside the Atrium Building. Come and talk to their urban planners about the Unitary Plan - it will shape the way we grow, improving where we live and work while looking after the places we value. The Urban...
Ooops I wonder if I just got myself "summoned" to the next Auckland Plan Committee (it does discuss the Unitary Plan) next month. Seems my Manukau suggestion is causing some ripples inside Council as they have picked up on it.
UP to Youth - a Youth Forum on The Unitary Plan Yes I am going UP to Youth - Unitary Plan Youth Forum Looky here! This is the forum you've all been waiting for...
Six weeks after telling the council it would make sense to inform Aucklanders what is planned for their neighbourhood in the unitary plan, local board areas fact sheets and maps have been put up on the council website. Better late than never...
What do you think of the draft unitary plan? Yes, no, needs changes? Every Facebook comment counts as feedback so post your thoughts below, the Council want to hear them! Feedback closes 5pm Fri 31 May. Feedback will be used to revise the draft plan which you can again have your say on later this year...
Hey, all those people who are complaining about the Auckland Unitary Plan, but not actually offering the slightest bit of suggestion on how to do things better: please stop. There are problems, there will be problems, and a council actually have the guts to try and think ahead. They should have support for...
Great meeting last week. 40 plus people. Excellent presentation from [Name] on the Unitary Plan and great presentation from [Name] on photography.
Page 64
Research
Engagement
Insight
RT @AkTransportBlog More than 10,000 people have submitted on the Unitary Plan so far, have you? If not you can use this easy form http://t.co/9cZRSkuvmh.
Today is the last chance to have your say in the first consultation phase of the Draft Unitary Plan. http://t.co/c7BjFWCY8X.
Interactive map: Auckland's Draft Unitary Plan http://t.co/7Uf63K77d7 Remember your last chance to make a submission is today!
Auckland's Unitary Plan collation hub. Nice view of the SuperCity! http://t.co/bSFWus2wmW.
RT @LIVENewsDesk Auckland's Unitary Plan feedback collation hub. http://t.co/0nH7UpgTQI.
RT @AkTransportBlog New Post: Unitary Plan Submission period almost over - http://t.co/h1wq0l9fze.
RT @AuckTransport @AkTransportBlog: And Unitary Plan submissions close in 5....4.... Monorail... Monorail... Mono d'oh!
Wow, submissions for the Auckland Unitary Plan closes today...Might as well get started lol #ShapeAuckland #LastMinute #NekMinut lol
Feedback on the Draft Unitary Plan http://t.co/lpsifInioV. I made my submission against this Unitary Plan this afternoon! Hope you have as well!
RT @[Name] Have you submitted on the Auckland Unitary Plan yet? Make your voice heard, Check out http://t.co/oObW7g5SHP #unitaryplan #shapeauckland.
RT @[Name] My feedback on the Draft Unitary Plan (no doubt full of proofreading #unitaryplan. errors) if it's of any interest http://t.co/7aePPalrxc
10,000
Aucklanders
have
say
on
draft
Unitary
Plan...
http://t.co/zKgLWcZPIL. Come on guys, only a few hours left to make sure @AklCouncil gets some positive constructive feedback on the Unitaryplan #shapeauckland.
Page 65
Research
Engagement
Insight
3.2: Comments regarding residential zones As above this was the most frequently mentioned theme (other than miscellaneous comments), in line with the Shape Auckland discussion. Much of the discussion focused on the pros and cons of residential intensification and density, and the pros and cons of apartment living: Three Kings residents want proof the Auckland Council can oversee the intensification of housing in the city.... Justice for older people can't be forgotten as the city grows, says Grey Power's Auckland zone director Bill Rayner. The Grey Power lobby group is "bemused" by the way youth campaigners have twisted the Unitary Plan intensification debate: Elderly ask for fair go Justice for older people can't be forgotten... Community meeting in Hauraki on the North Shore on the Unitary Plan. People alarmed at the level of intensification planned, the lack of infrastructure and the lack of evidence to support the UP. Hey Auckland people! Make sure you make a submission to the unitary plan due on the 31st! And make sure you tell the council to do whatever they can to swap low density sprawl for a much cleaner system of higher density living along with improved public transport. The council claims they want you to live in... Auckland hasnt seen packed town hall meetings like this one in St Heliers for a generation. The Mayor has been telling us for two years that people are loving the idea of a compact city. However in reality Aucklanders are increasingly furious about more high-rise and dramatically more infill housing. This positively supports proposals to increase the supply of higher density housing promoted by the Auckland Plan. However, we also recognise from our research that complex interactions between urban planners, developers and potential buyers (owner-occupiers and investors) profoundly influenced the physical... Expands the existing city by creating a new rural-urban boundary. I do like his focus on making a more compact and liveable city, preserving heritage areas. Penny Hulse has had a strong involvement in the plan and seems to
Page 66
Research
has...
Engagement
Insight
give priority to the community. The construction of the Draft Unitary Plan
Len Browns zoning hypocrisy outed: Ive blogged about Len Browns hypocrisy over the unitary plan and intensification before and now the NBR has picked up on it. Under-fire Auckland mayor Len Brown has been accused of hypocrisy for living on a spacious lifestyle block outside the urban limit while pushing...
RT @tuning in @CampbellLiveNZ @AkTransportBlog great story on the unitary plan! Good to see some positive examples of intensive development @mayorlenbrown.
I hate the political stupidity of everyone. It is truly painful. We release a draft unitary plan that allows for the development of some intensive apartments in around 37 towns in Auckland, the plans allow between 4 and 18 storeys depending upon the town in question. This allows people to choose to live in...
apartments or terraced housing and live around our town centres, more choice for younger couples, people living alone or those who want something smaller once the kids leave home. It might give a first step on the property ladder, allow people to live close to public transport hubs and walking distance to shops and...
"A recent comment by Mayor Len Brown suggesting a rethink on apartment development suggests the community's concerns are starting to get through, but to what extent will this be reflected in changes to the draft Unitary Plan? Do apartments have a place in Auckland? Yes, but only after careful planning giving...
Just had a look at the comments on apartment size. People seem to be confusing the 300 square foot apartments in New York with our minimum 30 square metre plus 8m deck plans here in Auckland The Unitary plan has increased the size of apartments from the old Auckland city plan and has banned the shoebox 16m...
Apartments arent the only 3 storey buildings I'm not sure whether it is driven out of selfishness or just a sheer lack of understanding but the opposition and reporting of the unitary plan now seems to be bordering on lunacy. Almost the entire concern about the unitary plan so far seems to have been in...
Page 67
Research
Engagement
Insight
RT @aklcouncil Penny Hulse: No chance of a city full of high-rise homes http://t.co/WS2wMn6B1b via @NZHerald #shapeauckland
RT @[Name] @publicaddress The Councillors and Mayor Brown will not be living in the new "UNITARY PLAN "SARDINE CITY APARTMENTS" Not surprised!
Unitary
Plan:
Would
you
live
in
35sqm
apartment?
http://t.co/4tRTxJAudh
3.3: Comments regarding the addendum / RUB and housing affordability There was some discussion about house prices in Auckland, the housing accord between Auckland Council and the government, and the pros and cons around providing affordable housing: Len Brown resolute on Unitary Plan Refuses to sign Accord wth Gvt and not willing to sell anything for the loop. The Nation. Tomorrow at 8 RT @sudhvir This Wellington study incredibly important to #shapeauckland 'House buyers will pay $6700 to save 60 seconds' http://t.co/IbuLIfWXov Property Council slams Aucklands unitary plan [ http://t.co/HbuWLuD2ds ]: NBR reports that the Property Council... http://t.co/MGN4uL7qrJ Thats why we need many more to bring the price down. We need to push out as well as up. We think unitary plan is good, but should open up more land on the outside as well. Only way to bring down cost of houses is to increase supply dramatically. "It's not that the council necessarily wants to make the city ""so big"" ... it is happening. When families today average more than 2 children and people are moving out of rural areas in to urban areas cities will grow. we can either sit back and complain about housing being unaffordable, or do something about it." I just spent time in Europe, USA and Australia. Decent housing is expensive everywhere. NZ building prices actually seem fairly reasonable in comparison. The reality is that LAND is what is expensive in Auckland. And so long as we are using immigration to artificially swell the population here, there will be massive demand and therefore high land-prices. Yes yes yes... I know we don't call it immigration if people come from Polynesia - but
Research
Engagement
Insight
whatever term you use, the 70% of 'new arrivals' from Polynesia and 30% of immigration from other places is fundamentally what is driving Auckland prices. It's a similar trend in most big cities I have visited. I guess the answer is "get used to it". Mr Brown is determined to make Auck the "capital of Polynesia" and it is happening at an accelerating rate. In line with the Shape Auckland posts, there was some discussion about the Rural Urban Boundary, and expansion into green field areas and the countryside. Many comments were in favour of protecting rural areas as much as possible and limiting urban sprawl, however a number of posts argued the merits of constraining growth in metropolitan centres vs allowing development in outlying areas. There were also quite a few discussion points about the Southern RUB, and most notably the proposed Karaka-Weymouth bridge: There are many NIMBYs in Auckland; and yes these people are against any form of change that would impact them. The fact is we need more housing in the city and we cannot continue to expand outward. Theres heaps of details on shapeauckland.co.nz to explain the standard of apartment sizes and decks are definitely a must! Opportunities like the Unitary plan youth video are great for a youth voice! However there is a great requirement for youth to be informed of the limitations and lost potential if the isolating sprawl continues (which it will if the vocal minority of wealthy and connected NIMBYs get their way). Better understanding of what is at stake is necessary to spark action so we have to spread the word! The idea is based on the fact that with a good compact city, you won't have to have a costly car cluttering the street and emitting carbon pollution...as you can live close enough to businesses and transport hubs to get you to where you work and where you socialise for your everyday life. I'd say stop the spread from limiting our infrastructure and resources and lets help develop existing town centres to be more efficient and liveable! RT @[Name] If you're against the Unitary Plan in favour of more sprawl, I would like you to line up against this handy wall. Sprawl threatens the best things about Auckland." Nice op-ed by Dr Jamie Hosking. http://t.co/ZQYJsok3OY #shapeauckland Sprawl drains wallets. #shapeauckland http://t.co/umLzLZGNCE via @nzherald
Research
Engagement
Insight
Auckland Council regarding extending the Rural Urban Boundary. The landowners want to develop new housing and communities on their side of the harbour. But Weymouth residents are against the bridge idea, saying it would turn their sleepy community into a thoroughfare and split the peninsula through the middle...
Minister of Housing, Hon Dr Nick Smith, in relation to land availability and the affordability of housing. Dr Smith expressed the view that it was the previously established Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL) that was driving unaffordability. He noted further that while the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) proposed in...
Controls in the Terraced Housing and Apartment Building zone, and the Mixed Use zone. Density controls undermine the ability to provide affordable housing by encouraging very large houses so developers can maximise their profit. Density often also has little to do with environmental outcomes as a single very...
The Weymouth Link Is It Needed? In short no! I have commented on this with my THE RURAL URBAN BOUNDARY - SOUTH END post last week - briefly recapping: Personally I am in favour of the Draft Southern RUB Options Corridor Focus...
The subtle, bull in the china shop approach by Auckland Council leaders responsible for unleashing the Weymouth Bridge as part of the addendum to the RUB in the Unitary Plan do not realise they have opened Pandoras box. Difficult to close now despite promises to remove from future maps. The damage is done...
Page 70
Research
Engagement
Insight
3.4: Comments regarding transportation As per the Shape Auckland posts, there was discussion around the need for an improved transport network, particularly public transport (all modes), to cope with Aucklands growing population. There was also some discussion around the proposed minimum parking requirements: The plan is not perfect but it is definitely a step in the right direction, and in the future it will seem as obvious and natural a progression as other recent and controversial initiatives like gay marriage. Improve and expand the railway network and bus routes and intensify around transport hubs. Allow people to live nearer where they work and/or play by increasing supply where people actually want to live - that's clearly the inner suburbs and the only way to do that is to build UP. Improve parks and pedestrian facilities. Build separated bike lanes and join up more bike routes. Stop wasting prime real estate on parking. I hope the Unitary Plan intensification near us also plans how people are going to Get Places. PT can't even support what we have now. @aklcouncil #shapeauckland Ignore the ill-informed detractors first and foremost. Naivety is no excuse. We need a PT-led compact city. @[Name] Auckland needs to improve its infrastructure and public
transport system before it does either. #shapeauckland @[Name] I think the Unitary Plan has got a lot to offer, in conjunction with increased public transport. :-) Research by the Australian institute of Geographers has shown that far from providing affordable housing, containment leads to a reverse escalation in the costs of providing new homes. Furthermore that densification round transport hubs reduces car use by only 2% due to the dispersed nature of employment... Unitary Plan Quick Feedback Generation Zero If youre short on time but want to let Auckland Council know that you share our vision for a lowcarbon and vibrant city with smart transport and housing choices for all ages, then fill out this form.... #shapeauckland build up not out. Get a decent rail system. Buses can never work.
Page 71
Research
Engagement
Insight
RT @sudhvir Need to provide dedicated cycling lanes all around the region #shapeauckland 'Cyclists, buses don't mix' http://t.co/vOHtYAVqeC.
People passionate about getting parking right for Akl, please comment on this post! Comments count as feedback. http://t.co/RZKqdVfNn1
The Unitary Plan proposes heaps of sprawl, mostly keeps minimum parking reqs and intensification is still quite hard #alternativeperspective.
3.5: Comments regarding business zones As per the Shape Auckland posts, there was discussion around potential intensification in various business zones and metropolitan centres: Unitary plan: one of the key proposals of the draft unitary plan is to limit high-rise buildings (9 or more storeys) to the city centre and the 10 metropolitan centres. This is where the public transport, offices, shops, leisure facilities, public spaces and services will be strong enough to support more... I attend a Unitary Plan meeting for Massey with Shane, we were shown this fly through of the proposed plans for the Westgate development. This shows fantastic urban planning with shared pedestrian space. With the right infrastructure in place (including public transport) Westgate will be a thriving... REFORMATTING THE METROPOLITAN CENTRES http://voakl.net/2013 /05/05/reformatting-the-metropolitan-centres/ Reformatting The Metropolitan Centres Submission Under-way And Reformatting those Metropolitan Centres With my submission to the draft Unitary Plan under way (and not an easy task either) I have come to... Timeline Photos The Browns Bay community's consulted and agreed Area Plan to limit building sizes to 4 storeys is threatened to be overturned by the draft Unitary Plan and increased to 6 storeys. In our local area, the draft Unitary Plan proposes allowing 8 storeys for Northcote centre, 6 storeys for... #shapeauckland A megalopolis (sometimes called a megapolis or megaregion) is typically defined as a chain of roughly adjacent metropolitan areas. Well in that case with Auckland being three distinct metropolitan areas - we ARE a Megapolis
Research
Engagement
Insight
3.6: Comments regarding all zones As per the Shape Auckland posts, there was discussion around the need for good urban design controls and urban design manual: @aklcouncil You need to talk more about the extensive statutory design controls in the Unitary Plan. Not just the Design Manual. I wish @aklcouncil would talk in more detail about the very strong urban design controls in the Unitary Plan: http://t.co/G6kiKNxVZt The @aklcouncil Auckland Design Manual is just important as the Unitary Plan but getting a lot less publicity. http://t.co/kIMOucOrJ5 Auckland Design Manual will sit outside the Auckland Unitary Plan, however not enforceable document. #AklUnitaryPlan RT @aklcouncil #shapeauckland Heard this? MAJOR myth, we want quality as much as you do http://t.co/i2B8zbzDcI #mythbusting http://t.co/sR4xo1BC7B Well-designed town centres and neighbourhoods we cannot provide wriggle room in the Unitary Plan for quick buck developers lacking any responsibility for what they leave behind. Demanding good development through more robust rules and clearer criteria was echoed by all attending. With improvements afoot the... I have no problems with the height just so long as its done well enough so that sunlight isnt blocked from the ground too much and that theres enough green space to go with it. I am fully against the concrete jungle type that we see in L.A. and Manhattan. @[Name] you should read the #unitary plan before commenting. plenty of sunlight protection provisions. a compact city is more sustainable Policies outlined in Unitary Plan for quality built environment and compact urban form are hard to fault. #adecentplanatlast. The Principles behind the unitary plan of limiting urban sprawl, providing greater housing choices and higher density housing around transport hubs and corridors are great and must STAY. All it needs to do now is make sure the design controls are in place, and maybe this means giving the design manual statutory power and it needs to remove all parking requirements!
Research
Engagement
Insight
[Name] without a plan we will get intensification anyway. As others on this thread have noted, just look at the unplanned disasters around Nelson/Hobson st. What the plan offers is to control and coordinate the intensification so low density areas will retain their character and high density areas won't be ruined by greedy developers. I just hope the design principles will be robust enough to ensure this is the case, that there is provision for green-thinking in design (e.g. green roofs to mitigate the building's footprint) and city spaces, that public transport remains a priority to relieve the pressure that unplanned sprawl has so far given us, and that public/cultural spaces are part of the planned mix so we don't get more of the soulless suburbs that recent sprawl has left us with.
[Name] , I'm not against intensification. I'm against people being forced to intensify when they don't want to. When I read "design principles" I read "horrible failures to be repeated in Auckland". Otara was also designed by city planners. Developers won't build stuff people do not want to buy. I think the people in Auckland can take care of themselves. Look, the whole goal is to make sure Auckland does not occupy more space, and cram 1 million more in the same city limits. That will lead to a horrible city, many came here to escape from.
Auckland Council I like your list of items you'll be enforcing, like light, location etc. but I don't see the important things like insulation, sound proofing, etc. these are vital when planning high density living. will these be properly enforced?
Page 74
Research
Engagement
Insight
3.7: Other comments While the main themes have been discussed above, there were also a number of comments regarding parks and community, the natural environment, heritage and character, infrastructure and general comments in support or opposition to the proposed plan: Comments about parks and community included posts such as: The excuse by Auckland Council officers for the latest gaffe on Auckland's Unitary Plan is that the study is based on "theoretical capacity". I don't want a plan that works in theory I demand a plan that works in practice. This plan also needs to show evidence of and funding for new schools, parks and... @aklcouncil #shapeauckland Unitary plan is looking good. As long as there's good community, recreation and leisure spaces too. :) RT @[Name] Staggering...the Akl Unitary Plan allows for Colin Maiden Park to be turned into medium density housing! There isnt enough parks as it is! Comments about natural environment included posts such as: Quietly stoked that part of our property is a significant ecological area (SEA - Unitary Plan). Always known it was special. I support the objective in the Auckland Council draft Unitary Plan that: the outdoor use of genetically modified organisms do not adversely affect our environment, economy and social and cultural resources and values. (Unitary Plan Section 'Land - Hazardous substances 2.6.4 (8/13) (13/86)1) The Unitary Plan... Calling all GE free NZ Activists! Now is the time to have your say! PLEASE take a few minutes to make a submission on the Auckland Unitary Plan. There is a submission you can copy on http://www.gefree.org.nz/actiontemplates/ I suggest you write an individual sentence at the beginning. Please share this with...
Page 75
Research
Engagement
Insight
Comments about heritage and character included posts such as: RT @[Name] CC drive me crazy, there are stronger heritage protections in Unitary Plan, any pre 1944 demo requires consent Regarding the meeting on Monday with Penny Hulse - they should not zone high buildings into a heritage area because that will force the destruction of the heritage areas. Instead they should target specific areas: sausage blocks, fibrolite houses, modern leaky buildings and tired old commercial areas where... Save the views of Mt Eden volcano and the village. Unitary Plan will ruin unique character http://t.co/zGlQU5hjg5 via @wordpressdotcom Have these people even READ the Unitary Plan? Like, say Section 2.4, Protecting our historic heritage, historic character & natural heritage? Comments about infrastructure included posts such as: Auckland Council doesn't know 'compact city' costs
http://t.co/o6y5NvNl1n (PAID) Q: on the Unitary Plan. Are there cities that have faced similar growth/infrastructure issues as Auckland that we can look at? Comments in opposition to the proposed plan included posts such as: On behalf of the Westmere Heritage Protection Association, I want to express our complete lack of faith in the UNITARY PLAN process. It will change the entire look and feel of our city. We will lose all that makes Auckland unique and it will turn OUR city into a hotch-potch of badly designed & constructed... LOL - Auckland should be spelt ORC-Land. The evil eye is the council and the unitary plan. @aklcouncil #shapeauckland unitary plan my arse more like a solitary plan! You can't even use current maps on your web site! God help us The Unitary Plan is a giant con job. The Council is a million dollars a year over and budget and needs money.
Page 76
Research
Engagement
Insight
Comments in support to the proposed plan included posts such as: I generally support the Unitary Plan and as far as I am concerned Mayor Brown has the mandate. AKL needs to build up and by and large the town centres make sense to me. If we can only be clear on the quality expectations of multi storied buildings AKLs recent history with slum buildings in the CBD has. The Auckland Unitary plan. The first step in the goal to Auckland becoming the worlds most liveable city. http://t.co/xvLii1mSZB. This Unitary Plan is going to be great Great that we can make more housing in the inner city, it supports wider cultural and retail activities and supports infrastructure around it. I've just been to Malaysia and they have lots of high rise apartment around the city and suburbs. I would just like the sea view not be obstructed in CBD.
Page 77
Research 4.
Engagement
Insight
Commentary through Auckland Councils Facebook and #ShapeAuckland accounts
4.1: Feedback via #ShapeAuckland On 27 May, Auckland Council sought official feedback through Twitter with the following tweet: What do you think of draft unitary plan? Yes, no, needs changes? Tweets count as feedback, use #shapeauckland. 77 tweets using the #shapeauckland providing direct feedback on the Unitary Plan were received. (NB. Tweets that included #shapeauckland as part of the conversation and were not direct feedback have not being included in this analysis). Of the 77 tweets, there were 12 statements of support, along the lines of: I enjoyed reading the Unitary Plan for our magnificent city. A solid 8.5/10 from first skim read. Well done Council so far! #ShapeAuckland Of the 77 tweets, there were 5 statements of opposition, along the lines of: @aklcouncil #shapeauckland we want Auckland intensification proposals scrapped in their entirety! There is a better way of doing it! In terms of the Councils coding framework, the transport theme had the greatest number of tweets (29 tweets), including a number of tweets that were retweeted by others. Residential and business zones received 12 and 11 tweets each.
4.2: Auckland Councils Facebook Page Over the course of the consultation period, Auckland Council posted 35 posts on its Facebook page that related to the Unitary Plan, and there were 896 posts in response. These have all been included in the wider social media analysis above, and some quotes have been drawn out by way of example. As with twitter, on 27 May, the council sought direct feedback from the public on the Unitary Plan with a question What do you think of the draft unitary plan? Yes, no, needs changes? There were 156 responses to this question/post (these are also included in the analysis above). Of the responses, there were 12 clear statements of support. These were general in nature, as well in relation to height and intensification:
Page 78
Research
Engagement
Insight
I support up and out, development supported by transport projects, town centres will thrive with more people and development. Australian cities are vibrant with a similar model
I think the Draft Unitary Plan doesn't need changes at all
Of the responses, there were 6 clear statements of opposition. These were general in nature, along with height and intensification. I oppose high density plan including mixed housing subdivision down to 300 square metres and high rise. I oppose the council being in such a rush to push this through when so many Aucklanders are strongly against it. Back to the drawing board folks! Other responses were generally consistent with the wider social media commentary. The areas that generated the most responses (in terms of the councils coding framework) were residential zones, in particular intensification (40 responses), transport (28 responses) in particular public transport, miscellaneous (49 responses). In addition, the Unitary Plan Addendum RUB and housing affordability had 40 responses. An area that had considerable discussion was the request to make Auckland GE free as well as removing fluoride from the water under the Natural Environment theme (a total of 18 responses).
Page 79

Shape Auckland and Social Media Feedback

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Shape Auckland and Social Media Feedback

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Research

Prepared by BP&A 09 445 0164 benparsons@bpanda.co.nz www.bpanda.co.nz

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

Image 1: Screen shots of the Shape Auckland digital hub

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

Consultation and analysis method

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

Research Social media

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

Shape Auckland input

44% 31% 19% 11% 5% 6-10 Proportion of posts 3% More than 10

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

1.2: Number of posts per week

Base: 1200 posts by 376 participants

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

18 25 23 25 16 6 2 2 117 103 2 0 6 2 0 3 116

15% 21% 20% 21% 14% 5% 2% 2% 100% 89% 2% 0% 5% 2% 0% 3% 100%

55% 11% 15% 18% 1% 8%

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

12% 8% 4% 0% 4% 4% 4% 6% 0% 1% 4% 11% 1% 3% 2% 5% 4% 1% 6% 12% 6% 100%

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

High level Shape Auckland comment themes

2.1: Main themes

Shape Auckland comment detailed themes

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

3.2: Comments regarding transportation

Auckland Plan - transportation

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

3.3: Comments regarding all zones

Sustainable building design

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

3.4: Comments regarding business zones

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

3.5: Comments regarding the addendum / RUB / housing affordability

Council should prevent sprawl

No issue with sprawl

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

3.6: Miscellaneous comments

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

Care to explain what you are referring to?

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

Social media input

Base: 5,340 social media posts

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

(e.g. The opposition to several items on the

Unitary Plan especially it being rushed without proper community

Brendan Waters (Interested Member of Public) 10 posts

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

Shape Auckland and social media feedback.docx

High level social media comment themes