Sign In
or Create a new account
Where should new businesses start up? Anywhere? Or should it be in exisiting centres?
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Centres provide a focal point for shops, offices and entertainment, and a home for civic, cultural and community facilities. They offer convenience by enabling people to undertake a number of activities during the same trip, which reduces traffi c effects and better utilises existing roads, footpaths and cycle lanes.
Locating key activities away from centres creates problems because it results in a dispersed pattern of business that creates demand for infrastructure. It also reduces the vibrancy and sustainability of our centres and makes it difficult to service them with public transport. Dispersing activities means over time people will have to travel further to access goods and services. This can undermine people’s quality of life – particularly those without ready access to cars, such as the young and the elderly.
Where do you think new businesses should start up? Anywhere? Or should it be in exisiting centres?
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 31 Aug 2010, 8:18 AM
It depends on the nature of the business, and its effects on the neighboring community and infrastructure.
The comment about dispersed patterns of business creating additional demand for infrastructure includes a couple of flawed assumptions.
1. Home-based businesses in the suburbs can reduce the demand for infrastructure. I operate a 1-man management consultancy from home which places no additional load on Flagstaff's water, sewage, drainage or electricity and moreover takes 1 car off Hamilton's roads.
2. Many home-based businesses (such as mine) are knowledge based and don't rely on walk-up sales hence the public transport argument does not hold true.
3. In terms of undermining quality of life, we need to examine injurious effects. A professional services business operating from a house in the suburbs may have a few cars coming and going but then so can many residential activities such as coffee groups, ante-natal groups etc. Moreover, businesses tend to restrict such activities to ddaytime.
So in terms of controlling or restricting where businesses might be allowed to start up, the nature of the business and its impact on the neighboring communities needs to be assessed.
Comment 1.1 17 Sep 2010, 2:16 PM
Thanks for your comments. The thinking around what types of businesses could be allowed in the suburbs is those businesses which are complimentary to the everyday needs of residents and in keeping with the character of residential areas
Comment 2 1 Sep 2010, 4:05 PM
I agree with Phil re businesses being placed anywhere. My only reservation would be placement of heavy industrial business in a residential area - light commercial would be OK provided businesses were blended with residential buildings. There would be a tendancy for associated and complimentary business to develope in an area naturally and control of numbers (of businesses) could be restricted by consultation with and majority decision of residents in that immediate area. Ideally, the operators of these businesses would be residends of the immediate area.
Benefits of implementing the above would be;
1. Families not separated during working hours due to workers having to travel from residential to commercial areas.
2. Builds a local community that knows and supports each other.
3. Lowers transport demand and costs.
Council can ensure that suitable facilities are available by restricting numbers of employees permitted in a business.
Comment 3 7 Sep 2010, 11:47 AM
While it is common sense to gather businesses in centres, this does not automatically lead to encouraging all businesses to remain in the CBD. Cities all over the world have had to manage the evolution of their city centres as they grew and became more sophisticated cities. While it remains sensible to contain business develoment within town presinct of rural centres, as cities evolve their centres become places for specialist retail, hospitality, and business centres, while most retail moves out of the centre into developments on residential fringes. This can be seen in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin, as well as Melbourne, Sydney, London and New York. For a local authority to attempt to stop this evolution is for them to sit on the beach like King Kanut and demand the tide does not come in. Hamilton City Council should be encouraging the evolution of the city, planning to gather like specialist retail in one area, and encouraging the refurbishment of office buildings to attract new business tenants, and encouraging futher development of hospitality and entertainment options within the CBD, while implementing a suitable plan to provide affordable and appropriate parking to city visitors.
Comment 3.1 9 Sep 2010, 6:16 PM
Many of the cities you refer to, having lost retail from the CBD are actually now trying to entice it back again, as the CBD's are losing, or have already have lost their vibrance outside of core business hours (Auckland and Sydney are good examples of this). There are many things a local authority can do to encourage vibrancy within the CBD, such as preventing the development of additional suburban shopping malls and similar retail developments which become quasi urban centres. London has gone as far as banning further development of shopping malls. Sydney (despite its CBD problems) has generally resisted out of centre retail development, and hence has retained its original high streets, most of which are thriving. Its a similar story for Melbourne. For a small city like Hamilton with a core CBD at its heart, encouraging retail within the CBD is imperative. To sit back and say loss of retail from the CBD is natural evolution and nothing can be done is completely incorrect and contrary to planning currently occuring in large cities all over the world.
Comment 3.2 17 Sep 2010, 2:18 PM
Thanks for the great feedback anyone. Just to answer some questions that have been posed in the positings - the central city’s prosperity is vital to the prosperity of the greater Hamilton area. Focusing on the central city allows residents to capitalise on, and make the most of, existing infrastructure for retail, business, arts and social 'heart of the sub-region. As we have already seen with the loss of vitality in Hamilton’s central city, a market driven approach doesn’t always deliver the city the most beneficial outcomes. Council is well placed to manage development in the best interests of the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of our communities.
Comment 3.2.1 17 Sep 2010, 2:53 PM
It sounds to me as if you already have strong views on the question, and are not opening your mind to contrary opinion. "As we have already seen with the loss......" indicates a predetermined position. Actually what I am saying is that what we have already seen is the natural outcome of the cities residents voting with their feet - they actively support non-central businesses because they are more convenient, generally have better and cheaper parking, and in the main pay less rent and are therefore likely to be either more competitive, more profitable, or both.
Comment 4 7 Sep 2010, 3:03 PM
Hamilton is blessed with geography that makes development an open landscape in that we are not constrained by sea mountain or forests, our biggest constraint is the river that splits us in half. The good thing about this and our relative smallness is that we can leave most of this stuff to the people choosing to create the businesses. The 2 most successful examples in my opinion are a. the base and b. hood st. I am not aware of any strategic plan for either of these and they have both taken over 10 years in the development by primarily the business people who saw the opportunity. In my opinion councils should be focussed on the infrastructure that allow for business development to flourish wherever the development arises. examples of this are around roading systems (the cobham drive/kahikatea dr ring road philosophy see me get from Hillcrest to the northern boundary in 15 mins) Keeping the city centre vibrant seems to be the catch cry but I question whether this will ever be achieved through artificial rules or investment
Comment 4.1 10 Sep 2010, 9:55 AM
Very sensible, unemotional comments. If the population didn't want the developemtns CraigP mentions, they wouldn't be successful! Town planning should be about allowing what the people want, and providing infrastucture to support it.
Comment 4.2 10 Sep 2010, 1:03 PM
Thats interesting you have identifed hood street as a successful development when part of its sucess is a result of the investment made in upgrading the street and lighting by the city council. The Base is certainly well patronised, but what should Hamilton be known for? A vibrant city that has good shopping and restaurants, is pedestrian friendly and interacts with the Waikato River, or development that consists of a sea of carparking surrounding by large format chain stores, that you could find in any city, anywhere in NZ? The market on its own will never deliver the results that good policy together with public investment can.
Comment 4.2.1 10 Sep 2010, 9:23 PM
I think we are in a similar space - and agree that a well thought out approach would go a long way - where we differ is that I think the balance is in the Business person favour rathe than the policy guys ( I am not involvd in any development by the way). For example the Hood st upgrade followed the business success not the other way round
Issues of what we want to be known for is of course the key here and to date we as a collective city have had a few shots
Fountain City (yeah right), a couple of others and now HamiltON - dont get me wrong I like events and attend heaps but to me that is like sewrage and water - something that we should just have - but what are we? if we allagreed this we would be able to make significantly more progress - but that is all getting a bit philosophical
Comment 4.2.1.1 28 Oct 2010, 12:30 PM
What about about a joint business and policy perspective approach? This would use the expertise of both parties to come up with effective and do-able outcomes that are future proofed. I agree on the need for good connectivity between the city and river precincts and planning for walk ability and vibrancy in the city.
Aligning transport investment (e.g. public transport, park and ride) with business development will lead to stronger economic outcomes for the city -we know that transport needs, choices and efficiency are determined by land use. Encouraging business sponsorship of transport developments could support stronger economic development for the city.
Comment 5 8 Sep 2010, 2:57 PM
Most cities around the world develop what they have naturally, beaches, harbours, lakes etc. Why not develop around the river? Cafes, bars, shops, ferries running up and down to bring people to and from work into the city, much like Brisbane. Is'nt it about time Hamilton used the river in its advantage instead of it just being a bit of water that splits the city in two.
Comment 5.1 10 Sep 2010, 9:11 PM
Agree wholeheartedly - if the infrastructure allowed for tis type of development I suspect we would already have it. Tainui as Manager of the river has a significant part to play here but I suspect this will be a tough one for all parties to agree on - but I sur ethink it is worth the effort
Comment 5.2 17 Sep 2010, 2:20 PM
Yes, developing a river precinct certainly makes sense in Hamilton and is an option set out as part of the District Plan Review. The objective for developing the river precinct is to provide a connecting framework for the city’s culture and tourism opportunities and to recognise the rivers cultural significance.
Comment 5.3 26 Sep 2010, 9:23 AM
The river is at a significantly lower altitude than the CBD, and taking advantage of it would be very expensive, particularly near the CBD.
I'm not saying doing it is a bad thing (many of the great buildings and tourist attractions in the world took a heck of a lot of time and money to build), but to begin to integrate further with the river would require huge investment and foresight, and without someone/something championing it for a long period of time, its always going to be a "if only".
Comment 5.4 29 Oct 2010, 1:48 AM
I think most people in Hamilton would agree and it's not a new concept, Maori utilised the river to great effect. There is a critical decision though - do we want to become another "Danube" (seems that most of the discussions I have read through are just same old same old world over let's creat what someone else has no real inventiveness -sorry it is getting late). The Waikato Rive specifically through the inner city area has very sandy banks, due to high and eratic water flows (you may question why? Something to do with dams and power generation management more…
Comment 6 18 Oct 2010, 8:20 PM
It depends a lot on the nature of the business and also the nature of the neighbourhood in which they exist. It would be good to avoid any repeats of the attempt to put an asphalt plant near a residential area, but there are other subtler problems that also need to be considered. Many suburban streets are increasingly acquiring businesses operating from ordinary houses. This is fine if the owner also lives there, but in many cases, this doesn't happen. The ordinary house is just an office building, which is deserted at the weekend and at night. For other normal more…
Comment 7 27 Oct 2010, 11:44 AM
Poverty Action Waikato recommends stricter controls on the establishment of any liquor outlets and gambling facilities. Such outlets and facilities should be restricted to sub-regional or suburban centres. We do not need liquor outlets and gambling facilities in our neighborhood centres. Increasing the availability of liquor is associated with increased community harm. Increased access to gambling facilities is associated with problem gambling and the disastrous social consequences of this.
Comment 8 29 Oct 2010, 2:01 AM
Develope eco villages in growth zones.
Incentives for sustainable businesses.
Limit industrial type activities to zones no heavy industry in residential areas specifically new developements.
Ecological studies for all new areas of business developements i.e. AIrport extension, oppose until bat mangement programme in place, before we lose another significant special character of this city!
All industry in the city should be managing their real and true effects on the environment and Regional Council needs to be more involved they are responsible for AIR, WATER and SOIL quality for good reason.
Small businesses in communities managed by the community consultation process BUT we need more marketing/media from council to get people involved. Look at the poor level of response to this discussion document. How many people in Hamilton? 140,000. How many responses?
Comment 9 29 Oct 2010, 3:57 PM
Businesses cannot be forced to stay in an expensive and (if you believe the media, including social media) increasingly unpopular CBD in order to "keep it vibrant". Many can't afford to. The city is growning, like it or not, and a small space cannot be expected to cater to everyone's needs.
Suburban centres will provide more and more services to residents within them and the services which flourish will be the ones for which there is a demand.
In my humble opinion, encouragement of vibrancy can be achieved by encouragement of vibrant activity, not be restriction of ability to conduct said 'vibrant activity' (and I don't just mean selling things here) elsewhere.
This is very much tied into the housing and transport discussions going on on this site.
