Heritage Protection in Auckland City

For the Planning Applications and Methods course, we had to look at an application for resource consent and write notification and decision reports on whether consent should be granted.

The site was in Ponsonby, which is within the Residential 1 zone of Auckland City. This area has heritage protection, and any application for building alteration has to meet the criteria set out in the plan.

This was the existing building:

(Source: http://www.nz.open2view.com/tour/photo/188709/16.)

And this is what did get approved:

(Photographs by Patrick Clearwater.)

In trying to assess whether the proposal was acceptable under the district plan, I found the district plan's criteria and explanation complex but still vague.

For example, the objective of the zone is to 'ensure the survival of the historic form and pattern of subdivision, buildings and streetscape in Auckland’s early-established residential neighbourhoods'. Much reference is made to the architecture being 'compatible' with the 'streetscape', but neither of these terms are defined.

The council decided that this application was acceptable. The exterior fits in with the neighbouring buildings in its materials (although the highly reflective roof is rather abhorrent). The detailing matches classic villa and cottage style.

But is this sort of architecture desirable? As can be seen from the older photograph, there is no way of knowing if this is the detail that would have been on this house.

More significantly, the whole frontage of the building has been extended, so that the house now adjoins the garage. This has changed the scale of the building, its footprint, and the form of the roof is now unusual in its large size. I would argue that this is not protecting the historic form and pattern of buildings in this area.

The following are some exerpts from my decision report.

The alteration at the front of the house includes the same form of roof as the original building, but with an increase in height to cover the larger area. Thus the roof appears higher and larger and more steeply sloping than the original roof. It appears unusual compared to the size of the front facade and the cottage style of the house, and dominates the proposed building even with the increased width of the house, and it is unusual compared to the style of other roofs on the street.

The alteration at the front of the house increases the intensity of buildings on the streetscape: the small cottage is replaced by a larger form. While the form is the same as a cottage, the scale has been changed. It has lost some of its few remaining authentic features including the visual scale of the building compared to the size of the site, and the small height and width of the building that adds to the fine-grained layout of buildings on the street.

The front alteration also removes some of the authenticity of the street: the original scale of the cottage is lost; the alteration is thus very to a complete recreation, maintaining only the position of the building and its form.

For these reasons the proposal is not considered to be achieving the objective of ensuring the protection of the historic form and pattern of buildings in the area.


Probably the most important part of the heritage provisions is the requirement to assess the surrounding area. This should include assessment of heritage value. 'Historical' could mean anything that has passed. In this example the front enclosed verandah of the existing house is part of the street's history: it tells the story of social and cultural changes of Ponsonby and the varying levels of fondness for old architecture.

Planning as Regulation

I came across this comment from architect Pip Cheshire:

I don't think planning should exist. Ever. Not anywhere. Not within the university. Not anywhere. I think we're all sort of past planning now. Planners were an offshoot of architecture, they slithered off to organise the great dream. It was a great 20th century idea but the world's too complicated for planning now. What planning tries to do is regulate human endeavour, human activity by sets of rules which fit most situations but not specifically any. I have a hunch that they should either transform into urban design or just fold their tents.

(Source: The Disappearing of Peggy Deamer, F. Walsh, 2007, Metro, 316: 84–94.)

Perhaps he is looking at planning in terms of a district plan / zoning / rules perspective. Strategic and community planning and other urban policy development may thus escape from his definition.

I must admit that the 'great dream' is an exciting idea for me. Ebenezer Howard, Le Corbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright, industrial philanthropists all had interesting visions.

However, I do worry about all these rules. Often there seems to be no reasoning for their existence, they seem to serve to perpetuate the suburban landscape, by permitting the lowest common standard of single-house-with-yards-on-each-side development.

The rules in the district plan about height, yards, set backs, floor area ratio, height in relation to boundary are based on permitting this single style of building.

(Source: City of Auckland District Plan.)

This is far removed from the principles that A Pattern Language articulates. Sometimes I think it might be better if all these rules were gotten rid of, and instead everybody just built what they wanted, or if perhaps all buildings were subject to planning permission, and just had to show how they were contributing positively to the urban landscape.

The Farmers' Trading Company Building: Proposal for Registration

For the Culture and Heritage Planning course I did last year, I investigated the potential of the Farmers' building to be a heritage building registered with the Historic Places Trust.

The Farmers’ Trading Company Building was the main store of Farmers’, situated on Hobson Street in the Auckland city centre. Its large and imposing form has thus far survived in Auckland where many other old buildings have been demolished. Its current use as a hotel has used the R. A. Lippincott architecture for the Art Deco theme of the Heritage Hotel, whereas the other parts of the store's history, its multitude of buildings and their various additions, and features such as the roof-top playground, are less obvious.

The facade

The tea room

(Photographs by Patrick Clearwater.)

Here are some of the reasons I thought it was worth protecting:

On the top floor of the annexe towards the back of the building is the tea room, with stone walls, an elegant vaulted and patterned ceiling, cast iron light fittings and large windows with views of the harbour.

Everyone shopped at the Farmers’ store. People have memories of the store. Tea rooms, department stores and shopping in the city centre were part of the culture in Auckland, and form part of its social history. The store included a large number of exciting modernisations and was involved in many events in the city.

The Farmers’ Trading Company Building is significant in this respect because it remains a source of memories, creates reactions and makes people think about other people, other times and other perspectives.

It is exciting for people to imagine past events occurring: memories and thinking can create emotions in people and make them feel part of something larger.

The visual form of the building—its size, its Art Deco facade that joins the buildings within it together—reveals part of the history of the store: its rapid growth.

The Farmers Trading Company has historical value as being the site of part of Aucklands economic history. The prosperity and decline of Farmers’ matched the pattern of growth in department stores in New Zealand and overseas.

The store tells the story of Robert Laidlaw, who leaves a history of retail innovation shown by the store’s continual updating and modernisation with the latest technology and retailing methods, such as the first large store car park and later multi-storey car park (still existing across the road from the store on Wyndham Street).

Graphic Communication

I think it's interesting how much graphic communication may influence people's views on planning proposals.

For example, while I love their work, Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk's town plans often have detailed illustration that borders on sentimental in its graphic style (such as in the book Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk: Towns and Town-Making Principles, edited by Krieger, A. with Lennertz, W., 1991, New York: Rizzoli).

(Source: http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j301/randy4au/Trussville_11_08_08/06_other_photos/trussville_springs_01.jpg.)

And potentially misleading. All those street trees drawn in may be confusing the big picture.

Graphic communication can deliver new insights, too. Joost Grootens's maps, for example:

(Source: http://www.grootens.nl/2/10/11/3.html.)

The Density–Design Dilemma

I don't know how we can provide low-cost, well-designed medium-density housing. I think it is an issue at the intersection of architecture and planning.

The Pines, Mount Eden

(Source: http://fletchersince1909.com/gallery.php?g=19&category=.)

Herne Bay

(Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Herne_Bay_Apartment_Skyscraper.jpg.)

Economics hasn't solved this issue. Some beautiful, high-density housing has been built in Auckland, but it is either designed for high-income groups, or it quickly becomes desirable to those groups.

More on Mount Albert Station

There seems to be an issue with the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy, if it is based on intensification of nodes and corridors, which on the isthmus are based on railway lines, and this is the state of the Mount Albert Station.

(Photograph by Patrick Clearwater.)

Conflicting Aims in Possible Growth Strategies for Auckland

A studio project on the redevelopment of a site in Mount Albert to address the current urban design issues, provide for higher densities of development, increase people’s use of the area, and of public transport, and be economically viable over time required an understanding of the Auckland City Growth Management Strategy and how it might be implemented. The area chosen was at the Mount Albert train station.

(Photograph by Patrick Clearwater.)

This project showed me the complexity of dealing with traffic, arterial roads, public transport and growth. I offered the following critique of how far the Auckland City Council growth strategy allowed achieving all these aims together.

The Growth Strategy identifies Mount Albert as one centre of growth in Auckland City. The strategy states that the purpose of redevelopment is to enhance existing public transportation facilities, education institutions, recreation spaces, community services and business activities, and to create a vibrant Mount Albert town centre. Also that development should focus on residential growth and create a place that offers a range of activities.


There are some conflicts between the selected urban design criteria and the process of development that the strategy envisages. Peter Calthorpe suggests that arterials and thoroughfares should not pass through transit-oriented developments, and that arterial traffic should not be slowed by the activities within them, to support an efficient regional traffic system (The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, community and the American Dream, 1993, New York, Princeton Architectural Press). He says that the commercial cores of centres and associated transit stops should be to one side of the arterial. In addition, the type of transit that he describes tends to be either light rail or buses, neither of which creates the barriers of a heavy rail line, so the adverse effect of the railway barrier in Mount Albert is likely to be greater than what Calthorpe describes.

People + Places + Spaces suggests the ostensibly opposite principle of focusing walkable nodes on arterials and public transport so that they benefit from the movement economy (Ministry for the Environment, People + Places + Spaces: A design guide for urban New Zealand, 2002, Wellington). Both the Auckland City Growth Strategy and the Regional Growth Strategy follow this principle: almost all centres of growth are on arterial roads. Perhaps the issue this principle addresses is that of retaining landscapes that people value, by retaining the usually historical routes of arterial roads. Or perhaps the suggestion is that retaining these routes, and gradually increasing the connectedness and permeability of the street network, may decrease the need for cars to dominate particular roads.

This principle is compatible with the incremental development recommended by the growth strategy. However, in creating a plan of development for the site chosen in Mount Albert, it was found to be necessary to create a plan for a much wider area than just the one hectare site, which the strategy does not require. For example, the overall density of the area surrounding the train station is required to be 40 dwellings per hectare. For the purposes of the development project, a density of 60 dwellings per hectare was presumed to be an appropriate density the particular site, at the centre of Mount Albert.

In the short term, increased density of development cannot address the barriers of the arterial roads and the railway line. Despite the fact that the final proposal for development increased the level of permeability between the two sides of New North Road, the busy and noisy New North Road still a major barrier for pedestrians. It is suggested that shopping streets for pedestrians should be located in streets through which traffic does not pass at all. There is an opportunity in that the Regional Arterial Road Plan no longer classifies New North Road as a regional arterial, because of future extensions of State Highway 20, and so the need for the road to cater primarily for vehicular traffic may decrease.

Appendix H to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement states that the average 200 employees per hectare is for the zoned employment areas within the centre or corridor. In Mount Albert this is the existing 3 hectares of zoned business land in accordance with the Auckland City Council’s District Plan. The purposed increase of employment density is thus limited to the existing business zoned areas, which are mainly located along New North Road. This may contradict with the Auckland City Growth Management Strategy, which proposed Mount Albert to be an Urban Living Community of residential growth and mixed-use town centres. The ideal of mixed use development would not be able to occur outside this area. The growth strategy anticipates the centres on the railway line to be self-sufficient, while also encouraging people to move between each centre along the railway, but a limit on the area that should be mixed use will not achieve this, because active edges beyond the town centre that encourage residents to walk to the station are not required.

In order to make this development proposal feasible, a technical analysis of the feasibility was undertaken. The growth strategy requires a certain level of density, and to make a profit while providing this required a further increase in the residential density on the site. This is shown by the fact that a density of 60 dwellings per hectare was not feasible. The growth strategy favours incremental development. However, individual developers may not be able to negotiate to form the new streets that can give amenity to the higher density development. The street height–width ratio, and detail planning at the human scale may not be considered by developers.