Hi Sue
nice to hear from you too!
I should say first that my comment wasn't intended to sound anti-UDS. In
fact, I like it. And as I said in the Press on Saturday, I am in favour of
intensification of housing as long as we hold on to our greenspace.
You will be able to correct me if I'm wrong here, but my understanding is
that the city plan identifies the areas where different types of development
may take place, and that the UDS has set targets for intensification within
'indicative intensification areas'. So if I turn to page 39 of the UDS I see
that these are the central city and the L2/L3 zones.
My concern, and I know this is reflected in the UDS itself, is that
intensification will, in practice, simply be a green light to more
development in those areas, which have already seen considerable carnage.
I'm thinking especially of St Albans and parts of Merivale, where character
has been lost and community severely disrupted by the construction of
fortress-housing in their midst, and of course the loss of greenspace. Now
that Edgeware Pool has been bulldozed, for example, I understand the idea is
to cover it with housing.
I was remembering, too, the street I grew up in, in your ward actually, in
St Martins. Derrett Place was a sleepy cul-de-sac with a very close
community. We kids used to play cricket at the end (actually, I think I sat
on my trike and watched as I didn't really like cricket then), the
neighbours had shared Christmas morning drinks every year and, amazingly,
collective outings to Coes Ford at least once a year. I guess I took it for
granted that we would just wander around to the neighbours and watch TV or
hang out with each other. In other words, it was a very close community, and
a very safe one. A far cry from the open fields and neighbouring apple
orchards my parents remember from their childhoods, but pretty good, really.
Now, that street is filling up with units, crammed as tightly as possible
onto any available parcel of land. Because there is no room for garages,
cars park on the street on both sides, so it's difficult to drive up and
down. Forget cricket at the end. I think the kids still give it a go but it
is in no way safe. The design of the units makes for a fragmented community
and, for the first time in decades (some have lived there for thirty or
forty years) residents don't feel safe. You will no doubt have heard stories
like that from across the city. It isn't just that infill is often ugly as
hell, it's that it is killing our communities.
The UDS will hopefully help strike the balance, but we need to make sure
this is the case. Your thoughts on this would be very welcome, and thanks
for starting a new strand on it.
Good to hear about the SAM review as well.
Matt
Rest of post
--
Dr. Matt Morris
Council and Community Board Candidate
for Christchurch 2021
(Shirley-Papanui Ward)
<email obscured>
www.myspace.com/matt_morris
> From: "Sue Wells" <<email obscured>>
> Reply-To: canterburyissues@forums.e-democracy.org
> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 14:45:02 +1200 (NZST)
> To: "Canterbury Public Issues Forum"
<canterburyissues@forums.e-democracy.org>
> Subject: [Canterbury Issues] the uds and infill housing
>
> Matt Morris - yay, welcome. Nice to have you here!
>
> First a question, and then a wee note about today's council meeting.
>
> Here's the question.
>
> I'm interested in this comment in your introduction in particular.
>
> "and protecting our greenspaces against encroaching infill and the proposed
> intensification of suburbs flagged in the Urban Development Strategy."
>
> I'm a member of the UDS and have been right since its inception, so I'm up to
> date with what it says. I've also met you a few times now and know that
you're
> no intellectual slug. (or giant snail for that matter).
>
> It's on that basis of respect that I ask this - I'm not intending to sound
> snotty or patronising, nor is it a trick question.
>
> When you say the UDS flags suburbs for intensification which ones are you
> meaning and what do you think will happen to them?
>
> Now the note.
>
> One of the things on today's agenda was an item about Special Amenity Areas.
> Nutshell - Council's agreed a working party of myself, Crs Crighton and
> Parker, and two community board members (to be selected by the joint board
> chairs) to start work on the SAM review. Terms of reference are in today's
> agenda which is on the council homepage - let me know if you want the link
> posted - and the item went through with no amendments other than the names as
> above.
>
> Cheers all.
>
> Cr Sue Wells
> Spreydon-Heathcote Ward
>
> Sue Wells
> Opawa, Christchurch
> Info about Sue Wells: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/suewells
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3QFIweu8WXMcxL8Be8Z6gj
> -----------------------------------------
> To post, send your message to: canterburyissues@forums.e-democracy.org
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> in subject line and send to: canterburyissues@forums.e-democracy.org
>
> More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net