David Mead
UDF National Committee Chair
Hill Young Cooper
DavidM@hyc.co.nz
 

The Building Competitive Cities document sets out four problems under the heading “planning and urban design” and provides a number of options to address the identified issues.  Three of these topics directly relate to urban design. Some of the proposals put forward will be positive for the urban environment, but the fairly limited extent of the changes suggest that they will go only a small way to making cities more sustainable and economically successful. 

Quite how the changes proposed for infrastructure planning might affect the quality of towns and cities is a something that needs to be looked at in more detail.

Recognition of the built environment in the RMA

The RMA might be amended so that there is an explicit reference to the urban environment within Section 6 or 7, or through the definition of “amenity values or the “environment”.
 
Recognition of the importance of the urban environment to the wider purpose of the RMA (sustainable management of natural and physical resources) is positive.

There is, however, a danger that any reference to the urban environment will be used to protect existing urban environments, rather than be used to encourage / develop better urban environments.
 
A simple change to the definition of the environment, or change to Section 6 or 7 will not make any difference to this core issue.
 
To be effective, there would need to be reference to a proactive element to the management of the built environment; that is shaping a new character / quality to parts of the urban environment, not just recognition that the built environment is part of the wider "environment" upon which adverse effects are to be avoided or mitigated.
 
Here, the concept of “reflective versus descriptive” zoning is perhaps more important to urban design outcomes, than simple changes to definitions to make what is implicit, explicit.  Reflective zoning can be said to be aimed at maintaining existing character of urban areas and avoiding or mitigating impacts on this environment; versus descriptive zoning, which are aimed at the attainment of a new environment (they describe a new future / environment).

Urban design has to be seen to be about creating better quality towns and cities, if it is to have on-going relevance.

National Policy Statement on urban design
 
A national policy statement (NPS) on urban design may be prepared so as to clarify national direction on this issue. However the document suggests that a policy statement on urban planning / development may be more appropriate.

A statement on urban design is a potentially a useful tool. It will address the concern that urban design is not a legitimate topic that can be included within a district plan.  However, practice and case law supports this outcome already, where a council determines that urban design is important. The policy statement would make consideration of urban design mandatory rather than discretionary.
 
The biggest benefit from an NPS would be in spelling out that an integrated, pro active approach to zoning / development standards / assessment processes is needed to achieve urban design outcomes, and that inherent in this, much more of a discretionary / judgment approach to resource consent assessment is required and that skilled staff and hearing commissioners are required to undertake this assessment.

The potential to expand the policy statement so that it refers to the urban environment in a wider sense, and address issues associated with land supply and housing affordability is problematical. There may well be a place for such a policy statement on urban planning, but the topic of the quality of the built environment (its design) is sufficiently distinct for it to have its own policy statement.  The proposal to extend the scope of the policy statement will create a very confusing document.

Additional Tools

There are proposals to provide more direction on the content of plans, increase government involvement in urban design (a government architect) and to improve the ability for councils to assembly land.

These proposals seem to be, (in part) a watered down version of the work undertaken by the previous (Labour-led) government on building sustainable urban communities. 

In response to urban design initiatives, District Plans are getting more place-based and area specific. This is positive for urban outcomes as broad zones get broken down into finer grained precincts and sub areas where development standards and assessment criteria are better shaped to the environment in that area (existing and future environment). It is hard to see how any national-level direction on the structure and content of plans can advance this trend.

A government architect has to be supported as a positive re-engagement of central government in building design, but first prize would surely be an independent well funded commission or similar that could advocate for good urban design across all sectors and all spatial scales: central government, local government and the private sector, big plans and specific developments. The UK model of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment springs to mind.

The ability to more easily assembly land for urban redevelopment is also positive, but such an action is only one among many that are needed to help catalyze positive urban change. Equally important are funding tools and the ability to co-ordinate a wide range of infrastructure and investment in areas subject to redevelopment.  There appears to be no mention of these and other actions noted in the previous work on positively managing urban change.
 

download as word doc

more discussions Members Only Discussion Board