John MacDonald: We need to get real about housing intensification

“A complete balls up”. How about that for what might be quote of the day?  

That’s how Christchurch city councillor Andrei Moore is describing the council’s handling of the housing intensification row. 

It’s a row that has been shut down for good by Housing and Resource Management Minister Chris Bishop, who has rejected Christchurch’s bid to have its own, separate housing intensification rules. 

Which I have no problem with. If he had given-in to Christchurch, it would’ve opened the floodgates right around the country. So good on Chris Bishop. 

It’s a final decision too, by the way. No correspondence will be entered into. The council can’t blow any more money running off to the environment court. So Christchurch has to like it or lump it.   

What it’s going to mean is high density, multi-level residential housing in the CBD (good), Riccarton (good), Hornby (good) and Linwood (good).  

Even if it means neighbouring properties losing sunlight. Which is not necessarily good - but that’s just reality. We need to get over that. 

Not that I’ve felt that way from the outset. When these new rules were first proposed three years ago, I didn’t like the sound of them. 

And there was no shortage of people saying they felt the same way. And I suspect that a lot of people will still be very unhappy about the prospect of a new place going up next to them and losing their sunlight. 

But that’s just reality. I accept that now.  

Because what other option is there in a city where the population is only going in one direction? 

Do we want the city to spread out even further, chewing up land that is much better used for things like growing food? Of course, we don’t. 

If there’s one very small example of how the city has just kept on spreading outwards, it would be Musgroves - the second-hand building supplies outfit in Wigram. 

I’m still amazed at how that place is surrounded by buildings now. When I remember it being pretty much in the wops not all that long ago. 

And, if we don’t allow the city to become more built-up, we’re just going to see more and more houses built in places like Rolleston and Prebbleton. Which aren’t in Christchurch - they’re in the Selwyn district.  

Which means more and more people travelling into the city every day, using Christchurch’s roading infrastructure but not paying a bean towards it. Because they pay their rates to Selwyn. 

But let’s come back to councillor Andrei Moore - who is saying today that the council has ballsed this up.     

He said back in April that he thought it was nuts that the council was insisting on pushing back on more intensified housing in Christchurch. 

He said - and I agreed with him a hundred percent at the time (and I still do) that “it’s high time we wake up and deal with the reality of city growth”. 

What’s more, it hasn’t been cheap. The most recent, available figures show that the council has spent about $7 million fighting the Government’s proposals. 

It’s not a total loss for the council. Three of its ideas have been accepted by the Government, which include increasing the building height limit on the old stockyards on Deans Ave to 36 metres. 

Mayor Phil Mauger says: “We obviously wanted to get our alternative recommendations approved. So, to only have three of them get the tick, is a kick in the guts.” 

As a result of the Government telling the city council to pull its head in, we’re potentially or eventually going to see 10-storey apartment buildings within 600 metres of suburban shopping areas. Even if it means neighbouring properties losing sunlight. 

Urbanist group Greater Ōtautahi thinks it's brilliant and gives the city certainty.  

They say the quarter-acre dream of a standalone house on a large section is unsustainable. 

Spokesperson M. Grace-Stent says: “Not everyone wants to live the exact same lifestyle. Allowing more housing to be built allows people to make that choice for themselves.” 

They say: “We want people to be living near the city centre,  near the amenities, not pushed out further and further into the Canterbury plains”. 

 And they’ll get no argument from me. 

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from newstalk ZB.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
Quite a complete balls up, A complete balls up? How
about that? For what might be quote of the day.
That's our Christchurch City councilor Andre Moore is describing the
council's handling of the housing intensification row. It's a route
that's been shut down for good by the Housing and

(00:35):
Resource Management Minister Chris Bishop, who has rejected christ Church
has bid to have its own separate housing intensification rules,
which I have no problem with. If he had given
in to the City Council, it would have opened the
floodgates right around the country. So good on your Chris Bishop.
It's a final decision too, by the way, so no

(00:57):
correspondence will be entered into the council. The council cannot
blow any more money on this, can't run off to
the Environment Court. It is over, so christ Church has
to like it or lump it. What it's going to
mean is high density multi level residential housing in the
CBD good, Rickiton good, Hornby good and Linwood good, even

(01:27):
if it means neighboring properties losing sunlight, which is not
necessarily good, But that is just reality. We need to
get over that and accept it. Not that I felt
that a way from the outset. When these new rules
were first proposed three years ago, I didn't like the
sound of them, and there was no shortage of people
saying they felt the same way. And I suspect that

(01:48):
a lot of people will still be very unhappy about
the prospect of a new place going up next to
them and losing their sunlight. As I say, though, that
is just reality, and I accept that now, because what
other option is there in a city where the population
is only going in one direction? Isn't it going upwards?
Do we want the city to spread out even further,

(02:10):
cheering up land that is much better used for things
like growing food? Of course, who don't you know If
there's one very small example of how the city is
just kept on spreading outward, for me, it would be Musgraves.
What sounds weird in the second hand building supplies outfit
and wegram. I'm still amazed every time I go past there.

(02:33):
I'm amazed at how that place is now surrounded by
buildings when I remember it being pretty much in the
WAPs not all that long ago, and if we don't
allow the city to become more built up, we're just
going to see more and more houses built in places
like Roliston and Prebleton, which aren't in christ Church, they're
in the Selwyn district. And what does that mean? That

(02:53):
means more and more people traveling into the city every day,
using christ churches, riding infrastructure and not paying a bean
towards it because they pay their rants to sell withn
But let's come back to Andre Moore, he's the council
of saying today that the Council has ballsed this up.
He said back in April that he thought it was
nuts that the Council was insisting on pushing back on

(03:15):
more intensification, more intensified housing in christ Church, he said,
And I agreed with them one hundred percent at the time,
and I still do, he said in April. Quote it's
high time we wake up and deal with the reality
of city growth. End of quote. And once more, this
hasn't been a chief exercise for the council. The most
recent available figures show that the Council has spent about

(03:37):
seven million bucks fighting the government's proposals. It's not a
total loss for the Council, three of its ideas have
been accepted by the government, which included increasing the building
height limit on the old stockyards on Dean's av increasing
it to thirty six meters. But Mayorfield Major says, quote,
we obviously wanted to get our alternative recommendations approved, so

(03:59):
to only have three of them get the tick as
a kick in the guts. So as a result of
the government telling the city councilor to Pullets, this is
what we're gonna have, We're gonna have ten story or
we potentially we'll see ten story apartment buildings within six
hundred meters of the suburban shopping areas, even if it
means neighboring properties losing sunlight. Now, who thinks it's a

(04:21):
good idea Apart from me? Urbanists group Greater Auto Tahi
they think it's brilliant. They say it gives the city certainty.
I was reading about this group the other day. They're
all about apartments and townhouses and public transport. They say
the quarter acre dream of a standalone house on a
large section that's unsustainable. It's can't keep doing it. And
their spokesperson M Grace Stent says, quote not everyone wants

(04:44):
to live the exact same lifestyle. Allowing more housing to
be built allows people to make that choice for themselves.
And they say, quote, we want people to be living
near the city center, near the amenities, and not pushed
out further and further into the Canterbury Plains. And I
tell you what, they will get no argument from me.

Speaker 1 (05:02):
For more from Canterbory Mornings with John McDonald, listen live
to news talks at be Christchurch from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio