Sign In
or Create a new account
Should people be able to build flats or high density housing anywhere? Next door to you?
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Over the next 55 years, Hamilton is going to grow a lot. There were 47,500 households in 2006 but that will almost double to 72,000 by 2031, and grow even more to 104,000 by 2061. To meet this growth and make sure it is smart, we will need to redevelop and intensify some parts of the city. Flats and high density housing are just some examples of the form intensification could take. The challenge as we go is to provide greater certainty around where that intensification might best happen? And how can we have it but also protect and promote quality living environments?
What do you think?
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Comment 1 28 Aug 2010, 9:43 AM
I think that the central city should watch rising developments, to ensure the sun still shines on all Hamilton streets. I wouldn't be opposed to flats or multiple units anywhere you've proposed, but would hope that views of existing property owners, and sunlight wouldn't be permanently removed. If you live on the East side of the river by or on river road - as an example, damp can be a big problem, and it's important to keep the available sunlight on existing homes without blocking more. I believe you should be able to build as high as the property behing you allows - and the number of units per land parcel shouldn't matter. Banbury Cr is a good example of packing houses and dwellings closely without disrupting the neighbouring houses or flats on the west side of the street. Great use of the bank, and placement of the new dwellings doesn't make you feel hemmed in.
Comment 1.1 14 Sep 2010, 2:05 PM
What Council is thinking so far is that the new District Plan could retain height controls on buildings to address a range of issues. In practice a small or transitory shadow over a neighbouring property is usually acceptable, but serious effects on health and safety need to be managed. District plans do not usually provide absolute protection of views but we look forward to hearing community ideas on this.
Comment 2 29 Aug 2010, 6:19 PM
"For higher density housing, special measures are needed to ensure that high quality development is achieved. Quality measures should address not only the form and function of residential buildings, but also how the development responds to the physical characteristics of the site and how it fits into the surrounding neighbourhood" - I hope Council is going to take note of this comment in the factsheet - if you look at many of the high density area such as those around 211 Peachgrove Road, these units are not in keeping with the neighbourhood and have been built with insufficient parking for more…
Comment 2.1 14 Sep 2010, 2:08 PM
Council has emphasised the need for urban design in the new District Plan to respond to poor outcomes that are emerging, including the kinds of issues that Lou mentions. Council's thinking so far is that medium density housing could be concentrated in identified areas, where the effects can be managed comprehensively.
Comment 2.1.1 27 Sep 2010, 9:32 PM
"Where the effects can be managed?" I am sorry, but I am baffled by that statement. One of the "identified areas" is Boundary Road. This road has major traffic management problems right now. How, then, does Council propose to "manage" the effects of further development?
I live on Boundary Road. Every time I leave my driveway (with the exception of early Saturday morning and on Sunday) I risk life and limb to enter the traffic stream. If it were not for those wonderfully thoughtful people who slow down, flash their lights, and let me in each morning, I would sit in more…
Comment 3 12 Sep 2010, 3:44 PM
With the ageing population, we need to cater for more retirees with higher density (small low-maintenance sections) in residential areas. They make great neighbours. Don't write the rules assuming all high-density is inner city apartments for young people.
Comment 3.1 17 Sep 2010, 11:27 AM
Thanks for your feedback. Council agrees that our population is ageing and will take on board your comments that inner city apartment living is not only for the young people. Some residential areas are identified for higher residential living within residential areas on the spatial framework within Big Picture. This document outlines a range of possible solutions to Hamilton's most significant resource management issues. You can download a copy by pasting this link into your web browser: http://fastforwardhamilton.co.nz/document/show/2
Comment 4 15 Sep 2010, 6:48 PM
I believe high density housing should be well planned and controlled to prevent slum areas from developing. If we aren't careful we could end up with areas where there are no green playing areas for kids. Possibly it might be a good idea to have it staged and radiating outward from suburban shopping centres. This will add extra population density to support local use of the these shops - and also encourage walking and cycling to these areas.
Comment 5 15 Sep 2010, 9:52 PM
People often seem to have a quasi-allergic reaction to the words "high-density" in Hamilton. It's difficult to think about heading in that direction when it's so far from what we're used to, and when there doesn't seem to be a thirsty market for it right now. Unquestionably, this is something that must be done, and preferably sooner rather than later. What we first need to do is think really hard about how to make these kinds of developments a realistic and attractive option to people who are here now - especially people living as families. Once you have a generation more…
Comment 6 20 Sep 2010, 12:48 PM
Almost anywhere. As the price of petrol inevitably goes through the roof it won't make sense to keep building car-dependent suburbs. Some restrictions, such as height restrictions close to parks and reserves, would make sense, and design reviews should be in place to prevent building instant slums and ensuring that those in high-density housing have easy, walking-distance access to reasonable amounts of open space and pocket parks.
Comment 6.1 8 Oct 2010, 3:34 PM
You would be right if ancient petrol/diesel was the only method to power vehicles. For short term it is sensible to think about, but housing, and especially the planning of housing, needs to be long term.
Nevertheless, no matter what kind of future energy solutions there will be, more healthy approaches, like walking and cycling, should be encouraged.
The old European cities have been dealing with these kinds of problems ages ago, should New Zealanders re-invent the wheel?
Cheers, John.
Comment 7 22 Sep 2010, 11:01 PM
well to me its pretty simple if the council places regulations on "high density" buildings it should be no problem at all. My main concern for what is happening at the moment is that most of these "high density" buildings at the moment they never have enough parking space or the are down small streets that cannot handle the amount of people living there. If hamilton takes a look at how auckland are doing there new apartment buildings eg. the new complex across the road from st lukes no one will have an issue at all.
Comment 8 28 Sep 2010, 11:14 PM
Hamilton has over the years managed to destroy itself. It is the ugliest city in NZ. Random town planning that allowed Claudelands to be destroyed and hideous concrete block flats erected where once stood villas is something that needs to stopped NOW. There are NO suburbs in Hamilton that are exclusive that are aesthetically pleasing. How did this happen? How could something as beautiful as Claudelands must have been once be turned into the trainwreak of a suburb it is now? And it gets worse. Everywhere I look I see 'trendy' townhouses that in 15 years will be the new more…
Comment 8.1 8 Oct 2010, 12:52 PM
I totally agree with you mate. Frankton Railway is another prime example of heritage that has been ruined by blocks of many original houses pulled down to cater for at least 3on one section.
Comment 8.2 17 Oct 2010, 10:23 AM
I agree, one of the main things that disappoints me about Hamilton is the 'uncompleteness' of Hamilton's older suburbs. In comparsion, Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch have large suburbs in near complete original aesthetic built form, which look and feel great. These suburbs are also highly desirable for that very reason. The benefit of these complete suburbs is that they keep people permanently living within inner suburbs who have a passion, or pride for the area, and who will maintain and protect the character of the area, which is of benefit to all of Hamilton's residents. Where as at the moment in Hamilton, people all want to escape from these broken up inner suburbs away from townhouse blocks for the newer suburbs were the buildings are more uniform in appearance, scale and type. Leaving the older suburbs to slowly die, at the hands of developers and rental tenants.
Comment 9 7 Oct 2010, 5:11 PM
You've got a previous council and their laissez-fare attitude to thank for the lack of development standards in Hamilton. This has led to unfortunate planning outcomes including shonky medium/high density residential development. This council served around 1998-2001, when the current District Plan was formulated. Be very careful who you vote for........
Comment 10 8 Oct 2010, 12:49 PM
High density housing and townhouses have been let to run its course over the last 5years. I cant believe how riddled with "window peepers" the dinsdale/frankton area has become. Its like being boxed in our own home with 3 surrounding properties of about 15townhouses (that was about 7properties once apon a time. Hamilton city has become nothing more fancy, than a money making scheme for developers who are building ugly properties and compromising the cities 'originality' such as the frankton railway homes. Suburbs such as the University would have been a great place to start with townhouses and high density places being built to cater for the ever growing student role, rather than the council allowing permits for these in other areas of Hamilton. Its great the hamilton is developing to cater for a larger population, but some areas need a real look over, keep all the new developments of town houses in its own part of the city (which doesnt have any form of living other than a block of concrete with no grass) and leave the older areas alone. :)
Comment 11 8 Oct 2010, 1:59 PM
Coming from the Netherlands (high density COUNTRY), I've seen a lot of bad situations coming from greed; real estate developers with friends in the council, pushing their short term profit ideas through the legal mills.
There should be a vision from someone who understands (like me ;-) how to make a living city.
When you let the bureaucrats handle these things, they will end up needing to be changed with every new political party that is in charge. These things are essential to the quality of life of people, a good vision creates happy people, LONG term.
Comment 12 18 Oct 2010, 8:12 PM
The comments that note how many areas of Hamilton have been destroyed by indiscriminate tearing down of old houses and replacement with blocks of flats or totally out-of-character buildings show that people are starting to realise what we've lost. And yes, it was our appallingly slack previous district plan that laid us open to the worst kinds of development that ruined entire neighbourhoods. So this is the time for us to get it right, so that the new district plan doesn't leave too many loopholes that allow shonky development. We don't need expensive, exclusive development, either. Everyone has a right more…
Comment 13 22 Oct 2010, 8:36 PM
No. Zoning should apply to protect the neighbourhoods from over densification. Designate areas to be high density and keep others low or medium density. Slums are created where there is no community feel. We need to make sure each of our areas has it's own identity. Public notification should be manditory if a variation from zoning is requested. That way the neighbourhoods can have a say. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here. Look overseas to see what other cities have done. Vancouver and it's suburbs (specifically N. Vancouver City) have a huge mix of densities maintaining a vast Heritage registry and profiting off of it all. It's what makes it one of the most forward thinking, desirable and livable cities in the world.
Comment 14 29 Oct 2010, 3:49 PM
I think it should be looked at wholistically and strategically, rather than an "anywhere they can afford" mentality which can result in some of higgledy-piggledy development that some of the previous comments refer to.
Anywhere there are lots of council restrictions involved, a lot of us voters and ratepayers see "forms and fees", but if there is a clear plan and both a carrot (in the form of easier processes and perhaps incentives) for the desired kind of development as well as the stick (restrictions and minimum standards) we can hopefully have a city where the housing needs of all types are met.
I agree, not everyone wants "their kids" to "have a quarter acre to run around in" :P
