All posts in the topic Height (Short link)
Summary
- There are 9 posts — by 6 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Brian Sandle at 2008 Jul 04 02:19 UTC
No-one in Christchurch should need to live on the 12th floor!
If you are a developer in Christchurch or know any or have funding from
developers you might not want to read this post.
If you look out from the Eiffel Tower in Paris and have heard any of the debate
over the height of buidlings in Christchurch then you will be struck by the
fact that apart from the Tower itself, most of Paris is the same height -
around five stories high. Some of the Paris CBD has high rise buildings but its
less than that in Auckland and perhaps even less than Christchurch.
So lets compare: Christchurch was founded early in the 19th century while Paris
is over 1,000 years old,
Christchurch has a population of around 350,000 and Paris is around 10 million.
You can see Paris's main landmark from most parts of the city, our Cathedral
can barely be seen from Colombo St and only if you stand in the right spot.
When I was at my citizenship ceremony (a very proud event for me) Garry Moore
came up to me afterwards and explained that he had just returned from a
conference on urban design (another council junket - actually I disagree with
Rik, we need to get out and learn from other people so I think Garry and Bob
and all the rest need to be out there!)
Garry asked me whether I thought as a city we should go up or out and I
couldn't really answer as I hadn't thought about it before then - but Garry
hadn't asked me for my opinion he just wanted to tell me that he believed we
needed to go up because we could manage infrastructure around higher buildings
and wouldn't need to pay huge amounts on roads as we grow.
Now I have thought about it and looked at other cities and to me its very clear
- we need to go up one level at a time - if we are at two storeys now then we
all go up one more and so on, then we can perhaps in a thousand years be at 5
storeys. I have posted a number of times before about the disconnectedness of
social groups when they live in high rise buidlings - many highrises in the UK
and US are being ripped down because they have realised that the social
engineering of the sixties just didn't work (another thing we learn if we look
overseas). They created gangs and ghettoes and we are going down that path all
too quickly in New Zealand.
While there are advantages in areas such as low cost housing and service
delivery in high rise buildings, is that what we New Zealanders aspire to do -
live in boxes? I was always told that kiwis appreciate the outdoors - but I
wouldn't call it appreciating the outdoors, for example, when you are living by
the beach but 12 storeys up.
No-one in Christchurch should need to live on the 12th floor!
Michael
I actually asked you because I wanted to know what you thought. I do feel we
need to go up, but, you may be surprised to know, I am interested in other
people's opinions...................
I see urban sprawl as an environmental disaster. As it gets more and more
expensive to ship our food we need the fertile soils which surround us with
food planted on them rather than houses and concrete.
You may be correct about high but some people may like living on the 12th
floor. An urban planner once told me that buildings should not be higher than
the largest tree in the area. There are parts of the city which should be very
high however, eg an ideal site would be the old sale yards site. It has no
neighbours to its North. Its Southerly neighbours are industrial and the view
from the site, if constructed sensitively, would be spectacular.
Garry Moore wrote:
> Michael
>
> I actually asked you because I wanted to know what you thought. I do
> feel we need to go up, but, you may be surprised to know, I am
> interested in other people's opinions...................
>
I read Michael's interesting post, and went to Google Earth Paris. I
could not see many trees. Buildings are rather densely packed in. Then
to increase building height somewhat, make them narrower and keep
spaces in between for vegetation seems an attractive idea.
> I see urban sprawl as an environmental disaster. As it gets more and
> more expensive to ship our food we need the fertile soils which
> surround us with food planted on them rather than houses and concrete.
>
Strangely many vegetables are now grown hydroponically, not in soils.
The market is demanding a wide variety of vegetables all year round. A
lot of this has to be in heated growing houses. As transport fuel
becomes more expensive so does the fuel to heat glass houses. For a
while I think that heating will be more of a prohibitive cost than
transportation and Christchurch will start to import from the north. So
I probably don't support turning the Turners & Growers former site into
a hydroponic growing site for employment of intensified city dwelling,
after rises in energy costs make other city business turn down, sort of
thing. (Industry and agriculture take about the same energy as domestic
transport.)
I do worry about putting dense housing on Morgans Valley, which, though
it had been sheep farm for a while, had earlier been tomato and potato
growing above the frost line. It is still possible to seen the old
boundaries there. Veges could be grown there over a wider season,
without having to heat with fuel.
> You may be correct about high but some people may like living on the
> 12th floor. An urban planner once told me that buildings should not be
> higher than the largest tree in the area.
The Government Life building was built when I was at secondary school.
While waiting for our bus connections in the Square some of us
occasionally went up that building to see the view. It was interesting,
but fairly static. It was not a daily or even a 3-monthly attraction, to
my memory.
Some 20 years later I worked on the 6th floor in that building for a
year. At times in breaks I would gaze across at the people on the
Cathedral balcony. I really felt a bit of an intruder. I was on the same
height but not matching the achievement of those people climbing up that
Gothic architecture.
It was nice being up and so away from the car and bus fumes of the 1970s
technology. But I think what really makes an environment is the
relationships with the people around. I understand that people who live
in high rise apartments do become isolated, which can be a worse minus
than any plus of any view attained. As several side-by-side buildings
are constructed the views will often be of windows behind which may be
similarly isolated folks.
> There are parts of the city which should be very high however, eg an
> ideal site would be the old sale yards site. It has no neighbours to
> its North. Its Southerly neighbours are industrial and the view from
> the site, if constructed sensitively, would be spectacular.
>
>
But would it have a closeness to life?
Besides walking the most important NZ recreation is gardening. I guess
more than one out of two like it. So more than likely a two-person high
rise apartment would have one person at a loss, not having their
gardening at hand.
Energy sources may be better sorted out in the future, allowing more
free transport. In the mean time I support 0.2 ha sections within
walking distance of existing transport routes. A house does not take a
great proportion of a 0.2 ha section, and biodiversity stewardship as
well as food security would be possible.
From the compost grown plants we could produce we could start to get
back into our bodies some of the disease fighting organisms that we use
to get from such veges, and have food security and activity we are used to.
Some people DO want to live on the 12th floor and some don't because
the fireman's ladder can't reach that far. Advantage-- your window
won't get broken into, you won't get raped in the middle of the night.
There's a safety aspect to it. If built beyond the building code, you
won't hear your neighbours either. You don't have to heat as much
because of the insulation of the building.You don't have to mow lawns
and you can see for miles and miles and miles... The best thing about
living high is that it's tsunami-proof.
If there is effective town planning, there should be plenty of green
space for kids, and adults to play in. It is / could be the focus of
communities.
The only down side of living in a high rise, is that your dog would be
quite isolated... if dogs are even allowed in there. Pets, as we know,
are an important part of kiwi life. However, you wouldn't know it by
the lack of dogs on the streets (as commented by an Englishman that I
met).
Doglinks NZ wrote: > Some people DO want to live on the 12th floor and some don't because > the fireman's ladder can't reach that far. Advantage-- your window > won't get broken into, but what about your door? > you won't get raped in the middle of the night. > There's a safety aspect to it. But if you have a heart attack will the lift be working? > If built beyond the building code, you > won't hear your neighbours either. It is interesting to read: http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fm1/fm36pm.html 21% of the high rise dwellers in this study in Melbourne said it was a quiet neighbourhood compared to 83% others. > You don't have to heat as much > because of the insulation of the building. But there is less roof for solar heating. > You don't have to mow lawns > Which you might not have to too much anyway if you had an interesting garden. This really needs another whole thread: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Ending10000YearsOfConflict.php > and you can see for miles and miles and miles... But it's at a cost. > The best thing about > living high is that it's tsunami-proof. > That is if the foundations are strong enough against water-scour. > If there is effective town planning, there should be plenty of green > space for kids, and adults to play in. It is / could be the focus of > communities. > In the Melbourne study 92% of high rise dwellers felt close to parks as opposed to 84% of others. Does that make up for lack of back yard space and sheds for the blokes? > The only down side of living in a high rise, is that your dog would be > quite isolated... if dogs are even allowed in there. Pets, as we know, > are an important part of kiwi life. However, you wouldn't know it by > the lack of dogs on the streets (as commented by an Englishman that I > met) > It used to be marvellous for dogs. They could go exploring and have a life and dignity of their own. We need to ensure something takes that place. They might have barked a bit at visitors or bicycles, but in those days were not trained to attack which I think might happen these days. I once got nipped a little on the arm when as about a four year old I reached out to pat a dog. I can't remember if it was on a leash. It was at the New Brighton Shops.
Hi, As to building up -- not out -- I have been talking about this a bit in my city, Pittsburgh, PA. We've got a bit of a problem -- the spread of Non-Profits. The universities and university hospitals are growing. Many in the nonprofit sector are great for the city -- but -- too many of them means that the number one source of income, property tax, shrinks. I've asked that there be a moratorium on the net growth of the nonprofit footprint in terms of land expansion. So, it might be 'healthy" to have hospitals grow upwards. Then people won't be forced to live on the 12th floor. Ta. Mark Rauterkus <email obscured> http://Rauterkus.blogspot.com http://FixPA.wikia.com http://CLOH.Org 412 298 3432 = cell
Greater Christchurch is deciding its land use policy in a current process (RPS Change no1.). Hearings have been postponed to next year, but pre-hearing workshops have been held. In one of those a Regional Council consultant said that it would be difficult to get the private sector to build the risky high rise housing as the developer's profit margin is only 10%, as opposed to 30% for low rise. So he said that the Christchurch City Council, that _is_ your property tax, isn't it(?), would need to assist. CCC have been talking about affordable housing for some time. There was reference to a maximum size of apartment. In Auckland the 35 sq metre apartments have been hard to inhabit. So property tax (we call it rates) would have to continue to subisidise empty buildings. The only people who would be making on the deal would be the assisted developers. Then they might as well be doing hospitals or colleges. We do earn from overseas students here, if we can keep them. My theory is that affordable housing would be possible along rural main transport routes. Developer profit could be regulated down and there should be a big market for say half-acre sections. The RPS1 process is not being postponed totally. Noise zones and living near the airport approaches will still be decided and so will limits to housing growth of outlying towns. My suspicion is that limiting 'sprawl' of towns has an intention of keeping rural land cheap for agribusiness. That could be for trying to sell an over-priced water storage irrigation scheme by offering cheap Canterbury land to use the expensive water on. Rik has just written about dairy sprawl. And earlier I quoted Professor Tim Hazeldine submitting against the big irrigation scheme. He pointed out the misconception that we must export to gain overseas funds. There is no shortage of overseas funds. http://www.ecan.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/2BD3260B-9591-4182-B1C6-2AC79918D8CA/0/HearingEvidenceTimothyHazledine.pdf I believe that our councils need to look well ahead about food security. So for one thing they need to take part in doing local facilitation of a world-wide scheme to increase food supply from perennial crops. That could be a requirement of owning one of the half acre affordable residences. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Ending10000YearsOfConflict.php Annual crops require ploughing in of the soils and so the soils lie exposed for some period of the year and are prone to erosion. Or sometimes large amounts of herbicide are used to knock unwanted vegetation. That has undesirable effects. And if herbicide-tolerant GMO crops are introduced then the numbers of herbicide resistant weeds increase so new cocktails of herbicides are marketed. Perennial crops have deeper roots and manage water better and bring up deeper nutrients. A study for NZ's Bay of Plenty Regional Council has found that the Orenco AdvanTex local wastewater treatment can acceptably lower the nitrate level in a local system. That removes the need to install expensive wide bore wastewater reticulation in the sort of settlement I propose. http://www.envbop.govt.nz/media/pdf/er0612.pdf As organic photovoltaics develops there will be more possibility for solar energy collection than in a high rise. High rise dwellers may not afford the energy to travel to their recreation - maybe food or flower growing plots. My system has that recreation in the garden surrounding the dwelling. Occupied people are happier people and I believe some reduction in various sorts of crime could be possible. I believe that employment in towns will decrease as energy becomes more expensive. Industry and agriculture take about as much energy as domestic transport. Brian Sandle
I think the arguments for not expanding vertically are somewhat flawed; the
isolation, the lack of social cohesion etc. are not by-products of where we
live, they are by-products of how we live and are to a degree a nostalgic
reminisence of a social structure that largely, aside from sporadic instances,
no longer exists. How neighbourly is it to live on half hectare block, 200m
(often more!) from your nearest neighbour? The individual can choose to be
inclusive or exclusive regardless of the habitat; it is a state of mind. The
other issue that seems to be overlooked to a degree is need; we cannot
indefinitely continue to expand outwards; coming from the UK where urban
sprawl, in an albeit more densely populated country, is controlled by Green
Belt, the only option is upwards; environmental groups rightly create a a
furore when Green Belt is re-classified and built on and whilst New Zealand is
not there yet, it is fiercely protective of its environment and will head the
same way. I believe that governmental regulation should limit the built
environment footprint 'broadly' to that which already exists. Yes lifestyle
blocks contribute to the housing stock and are preferable for some but city
centres do not have the luxury of space and the one cannot substitute for the
other. Urban sprawl and its environmental impacts are well known; reliance on
the car is greatly increased,city centre parking must increase, that or
expensive infrastructure is created along with public transport (subsidised due
to the low passenger numbers if viable at all)increased pollution increased
road deaths, not mention the stress that commuting imposes. If we build
outwards, then the stock constructed cannot be satellites of the city; they
must self sufficient and be 'live-work' environments; easier said than done,
Kiwi entreprenurialism notwithstanding!
That to me dictates that as a general premise, we need to go up and not out.
As for 'risky development' and 10% profit as commented upon,firstly developers
(in fact any business) operates on a risk vs reward basis. Profits are not free
and market forces determine whether any development proposition is feasible and
I can assure you that a multi unit residential spec scheme returning 10% (on
cost presumably) is not feasible, moreover it is not fundable; a 10% return
does not cover risk and reward in a ecnomomy where money can earn 9% on deposit
risk free. Notwithstanding that, presumption/speculation over who will build
what and where is pointless. The market will decide; anyone who builds
speculatively is an opportunist and if the appropriate profit can be achieved
against the corporate yardsticks set, any scheme will go ahead be it high rise,
low rise or anything else.
Joe Colgan wrote: > I think the arguments for not expanding vertically are somewhat flawed; the isolation, the lack of social cohesion etc. are not by-products of where we live, they are by-products of how we live and are to a degree a nostalgic reminisence of a social structure that largely, aside from sporadic instances, no longer exists. How neighbourly is it to live on half hectare block, 200m (often more!) from your nearest neighbour? The minimum rural block is 2 ha. http://www.ccc.govt.nz/Subdivisions/SubdivisionCityPlanReqmts.pdf 1/2 hectare blocks could only be in residential land but very few of those are even 0.1 ha, about 1/4 acre. I suggested a half acre, or about 0.2 ha, which if the section were square would put you about 40 m from neighbours. Have you noticed how it is more likely that people say hello when more widely spaced on country roads than on city streets? And being busy gardening when someone walks past is often a talking point. > The individual can choose to be inclusive or exclusive regardless of the habitat; it is a state of mind. I think the state of mind is affected by the environment. To live close together requires good brains evolved to do that. Cats are social animals. Possums, which have a much smaller brain, only socialise to reproduce. I think humans should choose environments to make the most of the skills they have. > The other issue that seems to be overlooked to a degree is need; we cannot indefinitely continue to expand outwards; coming from the UK where urban sprawl, in an albeit more densely populated country, is controlled by Green Belt, the only option is upwards; environmental groups rightly create a a furore when Green Belt is re-classified and built on and whilst New Zealand is not there yet, it is fiercely protective of its environment and will head the same w > ay. I have lived in New Brighton most of my life and travelled to the city through the green belt areas in Pages Rd and Travis Rd. A vestige of each has remained - the old rubbish tip in Pages Rd still aloiws views across to the Port Hills, and the Travis swamp. Opposite the Travis swamp has recently been placed a very ugly tall fence where we used to see pleasant green fields with a few cows. > I believe that governmental regulation should limit the built environment footprint 'broadly' to that which already exists. Yes lifestyle blocks contribute to the housing stock and are preferable for some but city centres do not have the luxury of space and the one cannot substitute for the other. I think something in between is needed. If house are 40 m apart then there can be views between them. And there is room for a few trees to be cared for, and co-ordinated search for better crops like perrenial grains which manage soil water and nutrients better. > Urban sprawl and its environmental impacts are well known; reliance on the car is greatly increased,city centre parking must increase, that or expensive infrastructure is created along with public transport (subsidised due to the low passenger numbers if viable at all)increased pollution increased road deaths, not mention the stress that commuting imposes. But when you look at high rise violence there could be more deaths from that. Who expects the cities to be able to maintain their employment as energy prices soar? Industry and agriculture use about as much energy as domestic transport. Food security in Cuba after USSR failed and they got no more oil caused doctors and other professions to earn more money as farmers. Transport will be needed to move people from the inner city high rise to the farms. > If we build outwards, then the stock constructed cannot be satellites of the city; they must self sufficient and be 'live-work' environments; easier said than done, Kiwi entreprenurialism notwithstanding! > As far as sewerage goes, yes, I think Pegasus will have its decentralised system. And I was please to see two firms selling such for down to single houses at the Home Show last week end. People will need to learn not to put bleaches, hair &c down the toilet which they used to. There was also the new solar energy which can turn your power meter backwards, too. > That to me dictates that as a general premise, we need to go up and not out. > Mary Lovell Smith wrote on her recent gardening page of how Gordon Graff has said a 58 storey building could have gardens on its walls and roofs enough to feed 35,000 people with veges. But I think it would shade the next buildings. Maybe a bit of it would be above the frost. We need to think a lot. I don't think veges are everything we need purposeful physical activity, too. > As for 'risky development' and 10% profit as commented upon, The ECAN consultant did not say over what period, or for the 30% for low rise. > firstly developers (in fact any business) operates on a risk vs reward basis. Profits are not free and market forces determine whether any development proposition is feasible and I can assure you that a multi unit residential spec scheme returning 10% (on cost presumably) is not feasible, moreover it is not fundable; a 10% return does not cover risk and reward in a ecnomomy where money can earn 9% on deposit risk free. Notwithstanding that, presumption/speculation over who will build what and where is pointless. The market will decide; anyone who builds speculatively is an opportunist and if the appropriate profit can be achieved against the corporate yardsticks set, any scheme will go ahead be it high rise, low rise or anything else. > But we are not leaving it to the market, because we have town plans. And if we did I do not think it would turn out very well. But I do oppose sponsoring high rise, if that is what you mean. And to Craig I say maybe days ahead will be more like the 50s when we had to use coats for extra blankets and did not wash so much. In one way that might have been more healthy as we did not wash off so much vitamin D. I have been reading that there is a narrow window of usefulness for that. Above or below that level and your arteries calcify more.
Need help? Please contact technical support. Follow us on Facebook or Twitter.
Hosted by E-Democracy.Org. Powered by OnlineGroups.Net using GroupServer.