Should new houses have minimum design standards?

Councils should stay out of this aspect of business - 1 persons hate is anothers love when it comes to design. A good example is the property in hastings that would never have been allowed to be built if it was up to council design standards but is now a protected building

Design standards are well intentioned however have shortcomings. Design standards are limited in that they can become too prescriptive and thereby limit creative response to complex environments. On the other hand, standards can never account for every possible 'bad' ourtcome or design decision. In other words, any design standard can be complied with and still poor design can result.

Design is intrinsically more complex than one can address with a standard. The only way to ensure good design outcomes is for multidisciplinary evaluation of development proposals, such as an urban design, or as appropriate, architecture review panel type system.

This way more…

Having desgined 200 houses, I can assure you that good design doesn't have a rule book.

Thanks for your comments. Council agrees that District Plan rules alone do not create good design. It is also true that many good examples of development already exist around Hamilton. However it is also true that over time a number of developments have emerged which residents have voiced concern over because they feel they have not met the basic standard of development they would like to see in their city.

Together with design guides, the policies and rules that could be contained in the new District Plan could help establish that basic standard the community is looking for and achieve quality more…

Yes.

Of course you need minimum standards, but also minimum UNDERSTANDING.

How do you expect civil servants, bureaucrats, with no sense of what makes life worth living (yes, housing is a big thing) to make proper choices of what is good.

They say taste is a personal thing, I say it is not. A developed, concious mind is far preferable above an ignorant mind.

Yes, you need minimum standards, only keep the bureaucrats away from it.

How on earth could anyone think it's a good idea to dictate what people's housing looks like? Property rights aside, the title of this webpage is "Fast Forward to a vibrant future", having designs dictated by a bunch of bureaucrats in the HCC will achieve the absolute opposite.

And exactly whose definition of 'good design' must we adhere too? Surely only my own taste (as terrible as it may seem to some hipster authoritarian) if it's my property, my money and my house?

There are examples of both good and poor High Density development in Hamilton. Personal freedom of taste is an issue which seems to concern many, though this view might conceivably change if one of the poorer low budget developments took place next door to where they live. The problem of design seems to be more of an issue where there is a development of several dwellings on one property - this is for several reasons. One is because the higher number of occupants has a greater impact on the immediate neighbours than a single dwelling being built. Secondly, such developments more…

Yes things such as solar heating, white roofs and general good environmental issues in design should be mandetory for all new buildings, we need to plan for an environmentally friendly suburb and inner city.

I agree with the sentiment above that design standards are well meaning, but don't actually achieve good design OR improve the level of design. For example, houses are often designed just to sit in the middle of the section, and roof pitches are based on 3m + 45 degrees, to avoid planning requirements, (time and money). BUT this means houses have a very poor relationship to the surrounding environment, ie orientation, shade and shelter, limited private outdoor spaces etc. Rather than HCC putting rules in place to try and control the outcome of built form, to steal the terminology from more…

My concern is not so much with the way it looks (although it is important not to generate more of the "cover the site in concrete" monstrosities that have been perpetrated in the name of high-density development in recent years), but with the way it's built. Not only have some of the recent developments looked nasty, they are cheaply built, cramped and look set to become slums within a very short time. They often lack adequate parking facilities for the number of people using the sites and lack privacy as well. Perhaps it should be mandatory for the developer to more…

Rather than looking at the exact aethetics of design (colour, finish etc), what about looking at land usage: zoning (area for single family dwellings, for medium density, and for high density), minimum setback from the sidewalk/road, maximum height for that area specific, appropriate car parking for the size of development to keep excess cars off the narrow streets, landscaping requirements/maximum paved areas etc? We have to get away from "MY rights" as a propety owner and think more about our community, our neighbourhoods. As a result our property values will hold if not increase and we will have more pride in our city. There is no sense of ownership outside our own fences.

We need our residential developments to facilitate relationship. One of the biggest poverties of our time is one of relationship.

There are increasing numbers of homeless people in our city and we need to think about how we might be able to create not just houses but homes. Our people need places and spaces of connection. Addressing homelessness requires interagency co-ordination, long-term relationship, and recognition of a diversity of need. Poverty Action Waikato suggests that a minimum design standard for any residential development be inclusivity and relationship.

We do need more homes in Hamilton. There are approximately 4-5 HNZC houses/units becoming available each week and approximately 50 people a week looking for housing. There are 200 people/families of varying degrees of ‘high need’ on the HNZC Hamilton waiting list. Housing need is at crises level in our city and we need developments that meet the needs of our most vulnerable communities.

What do you mean by design standards? I think this type of regulation is stepping on the toes of freedom for city residents. I like double glazing on windows, but I'm not sure it should be a law. If a house has a bad design, it won't sell, or it will sell for cheap. I won't purchase a house next door to a hideous one. I would like to have a say if my neighbour wants to significantly change his house design. But, I don't think city council should be telling people what they can or can't build.

As mentioned by many, often good design can't be prescribed but it can be appreciated. It doesn't have to be complex but it does have to work. Too often residential houses are not orientated, insulated (existing houses) properly, functional or socially or environmentally benefical. What is the fix and future?

1. Promote good examples of residential developement......know any?

I don't some individual items in individual areas but no good "hey go and see this, it's great!". I did like the "Earth Song"Village in Waitakere however not everyone is comfortable with such close communal areas yet, but perhaps this is the more…

Is there anywhere we can gain more information on what could eb considered as minimum design standards? We may have jumped on to thinking about aesthetics, but I would be interested to see how this would be defined or measured? What are other councils doing?