Medium Density Housing

Best practice in medium

density housing design

forHousing New Zealand Corporation

A report on

Best practice in mediumdensity housing design

for

Housing New Zealand Corporation

September 2004

David TurnerJohn HewittCesar WagnerBin SuKathryn Davies

Contents

Executive Summary 1

Summary of Conclusions

Introduction 5

Context and Research AimsLegislative Background of Medium Density Housing in New Zealand, and Attitudes TowardsResidential Density

Literature Review 11

New ZealandAustraliaNorth AmericaUnited KingdomSummary and Conclusions

A New Zealand Definition of Medium Density Housing 21

IntroductionDensityDensity and PrivacySecurity and PrivacyCar Parking and StorageExternal StyleSummary

Case Studies: Methodology and Criteria 31

IntroductionMethodologySite SelectionLocationMulti-development SitesMethodologyTopographical CriteriaValue and House TypesRefuse CollectionWashing/drying Arrangements

Case Studies 39

Case Study ConventionsCase Study DataCase Study EvaluationGlossary

(1) Vinograd Mews, Harbour View, Waitakere City 42(2) Adelphi Villas, East Tamaki, Manukau City 43(3) Seymour Road, Sunnyvale, Waitakere City 44(4) Corban Village, Henderson, Waitakere City 45(5) Fairhaven, Glen Eden, Waitakere City 46(6) Romola Street, Glendowie, Auckland City 47(7) Tuscany Towers, Ambrico Place, New Lynn, Waitakere City 48(8) Melview, Ambrico Place, New Lynn, Waitakere City 49(9) Albion Vale, Sunnyvale, Waitakere City 50(10) Arawa Street, New Lynn, Waitakere City 51(11) Oates Road, Glen Eden, Waitakere City 52(12) Mt Taylor Drive, Glendowie (Project), Auckland City 53(13) St George’s Terrace, Avondale, Auckland City 54(14) Gunner Drive, Harbour View, Waitakere City 55(15) Rowena Crescent, Glendowie, Auckland City 56(16) Tuscany Way, Harbour View, Waitakere City 57(17) Sacramento 1A, Botany Downs, Manukau City 58(18) Oatlands Development, Pennant Hills Road, Sydney 59

i

(19) Fontenoy Road, Macquarie Park, Sydney 60(20) Carolina Place, Albany, North Shore City 61(21) Bush Road, Albany, North Shore City 62(22) Holly Street, Avondale (Project), Auckland City 63(23) Cottontree, Brisbane 64(24) Soljak Place, Mount Albert, Auckland City 65(25) Ewenton St, Balmain, Sydney 66(26) Beaumont Quarter, Auckland City 67(27) Sacramento 1B, East Tamaki, Manukau City 68(28) Hillsborough Road, Lynfield, Auckland City 69(29) 2 Ambrico Place, New Lynn, Waitakere City 70(30) Mokoia Road, Birkenhead, North Shore City 71(31) Galway Street, Onehunga, Auckland City 72(32) Krisley Court, Ambrico Place, New Lynn, Waitakere City 73(33) Keeling Road, Henderson, Waitakere City 74(34) Eden 1, Mt Eden, Auckland City 75

Case Studies Data Table 77

Discussion and Conclusions 79

IntroductionDensity and Layout TypeSummaryVehicle Planning and ParkingMixed Development and Internal DesignFurther Research

References 87

General Media References

Appendix A Local Authority Intensive Housing Policies in Metropolitan Auckland 95

North Shore City CouncilManukau City CouncilAuckland City CouncilWaitakere City Council

ii Best practice in medium density housing design

Acknowledgements

The report was commissioned by the Research and Evaluation Team of Housing NewZealand Corporation and was prepared by the Housing Research Group of the School ofArchitecture and Landscape Architecture at Unitec New Zealand.

The views contained in the report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect theviews of Housing New Zealand Corporation.

The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution of Cook Sargisson Pirie, Architects,JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd., (Sydney) and Architectus Ltd, for supply ofdata material. All photographs and drawings used in the report were produced by DavidTurner and Cesar Wagner, unless otherwise indicated.

ExecutiveSummary

MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This study identifies the characteristics andpotential of medium density housing as atypology suitable for affordable urbandevelopment in the New Zealand context.

The conclusions listed below are based onthree premises:

(i) Medium density housing hasdeveloped in the last decade as acommon housing typology, but is notforeign to the urban culture of NewZealand;

(ii) Research and literature on mediumdensity housing in New Zealand isvery limited in scope, quality, andquantity;

(iii) Planning strategies to consolidateurban growth pre–suppose a higherdensity housing form that, at thisstage, lacks any clear definition orpreferred model.

Summary of Conclusions

1. Medium density housing invariablyinvolves a degree of compromise.This is a consequence of building athigher density levels (than traditionalsuburban housing) while seeking toaddress multiple objectives, includ-ing the mix of house types, car ac-cess, privacy, security, interface withthe public domain, and constructioncosts.

2. A review of the literature indicatesthat:

� there are numerous ways of calcu-lating density, and the term mediumdensity housing refers to differentdensity ranges in different jurisdic-tions;� good design becomes critical above

a density threshold of approxi-mately 30 dwellings per hectare;

� development values will be retainedor improved at higher densities ifdesign techniques are sophisticated;� extra development costs of higher

density can be recovered by betterunit values if design improvementsare made.

3. The literature on medium densityhousing and the case studies re-viewed in this report indicate that:

� density ceilings can be identified fordifferent layouts (defined primarilyby types of car parking provision);the trade-offs that occur betweendifferent objectives can be locatedon a density scale, as illustrated inthe case studies reviewed;� the need for developers and design-

ers to acknowledge that one 'high-value' compromise often reducesthe quality of the whole living envi-ronment for all units;� the most successful developments

take detailed account of all designissues, including the intended resi-dent mix, neighbourhood character,interface with the public domain,site specifics (e.g. topography), carparking, appearance (style), pri-vacy, security, landscaping, lowmaintenance, and refuse collection;� no single design factor determines

best practice.

4. Housing Mix: mix, in this report, re-fers to a mix of house types, housesizes, and tenure-types (owner-occu-piers and rental), within a develop-ment. The case studies in this reportare mainly private sector schemesthat reflect a desire for commercialcertainty of outcome, with few de-velopments catering for a housingmix. However, the literature reviewsuggests that where a broader strat-egy has influenced design a moremixed development has beenachieved, along with a notably more

2 Best practice in medium density housing design

diverse, socially active community,at all levels of density

A review of the literature suggeststhat a carefully considered mix ofhouse types, house sizes, and tenuretypes makes an importantcontribution to the success of manymedium density developments.

5. The study observes that traditionalhousing forms are widely re-em-ployed in New Zealand in modifiedforms and in compacted versions,both inside the house and in the sitelayouts, in many new developments.It is considered that quality mediumdensity housing environments can-not be achieved by this strategy, andthat the challenges of changing urbanlifestyles, demographic shifts, andenvironmental conditions cannot beadequately met by this 'compactedsuburbia' approach. Best practices inother comparable countries have de-veloped house types and layoutsspecifically suited to medium densityhousing.

Future medium density housingshould avoid a 'compacted suburbia'approach and consider thedevelopment of climate-responsive,adaptable house types, including rearaccess layouts, and courtyard types,up to identifiable density 'ceilings'.

6. Design: In New Zealand, the externalstyle of medium density housing is asignificant factor in creating bothidentity, and compatibility within agiven neighbourhood. Many contem-porary medium density develop-ments demonstrate that a widevariety of styles can contribute to thecritical strategy of disguising the dif-ferences between medium densityhousing and traditional lower densitysuburban housing.

Medium density housing in NewZealand needs to identify with thelocal traditions of domestic design(while avoiding a 'compactedsuburbia' approach) and at the sametime establish its own languagewithout reference to imported 'style'and expression.

In addition to the above:

7. The trend towards more flexible liv-ing space in new housing, seen in pri-vate sector developments, couldimpact on design in all housingforms, including the medium densitycategory. More flexible internalspace facilitates:

� occupation by more varied forms offamily and household composition,as needs change over time;

� a wider variety of activities to bemore readily undertaken (e.g.home-based employment).

8. Public acceptance of medium densityhousing is affected by location, anddesign. Public and neighbourhoodexpectations of new schemes includetheir ability to offer economic andsocial integration. Good design qual-ity has been identified in Britain, theUnited States, and Australia as a keyfactor in increasing the degree ofpublic acceptance of medium densityhousing. New projects could followthe recommendations of Australianresearchers to select architects byreputation and design skill, as al-ready occurs in New South Wales,Victoria, and increasingly, in othercentres.

9. The recognition of the relevance ofurban design principles (e.g. charac-ter, legibility, adaptability) in the de-sign of the best examples of mediumdensity housing is established in theliterature. The principles of highquality urban design could be applied

Executive Summary 3

more positively in the medium den-sity typology, in line with urban ini-tiatives currently being considered inNew Zealand and overseas.

10. Medium density housing in NewZealand is capable of providing resi-dential environments of excellentquality. In the best models it offersidentity, security, privacy, proximityto private vehicles, and ground levelexternal private space. As a housingtype, it can be designed to achieve af-fordable and sustainable buildingsand communities, evidenced byschemes developed in other coun-tries in the 1970s and 1980s, andearlier.

In future, increasing numbers of NewZealanders will live in mediumdensity housing. Improvements inthe design of medium densityhousing can enhance the quality oflife for residents, increase publicacceptability of more intensivehousing, and contribute to thebuilding of more sustainablecommunities.


Introduction

Context andResearch Aims

1

INTRODUCTION

Context and Research Aims

The purpose of this report is to examinemedium density housing as a typology todetermine best practice in design for anaffordable and durable model for NewZealand urban conditions. The reportfocuses on medium density housing in theAuckland region but has wider relevancefor other New Zealand urban areas under-going intensification.

In many other countries, medium densityhousing has been recognised as a form ofhousing with definitive characteristics, andoffered as an alternative residential form tolow density suburban development. Astudy of New Zealand housing in the periodbetween 1960–1990 reveals a smallnumber of examples, including the1970Pitarua Court development, in Wellington,by Peter Beavan, special housing for theelderly, and student accommodation. Thereare also examples of medium densityhousing developments in the supply ofaffordable housing. These may be regardedas prototypes in the genre, and provideevidence of New Zealand’s capacity toexperiment with different housing models,without supplying a clear variation identifi-ably ‘of New Zealand’ in the mediumdensity typology.

In the period from 1990 to the present,urban planning in New Zealand has movedtowards growth policies that seek toconsolidate city development in all themain centres. Although not without oppo-sition, planning strategies to intensify citieshave been widely adopted in internationalpractice, supporting the theory thatcompact urban morphologies can and doachieve growth through higher densities,and produce sustainable urbanenvironments.

These strategies reverse longstanding pref-erences for suburban expansion at lowdensity. Similar policies to impose spatiallimits on suburban growth are established

in countries comparable to New Zealand,including Canada, Australia, and the USA.

Underlying the intensification policies nowin place in New Zealand is the assumptionthat a relevant higher density housingtypology can be designed, or evolved, tomeet the needs of many sectors of the urbancommunity. As part of this process, thereare now many recent medium densityhousing developments, particularly in theprivate sector, that demonstrate the poten-tial, as well as the problems of evolution, inan unfamiliar typology.

The report is presented as an extendedsummary of research into the relevantcontext and literature, followed by adescription of the case study-based meth-odology for the critique and analysis ofrecent medium density examples in theAuckland area. The analysis is summarisedby a data chart providing an overview ofquantifiable material collated from casestudies. The conclusions drawn from thisare set out in Section 6. Each section of thereport is supplemented by endnotes, wheresupporting material relevant to the projectis included.

Legislative Background of MediumDensity Housing in New Zealand, andAttitudes Towards Residential Density

The debate concerning Auckland’s urbanform, and particularly its low–density‘sprawl’, is not new. Auckland’s firstcomprehensive town planning proposals,the Outline Development Plan forAuckland (Auckland Metropolitan Plan-ning Organisation, 1951) specified as anobjective the need “to provide a means ofchecking the tendency towards uneco-nomic and unsatisfactory sprawling devel-opment.” It also noted that “if a satisfactoryurban structure is to be developed…various forms of residential developmentwill have to be considered.”

The Auckland City Council’s first opera-tive District Planning Scheme (AucklandCity Council, 1958) attempted to foster


such variety through the use of residentialzoning.1 However, increasing maximumdensity controls in order to stimulate inno-vative approaches to housing design has, inthe Auckland area, been largely unsuc-cessful. Subdivision standards, with regu-lations controlling design decisionsconcerning site coverage, setbacks andheight to boundary dimensions, havestifled much creative endeavour andfavoured the development of ‘standardsolutions’.

One such is the ‘sausage’ flat block, intro-duced in the 1960s, and associated in thepublic mind with increased density.2 Suchattitudes, together with the folk–memoryof the ‘slums’ in Newton Gully (5 room,single storey cottages at approximately 40dwellings per hectare, abbreviated to “dph”in this report) reinforce the public(mis)conception of what constitutesmedium and high density development,and of the existence of a causal linkbetween increased density and decreasedenvironmental standards.3

Conversely, the proponents of urban inten-sification use the concept of density as areadily identifiable criterion of ‘good qual-ity’ urban environments; with low densitysignalling an unsustainable designapproach.4

In addition, recognition of the interrela-tionship between housing density andurban design is evident in local town plan-ning literature, including the City ofAuckland District Scheme (Auckland CityCouncil, 1968),5 which notes that:

“New concepts of residential designwill be encouraged; e.g. newconcepts of housing and comprehen-sive developments where a numberof different types of residential build-ings are located in a well plannedrelationship to one another and to theadjoining development.”

Similar sentiments were espoused in theconclusions of the preliminary report into

housing, produced as a part of the RegionalMaster Plan by the Auckland RegionalAuthority (1967):6

“Higher density housing typesshould be located: within or nearmain commercial centres…”

“Subdivisional standards for avariety of residential zones should beformulated to permit the provision ofa greater range of housing types ofsuitable design.”

and

“Medium density housing typesshould be designed and built compre-hensively and where at all possiblepermit separate legal title afterdevelopment.”

Since the reorganisation of Local Govern-ment in 1989 and the replacement of plan-ning legislation by the ResourceManagement Act in 1991 the four newcities of the Auckland region have devel-oped their own coordinated District Plans.In the most recent editions, these eachaddress the issue of higher density housing,and at the same time engage with mattersrelating to sustainability, as the 1991 Actrequires.7

Other cities in New Zealand, particularlyChristchurch and Wellington, have alsorecognised the need for higher densityhousing design to be regulated separatelyfrom subdivision rules.

The District Plans in all cases are rein-forced by Design Guides advising devel-opers and designers on a variety of ‘bestpractice’ solutions to an unfamiliartypology, these often illustrating regionaland local variations. Together, they repre-sent much research effort, and provide aneffective platform for the generality of newmedium density housing. The variousDistrict Plan sections relevant to this reportare summarised in Appendix A.

Introduction 7

1 Residential zones covered 3963 hectares(almost 90% of the zoned area of the city) andwere categorised in terms of site density asResidential B (125 persons per hectare),Residential C (250 persons per hectare), andResidential D (500 persons per hectare). Atthe 1956 figure of 3.8 persons per dwellingthis produces 33 dwellings per hectare (dph),65dph and 130 dph respectively. (Theoccupancy rate has since declined to 2.8persons per dwelling in 2003 (Statistics NewZealand, 2004)). It should be noted, however,that the lower density zone B accounted for3611 of the 3963 hectares, zone C 228hectares, and zone D only 38 hectares (withthe Freeman’s Bay Transitional Zoneoccupying the remaining 86 hectares), and thatthe District Scheme stated that “it isunlikely…that this site density will be reachedon more than a small proportion of the totalnumber of available residential sites”(Auckland City Council, 1958). Nonetheless,the figures show a marked correspondencewith those proposed in Sir PatrickAbercrombie’s County of London Plan of1944, which recommended net residentialdensities of 250–500 persons per hectare forimproved post–war living standards, andindicate that both the Auckland City Counciland the Auckland Metropolitan PlanningOrganisation (who acknowledged their debt toAbercrombie in the formulation of theirproposals for ‘flexible zoning’) were wellaware of international trends.

2 A study of housing density in the Aucklandsuburb of Sandringham (Auckland RegionalAuthority, 1976) notes that the construction ofsuch blocks has contributed to an increase innet residential density from 10–15 dph in 1956to 25–35 dph in 1976, but that “the type ofmulti–unit development in the area rejects thevalue of open, outdoor living and it is apparentthat many potential occupiers of mediumdensity housing are rejecting this type ofdevelopment because of this deficiency”(Medium density housing was defined for thisreport as 25–40 dph). It also notes that theresponse of the (Mt. Albert) Borough Councilwas to seek to reduce the maximum permittedresidential density (Auckland RegionalAuthority, 1976).

3 The image of the British slums that the earlyEuropean settlers wished to avoid recreatingmay be exemplified by the Liverpool ‘courts’(mainly back–to–back and basementdwellings) of the early nineteenth century,which reached a net residential density of

1730 persons per hectare (Muthesius, 1982).(Muthesius notes that this is only half of thedensity of Berlin’s city blocks of the sameperiod.) At the 1821 figure of 5.75 persons perdwelling this equals 300 dwellings per hectare(although contemporary reports ofovercrowding may equate this figure with thatfor habitable rooms). London’s late nineteenthcentury outer–urban suburbs were built at netdensities of 150–500 persons per hectare(Muthesius, 1982); at 1881 figures of 5.38 p/dthis provides figures of 28–93 dph. TheGarden Cities of the early twentieth century,associated in the public mind with the ‘ideal’of low–density living are, at a net residentialdensity of 218 persons per hectare—at 1900figures of 5.20 persons per dwellingproducing 42 dph (Tetlow & Goss, 1965)—directly comparable with the ‘high–densityslums’ of Newton.

4 The Auckland Regional Authority’s PlanningDivision (1967) stated that “presentuneconomic densities of up to 50–60 personsper hectare cannot be sustained, and in fact donot produce the choice either of housing typeor environment demanded by a large andcomplex urban society.” Noting thatAuckland’s density, “in all sections of thecity”, falls within the definition of low densityat under 54 persons per hectare net, the reportsuggested that the optimum range of netresidential density is 100–225 persons perhectare, where, in terms of land conservation,capital cost, and flexibility and variety,“moderate increases in density achieved bythe provision of a variety of dwelling typeswould be most economic…” (AucklandRegional Authority, 1967).

5 This concern with the urban designimplications of Auckland’s ubiquitous lowdensity sprawl is a restatement of previousplanning policies. Despite a popularconception of New Zealand as a recentlyurbanised society, Johnston (1973), notes that“as long ago as 1926, just 86 years after theTreaty of Waitangi was signed, 63% of NewZealand’s inhabitants lived in its cities andtowns, and of these 62% were in the fivelargest urban areas—Auckland, Christchurch,Dunedin, Hutt and Wellington.” Figures forthe Auckland urban area in 1926 show apopulation of 192,000, with an average familysize of 4.2 persons and 92 dwellings per 100families (Auckland Metropolitan PlanningOrganisation, 1951). This net housingshortage was attributed to the fact that “wehave few if any examples of satisfactorily and


ENDNOTES

comprehensively designed housing schemesother than those incorporating single unithouse development for three or morepersons”, resulting in “a large percentage ofthe area being developed for streets withmonotonous similarity in the form ofdevelopment.” Thus, from the time of the firstattempts to develop comprehensive townplanning guidelines for Auckland’s projectedgrowth, it has been recognised that “all typesof residential development have their place ina large modern urban structure…” (AucklandMetropolitan Planning Organisation, 1951).

6 Further extracts from this document include:

“Residential development will beclosely related to the availability andmost efficient use of public servicesand facilities…”

“The urban and suburban commercialcentres will contain the most widelyused services. Therefore the higherresidential densities will be locatednear these centres where services maybe most conveniently obtained.”

“Residential development will bediversified to provide for a wide rangeof different kinds of housing andphysical groupings to meet the varyingneeds of the community.”

“A greater variety of housing isneeded…”

“The provision of this greater varietywill result in land savings, due to theconsequent increase in overalldensity…”

“The variety of housing needed can bemet with predominantly low riseconstruction (i.e. up to 4 storeys.)”

Auckland Regional Authority, 1967

7 A clear pattern may be seen to emerge fromthe above synopsis: of repeated attempts by

local planners to instil what they consider to beessential urban qualities into the amorphousurban mass of Auckland, only to be repeatedlyrebuffed by an at best apathetic, and at worstantipathetic, public and its electedrepresentatives. After a half–century ofreiterating the advantages of vibrant urban andsuburban centres, and of variety and flexibilityin living environments made possible throughresidential intensification, the recent inclusionof the Residential 8 Zone (Strategic GrowthManagement Areas) in the Auckland CityDistrict Plan is receiving a predictable publicresponse. This time, however, the familiarpromotion of “sustainable urbanenvironments which provide opportunities formedium to high density housing withinwalking distance of town centres…” coincideswith an increase in the status of urban design.All members of the local building culture—clients, developers, planners, designers,builders and managers—are currentlyespousing the added–value of design, and thepublication of The Residential Design Guidefor Developments in Residential Zones inStrategic Growth Management Areas(Auckland City Council, 2001), is a well–timed and executed addition to the Council’srange of persuasive powers.

“The Residential Design Guide is astatement of what is considered to begood urban design practice…(and)…has been introduced to promoteand encourage well designedresidential developments withinSGMAs.”

Auckland City Council, 2001

The focus of SGMAs is generally beyond thelevels of density covered in this study. Theacknowledgement that “design quality, ratherthan density, is the predominant factor inmaintaining amenity for both residents of adevelopment and its neighbours” (AucklandCity Council, 2001) has, however,fundamental significance.

Introduction 9

LiteratureReview

2

LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review in this section isselective, and is summarised on a countryby country basis. The material coveredincludes social studies, design literature,and policy publications.

New Zealand

Medium density housing is a product of thestrategic planning policies in place in mostNew Zealand cities, and in the Aucklandregion particularly, to contain future popu-lation growth in an intensified urban form.Recent research relevant to this reportincludes studies conducted by theAuckland Regional Council.1

There is evidence from these studies that aperception of impending ‘slums’ is normalin public attitudes, and that the most effec-tive process for intensification involveshousing development on a reasonably largescale to ‘provide a sense of community forresidents’ (Auckland Regional Council,2000a p12).

After recognising the universal problem ofassembling sites for larger developments,the Auckland Regional Council’s urbandesign review goes on to identify the stan-dard lot dimensions in Auckland (based onthe 55m x 18m quarter acre section) as oneof the impediments to higher density devel-opment.2

“A further barrier to good design isthat in many cases rules and proce-dures developed for traditional lowdensity housing are now beingapplied to medium densitydevelopments.”

and

“...intensive developments involve anumber of trade–offs. The developerwants density, the neighbour wantsprivacy, the resident wants a goodview and aspect, while the commu-nity wants a good relationship to thestreet. It is not always possible to

design a solution that overcomes allthese trade–offs.”

Auckland Regional Council, 2000a p21

The report to the Christchurch CityCouncil entitled The Effects of InfillHousing on Neighbours in Christchurch(Vallance, Perkins and Moore, 2002)generally confirms the widely–held atti-tude of the New Zealand public to mediumdensity housing. Statements reflect muchof the social research in the field:

“Over two-thirds also believed thatinfill housing would bring socialproblems later.” (p5)

“...figures imply that peri-urban, lowdensity development is still thepopular choice …” (p9)

“...consolidated urban living is notpresenting them [residents ofmedium density housing] with anybenefits …” (p43)

Vallance, Perkins and Moore, 2002

The Briefing Paper to the AucklandRegional Council Forum on AffordableHousing (Portal Consulting, 2000) identi-fies the principal demographic trends inNew Zealand as far as they affect the issueof affordability. These include the growthof sole–parent families, which tend “to beembedded within an extended familyhousehold”, rather than independenthouseholds, the trend in Auckland towardsmiddle–class couples delaying familyformation, and the impact of Asian immi-gration during the 1990s.3

The quality of the built environment inmedium density housing is discussed in thecontext of the large-scale development atAmbrico Place, in New Lynn, in “UrbanIntensification in Auckland, New Zealand:A Challenge for New Urbanism” (Dixon &Dupuis, 2003). This study is a rare exampleof social and physical planning researchconducted in the field. The paper considersthe relationship of the strategic planningsystems that provide the legislative


framework for medium density housing,and the social and community effects, in astudy of approximately one-fifth of theAmbrico Place households.

The characteristics of occupancy ofmedium density housing (high levels oftenanted property, and relatively highpercentages of recent immigrant families)are confirmed in this study. In the area ofphysical planning it comments on theimpact of New Urbanism in this housingtypology.

In broad terms, the development isregarded as a success by its residents:

“There were high levels of satisfac-tion with privacy, with almost allrespondents saying that privacy wasimportant to them and more thanfour-fifths reporting that their indoorspace was private.”

Dixon & Dupuis, 2003

The residents were more critical, however,of the planning process, which did notmake public the whole strategy for thedevelopment of the scheme.

The Ambrico Place development is thesubject of four case studies in Section 5 ofthis report: numbers 7, 8, 29, and 32, and isdescribed further in Endnotes to Section 4.

The Auckland Regional AffordableHousing Strategy (Regional GrowthForum, 2003) emphasises the need foraffordable higher density housing toachieve high standards of design, toachieve integration in neighbourhoods, andto be responsive to cultural and age–relatedissues, avoiding at the same time the penal-ties associated with higher building costs,which can affect security of settlement.

An important factor in the typology is thechoice of house type, and its relationship tolayout. At different densities this decisionbecomes a critical indicator of the residen-tial environment. The HNZC HousingDesign Guide (undated), published forinternal use, deals with house type

selection along with good practice for sitelayout design, using examples from thehistory of urban housing to reinforce theprinciples discussed.

The New Zealand literature reviewed alsoincludes reference to regular features onmedium density housing in the generalprint media, particularly the New ZealandHerald, the Dominion Post, and theChristchurch Press newspapers, and maga-zines such as Metro and North & South.These publications normally engage expertopinion in their feature articles.

Contributions to the debate in the printmedia frequently take the form of detailed,edited summaries of reports of Councildeliberations on changes to developmentpolicy, for instance, the Report to theAuckland City Council on proposed Resi-dential 8 Zone changes. In others, publicconcerns about ‘slums’, ‘ghettos’, andsimilar supposed consequences of intensi-fication are discussed.

Typical of such journalism is the featurearticle “Security Issues” by Bob Dey(Metro, May 2003), in part a discussion ofthe trend towards gated communities, andby the same journalist, “Dense City: TheIncredible Shrinking Section”, (Metro,November 2003), reviewing declining lotsizes in Manukau City. Useful insights andcomment are often found in this material;for instance, reservations felt by developersabout the three storey townhouse modelwhich in one project has been modified (byraising the rear patio level to the first floor)to enable direct access to the space forbarbeque use, to suit social habits.

The impact of views expressed in news-paper and magazine journalism is consid-ered to have significant influence on publicattitudes to intensification.

Australia

Medium density housing is a commonform of urban housing in Australia. Litera-ture from 1975 to the present has


documented the evolution of the typologyin detail. Professional journals also featuremedium density housing developments atregular intervals.

Medium Density Housing in Australia(Judd & Dean, 1983) is a general descrip-tion of the typology; parts of this textpresent the case for medium densityhousing as a solution to urban housing ingeneral (Newman, in Judd & Dean, 1983p68); others discuss the process of develop-ment, effective management systems, andpractical house types for the genre.

This comprehensive study includes asummary by John Byrne of mediumdensity housing in the public sector, basedon experience in South Australia. Byrne’scomments on the public sector deal withthe social, economic, and political issues,as well as design, which needs to “giverental housing some of the external trap-pings of owner–occupied housing, such asterritorial control, some freedom to person-alise, and indeed the ability to purchase.”He observes that:

“The narrower the (street) frontage,the better the yield, but potentiallythe greater the problems of noiseinteraction and privacy invasion.”

Byrne, in Judd & Dean 1983 p99

Five detailed case study examples are usedto illustrate public sector housing at densi-ties between 26 and 83 dph (dwellings perhectare).

A second Australian review, Designed forUrban Living (Judd, 1993) extended therelevant design area to include environ-mental issues, ecologically sustainabledesign, and a section dealing with commu-nity attitudes. Judd identifies key designissues as follows: urban and neighbour-hood design; environmental fit; pedestrianaccess and way–finding; vehicular accessand parking; identity; privacy; security;dwelling layout; climate control andenergy conservation; and marketability.

Designed for Urban Living includes 21case studies from all the principal Austra-lian urban centres, illustrating develop-ments that represent good practice in theperiod up to 1993, at densities rangingfrom 20dph to 67dph.

The study Medium Density Housing 1990(Victorian Department of Planning andUrban Growth, 1990) includes nine exam-ples of lower density range developments,none over 26dph, and all drawn from theprivate housing sector; coverage ofconsumer and neighbourhood attitudes isvaluable, however. The objective in thisstudy was to address the issues of declininginterest in Melbourne in medium densityhousing as a choice for buyers and devel-opers. Included in the recommendationsare recognition of the potential of thetypology in terms of sustainability, andaffordability.

Site Planning in Australia (King, Rudder,Prasad and Ballinger, 1996) is a compre-hensive summary of good housing layoutplanning principles with sustainability,urban design, and higher density housingas a focus. The text relates to housingdesign in the Commonwealth of Australia(rather than a particular State) which has,for more than a decade, been controlled bythe Australian Model for ResidentialDevelopment (AMCORD), published in1990, 1992, and revised in 1995.4

Following the Victorian Code for UrbanResidential Design (Victoria Departmentof Planning and Housing, 1992) morerecent publications refer to the above textsas primary sources for medium densityhousing design. These include the NewSouth Wales Urban Design AdvisoryService handbooks Better Urban Living(1998), Residential Densities (1998), Resi-dential Flat Design Pattern Book (2001),and the Residential Flat Design Code(2002), between them providing the plat-form for all new medium and higherdensity development in Sydney,Woolongong, and other urban centres inNew South Wales. Evolution of an urban


housing typology in Melbourne andSydney has seen a shift to densities higherthan those in the range considered in thisreport. In other cities (Adelaide, Brisbane,and Perth) low rise housing at mediumdensity continues to be the preferred form.

In the development of higher densityhousing, generally apartments, new regula-tions do not recognise density in any of theAMCORD definitions as a primary devel-opment control tool. Rather, use is made ofFloor Space Ratios and a building envelopedevice (described as a “three dimensionalzone that limits the extent of building inany direction”) to “inform decisions aboutappropriate density for a site and itscontext.” Building envelopes, height,depth, separation, and side and rearsetbacks are of equal importance in thedesign and control process to the FloorSpace Ratio. The focus of the New SouthWales Residential Flat Design Code, inparticular, is on the urban design issuesrelating to development, and has applica-tions in the New Zealand context for theResidential 8 Zone category of theAuckland City Council’s planningdocument.

Two further texts are significant contribu-tors to the literature: The Medium DensityHousing Kit (Marcus & Sarkissian, 1983)and Housing as if People Mattered (Marcus& Sarkissian, 1986). Both extend the detailof design advice in the area, with emphasison children, domesticity, site planning,parking, and landscaping.

In addition, the paper entitled “Trends andStrategies in the Design of MediumDensity Urban Housing” (Radford &Sarris, 2003), extracted from the FinalReport to AHURI (Southern) on thesubject of affordable medium densityhousing solutions for Adelaide, refers toliterature dating from 1983–1993 (coveredabove) as the primary research in the fieldin Australia. The paper concludes:

“There is essentially little differencein the design of built form between

well designed medium densityhousing for low/medium incomefamilies and (that) in the privatesector.”

The paper recognises the fundamentals ofmedium density housing set out in Judd1993, and reviews the principal issues ofparking, internal spatial design and fittingout, security and privacy, as well as devel-opment process and building costs, addingreferences to the Melbourne study MediumDensity Housing under the Good DesignGuide (King, 1999), and others. The studyconfirms that medium density housing wasdefined in earlier research and writingswith relatively minor adjustments neces-sary for current applications.

North America

Since 1990, housing design in NorthAmerica has acknowledged the parallelneeds of containing ‘sprawl’, for economicand environmental reasons, and the chal-lenge faced by US cities to achieve higherstandards of urban design, in a “search formeaning in our physical environment”(Fader, 2000 p2). Density has been at thecore of the debate about city form sinceStein, Mumford, and others, writing in the1930s, and Jacobs (1961) began a critiqueof urban and suburban development andthe consequent deterioration/decline of thequality of urban life.

Literature is diverse and regional, with acurrent emphasis on defeating suburbansprawl, and with the most valuable contri-butions tending to be aligned to NewUrbanism. Privatisation philosophies havelead to a broad literature of critiques of thestandards of housing, particularly forsubsidised accommodation (Garreau,1991; Plunz & Sheriden, 1999, etc.).

Density by Design (Fader, 2000) is thesecond publication by the Urban LandInstitute of America under this title.5 Faderidentifies the issue of ‘urban liveability’ asa key element in urban housing, seekingtypologies that reverse the trend in the US


of fortress–like gated developments, andthat re–engage the street. The selectedexamples used in this study “highlightemerging quantitative standards for thebasic building blocks of housing andcommunity development: for example, lotsizes, setback standards, street and alleydimensions, and parking ratios.”

In a discussion of layout design, Faderadvocates rear access systems, againstwhat are acknowledged to be additionalcosts, for the street-side advantage toparking and walkability. The study alsodeals with mixed housing, pointing tosuccessful developments where “inte-grating varying market segments withinsmall neighbourhood units (single block orstreet, for example)” is a traditional urbanpattern that can continue to work in newschemes.

The book represents the broad theories ofthe New Urbanist movement.6 ‘NewUrbanism’ is a planning and urban designtheory that emerged in the 1980s. Themovement has become a major influence inthe planning of new communities, and inurban regeneration, through the work ofCalthorpe, Duany, and others. NewUrbanism is endorsed by federal agenciessuch as the US Department of Housing, andis adopted as the preferred design approachby the Urban Land Institute of America andmany real estate organisations and Statehousing authorities.

United Kingdom

Housing in the United Kingdom has beendeveloped at higher densities for manyyears: speculative housing in the privatesector is normally built at between 25 and30 dph in wholly suburban locations. Plan-ning controls are operated in a highly regu-lated environment in comparison with NewZealand. Medium density housing gener-ally refers to urban public housing, ordevelopments carried out by the variousprivately managed, state–supported agen-cies such as Housing Associations. In these

developments density is often much higherthan the density levels of concern to thisreport.

Of numerous recent publications, three areselected here for their relevance to thestudy.

Housing Design Quality through Policy,Guidance and Review (Carmona, 2001) is adetailed examination of control mecha-nisms and their effects on the housingprocess. The book is divided into threesections, of which the second deals withinnovations in the control process in rela-tion to design guides, which are commonlyused in the United Kingdom. Relevance tothe development of medium densityhousing in New Zealand lies primarily inthe comparisons that can be made with theland–use policies outlined in Appendix A.

Housing Design in Practice (Colquhoun &Fauset, 1991) is a broad–based compen-dium of all aspects of housing design,including references to Australian (p146)and New Zealand (p148) examples. Thebook is a detailed and illustrated study ofhousing in Western Europe and NorthAmerica, summarising twentieth centuryadvances in design at all levels of density. Itestablishes the principle that building form(of housing) is the determining factor in thedevelopment of urban quality.

The authors recognise that social andcultural differences have a fundamentalimpact on choices relating to housingdensity, impacts that are illustrated bycomparisons between the numerous coun-tries studied. In their analysis of residentialplanning, the authors deal with detailedstrategies: for instance, of the relationshipof density to cost (p175), density to carparking (p173), and options for layoutdesign (p180–193, and p237).7 Alsoconsidered and discussed is the relation-ship between increased densities (and theconsequential increase in developmentcost), which is balanced for developers bydecreasing site acquisition costs per unit.


In addition, the RIBA Book of 20th CenturyBritish Housing (Colquhoun, 2000), whichincludes a general summary of currenthousing finance methods in the UnitedKingdom, provides a useful catalogue ofthe achievements and processes of housingin the United Kingdom.

The value of housing design and layout(Commission for Architecture and theBuilt Environment, 2003) is a report whichconsiders alternative layout and house typedesigns in an environment where theGovernment’s policies require the privatehousing sector to increase residentialdensities.8

After establishing the principle of densityas a governing factor, the report alsodevelops a methodology for assessing therelationship of density to value. Itconcludes that increased density of devel-opment, if designed with skill and care, canboth improve development margins andurban living environments, and maintainvalues in the marketplace. A criticalthreshold, at 30 dph, is identified as thepoint at which high design standardsbecome an essential factor in the devel-oper’s calculation of density and value.

Car ownership levels are assumed by plan-ning directives and providers of housing tobe acceptable at levels lower than thoseapplied in New Zealand, particularly inlarger cities, affecting both layout designand density. Differences between housingin the private and the public sectors areidentifiable by location, by external form,including the cost of facing materials, andby differing standards of maintenance inthe public spaces of the site.

Summary and Conclusions

A consistent feature of the literature is theagreement that the term ‘medium densityhousing’ is characterised by complexity,and particularity of location and context. Inthe literature, density is at once a quantifi-able ratio and a condition of quality indesign relating to privacy, security, and

identity. The foundations of design theoryin this area have been clarified by the influ-ential writings of Oscar Newman,Rapaport, Chermayeff, and Habraken,(dating from the 1960s, and not covered inthis review) dealing with the notion ofterritoriality, and of public and privatespace, and continue to attract the attentionof contemporary theorists by contributingto the critique rather than solutions inpractice.

Of the studies in detailed site planning andinternal design in medium density housing,the British publications are comprehen-sive, founded on experience in practice,and have relevance to conditions in NewZealand, if modified by culture, lifestyle,building practice, and climate.

Current published material in the UnitedKingdom confirms the continuation of astrongly traditional orientation in housingdesign, including medium density housing.The widespread preference (public, institu-tional, and political) for traditional designis reinforced by conservation–based plan-ning controls, particularly affecting theinner urban areas most likely to be selectedfor redevelopment.9 Affordable housing isgenerally supplied through rental housingoffered by Local Authorities and HousingAssociations.

The review of North American practice andliterature is abbreviated by the apparentshortage of relevant material, althoughthere is a considerable quantity of casestudy data.10 It is not thought that solutionsin the North American context contributesignificantly to a better understanding ofmedium density housing in New Zealandconditions, and it is noted that, apart fromrelatively recent texts inspired by the SmartGrowth and New Urbanist movements,neither of which relate directly to low costhousing design, no distinct body of litera-ture on medium density housing appears tohave emerged in the USA.

The Australian experience is directly rele-vant to New Zealand, though it requires


conversion of building systems, designtraditions, and is based on a more prescrip-tive regulatory system. There is a large andwell–regarded body of literature datingfrom housing developments in the 1970sand 1980s, including numerous casestudy–based texts. This literature hasinformed the evolution of the typology, andcombined with a generally more prescrip-tive planning regime, and the use and appli-cation of Design Guides, has contributedsignificantly to a good quality standard inthe genre. Regrettably, and probably due tothe same prescriptive system, the diversityof style seen in New Zealand is not a char-acteristic of medium density developmentsin Australia. Newer urban housing appearsto be shifting towards a different modelcharacterised by significantly higher

densities than ‘medium’ density housing asdefined in this report, and reliant on abuilding form that introduces commoninternal spaces, underground parking, anddetachment from ground level access for ahigh proportion of units. In the mostcommon form this housing is between fourand five storeys in height, has been definedby the most recent literature emanatingfrom the Department of Urban Affairs andPlanning in New South Wales,11 and affectsall market sectors.

The four and five storey block form is nowthe prevailing form for higher densityhousing up to 140 dph in Sydney,Melbourne, and, on a smaller scale, Bris-bane. In other Australian cities wherepopulation growth is lower, e.g. Adelaide,there are fewer examples.


1 These reports are summarised in Building aBetter Future: Intensification Review–Summary of Research Findings (AucklandRegional Council, 2000a) covering the issuesof housing choice, preference, anddemographic profiles most likely to beaffected by higher density developmentpolicy; community attitudes to it, with casestudies prominent in the methodology; anurban design review in which the impacts ofintensification on the traditional residentialenvironments of Auckland are assessed, andan analysis of the implications for theRegional Growth Strategy.

The reports taken together record theexpectation that:

“Higher density housing (has) fewerpeople per dwelling reflecting the factthat higher density residents are morelikely to be younger, single andwithout children”

and that

“There is a common perceptionamongst neighbours that mediumdensity housing attracts ‘transient’people who are renting and who willmove frequently. The view is notsupported by the evidence.”

Auckland Regional Council. 2000a,p11

2 The urban design review of this researchrecommends that developers shouldcollaborate with the city councils and theAuckland Regional Council to promoteinnovative ‘best practice’ intensive housingdesign and construction practice (AucklandRegional Council, 2000c p 31); this shouldinvolve comprehensive integrated designcodes with a focus on the encouragement ofsustainable living environments, in accordwith more recent policy statements from allfour councils in the Region (AucklandRegional Council, 2000c p21).

The research studies from the AucklandRegional Council’s “Building a Better Future”programme do not deal in design detail exceptat the urban level: the emphasis is on socialattitudes and levels of acceptance, andbusiness and political decision–making.

Ki Te Hau Kainga, New Perspectives onMaori Housing Solutions, (Housing NewZealand Corporation, 2002a), and the PacificHousing Design Guide: Guidelines forDesigning Pacific Housing Solutions

(Housing New Zealand Corporation, 2002b)both contribute at the level of house planningand detail, to the process of developing bettermodels, particularly but not exclusively forMaori and Pacific Island families. Neitherreport addresses the issue of housing at higherdensities, or the medium density typology.

3 The paper concludes with the observation thatdemographic changes are driven bycompositional change (ethnicity), andsuggests that declining immigration willreduce simple growth–driven change. The‘shift–shares’, rather than numericalpopulation growth, it is predicted, will affecthousehold demographics, and impact moredirectly on affordability.

Figures used in this paper are based on the1996 census; it is noted that other indicatorsand current Statistics New Zealand figures donot fully align with the Portal summary.

Some of the same issues of anticipated socialchange are addressed in the paper entitled“House and Home and their interaction withchanges in New Zealand’s urban system,households and family structures” (Perkins &Thorns; 1999). This analysis of demographicchange acknowledges increases in smallerhouseholds and the impacts of lifestylechoices in a discussion of the nature of place–making and suburban values in New Zealand.

4 The AMCORD document, in three parts,includes definitions for density,recommending the use of three terms, ‘sitedensity’, ‘net dwelling density’, and ‘grossdwelling density’ to describe differentconditions. AMCORD covers all aspects ofurban housing, dealing with the principles ofdesign for traffic, site selection and layout.

5 The first edition (Wentling, 1988) is a sourcequoted in Australian literature.

6 The North American movement followed arevival of interest in classical origins ofarchitecture begun in Europe a decade earlierby Leon Krier, John Simpson and others: thismay be regarded as an extreme reaction to theinadequacies of modernism, which, until thisintervention, had been the unchallengeddesign reference for all but a tiny minority ofhousing schemes, particularly those thataimed to establish medium density housing asa housing typology.

As an alternative to modernism, classical ar-chitecture is unlikely to have any relevance to


ENDNOTES

higher density housing design in New Zea-land, but two well regarded developmentsbased on New Urbanism have been carried outin Sydney. A mixed scheme of low rise me-dium density housing combined with a groupof 15 storey apartment blocks, at Raleigh Park,is the best known development in the genre;the Oatlands development (case study 18)draws on some New Urbanist ideas for layoutdesign, and achieves variety of house type,unit value, and a variable density across thesite. The example in New Zealand nearest toNew Urbanist design principles is the HarbourView development in Te Atatu (case studies 1,14, and 16). These developments have a den-sity of around 40 dph, except Gunner Drive(case study 14).

A key strategy of New Urbanist theory is asystematic, structured, and inclusionary meth-odology for the process of planning new de-velopments, involving the communityaffected by a sequence of workshop'charrettes' to establish a sense of ownership inthe generation of new (usually higher density)proposals. A frequent objective, based in themovement's theory, has been to mix housingtenure in larger projects without making phys-ical or spatial distinctions between social oreconomic groups: various design and housingmanagement techniques are used to achievethis, as:

“Some of the units are for-sale, somerental, some market rate, and somesubsidized housing, but the marketsegments are not segregated one fromthe other. In this case (CrawfordSquare, Pittsburgh) the key to successwas that no visual distinctions weremade in the housing designs to signalthe type of housing tenure: a rentaltownhouse looks like a for-saletownhouse. Further, within the pool ofrental units, subsidized units arerotated periodically, preventing anystigma from being attached to specificunits.”

Fader, 2000 p13

7 The merits and constraints of all multi–storeyhouse types are outlined in Chapter 7;comments on three storey houses with integralgarages, for instance, include the following:

“… is a housing form that has neverbeen entirely popular in Britain. It ismainly used in urban areas where highdensity is necessary … The problemrelates to the distribution of rooms—should all the living accommodation belocated on the ground floor or the first

floor, or split between the two floors? Itis generally considered that a split …(is) … the most inconvenientarrangement. … (the type) particularlycreates difficulties with … washing,control of small children, and thedisposal of rubbish”

Colquhoun & Fauset, 1991 p284

8 In case studies, the CABE research teamestablished findings relevant to this study, asfollows:

(i) evidence from research indicates thatthere is no penalty attaching to higherdensity for developers;

(ii) good design becomes critical above adensity threshold of 30dph;

(iii) development values will be retained orimproved at higher densities if designtechniques are sophisticated;

(iv) extra development costs of higherdensity can be recovered by better unitvalues if design improvements are made.

9 In other contexts, design choices areconstrained by prescriptive planning systemsand design guides, such as the Essex DesignGuide (Stones, 1997), now extensively used asa model for design in all southern areas of theUnited Kingdom. These design guides areeffective in so far as they ensure compliancewith good practice via prescriptive planningregimes; they are co–ordinated with nationallydirected practices for road and traffic design,heritage policies and locally drawn DistrictPlans.

10 The issue of affordable urban housing appearsto be resolved by continuing use of the variousestablished mechanisms of low rent privatesector, of varying quality, and very highdensity social housing ‘projects’, with small,one–off developments, often of good qualityand architectural standard and at relativelyhigh density, providing the most relevantmodels. The latter variations most frequentlytake the form of apartment blocks with lowparking provision.

11 It is relevant to emphasise the point thatfollowing the moves to consolidate city form,higher density housing in two and three storeylayouts is undoubtedly successful in a largenumber of developments to be seen inAustralian cities, a standard achieved throughthe influence of comprehensive studiesresearched and published in the periodbetween 1978 and 1993.


A New ZealandDefinition of

Medium DensityHousing

3

A NEW ZEALAND DEFINITION OFMEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING

Introduction

This section discusses medium densityhousing in the New Zealand context, inorder to define the typology in contempo-rary urban residential conditions.

Density is discussed in this section, firstly,as a system of measurement that referencesdwelling units to a given area of land, andsecondly, as a factor that influences percep-tions of privacy.

To form a definition of medium densityhousing in the New Zealand context it isalso relevant to address the issues of partic-ular concern to developers and designers:security, car parking, and architecturalstyle.

Density

The most common definition of mediumdensity housing in current use in NewZealand is:

Housing at densities of more than150m2/unit and less than 350m2/unit, or30–66 dwellings per hectare (dph). Thisdefinition is used by the majority of CityCouncils and the Housing New ZealandCorporation.

Australian literature further defines thetypology as “small lot subdivision, ormulti–unit development, ... (with the char-acteristics of) ‘attached, no lifts’” (Victo-rian Department of Planning and UrbanGrowth, 1990 p1), and as “horizontallyattached dwellings which… rarely exceedthree stories above the ground with indi-vidual access and private open space at ornear ground level ...” (Judd, 1993 p8).

A recurring feature of the literaturedefining medium density housing is theview that the concept of ‘density’, and thenature of ‘medium density housing’, haveno universal or standard application.

The extended definition that generallyembraces examples in Britain andAustralia would suggest that the followingcharacteristics are also relevant:

� Ground level entry from a publicspace� A dwelling type with private

external space within the‘curtilage’, or territorial boundaryof ownership� A dwelling type with direct or close

proximity to secure parking� Separate legal title, including ‘unit

title’ ownership.

The word ‘curtilage’ is used in the Britishliterature to describe the territorial limits ofidentifiable private ownership of a propertywithin a larger housing development. Sepa-ration of titles is also a New Zealand pref-erence. House types that may be includedare detached, attached or terraced, andapartments in low rise blocks.

According to the Australian Model Codefor Residential Development (AMCORD),density is:

� A measure of population or thenumber of dwellings per unit ofarea;� A measure of the form of the built

environment; and� A measure of development

potential.

The AMCORD documents use the term‘density’ to refer to a ratio describing therelationship of a given number of house-hold units to an area of land. They refer to“many different ways in which this rela-tionship can be expressed” (AMCORD,1992a pp16–17), recommending threeprincipal definitions, of which the term anddefinition ‘site density’ is most relevant tothis report.

The four City Councils in the AucklandRegion, Housing New Zealand Corpora-tion, and both Wellington and ChristchurchCity Councils operate a density range onthe basis of site areas of 150m2–350m2 for


medium density housing, without usingabsolute or pre–determined rules to governhousing development. This practice is typi-fied by Waitakere City Council, whichapplies an ‘effects–based’ process to deci-sion–making on medium density housingproposals. The Auckland Regional Councilidentifies “residential intensification asdevelopments with a net site density of500m2 or less”, medium density at 350m2

or less, and higher density at 200m2 or less(Auckland Regional Council, 2000 p 31).

The practice in Britain is to define develop-ment capacity, using density as a mecha-nism alongside other factors, in suburbanlocations, with other controls relating toform and site coverage in others. TheCABE report (2003) takes a differentstance, embracing the developer’s perspec-tive, in defining site area as the area of landthat is required for a given development(which may include significant publicworks).

Australian planning systems recognise thata density definition relevant to Brisbane orDarwin is different from one applicable toinner suburbs in Sydney and Melbourne,and consequently ‘density’ as a planningtool is not a sole arbiter of the designprocess. The technique of applying a FloorSpace Ratio (FAR) or a Floor Space Index(FSI) is commonly used in developmentcontrol in central and local urban areas inpreference to density.

As a method of setting maximum develop-ment limitations, density is therefore usedas a reference or guide rather than a precisemeasurement regulator, or a control mech-anism that provides certainty of outcome.1

Most recent references to the concept ofdensity confirm the relevance of twogeneral points:

(a) density is not a useful mechanism fordetermining quality in residentialdesign because other factors invarious combinations impact on theoutcome.

(b) density is a human perception,usually of a sense of ‘crowding’, andtherefore a highly variable factor inhousing design;

It is also the case that in the analysis of builthousing developments, density is usuallythe first point of reference in forming basesfor comparisons: an ‘after the event’ posi-tion is created by a density calculation,even where density is not a significantfactor in the design. While other factorsaffect the quality of outcome, a densitycalculation on some recognised basis isnecessary for valid comparisons to bemade, and comparisons that do not use adensity indicator can function only in termsof their nominated criteria (for instance,landscaping, building type or detail, enclo-sure systems, etc.).

To enable this comparison to be made, thisreport will use a simple net site area basisof calculation. This aligns with the firstAMCORD definition, excludes areasexternal to the site (public roads, reserves,railway lines, and other open space) butincludes public areas within the boundaryof the land predominantly occupied by thehousing itself.

Density and Privacy

Studies have established that density andprivacy are interdependent and thatachieving acceptable standards of privacyis a key issue in the design of sociallysuccessful higher density housing.

In his seminal study “Towards a redefini-tion of density”, Rapaport discusses thenature of ‘density’ in terms of perceptionsof crowding, and the socially complexissue of privacy.

“It is essential to consider in detail,and to a high degree of specificity,the relationship of given socio–cultural groups to traditional densityfigures, the relationship of a partic-ular area to the larger context, … thedetailed layout and design of the


setting in terms of privacy, .. thesocial rules available and used, andso on…”

Rapaport, 1975 p153

The connections between density andprivacy are further analysed in the basicAustralian text, Medium Density Housingin Australia (Judd & Dean, 1983),2 and inJudd’s later text Designed for Urban Living(Judd, 1993), which notes that:

“One important way of enablingcontrol over privacy is to provide aclearly defined hierarchy of public,semi–private, and private outdoorspaces which discourages intrusionby outsiders and provides necessarybuffer space between dwellings andassociated common access routes(quoted from Marcus and Sarkissian,1986 p39). The greater degree ofcontrol that can be given to residentsas to how their private territory isdefined and personalised, the greaterthe likelihood that privacy will beoptimised.

In … housing of two or more storeys,overlooking of the private open spaceof adjacent dwellings from upperlevel rooms represents one of themost common privacy problems.”

Judd, 1993 p30

Security and Privacy

Security (or its absence) has been an issueassociated with medium density housingsince the term came into common use, butwith little evidence to support the view thathigher density housing generally, ormedium density housing as a typology iseither less safe or more susceptible to crimethan other housing types. It is typologicallycharacteristic that greater concentration ofbuilding, and proximity of public openspace can create anonymity (and thereforelessen the possibility of intruders beingnoticed) and equally, by placement of

windows and doors, construct a passivesurveillance environment that discouragesintruders.

As Judd says:

“.. criminal behaviour is related tobroader social problems and theirgeographic distribution rather thanhousing type or density per se,medium density housing .. (hastended to be) .. concentrated in midto inner–suburban areas or on publichousing estates, which often havehigher rates of burglary and personalcrime.”

Judd, 1993 p30

Advocates of Smart Growth in the USAidentify security amongst the three highestpriorities in their intensification agendas.Judd makes reference to the issue of ‘Secu-rity’ related to Oscar Newman’s theory of‘defensible space’ which has direct rele-vance to site layout design: such spacesshould be “assigned to specific groups ofresidents” and “good territorial definitioncan help to enhance identity … andcontribute to relieving social conflictbetween residents.” (Newman’s work isopen to criticism for over–emphasis on“design solutions to crime”, and haslimited application to a New Zealand defi-nition for its focus on North Americansocial housing, in which security andcontrol are more severe difficulties.)

Defensible space is thus an abstract termthat describes a relationship of private andpublic domains in perceived, as well asspatial, senses. There is some evidencefrom the case studies that in pursuit of awell–lighted ‘defensible’ (in the sense of‘secure’) common area, the developer’sdetermination to remove the possibility ofconcealment results in barren, uncomfort-able spaces that also discouragecommunality. In other projects, wheresecurity is in the form of a physical barrier,such as a controlled entry gate, there is asense that anyone seen ‘inside the fence’ is


probably entitled to be there, obviating thevalue of passive or casual surveillance.3

In so far as design solutions can achievegood security in an undefined community,the ability of owners to view their car issignificant, even when the car itself is alsoprotected by an alarm system. As in otherhousing forms, high standards of securityfittings to doors and window openings, andelectronic intruder alarm systems, are anormal specification in New Zealand’smedium density housing schemes.

Car Parking and Storage

Restricted parking and storage space forprivately owned vehicles is inherent in thetypology of medium density housing,representing one of the most significantdifferences between it, and lower densitysuburban housing. The loss of security of avehicle parked ‘not within the curtilage’,and consequent loss of amenitycompounds the difference.

From the literature, and the case studies(Section 5), it is apparent that standards ofparking provisions vary, reflecting adilemma at the heart of medium densitylayout design. Minimum ratios are requiredthrough District Plans but are commonlyexceeded by developers, particularly in theprivate sector. The desire to increase bothproximity and total parking provision isevident in examples from all countries, andat all densities.

The vehicular environment has a dominantrole in many examples of the typology.Low speed internal roadways are regardedas preferable, with reduced street widthsalso possible if measures are taken toensure pedestrian safety, (King, Rudder,Prasad and Ballinger, 1996 p66), and amaximum of 30 houses are served by theroad. The Dutch Woonerven system (a‘residential precinct’, in which pedestrianpriority is assumed), although designed forurban regeneration developments, sets arelevant standard for medium densityhousing by combining landscaping, public

space, and traffic in a mixed environment(Colquhoun and Fauset, 1991). One of themore successful examples in Australia(Moverly Green, Coogee, Sydney; not usedas a case study) achieves an acceptablelevel of safety with narrow drives andwithout footpaths.

In the New Zealand context the parkingissue also reflects differences between themain urban centres: Auckland has a road–based transportation system and the typi-cally car–oriented culture of a low densitycity, with lower levels of use of publictransport than Wellington or Christchurch.In addition, climatic differences, particu-larly Auckland’s high rainfall, encourageplanning that locates the car in close prox-imity to the house.

Medium density housing has developed inother countries with localised variationsfor parking and traffic design, usually withless car dependency than observed in thecase studies included in this report.

External Style

Speculative housing development has along history of modifying and adaptingexisting architectural styles to meetperceptions of market preferences. Thespeculative industry also takes a cautiousapproach to all aspects of housing develop-ment, including architectural expression orimage, preferring a tried and trusted modelbefore an innovative one as a matter ofcourse. Investors as well as developers arerisk averse, placing high value onachieving the optimum density for theperceived market, on minimising construc-tion costs, and on street or ‘kerb’ appeal.4

Comment in the literature consistentlyrefers to the need for affordable housing tobe indistinguishable from other housing. Inparticular, rental housing in the publicsector should be as similar as possible toprivate sector housing in the sameneighbourhood.


With regard to design style, this studyrecognises that New Zealand architecturein medium density housing cannot be fullyrepresented by examples selected entirelyfrom the Auckland region; other cities havedeveloped models in the typology that addsignificantly to the body of relevant work.Within the limited range of examples, andgeography, of this study, the developmentsillustrated therefore provide a partial butnot complete picture of the issue ofexternal design.

Most of the case studies in this report illus-trate architectural forms that reflectcommonly held ideas of domestic building.Both developers and the public seemprepared to accept imported domesticvernacular architecture in some form, withEuropean influences most widely used.

Styles vary widely. The architecturalvariety contributes to the strategy, widelyadopted, and regarded as critical tosuccess, that seeks to disguise the differ-ences between medium density housingand lower density suburban housing.Medium density housing is generically arepetitive typology: stylistic variationwithin a general theme (‘Spanish colonial’,‘French rural’, etc.) conceals repetition byallowing building detail to be read, by useof colour to differentiate one house fromthe next, and by variation in form, reducingperceptions of mass. In the best schemesthe perception of anonymity in the ‘mass’of a large development is replaced by clearidentity of the parts, and the single unitwithin the part. A greater mix of dwellingtypes is also a perception (but not alwaysthe reality) generated by stylistic varia-tions.5

Stylistic variation occurs across all thelayout classifications: this study found noapparent correlation between style anddensity band, or style and market sector.More expensive facing materials tend to beused in the higher priced developments,which in some cases has led to an architec-tural style associated with a particular

design ‘school’: Beaumont Quarter (casestudy 26) is an example.

A complete catalogue of stylistic influ-ences is beyond the scope of this report, buta short summary of the principal variationsis considered useful.

The Arawa Road project (case study 10) isarguably the closest design to a recognis-able New Zealand architecture, by form,simplicity, lack of self–conscious expres-sion or reference to a foreign vernacular,and choice of materials.

Some of the larger developments in WestAuckland illustrate the high degree ofdesign licence possible in the typology. Atthe Corban Village development (casestudy 4) each sub–section of the layout isarchitecturally distinctive, including thefollowing: undecorated modernist exter-nally plastered three storey houses differ-entiated by colour, with no particulartheme; two storey Breton terraced cottageswith quoins, window architraves andreveals, and parapets at the party walls;traditional Dutch decorated curved gablesand party wall profiles; and a group of ArtDeco houses with streamlined curvedcorner windows, again using colours of thestyle to distinguish one unit from another.

The Harbour View development exhibits,amongst other styles, many variationsbased on the Spanish Colonial style, (eg.Gunner Drive, case study 14), as do StGeorges Road (case study 12), Sacramento(case studies 17 and 27), and several of theNorth Shore schemes. Others explorevernacular architecture from England(Melview Place, case study 8), Italy,(Tuscany Towers, case study 7) or draw onlate modernism to express complexity,variety, and difference (Romola Street,case study 6, and Beaumont Quarter, casestudy 24).

In spite of the great variety of style there islittle sense of ‘theme park’ architecture inthese developments, and a strong sense offree market choice. Medium densityhousing design in Australia has not


generally experimented in a comparableway, preferring traditional, less exuberantresidential styles that understate rather thancelebrate diversity.

Summary

This section examined key design issuesbased on relevant literature and current

practice in medium density housing. Thissection serves as a platform for thefollowing case studies which provide amore detailed review of contemporarymedium density housing in New Zealand.6


1 In the light of the debate regarding theusefulness or otherwise of ‘density’ as anindicator, and the numerous differentlydefined bases for calculation, it is hardlysurprising that inconsistencies occur in theliterature when density figures are used incomparisons. For instance, the AucklandRegional Council publication Urban AreaIntensification (Auckland Regional Council,2000e) referring to the AMCORD ‘netresidential density’ term, lists and illustratesseveral projects of apparent relevance to thisstudy but states density figures that place themoutside the range of 30–60dph.Using theAMCORD methodology and revisedcalculations, most of these schemes do in factcoincide with the density range consideredhere.

2 In a chapter entitled “Concepts of Privacy”,Darroch refers to Altman’s six definitions ofprivacy, of which two are quoted here:

“1) privacy is essentially a matter ofperson/environment transactions, thatis, it is a dialectic or dynamic system—it is not a static event or state;

2) complete definitions of privacy needto take account of the critical role of‘control’ in the understanding ofprivacy.”

Altman, 1975 (quoted by Darroch, inJudd & Dean, 1983)

3 New housing developments in many countriesincluding New Zealand reflect this concern,opting for auto–gated compounds, (as in casestudies 13 and 24), electronic alarm systemsfitted during construction, and/or heavilydefended ground floor openings, andsometimes upper floors also. There isevidence that insurers, having met a claim,will demand higher specifications for locks,doors, and alarm installations, as a conditionof re–insurance.

4 At the same time, novelty is often welcome inthe marketing process. In some instances,including the development of medium densityhousing, design is architecturallyexperimental, evidenced by contemporaryhousing design in New Zealand.

There is an increasingly common pattern ofsuburban re–development in North Americanand Australian cities, where houses aredemolished after 25 years, to be replaced witha ‘new model’, usually much larger, with adifferent plan configuration reflecting

contemporary use of domestic space, oftenincluding work from home room(s), storagefor recreational equipment, and with up to dateservices for electronic uses as well asbathrooms and kitchen. A thirty year oldhouse originally built for a modest marketprice will frequently be more cheaply replacedthan modified to meet current lifestylerequirements.

In the process, the opportunity to change thearchitectural style is usually taken. For this tobe possible, the house itself has to bephysically and architecturally independent ofit neighbours. In medium density housing thisindependent condition is not usually possible.For medium density housing to be part of thesame housing market in which rapidredevelopment is a regular market activity,different, and stylistically indeterminatemodels may need to be evolved. This tentativeconclusion may lead to two other issuesrelevant in the New Zealand context:

(a) the custom in New Zealand society ofconstant do–it–yourself alteration of thehome;

(b) the development of a separate housingtype (medium density housing) which doesnot lend itself to alteration, either becauseof inflexible design, or because of thecontrols imposed by a managementstructure representing communityownership.

In the process of identifying a design modelfor the New Zealand context, both of theseissues may need further consideration.

5 In these circumstances the extreme variety ofexternal design in medium density housing inNew Zealand is a phenomenon for whichseveral explanations are offered:

(i) The generic single storey, suburbandetached house is not adaptable to higherdensities; a different type of building has tobe generated to meet the typologicalrequirement of medium density housing;

(ii) There is a pronounced need todistinguish between developments, inorder to establish identity, both for thebuyers and residents, and for thedevelopers;

(iii) Stylistic definition can establishcertainty of product for investors andfunding institutions;

(iv) Cost estimating, adjusted to the newproduct, can be consistent and accurate;


ENDNOTES

(v) A broadly open-minded, or modern-minded public encourages more ratherthan less experiment with external stylethan the industry offers; this is in contrastto the conservative styles seen in the samemarket in the United Kingdom, and isparalleled by design in Australia;

(vi) Evolution of the notion that housing is acommodity governed by the same marketrules that apply to other commodities:housing is less short term (as a personalinvestment) than other domestic‘durables’, but still a commoditypossession.

6 The house building industry has been affectedby the problem called ‘leaky buildings’ since2001 when the consequences of constructionusing monolithic plastered cladding systemsfixed to untreated timber framing were firstdetected. The movement of framing timber af-ter construction, often due to shrinkage fol-lowing drying out, causes cracking in theexternal wall surface allowing water to enterthe cavity within the wall. If the wall has beenbuilt without the means by which such watercan drain from the cavity the untreated fram-ing starts to rot, leading, eventually to struc-tural failure of the wall. This failure may occurin a short period: a few months is not uncom-

mon. Many schemes included in this revieware affected by the problem, since the cheapestcladding system able to gain approval from thecentral and local building authorities is attrac-tive to developers. The monolithic systemsalign readily with the stylistic preferences ofdevelopers and the buying public: various‘European’ styles in particular the ‘Mediterra-nean’ styles rely on some form of stucco-likefinish to the external walls, and other detailsthat suit dry hot climates.

The Building Research Association of NewZealand (BRANZ) issued appraisal Certifi-cates for numerous proprietary cladding andfinishing systems of this type after 1994; theBuilding Industry Authority (BIA) accepteduntreated timber for external and internal con-struction in 1997. The period of developmentof most medium density housing in New Zea-land has been subsequent to both these dates,thus affecting much of the housing built.

The ‘leaky building’ issue is local to the NewZealand building industry, and is consideredto be a technical matter relating to construc-tion rather than a systemic issue in mediumdensity housing. It is, however, associatedwith this housing type in the press, and there-fore in public perceptions of higher densityhousing in general.


Case Studies:Methodology

and Criteria

4

CASE STUDIES: METHODOLOGYAND CRITERIA

Introduction

This case study examines contemporarymedium density housing with particularreference to the relationship of density toamenity, internal and external space stan-dards, and access to the private car.

It is acknowledged in the literature andamongst design professionals in housingthat as density increases, compromisesaffecting the quality of the residential envi-ronment accumulate.

Density is considered to be a performanceindicator in all ‘after the event’ analyses ofhousing developments. In New Zealand, aselsewhere, the proximity of the private car(and its security) is regarded as a secondaryperformance indicator, for reasons outlinedin Sections 2 and 3. Site layouts thatprovide similar car access validate compar-isons between schemes at different levelsof density.

House types are also directly affected bythe density scale, reducing options forfrontage widths, access, aspect, andinternal planning as density is increased.

The analysis therefore aims to evaluateNew Zealand examples, to:

(i) track the pattern of compromise as itoccurs for different levels of densityand layout types;

(ii) identify changes in the quality in theresidential standards achieved,referring to internal planning andexternal space standards, fordifferent levels of density and layouttypes;

(iii) record and establish a database ofquantifiable evidence to representkey aspects of each scheme relativeto density; and,

(iv) assess the physical environment ofmedium density housing relative tolower density housing.

Methodology

A methodology to select and critiqueexamples was developed from Australianand British models, some of which arereferred to in previous sections.

British literature makes frequent use of theterm ‘curtilage’, distinguishing between‘within’ the territorial boundary of a prop-erty (curtilage), and ‘not within’ thecurtilage, specifically in relation to carstorage and parking. To construct a basisfor valid comparisons different site layouttypes have been classified, following thismodel, to recognise the distinctionsbetween layout amenity to householders interms of car access. The methodologyseparates, therefore, layout types by vehic-ular proximity, to acknowledge theamenity factors of security, and access inuse; and in the New Zealand context, toacknowledge the local influence ofclimate.

The layout classifications are defined as:

Type 1: front access to the house, withthe car internally garaged within thehouse type, or provided with acarport or parking space within theproperty boundary.

Type 2: rear access to the house;secure parking, as defined in Type 1.In New Zealand’s relatively informalsociety rear access is a commonhabit: the ‘back’ door does notrepresent a high level of socialfamiliarity.

Type 3: front or rear access with thecar parked outside the propertyboundary: called, for convenience,‘remote’ parking, and including carparking adjacent to the house in aspace controlled, and possiblyowned, by the unit but alsoaccessible from a public area andtherefore not secure.

Type 4: layouts dependent on the threestorey house type with internalgaraging.


Site Selection

Initially, 60 examples were listed forconsideration, including schemes reviewedin other studies, without reference to layouttype or density where known. Sites consid-ered included composite or hybrid layouts,often combining Types 1 and 4. There arefew ‘pure’ examples of Type 2 in theAuckland region (where all the NewZealand examples are located).

Two storey house types dominate in thedensity range studied, with the three storeyelevated living area house type used insome examples; this option is consideredsufficiently common for the case studyselection to include a small number ofexamples for comparisons. From the orig-inal list of 60 schemes, further criteria wereestablished to identify representativeschemes covering the principal layouttypes.1

(i) Size: schemes of less than nineteenunits were discounted: in smallerprojects it was considered thatvariables of shape of site, location,and layout to density characteristicsincrease significantly, and affectvalidity of comparisons. Case studies6, 15, 16 and 31 are included toillustrate a particular layoutcharacteristic, although smaller thanthe preferred lower limit.

(ii) Schemes of interest for reasons oflayout type or density, with resourceconsents granted but not yet built,were included: Holly Street,Avondale (case study 22), and MtTaylor Drive, Glendowie (case study12).

(iii) Schemes previously included inother studies are generally excluded,with the exception of Arawa Street,New Lynn (case study 10), and partof the Sacramento development, EastTamaki (case studies 17 and 27).

(iv) Density: schemes at densities higherand lower than the range identified as

‘medium’ density (30–66 dph) wereincluded to provide comparisons.

(v) Value: a significant variableobserved, described in the data chartas a ‘market level’, was seen toimpact on design options. This hasbeen recorded as a factor influencinglayout design, in some instancesindicating an explanation for thechoice made.

(vi) Affordability: a general preference isexpressed for private sectordevelopments at low and middle‘market levels’, in response to thefocus in this report on affordablehousing. Public sector schemes arealso reviewed, for comparisons.

(vii) Quality of environment: schemeswere selected primarily to illustratethe critical relationship of density tolayout, rather than perceptions ofresidential quality. The quality of theenvironment achieved is determinedby density conditioned by otherchoices made in the schemeincluding house types, facingmaterials, landscaping, utility andservicing design, and the provisionof public open space.

(viii) Management: the existence andeffectiveness of Body Corporatemanagement schemes affects manyof the developments reviewed;selection has not excluded suchschemes, permitting gated examplesto be included for comparison oflayout types.

The final list yielded 34 examples,including four Australian schemes,drawing on the Australian experience in thetypology. It would be misleading to suggestthat these developments are representativeof the average standards achieved inAustralia, because they are not. They do,however, demonstrate achievable stan-dards, and are selected as examples at twodifferent density levels, under 40dph (in thelower range) and above 60dph at the highend of the medium density range. These


four developments illustrate established,well–regarded, and high quality housing inwhich market performance has paralleledor exceeded similar developments.

Location

Excluding the Australian examples, half ofthe case studies are drawn from WaitakereCity. This is partly due to time limitationson the report, and to the ease of access todata (and the lower costs of retrieving data)in the Waitakere City Council procedure.The process of selection also took intoaccount the medium density housing studycarried out four years ago by the AucklandRegional Council (2000c), which docu-mented nine projects, including four on theNorth Shore, only one of which (Coroglen)is located in West Auckland.

A further justification for the use of WestAuckland examples lies in the perceptionthat many, perhaps the majority, of mediumdensity housing projects in Waitakere areset at a low or medium point in the marketscale, and therefore gain relevance to astudy focusing on this typology as anaffordable housing proposition.

Multi-development Sites

Three of the West Auckland examples(Ambrico Place, Corban Village, andHarbour View) are large sites that havebeen parcelled into smaller sites to attractcommercial development: from the over-view of the study, it seems that fewcommercial house builders are prepared totake on a single project of more than 100units. These three larger developmentshave yielded eight examples between them,providing opportunities for useful compar-isons of different layout and house typeoptions, within a single location, and tosome extent, market.2,3

Methodology

The methodology involved visitingCouncil offices to obtain scale plans and

details of the main house types used in eachdevelopment. From a pilot exercise it wasfound that this data yielded sufficient mate-rial to quantify density, total floor space,floor area ratios (FAR), site coverage foot-print, parking ratios, and to identify housetypes as percentages of totals. The pilotstudy also revealed that small variations—where extra but numerically insignificantvariations such as modified end unit plansoccurred—had little effect on density orthe FAR, and were therefore not quantifiedin the assembled database.

All schemes selected were visited andphotographed. The methodology usedincluded scanning scale drawings toprovide data by digitally isolating built andnon–built areas, road areas, public openspace, and private gardens and patios. Siteareas given in City Council records, ortaken from dimensions and bearings onsurvey drawings were checked by thismethod where a simple arithmetic checksuggested the possibility of error, or wheresite areas given did not align with thepreferred base data for density calculation.

Topographical Criteria

Since severe slopes tend to distort otherfactors, developments have been selected,as far as possible, to be comparable, withflat or near flat sites taking priority. Whereslope is significant to the layout design anote is made in the accompanying descrip-tion, but is not otherwise indicated on thethumbnail plan.

Value and House Types

From site observations and, in some cases,local real estate enquiries, an assessmentwas made of market position. House typesare described and discussed in the noteswith each case study to establish a genericrelationship between house type and layoutclassification. This is necessary to elimi-nate—as far as possible—disadvantage tovery low–cost schemes and to identifyhigh–cost schemes, and is recorded as an


approximate indicator of market value incolumn 19 of the data chart, on a scale from1 (low market) to 5 (high market). Thenumber given on this scale is not quanti-fied, but is generated by knowledge of theoriginal property sale price, where known,or by the developer’s expectation of saleprices, estimated by building detail andlocation. The purpose of the scale is there-fore to indicate the market ‘intention’,which is regarded as a relevant item ofinformation in the assessment of thequality of the environment achieved rela-tive to levels of density and layout type.

Refuse Collection

Refuse collection is referred to in the litera-ture as a significant factor in determiningthe acceptability of higher density housing.It is apparent that some developers takecare with this matter, and others do not. Anunregulated refuse system, in some cases,severely undermines the development’spotential, damages the locality beyond thesite itself, and supplies a strong argumentto reinforce public prejudices againstincreased densities. In the best schemes theprocess of refuse storage and collection isvirtually invisible.

Kerb–side collection from individual prop-erties is the preferred option for a highquality residential environment. Storage ofrefuse inside the unit curtilage needs to beplanned carefully for reasons of hygieneand practicality in the functioning of thehousehold, in the best examples taking theform of an external enclosure with anexternal route to the collection point.

Building roads to ‘adoptable’ LocalAuthority standards is expensive inconstruction costs and in site space athigher densities, and in some cases is not apractical option for reasons of access.Many of the schemes visited have a refuseenclosure at the site entrance where refuseis deposited by residents, a workable andhygienic solution up to a maximum ofabout 25–30 houses. Inorganic collections,

although infrequent, may have to be toler-ated as an annual event, as they are, in lessconcentrated forms, in the suburbs.

In larger developments, with few roadsideentrances and collection points, the streetimpact of scores of bins, and the difficultyof identification, is very considerable.

In other schemes where development hasbeen carried out behind houses on anexisting road frontage, kerb–side collec-tions are sometimes seen to cause unac-ceptable weekly conditions for thosehouses. A minimum requirement for back–land sites should be a ‘compound’ roofedenclosure, with subdivisions to avoid anexcessive agglomeration of bags, locatedbehind the front property boundary andscreened from the street. For soft collectionsystems based on polythene refuse sacks amaximum number of units served shouldbe established if roadside (not internal)collection is necessary. This numbershould not be more than ten.

Washing/drying Arrangements

Site visits were conducted in good weatherin June and July 2004. Observationsconfirmed that external clothes–drying is acommon preference but not always astraightforward option for householders. Insome instances ad hoc clothes dryingarrangements occupied front gardens,using various semi–permanent lines some-times fixed under balconies, while retract-able lines and collapsible racks arecommon. Such arrangements reflect thesmall, and often shadowed rear externalspaces (case studies 10, 13, and 24 providesome examples).

Open air clothes drying is also a long–standing tradition in New Zealand house-holds, and should be provided for whereverpossible in all housing with ground levelaccess to private open space. Site planningto ensure even small rear yards with orien-tation to allow some solar access ispossible up to approximately 60–70 dph,and at higher density levels if the


development incorporates undergroundcar–parking.

The case study commentaries discuss otherfactors that affect the overall quality of theresidential environment including manage-ment by body corporates, where relevant,and communal facilities, where providedby the developer.4


1 The Tuscany Way site (case study 16) formsthe southern boundary of the Edgelea block of43 houses. The block is one model forgreenfield medium density housing, plannedas a perimeter of outward facing (front access)linked, or detached houses enclosing twogarage courts serving rear accessed units not

located on the block perimeter, in this case acourtyard type. A small semi-private ‘pocket’park with no vehicular access but accessible toemergency traffic is defined by the frontagesof eighteen units occupying the core of theblock in three separate developments.

A similar hybrid layout is used in the Oatlandsdevelopment (case study 18), with a similarintention: to provide variation in house type,price range, and to gain density.

2 Ambrico Place, New Lynn. The AmbricoPlace development occupies land previouslyused for industry, including a brickworksserving the local district of New Lynn; the sitehas been re–built since 1996 as the first largerscale medium density housing in WaitakereCity. The development now consists of ap-proximately 350 houses. There have been nineseparate developers involved, all except twousing architects for the layout design.

Each parcel is different in architectural styleand there are significant differences in layoutprinciples, and in relational possibilities, thatare reflected in varying densities (see casestudies 25 and 29). Three of the AmbricoPlace developments have used the narrowfrontage dual aspect three-storey townhouseplan form. One of these is reviewed (casestudy 29).

3 Tuscany Towers (case study 7): WaitakereCity Council required a bond of $485,000

from the developer for associated infrastruc-ture costs, but the bond payment took the formof security against certificates of title on un-sold houses in the scheme. The Waitakere CityCouncil was not the first mortgagee on the ti-tles, effectively making the bond a debt to theCouncil alongside other unsecured creditors.Mr P Brown, Waitakere City Council Re-source Management and Buildings Servicemanager said the arrangement at TuscanyTowers was unusual, in that neither a cashbond nor a bank guarantee was required fromthe developer. Because medium density, inthis case on a large scheme of 97 units, nor-mally cannot avoid unit titles (rather than thestandard sub-division freehold title) the devel-oper’s contribution cannot be ‘staged’ acrossthe financing of the project in smaller incre-ments; the cost of a long–serviced bank guar-antee is high for the developer, who isdependent on sales and contract completionsover a longer period than normal in suburbansub–division developments.

It would seem that in this instance, in order toencourage the development (as a landmarkmedium density project, amongst the earliestin West Auckland) the Waitakere City Coun-cil took a step back from their usual bond re-quirements (Western Leader, Thursday 1 Nov2001 p1 (Tuscany Towers, New Lynn)“Caught in Collapse”).

4 It is noted that some Body Corporatemanagement schemes in higher densitydevelopments ban external clothes drying,requiring occupiers to use only tumble dryers.The same restriction is applied in somemedium density developments, to protectexternal appearance from the domesticintrusion of washing. At densities between30dph and 66dph these restrictions are notnecessary, although at the upper end of theband, as case studies show, private open spacebecomes increasingly difficult to achieve.


ENDNOTES

The Edgelea block site plan

Case Studies

5

Case Study Conventions

Each site is illustrated with a thumbnailsketch plan showing the distribution andorientation of buildings, the spacesbetween them, and the organisation ofroads, access and parking. Wherecommunal or public open spaces aresignificant the area is indicated by a diag-onal line. In some instances the sketchplans are simplified to clarify the layouttype; the authors acknowledge a smalldegree of injustice to the designers in suchcases.

Case studies are presented with thefollowing conventions:

(i) Sketch plans are diagrammatic, toillustrate the scale and form of thescheme, with North point to the topof the sketch. The plans are not to agiven scale.

(ii) A summary of statistics is includedwith each study.

(iii) Architects are credited, whereknown.

(iv) Case studies 13, 15 and 28 areHousing New Zealand Corporationowned developments.

(vi) Case studies are presented inascending order of density in eachlayout type;

(vii) Case studies 25, 26 and 28 useunderground garage parking,indicated on the sketch plans by abroken line.

Where possible, the schemes reviewedhave been selected in groups to minimisethe effects of differences between loca-tions, particularly Glendowie (3 schemes),Botany Downs (3), and Ambrico Place,New Lynn. The numerous candidatesaround central Auckland were reduced toone, Beaumont Quarter, to avoid higher–end examples that may benefit from adeveloper’s willingness to invest more inbuilding costs in anticipation of higherreturns or faster sales.

Case Study Data

On the data table (p77), case studies arenumbered and named in the left handcolumns. Columns 1 and 2 list basic datadescribing development size, with otherrelevant data for date and place in columns17 and 18. Column 20, groups schemesaccording to the four layout classificationsemployed in this study (see p32). Where ascheme uses more than one layout type, thesecondary type is indicated in brackets incolumn 20.

Columns 3 and 4 then arrange the schemesin ascending order of density within thelayout type. Integral garages are includedin the unit floor areas where they occur.

Parking: the total parking provision isgiven as a ratio of car spaces per unit,including visitor and casual parking. Insome instances there are variationsbetween approved plans and the develop-ment ‘as built’, resulting in under-sizedparking spaces in front of garage doors:where this has been noted from site visits,the under-sized space is not counted in thetotal. Columns 12–16 all quantify otheraspects of the parking and vehicular accessarrangements.

The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (column 5)indicates the density of the development asa ratio of total floor space to site area. Thefigure generally rises with increasingdensity, reflecting increasing footprint, andbalances or off–sets the variations in unitsizes.

Exceptional or non–standard figures arenoted as follows:

(i) Tuscany Towers, column 6: 2.44*,and column 13: 143**: figuresinclude three storey units with fouror five parking spaces available in alower ground floor garage/workshop, slightly raising the totalparking ratio for the development.

(ii) Tuscany Towers, column 8: includesthe large lower ground floor in thetotal site footprint.


(iii) Sacramento 1A, column 9: excludescarport roofs; as with similarschemes (case study 24, etc).

Case Study Evaluation

The criteria that determine the quality ofthe residential environment in NewZealand's medium density housing devel-opments are identified and discussed in thepreceding sections. Although the relation-ships between the criteria are complex, andvary between developments according tospecific factors, including site topographyand shape, and marketing intentions, theprincipal criteria are identified as:

1. quality of the public environmentwithin the development, defined byfunction, landscaping, andmaintenance.

2. quality of, and provision for privateopen space defined by convenienceof access, privacy, and capacity forextended domestic uses, includingout-door meals, washing, children'splay area, and recreational gardeningactivities.

3. standard of privacy achieved,defined by overlooking and byperceptions of crowdedness.

4. standard of private vehicle parkingachieved, defined by convenience ofproximity and access.

5. standard of identity achieved,defined by perceptions ofindividuality within the wholedevelopment.

6. standard of security achieved in thedetailed design of the physical

environment and house unit, and byperceptions of personal territorialownership.

7. method of, and arrangements for,collection of refuse.

The case studies selected display somecharacteristics typical of the typology inrelation to more than one of these summa-rised criteria. Each study is thereforeaccompanied by a table of seven sectionscorresponding to the criteria listed above,indicating positive, negative and neutralresolutions of the relevant issue.

Glossary

Terminology or abbreviations used forconvenience in the case study analysis andthe data chart include:

Dph: dwellings per hectare; alsoabbreviated in the literature as‘dpha’, ‘DpHa’, and ‘Du/Ha’. SeeSection 4, defining density for afuller explanation of the term.

FAR: Floor Area Ratio: also referred toelsewhere as Floor Space Index(FSI), Floor Area Index (FAI); usedhere as the reference for the totalfloor space built as a ratio of the totalsite area.

Parking ratio: the ratio of total car parkingprovision to the number of dwellingsin the development: where the ratiofigure is less than 2, there are fewerthan 2 car parking spaces perdwelling in the overall development.

Case Studies 41

(1) VINOGRAD MEWS, HARBOUR VIEW,WAITAKERE CITY

Vinograd Mews is a small development of nineteen housesat a density of 33dph. This development employs terracedhousing but with compromised amenity in comparisonwith traditional suburban housing. In this instance the siteitself is also a challenging shape.

Street frontage is an important requirement in the HarbourView strategy, and is used to advantage in this layout. Twostorey units with integral garages address the street withsmall set–backs and vehicle crossings at over–frequentintervals: however, the street is positively defined, andwithout domination by garage doors due to the recessedplan detail.

To retain the highest possible density, the core of the site isplanned with the balance of units permitted, causing asense of crowding.

The ‘Z’ plan unit with a cross wall dimension of 9.7m andan overall length of nearly 15.0m is not an efficient housetype for this purpose. Internally the planning makesconsiderable effort to avoid habitable rooms on both sidesof party walls (built in 200mm concrete blockwork) at bothfloor levels. Other details suggest further problems with anunfamiliar house type: the third bedroom on the groundfloor has to have a separate bathroom, not locatedpractically for use as a ground floor toilet; upper floors arewindowless on the back, to reduce overlooking and satisfyheight to boundary regulations, making the rear elevation afeatureless wall; and a TV position under the stair cannotbe viewed by any practical arrangement of living roomfurniture.

These compromises are reflected in the site planning, inwhich the density achieved is not justified by the crowdedenvironment of the space between the houses. The schemeillustrates many of the issues confronted by designersworking in the medium density housing field.

Architect: Grant Neill


no unitsparking

ratiototal sitearea (m2)

averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

19 2.20 5,742 179 302 33 .59

openspace

(public)

openspace

(private) privacy parking identity securityrefuse

collection

- - +

(2) ADELPHI VILLAS, EAST TAMAKI,MANUKAU CITY

For reasons of typicality this project is included to repre-sent a housing form that minimises the value of publicspace in order to gain density and private garden area.There are numerous developments of about this size andtype in New Zealand: at this density (two storey housing insemi–detached units, 37 dph and a FAR of 0.52), the typehas become a standard product in the market.

The quality of the residential environment is necessarilycompromised in this layout type, a factor most apparent inthe service access. Garage doors dominate, propertyboundaries are indicated by concrete strips set into the(otherwise uniform) tarmac surface, planting is insignifi-cant, and security measures are the dominant feature indetailing. Parking occupies all available space adjacent tothe internal road, its appearance made more unsightly byan irregular arrangement which conveys an impression ofhaphazard use, lacking ownership or organisation. Refuseis collected from an enclosure (not roofed) at the siteentrance, fronted by letter boxes.

Overlooking remains a problem in spite of attempts in theplanning of the site to protect privacy. The elevation to thedistributor road to the north of the site presents a whollysuburban identity.

Architect: Alan Rolston Residential

Case Studies 43

no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

30 2.30 8,135 142 271 37 0.52

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

- -

(3) SEYMOUR ROAD, SUNNYVALE,WAITAKERE CITY

The development occupies land not previously built on,close to the Manui rail stop and the Parrs Park recreationarea in West Auckland. The layout is a hybrid, with themajority of units either detached or linked detachedsharing only the party wall between garages, and frontaccess, dual aspect houses. This contributes to a density of37 dph, a level at the lower end of the medium densityrange. The internal road is a public street in a compactedversion of a traditional suburban layout. The developmentloses most of the benefits of suburban layout designwithout gain in any area. As a residential environment, thisapproach has little to recommend it. No public open spacehas been included, perhaps reflecting the amenities close tothe site. The scheme makes no concessions to recent goodpractice in higher density design, or to New Urbanisttheory, or to the potential of urban housing to contributelively neighbourhoods as part of the intensificationprocess. A landscaping scheme, designed by SinclairKnight Mentz, which would improve the quality of thisdevelopment, has not been implemented.

The development has been built to attract investors inrental property, providing an explanation for the variety ofseparate house types used. To ensure market diversity asmall group of thirteen units has been arranged around arear access garage court, locally increasing density andintroducing a variation on the otherwise comprehensivelysuburban theme.

The scheme is included in this study to provide evidence ofthe need to recognise the difference between suburban (inthe Auckland and New Zealand traditions) and mediumdensity housing design. A compacted version of lowdensity housing, such as this, cannot achieve the poten-tially excellent residential environments of either suburbiaor medium density housing.

Architect: Fuller Design


no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

89 2.08 24,600 118 273 37 0.43

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

- - + - +

(4) CORBAN VILLAGE, HENDERSON,WAITAKERE CITY

The layout is based on two separate design principles: afront entry type using two and three storey house types,and rear entry predominantly with two storey house types,and, due to adjoining public open space, no provision forinternal communal areas. The plan includes an adoptedroad which provides service access and refuse collection.All units have one secure car space, and the majority have asecond space within view from the house.

The whole development was packaged into approximatelysix developments, evidenced by architectural variety thatremoves any sense of uniformity or repetition, best illus-trated in the central (rear access) group served by a privateaccess driveway. In this group the north–south orientationraises the question of the inactive entrance on the southside where recessed ‘front’doors are not in use in all cases.

Terraced three storey townhouse types as built on thenorth–western boundary are not as articulated in plan asindicated on the original drawings, but succeed inenclosing this edge of the development and retain a livelystreet elevation. The same three storey type used in shortterraces north of the internal road are detached from therest of the development by their own paved forecourts.

Although the house type is justified by a south–facingslope on this site, it also generates a tarmac and car–domi-nated environment at ground level, excessively so at thisdensity.

Overall, the development illustrates the quality of a resi-dential urban environment possible at this density withoutsacrificing access to and security of the car.

Architect: Various

Case Studies 45

no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

83 2.20 20,686 249 40

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

+ +

(5) FAIRHAVEN, GLEN EDEN, WAITAKERECITY

This scheme was started in 1999, and is now beingcompleted with 98 units. The layout design is comparableto Seymour Road (case study 3), and the Corban Village(case study 4) development.

Density depends on the use of 26 three storey townhouseunits on the perimeter of the site. These have a ground floorroom behind the garage, accessed, in this variant, by acorridor alongside the stair leading to living accommoda-tion on the first floor. A narrow plan is further expressed bydividing the front elevation into two, giving a strongvertical emphasis.

The core of the site, of two storey dual aspect units, isdeveloped around a public loop road providing access forrefuse collection and other services, similar to twoprevious schemes. Two small areas adjoining the roadprovide public open spaces, including a play area, at thelowest levels on the site, next to a stream. Back to backdimensions are minimal for the house type, leading to arear garden environment of a heavily fenced and enclosedwarren of private spaces where overlooking is a significantissue.

Short terraces of three units have been used to maximiseside access to rear gardens, and to increase the number of‘end’ units, seen by the market to have higher value. Themarket, in this case, is likely to be sales to investors, afactor that generally deters the dense planting which wouldbe necessary to both improve the public side of the devel-opment and reduce over looking in the private gardenspaces.

Architect: Harrison Grierson Consultants


no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

98 2.30 24,728 141 252 40 .56

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

- - + - +

(6) ROMOLA STREET, GLENDOWIE,AUCKLAND CITY

This small development is part of the regeneration of theMadelaine Avenue area of Glendowie, where new residen-tial property is replacing dilapidated housing stock and atthe same time lifting density levels. (See also Mt TaylorDrive—case study 11). The project stands at the top of themarket value scale in this study.

The site plan illustrates two relevant points:

(a) an architectural intention to propose higher densityhousing without loss of a modern tradition to treat eachbuilding as an object of design quality in its own right;

(b) the extreme reduction of space outside the separatedhouses, a consequence of pursuing a market goal ofbuilding detached houses, and planning the development atthis density.

Two pairs of houses, shown as attached in the plans, alsoappear to have been built as single units. All the buildingsare strongly articulated by form and by facing materialsused, to such a degree that the site plan sketch is highlysimplified. Access is from private culs de sac serving up tofive units, dimensionally minimal so that the shared accessfunction is only possible if rigorous discipline in use ismaintained; power steering, and medium size rather thanlarge cars are necessary.

Internal planning of the houses is conventional and alsoreflects new domestic uses of space by layout and spatialdiversity. The total average floor area, including thegarages, at 176m2 indicates a relatively large unit size. TheFAR is 0.73, also a high figure for this layout type, contrib-uting to perceptions of a crowded plan. Privacy betweenhouse units is inevitably very poor, particularly betweenexternal private spaces, and upper floor rooms lookdirectly into opposite units. At this density a differentlayout type would resolve these and the access problems,but would not permit a detached unit design.

Architect: Powley Architects

Case Studies 47

no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

13 2.10 3,140 176 242 41 0.73

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

- - +

(7) TUSCANY TOWERS, AMBRICO PLACE, NEWLYNN, WAITAKERE CITY

Tuscany Towers was the first and largest stage of the devel-opment in Ambrico Place. The scheme of 97 units includesa tennis court and a public ‘square’/community space,marked by a tower, which also houses the communal tele-vision aerial. The internal streets are also public spaces,providing extra non–allocated parking: the public domainis thus represented at several hierarchical levels. Thepublic areas are included in the density calculation.

The architecture is uniformly ‘tuscan–suburban’,including details of ornament, colour palette, and varia-tions of height forming a coherent, consistent, and knowl-edgeable example of the genre. The majority of houses aretwo storey three bedroom terraced units with garagesaccessed internally, the layout and the street articulated bythree storey four bedroom houses at corners and junctions,using a plan form that provides accommodation at groundfloor level for living or business use.

A storey–height step inherited from former use of the siteon the east site boundary introduces a third variation oflarger units on a platform over a four car garage, offeringlive/work options to some residents. Access to these unitsfrom street level is via an ornate tiled stair shared by twoadjacent houses, and also from the external public road bya second ‘front’ door.

The development aims at a high standard of urban publicspace, reinforced by controlled rather than abundant land-scaping, careful detailing of paths, fences and walls, andachieves good standards of privacy between units. Thelayout also achieves a high level of car proximity and secu-rity; consequently, the urban environment is vehicle–oriented rather than pedestrian–oriented and in this respectsimulates suburban models.

These are standards of amenity that are possible at thisdensity level, and progressively more difficult to maintainat higher points in the density range for this layout type.

Architect: not known


no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

97 2.44* 23,017 130* 237 42 0.61

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

+ + - +

(8) MELVIEW, AMBRICO PLACE, NEW LYNN,WAITAKERE CITY

This variation is the only semi–courtyard house typeincluded in the survey, and one of the few recent develop-ments of the type in the Auckland region. The layoutdesign involves agreement from the controlling TerritorialAuthority to a high FAR, in this case calculated as 1.0, anduse of a house type generally considered to be expensivefor medium density housing, in this case a wide–frontagetwo or three bedroom unit with a double garage connectedto it. In this description there is a clear implication of anexperimental type. Diagonal cross–over garden wallsdivide rear gardens, and blank rear walls to the garagesform the ends of the small courtyard gardens which arealso accessible through the house. Essentially, a singlestorey design has been used, with two ‘attic’ bedrooms toreduce roofline heights for minimum back to backdimensions.

The design identifies by materials and scale with the brickand tile suburban model bungalow, with an attachedgarage.

On the public side the ‘mews’ access ways are shared bysix dwellings, one more than would currently be permittedunder regulations in another part of the Auckland region.Planting in these accessways succeeds in softening theotherwise entirely hard surface. The minimised vehicularspace requires disciplined use by residents.

The design achieves a high level of security and privacy—there is minimal overlooking between units, or into unitsfrom the public side—and consequently little contributionto the sense of community in the neighbourhood. At adensity of 44dph, however, the layout achieves a higherstandard of privacy than most comparable schemes.Comparisons can be made with Rowena Crescent (casestudy 15).

The high standard of private open space achieved by thecourtyard house type is severely affected by a later devel-opment on an adjoining site, illustrated in the bottomphotograph, underlining the need for co–ordination of thewhole site strategy from an early stage if higher densityhousing is to be successful.


Case Studies 49

no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

22 2.18 2,768 126 227 44 1.00

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

- + +

(9) ALBION VALE, SUNNYVALE, WAITAKERECITY

The majority of units in this scheme are two storey threebedroom houses in terraced or detached type, with frontaccess and attached garages. In this layout (see alsoSeymour Road, case study 3) the influence of the devel-oper’s interest in building for investment is apparent, repre-sented by the variety of detached, semi–detached, andshort terraces built. The scheme is included in the survey toillustrate the impact this variety can have on the resultingenvironment. Overall site density is increased by the inclu-sion of a three storey, narrow fronted, dual aspect housetype. This interrupts and varies the street terrace and formsa larger block at the entrance to the site. Numerous mate-rials are used, including metal sheet, board and batten,plaster finishes, and facing brick. Details of shutters,screens and entrances introduce variety to the street eleva-tions. This diversity is reinforced by the site planning,which, unusually in this typology, uses curved roads toavoid repetitive and tedious views.

Seven two storey detached houses with remote parking incarports opposite, and space between the units of less than1.5m, add a further option to the investment market.

The site plan includes two small pocket parks towards thenorth end of the site, a better solution to space necessaryfor light and privacy distances between buildings thanprivately owned back gardens, which are minimised. Thedevelopment is not close to shopping or transport otherthan bus routes, but is adjacent to the West AucklandMarae, and the major public recreation space in the district.The high parking ratio may be partly explained by thelocation.



no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

94 2.23 20,800 115 221 45 0.52

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

- +

(10) ARAWA STREET, NEW LYNN, WAITAKERECITY

The development is one of the early new generationmedium density housing schemes in West Auckland, madepossible by the assembly of under–used land at the rear ofseveral properties fronting onto Arawa Street. Mediumdensity classification is justified by proximity to New Lynnand the Fruitvale rail station, to which it is linked by a foot-path at the bottom of the rail embankment on the southernedge of the site. Proposals to double up the western rail linkand increase rail traffic will affect the quiet environment ofthis development in the future.

3m wide driveways in and out of the site operate on a strictone–way basis. Most units have good orientation, goodaccess and parking, and a reasonable outlook. The layout iscompromised by the tapered shape of the site at the westend, reducing the space the road needs clear of building,and also by the decision to provide a second exit at the eastend. This compresses the site area available for four northfacing units, resulting in private space on the south sidethat is unacceptably small at 1.5m wide, and overshad-owed. Carports behind this group reduce natural light tokitchen windows (which could have been placed on thegable walls) and front gardens tend to be dominated bywashing lines. Bagged refuse is collected from the road-side at the exits onto Arawa Street. The refuse bags form anunsightly weekly event at the site entrance, and affect theoutlook from other properties on the street. This significantdesign flaw could have been avoided by provision of aboxed compound at each exit.

A slightly smaller development of seventeen units at adensity of 41dph, and a better site services solution wouldhave relieved most of the problems, in an otherwisepleasant, quiet residential environment.

All units are clad in timber products and thus avoid associ-ation with ‘leaky building’external finishes; one recent re–sale suggests that invested values are in line with otherproperty values in the area, and not stigmatised by the typeof house offered.

Architect: Insite Architecture

Case Studies 51

no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

19 1.70 4,168 112 219 46 0.51

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

- + -

(11) OATES ROAD, GLEN EDEN, WAITAKERECITY

The density at 51dph and a FAR of 0.55 places the layout inthe middle of the density range, and at a high point for thelayout type. This is partly due to the regular shape anddimensions of the site, and partly to the use of a hybridisedlayout design resolving the main street frontage access toseven units by the use of rear garaging. In other respects itis an unremarkable scheme of two storey three bedroomhouses, the majority (18 of 25) with attached singlegarages not accessed from inside the units.

The Oates Road frontage on the south boundary is estab-lished by a terrace of seven houses with front doors andkitchen windows facing the road (south), and rear accessfrom open–sided garages within the curtilage approachedfrom the two–way internal driveway. From observation, itis apparent that not all the residents use the front dooraccess onto Oates Road, despite its convenience for accessto local amenities, and to visitors parking on the street.

The site includes a combined park and children’s play-ground on the west section of the front terrace, apparentlywell–used, and adding the important dimension of space toan otherwise compact development. All properties, and thesmall park, have metal ‘pool’ fencing 1.2m high, giving aslightly defensive impression but also clear definition,transparency to pedestrians, and excellent security. Thestreet form is a successful contribution to a more urbanidentity in Glen Eden.

Refuse is collected from both Oates Road entrances (noenclosures: informal on–street arrangement), while maildelivery is to individual properties. Rear gardens are, atthis density, inevitably small, but adequate for theirpurpose, including washing lines. The seven frontage unitsare less practical in this respect, the private garden spacedominated by the back wall of the garage, and the smallprivate area adjacent to the front door not apparently func-tioning as a garden in all cases. The internal street alsosuffers from the garage doors, which diminish the qualityof the streetscape.

Architect: Tse Group Architects [for HNZC]


no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

25 2.00 4,941 108 198 51 0.55

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

+ +

(12) MT TAYLOR DRIVE, GLENDOWIE(PROJECT), AUCKLAND CITY

Redevelopment in the area around Madeleine Avenue inGlendowie has included several experimental housingschemes, proposed as “innovative” solutions to urbanhousing at higher densities. The project (not built) isincluded in the survey to illustrate the potential for mixedhousing and architecturally complex design in this process.

The proposal consists of two and three storey terraces inlinear form on a narrow site, with a group of twelve one andtwo bedroomed apartment units closing the site plan at thenorth end. This group has a local density of 96dph, which,in two storeys proved not to be capable of providing anacceptable residential environment: all external space, andsome ground level areas are required for parking andmanoeuvring of cars. The balance of the layout has adensity of 53dph, and a high FAR at 0.78, reflectingminimal private open space proposed. The FAR figure isclose to that of the Romola Street project designed by thesame architects (case study 6).

In the Mt Taylor layout, two wedge shaped landscapedspaces articulate the site plan, providing small open parkareas perhaps in compensation for under–sized privategardens. Some house plans show single width garages withstacked parking plus one external visitor parking space,possibly anticipating later conversion to supplementaryliving space, which, if effected, would reduce the parkingratio.

This and the Romola Street scheme represent a distinctiveand lively architecture characteristic of contemporaryAuckland design. They also propose housing at moder-ately high density with minimal external space, over-looking between houses in this instance controlled by carein site planning, and variation in unit design to preventrepetitive streetscape.


Case Studies 53

no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

30 2.70 5,658 148 187 53 0.78

(13) ST GEORGE’S TERRACE, AVONDALE,AUCKLAND CITY

The site lies between the edge of the Western Rail Linksouth of the Avondale Town Centre, and the back wall ofthe Lansford Crescent industrial area, previously notdeveloped. This is typical of land in the Auckland regionnow being considered for housing use. In this context andthe configuration of the site itself, there would appear to beminimal opportunity to achieve a reasonable residentialenvironment.

The accommodation is standardised around a two bedroomplus study, single bathroom, single garage formula, in anaverage size of 116m2 per unit, with some variations. Aversion of the three storey townhouse type has been used intwo short groups to screen the 6m high concrete block wallon the east boundary from the bulk of the site. The twelveunits in these two blocks are penalised by this strategy: rearpatio yards are heavily shadowed, too small to have prac-tical value, with poor natural light on the east side of thehouse. Compensation is provided for the units affected bythe use of a modified single aspect plan variant, balconieddecks on the west elevation and 5.0m frontages; the smallerof two bedrooms has 9.2m2 floor area.

The benefit to the remaining 33 two storey houses isconsiderable. These are planned in short terraces followinga curved central access road. Casual parking spaces occurintermittently along the road without dominating thespace, which is further enhanced by moderately dense andwell maintained landscaping. Garage doors are recessedbehind the front elevation line, and although details such asmeter boxes, refuse bins, and steps to entrances are not allresolved, the public side of the terraces generally producesa satisfactory urban housing environment.

Because of the linear site and terraced housing form, over-looking is not a significant problem except for two shortgroups in the centre of the plan, where back to back dimen-sions are too small.

The scheme is entirely built in timber framing with a plas-tered cladding system. There is a body corporate respon-sible for maintenance, with a manager resident on site. Theproject was built as an open development, and is nowgated.


no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

45 2.30 8,427 116 187 53 0.62

Architect: Tse Group Architects

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

- - + -

(14) GUNNER DRIVE, HARBOUR VIEW,WAITAKERE CITY

The third site selected in the Harbour View developmentconsists of 31 houses in a rectilinear plan form, repre-senting a conventional arrangement of medium densityhousing on a straightforward flat rectangular land parcel.The high density achieved is partly the result of small floorareas (allowing for integral garages, the net habitable spaceaverages 95m2 for three bedroom houses), and the use ofnarrow fronted deep–planned house types.

These have a single aspect configuration at first floor madepossible by the third bedroom being accessed from theliving room on the ground floor.

Consequently, an internal ground floor bathroom is neces-sary with access from the living room and headroom partlyrestricted by the stair. According to approved drawings asliding door unit is used between the garage and the livingroom. Sliding doors are not supplied as self–closing, orair–tight fittings.

Kitchens are placed next to the front entrance in this plan,maintaining an active street elevation.

Rear gardens are only accessible through the house in mostcases: the site plan, at this density, does not permit rearfootpaths.

Overlooking is contained by the mix of types, the excep-tion being in the use of the ‘C’ variation (a dual aspectnarrow front type) used for the group of three in the centreof the block—the single aspect unit would have overcomeback to back overlooking, but would also have reduced thetotal number of units. The ‘C’ type is a two bedroom plus‘study’ on the upper floor, with a poorly planned groundfloor internal kitchen and under–sized living room.

This scheme achieves minimum standards of private andpublic space without providing any degree of separationbetween pedestrian and vehicular space.

Architect: Snell Kaiser Hale Ltd Designers

Case Studies 55

Type C: Ground floor plan

no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

31 1.90 5,076 114 164 61 0.70

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

- - -

(15) ROWENA CRESCENT, GLENDOWIE,AUCKLAND CITY

The section of the development reviewed in this study islimited to the rear access terrace of sixteen units. Lowdensity housing in the immediate vicinity determines arelatively low density layout on this site (24 dph), ratherthan housing at medium density; the inclusion of thisdevelopment in the study is justified by an experimentalsite design.

Rear access from semi–private or private rear lanes isendorsed by many housing designers overseas, particularlythe New Urbanist group in the USA. The rear access layouttype is discussed further in Section 6. The garage isnormally separated from the house, as in this scheme, butremains within the property curtilage. Private garden orpatio space between the two, and separation of theextended function of the garage from the house promises adiversity in practical use that usually cannot be offered bythe attached garage model. The removal of the garage tothe back ‘liberates’ the street frontage by separating themain public elevation and the front door from the main caraccess, thus creating the possibility of an urban streetdominated by active and continuous facades.

In this instance, site dimensions have allowed an extendedgarden area and thus a distance between garage and housethat would appear to be too great. At this density otherlayout types could have been considered, including court-yard housing with equal private open space and garagingamenity. This comment does not, however, suggest criti-cism of the scheme, but recognises the experimentundertaken.

The street side of the houses, with casual parking, somelandscaping, and front doors, windows, and the steppedterrace elevation, is a successful and welcome variation ina typical low–density Auckland suburb, and appears tosatisfy the objectives of the design. Some detail of the unitsthemselves, such as patio doors to the garden side servingthe rear access determined by the layout, are lesssatisfactory.

Architect: Architectus Architects [for HNZC]


no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

16 2.01 6,570 116 410 24 0.28

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

+ + +

(16) TUSCANY WAY, HARBOUR VIEW,WAITAKERE CITY

The first phase of this group, four two storey threebedroom terraced houses was built as an experiment inlayout typology, adopting the principle of rear access froma private lane, with the formal house frontage facing apublic street. The site is adjacent to a small commercialarea. The house type used succeeds in bridging the transi-tion to the residential character of new housing to the northand west.

In this development the front street is the boundary of asmall public park. Orientation places the garden at the backon the northerly side of the terrace.

Internally the house type used in the first stage is conven-tional in plan, without significant recognition of theconnection to the garden and garage, or use likely to bemade of the ‘back’ door. In the second stage, not yetcompleted, and delayed for several years after the firstblock was occupied, the plan arrangement is modified toform a small courtyard between a large double garage andthe house, with a corridor connection between the twoparts. The internal wall of the garage is fitted with glazeddoors opening into the courtyard. The design has thepotential to offer live/work accommodation.

Benefits to the public street side (both stages) include fulluse of the frontage without the interruptions of garagedoors or vehicular pavement crossings, and improvedpedestrian safety creating a wholly pedestrian environ-ment. The rear access lane is entirely hard surfaced, and isinevitably a low quality space, with insufficient allowancein the planning for planting or variation to the aesthetic ofcontinuous metal doors. The lane is separated from theadjoining garage court (serving another development) by arobust fence, which reinforces perceptions of high securitybut also regrettably doubles the driveway surface.

Architect: Richard Lambourne

Case Studies 57

no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

13 2.00 3,539 157 272 37 0.58

Ground floor plan: North Block

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

+ + +

(17) SACRAMENTO 1A, BOTANY DOWNS,MANUKAU CITY

Two stages of this scheme are included in this review tooffer a comparison of densities achievable in hybridlayouts with mixed house types. There are few such exam-ples in recent Auckland medium density developments; inother respects, particularly for perimeter buildingsenclosing a communal space, and for lower market posi-tioning, this scheme also provides a comparison with casestudies 20 and 21.

The site is close to the Botany Downs shopping centre. Acommunal pool with a changing pavilion, and a tenniscourt, provide public space in the centre of the layout,which is also traversed by a public footpath from theperimeter road.

The development has a density of 34dph, relatively low fora terraced housing layout. However, this figure includes alarge public open space of 2900m2. If the public space isdeducted the density calculation increases to 44dph, closerto a representative figure for two storey mixed housing.

Density is determined by use of two main house types:(i) dual aspect/dual access two storey two bedroom unit,of 76m2, with no integral garage. This type can be used ineither principal (north, or east–west) orientation, enteredfrom either side with parking either side or more distant(40% of the total). All units have a rear accessed carport orcar parking space, plus visitor space.

(ii) a dual aspect front access three bedroom type, with anintegral single garage, and approximately 138m2 floor area(60% of the total). The majority of units are accessed fromthe site boundary and there are two variations, with off–setor stepped plans used at corners, some of which do nothave attached garaging.

Private gardens are very small, and overlooking in thecorner sites is pronounced, but the generous central spaceprovides some compensation, perceptions of spaciousnessand good distance between terraces. The frontage to theexternal streets, with reduced numbers of crossings andfew garage doors, succeeds in providing a good interfacewith the public realm.


no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

46 2.40 13,440 113 292 34 0.36Architect: Powley Architects

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

+ - -

(18) OATLANDS DEVELOPMENT, PENNANTHILLS ROAD, SYDNEY

This project is an example of a commercial mixed densitysub–division that combines three separate layoutprinciples:

(a) a perimeter access road serving a lower densitydetached unit house type, on approximately 500m2 lots.This strategy provides the development as a whole with areducing scale of lot sizes to form a boundary tosurrounding low density housing, and also retains 27 highvalue houses to sell.

(b) A core area of the site contains 50 detached andterraced units on smaller lots varying from 300m2 to160m2. All units front either the perimeter road or thecentral ‘village green’ public open space and are accessedfrom a privately owned rear service lane. Partly because ofthe narrow lot widths (minimum 4.5m) the lane is domi-nated by garage doors with variation provided by opensided carports and seventeen further accommodation unitsin the form of studio apartments built over double garages,the studios accessed from external stairs entered from theservice lane. A three storey block of 24 apartments withunderground parking encloses the central public space, butwith an inactive east façade to the park. The averagedensity of the development is approximately 22dph, whilethe core density reaches approximately 37 dph.

(c) The whole development is planned in accordancewith some of the New Urbanist principles: pedestriansystems, axes, landscaping organised in geometricpatterns, and formal architectural detail responding toorder in rank and position in the site layout.

The layout includes two small parks, an ‘activity’ area, anda ‘passive’ recreation space, which includes a children’splayground.

The development succeeds in generating a strong sense ofcommunality in the central area, while the character of theperimeter road is not distinguishable from any averagesuburban street in the area. Oatlands is a sophisticated,carefully planned mixed unit housing scheme thatcombines suburban and urban streetscapes.

Architect: Stanton Dahl Haysom Spender

Case Studies 59

no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

140 - 64,800 - 277 37 -

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

+ + +

(19) FONTENOY ROAD, MACQUARIE PARK,SYDNEY

Fontenoy Road is the oldest example reviewed in the study,included, along with Ewenton Street (case study 25) toreflect the greater familiarity of Australian housingdesigners with the design of medium density housing, andto illustrate a twenty year old design that has matured andimproved as a living environment, without alteration orsignificant re–investment over the period.

The site was the first of several stages of medium densitydevelopment carried out by Lend Lease Homes in the areaaround Macquarie Park, all of which have been completedat similar densities to Fontenoy Road.

On this site, a difficult boundary configuration and a steepslope to the north east have resulted in some units beingdisadvantaged for access from the higher driveway in thecentre of the plan. Others have direct access from parkingor temporary unloading space: garages and carports aregenerally a short walking distance from the house unit.

All units are two storey, the majority (25 of 35) with twolarge bedrooms and a ground floor bathroom in addition toa ‘two–way entry’ bathroom on the upper floor. Threebedroom units are designed with a second bathroom on thebedroom floor. As in the case of the Ewenton Streetscheme, the house areas are small, and reflect the spacestandards applicable at the time rather than current Austra-lian standards.

A high standard of privacy is achieved by pedestrian–onlyaccess to most units, a large central space occupied by thedriveway, and by dense landscaping. The terraces areconnected by steps responding to a sloping site, and theefforts made by the designers to articulate the otherwiseuniform elevations to the public side. All houses in thescheme have small private gardens or patios on both sidesof the unit, seen in this analysis as the product of density ofless than 40dph, and the acceptance of separate car storageand parking.

Architect: Lend Lease Homes (Architects) 1983


no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

35 1.5 8,900 107 254 39 0.44

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

+ + +

(20) CAROLINA PLACE, ALBANY, NORTHSHORE CITY

The scheme designed for this rectangular site consists of atwo stage development, of which the first, with 33 units, isconsidered here. The site plan shows both phases of thedevelopment to clarify the planning strategy, of two “U”shaped courtyards with parking to each side. This is a smallunit development in a two and three storey building form.All parking is outside the property curtilage, that is, remotefrom the dwelling. The central public open space is land-scaped, forming a pocket park with a pool andpoolhouse/gym of 80m2 for common use.

To break down the repetitive character of the buildingblocks, identity of individual units is sought through thefrequently used device of small pitched gables added deco-ratively to front and back terrace elevations. Units vary insize and (presumably) market level, from two bedroomduplexes, to one and two bedroom apartments of 50m2.Internal planning is conventional with all units havingviews onto the central space; included in the conventionsof this type of unit are one bedroom units with a combinedentry space/kitchen/bathroom access located on the southside of the unit. Shared external stairs provide access toupper units.

Parking is one covered carport for each unit, plus one openparking space, with each double sided parking blocklocated adjacent to the dwellings served. Internally, thelayout has consistency, but at the expense of back spacesheavily dominated by vehicle parking, which create abarrier between this scheme and adjoining housing. Thecause of the problem is the concentration of similar housetypes and a high parking ratio for this size of unit: a mix oftypes and a lower density would offer other and betterlayout options.

The scheme is compared with the adjoining developmentaccessed from Bush Road (case study 21).

Architect: Sigma Planners, Architects & Designers

Case Studies 61

no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

33 1.97 6,300 59 191 52 .31 Ground floor plan: Typical 1-bedroom unit

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

- - -

(21) BUSH ROAD, ALBANY, NORTH SHORECITY

The Bush Road development is similar to the CarolinaPlace scheme in density, and for the focus on small unitsizes; it is included to provide a comparison, alongside theSacramento development (Stage B). Each of these projectshas been designed to address layout issues generated bylarge numbers of small units, market price expectations atlower levels, and high parking ratios demanded by thedeveloper.

The average unit size in this project is 59m2, similar toCarolina Place (60m2). The layout strategy is different,with a comparable parking standard and FAR (0.31 and0.33). This scheme has building and active elevations on itsboundaries rather than tarmac and vehicles. This isachieved without sacrifice of public open space, which, forprojects aiming to provide low cost housing for youngerbuyers, has social significance. As with the Carolinascheme, the central public space has a tennis court and apool, surrounded by gardens.

Parking is remote from the dwelling curtilage, reducingsecurity and the practical value of attached garaging. Inevi-tably the internal road is entirely dominated by parking andcarports.

The central public space is, curiously, overlooked by nomore than half of all units, because of a cross–over plantype used in the two storey apartment planning, whichreverses lower to upper plans, placing living rooms at firstfloor over bedrooms (in a separate title) below. Thisarrangement raises problems of sound transmission, andorientation on the north–south blocks; it is necessary toavoid lower floor living rooms on the same side lookingdirectly into the carports lining the internal road. In addi-tion, on the east–west facing blocks private open space ispossible at ground level, and upper floor balconies over-look rear patio gardens to bedroom windows. Upper unitsare arranged in pairs sharing a staircase. The stair, atground level, occupies a small courtyard which alsoprovides access to the two lower units. A three bedroomground floor unit (type C) has one bedroom looking intothis courtyard. Density achieved in a two–storey develop-ment is 56 dph. A lower parking ratio and a wider mix ofunit types would improve the residential environment.


no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

105 1.86 18,750 60 178 56 0.33


openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

+ - -

(22) HOLLY STREET, AVONDALE (PROJECT),AUCKLAND CITY

This is a proposed development of 80 houses on disusedindustrial land adjacent to Avondale College sportsgrounds with access from Holly Street, in an area of lowdensity quarter acre section housing. The scheme wasgranted consent in 2001 as an ‘innovative housing’ devel-opment under the terms of the Auckland City CouncilDistrict Plan.

The site has a deep hollow in the central section affectingthe outlook of fourteen of the units proposed. The layoutproposes terraced housing spaced 15m apart with parkingon one or both sides of the private access driveway, at adensity of 62 dph and a FAR of .55. Part of the internalroading is proposed as a public road, as far into the site asnecessary for collection, from a central amenity, of refuse.

Characteristically in this layout type the house entrance isseparated from the parking space or carport by a publicfootpath, and the public side of all dwellings is thus domi-nated by vehicles, despite a parking ratio of only 1.6.House types vary, the majority proposed two or threebedroomed two storey terraced type with an average floorarea of 89m2. At the site entrance five semi–detached unitswith double garages add another house type variation.

Public spaces are indicated in three positions on the perim-eter of the site plan, without nominated recreational uses orchildren’s play areas.

Architect: Andrew J MacGregor Architect

Case Studies 63

no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

80 1.60 12,870 89 161 62 0.55

(23) COTTONTREE, BRISBANE

This development is a type of cluster layout, but can beclassified here as a hybrid remote parking type since six ofthe nineteen units are entered directly from the site bound-aries rather than from within the site. It is also noted thatthe layout is governed by climatic considerations(emphasising shade, and cross ventilation for summercooling) appropriate to the tropical location rather thanAuckland’s temperate climate.

The site planning, however, illustrates a layout thatachieves high standards of privacy, private open space, andidentity of individual units at a high point on the mediumdensity scale. The project demonstrates the possibilities, ina small development, that originate in a brief that requireddiversity in accommodation, variety in unit value, andgood environmental amenity. Fourteen of the nineteenunits are entered at ground level, have small patio gardensand secure parking adjacent to their entrances. Thesmallest units (one bedroom, approx. 55m2) are placed onthe second floor along the southern edge of the site;building heights taper down from three storeys on thisboundary to single storey units on the northern frontage.The project has received awards for design.

Architect: Clare Design, Architects


no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

19 1.18 3,572 197 63

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

+ +

Photographs by Richard Stringer, published inArchitecture Australia, 85(4); 1996.

(24) SOLJAK PLACE, MOUNT ALBERT,AUCKLAND CITY

The development was completed in 2001, on a site next tothe western rail corridor, one of five such sites in this study.Apart from a small recreation space in the north corner, thelayout is a dedicated, monotype development of twobedroomed terraced houses with carport parking adjacentto the unit, and a small front or rear private garden. All theterraces are oriented (by the site boundaries) to face north-west or northeast.

The principal variation is the house type used on thesouthern boundary for twenty units, which provides a frontpatio garden in addition to space behind the terrace. Theinternal plan is not, however, modified for this condition,except for front entry to the living room. The remaining 41units are planned with entrance through a hallway/kitchenwith side access to the stair, and a laundry space but noground floor toilet.

The scheme is included to demonstrate the limitations ofthe layout type in which density of development in twostoreys does not permit garaging within the individualproperty curtilage. To preserve privacy to ground floorpublic side rooms, in this case the kitchen, the front eleva-tion includes a glazed door (the ‘front’ or main entry door)and a ventilating window of 0.25m2 for the laundry, but nowindow to the kitchen area, which is consequently bothdark and unventilated.

The first floor is conventionally planned with twobedrooms and a central mechanically ventilated bathroom.

Considerable effort has been made in this project to softenthe internal street, by butterfly roofs to carports, small off–sets in the road layout, and heavy landscaping andplanting, which achieves its objectives to form a pleasant,but uncompromisingly car dominated public space. Refusecollection has been well designed and planned, with acontainer discreetly located at the front of the develop-ment, emptied by vehicle mounted hoist. The scheme isgated.


Case Studies 65

Ground floor plan: Typical unit

no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

61 2.00 9,350 75 153 65 0.49

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

- +

(25) EWENTON ST, BALMAIN, SYDNEY

This two storey development is located in an inner suburbwhere regeneration is occurring by a process of infillingand small scale redevelopment in accordance with anintensification policy. The high density figure and the highquality of the residential environment is achieved by theinclusion of a naturally ventilated single storey under-ground garage providing all parking for the 38 units on thesite (shown broken line on plan).

The layout consists of a perimeter two storey terrace ofhousing enclosing an internal public courtyard defined by225mm brick screen walls and planters. The central land-scaped areas, in two courtyards are surrounded by privatepatio gardens accessed from the units. Houses facing ontothe two street frontages (Ewenton and Darling Streets) aretwo storey square plan two bedroomed townhouses withrooms on the upper floors contained in roof space withdormer windows, to satisfy the heritage context. Onlyseven of the houses in the development have threebedrooms, reflected in the low average size of 107m2. Unitdimensions are not available for a more detailed footprintcalculation.

Judd (1993) comments that the position of the garagefavours some units over others: there is a considerable walkrequired for some householders, including a stair. Refusecollection is from a single point in the development, awalled, gated compound adjoining the Ewenton Streetfootpath entrance. The majority of the mesh–enclosedgarage lock–ups are not used for cars but for storage, work-shops, and hobby activities, reflecting the high accessi-bility of public transport available in Sydney.

Fifteen years after construction it is observed (2004) thatthe development has matured into a comfortable, highquality environment. Evidence of current resale pricessuggests parity with other property in the area.

Architect: Philip Cox Richardson Taylor and Partners


no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

38 1.50 5,669 107 150 66 0.71

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

+ + - + +

(26) BEAUMONT QUARTER, AUCKLAND CITY

The first stage of this development occupies formerlycommercial land near the city centre. Later stages will alterthe density (achieved in this stage by adopting under-ground remote parking strategies) for a high class urbanhousing solution.

The scheme is included to provide a comparison withothers at a similar density. Density at 69dph is aided by theinclusion of eight apartments in a central block alsocontaining a small area of lettable commercial floor space,and by the use of five main variations in the house type.

Privacy and security, expressed in the external detailing oflouvres, are paramount concerns partly explained by thescheme being an early intervention in this part of the city.The louvres also provide solar control. The majority of thehouse types used are without internal garaging: cars areparked in front of units with security provided by surveil-lance from the house and the street, by individual elec-tronic alarms, or, for the majority, in an undergroundgarage. Small courtyards, patios and rear yards separatehouse fronts from public spaces which vary in characterand planting.

A range of facing materials, including pressed aluminium,zincalume, painted brickwork and stained timber, providediversity and identity.

Finishes are of uniformly high quality, without beingostentatious or expensive, both internally and externally.The scheme includes a gym/pool reflecting the marketstandard, and has high annual maintenance charges leviedthrough the body corporate.

The scheme demonstrates some of the potential of mediumdensity housing by the mixed development strategy, secureremote parking, and the standard of urban space achieved.Developer contributions were negotiated against thebenefit to the city of some aspects of the development,preventing a later move to enclose the public areas.

Architect: Studio of Pacific Architecture & S333

Case Studies 67

no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

70 1.10 10,150 n/a 145 69 n/a

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

- +

(27) SACRAMENTO 1B, EAST TAMAKI,MANUKAU CITY

[See general notes: case study 17]

The second phase of this scheme re–uses three of theprevious house types, but adds another, smaller unit type: aone bedroom apartment in a two storey block: “Arizona”,approximately 44m2. This small unit, and the omission ofpublic space, increases the net density to 72 dph; theaverage unit size is reduced from 113 to 74m2, and theparking ratio from 2.4 to 1.64; calculating thebedspace/hectare ratio also increases the effective density(163 maximum in Stage 1 to 191 maximum in Stage 2).The apartment unit does, however, add an entry–levelmarket option for first time buyers.

More critically, in terms of the residential environmentachieved, the second stage necessitates the majority ofparking for the small units to be located off the main accessthrough the site, rather than contained in the garage courtas in Stage 1. Some ground level enclosed space is used forcovered parking.

The one bedroom units are entered from external stairslocated between units. The stairs lead to balconies sharedbetween two upper units, which are oriented north or west,with living room over living room (compare to case studies20, 21). This causes upper decks to overlook ground levelgarden areas (bottom photo, left). Ground floor externalspaces—patios between the apartment and the rear carportenclosure—generally lack sun and privacy.

The central spaces within the site are entirely car–domi-nated, with parking on both sides of the roadway, despitethe lower ratio. Façade design provides variation, along-side set–backs, and a colour scheme based on traditionalmexican shades reinforces the chosen style. Identity issecured by these methods, without offering a convincingdemonstration of the typology at this density.



no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

50 1.64 6,900 74 138 72 0.53

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

- -

(28) HILLSBOROUGH ROAD, LYNFIELD,AUCKLAND CITY

This development is located next to the large andexpanding shopping facility serving the Lynfield District.The site context consists of an arterial road frontage domi-nated by commercial uses. The project is included becauseit illustrates innovative site planning and the quality of ahousing environment possible where larger schemes areundertaken and are driven by a singular design philosophy,suggesting that a critical mass factor has potential in thetypology. The scheme has been reviewed in the Architec-ture NZ journal, and other media, where details have beenfairly widely publicised.

The decision to separate the bulk of parking in a lower levelnaturally ventilated garage has had the effect of liberatinginternal site space at ground level to produce a landscape–dominated environment. Topography and access dictatedthe position of the garage on the west boundary. Thisdistances the parking from accommodation on the east sideof the site, necessitating the 12 centrally placed carportsand their access through the centre of the layout.

The west elevation consequently exposes the basementgarage to external views of the development, includingthose from Hillsborough Road, and is reminiscent of aform, typically commercial, of unenclosed, non–secureparking cavities beneath a larger building mass.

Despite this compromise, and the retaining wall over–shadowing north facing units on the eastern corner, thedevelopment is able to exploit the low parking ratiorequired in housing for the elderly to achieve a high qualityand relaxed example of housing at higher densities. Allunits are spacious by comparison with private sector apart-ments, and planned with care and consideration for elderlyresidents.

Architect: Woodhams Meikle Architects [for HNZC]

Case Studies 69

no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

51 1.00 6,175 79 118 85 0.66

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

+

(29) 2 AMBRICO PLACE, NEW LYNN,WAITAKERE CITY

This development is included in the review to provide acomparison with projects 22 and 24. Unit sizes are similar,in this case a two storey two bedroomed 77m2 plan, and thesite is classified by parking layout as a comparable scheme.The density is over 30% higher than the two most similarschemes, partly because of a regular site boundary, butmostly the result of ruthlessly efficient use of land.

The scheme borders the Tuscany Towers development,which it post–dates. Accepting the principle of marketvariety, it offers a lower priced alternative to the earlierscheme but at the cost of a severe reduction in quality of theresidential environment. Density is considered to be theprimary explanation for this low standard.

The two terraces of housing enclose a 16.0m wideconcreted access roadway and parking space (the dimen-sion recommended in the Waitakere City Council designguide). The blocks are articulated on alternate party wallsby small set-backs and steps which are intended to providesome visual relief to an otherwise monotonous elevation.

A few of the householders have erected car ports whichcontribute a small element of variation in a barren publicspace, in which landscaping is entirely absent.

Internal planning of the units is conventional, with aground floor kitchen on the street or public side of theblock overlooking parking on both sides of the centralspace.

The scheme exceeds the density limits compatible withgood residential design for this layout type. The site domi-nates the entrance to Ambrico Place, an unfortunate loca-tion in that it affects perceptions of quality in the rest of thedevelopment.



no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

22 2.00 2,538 77 115 87 0.67

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

- - -

(30) MOKOIA ROAD, BIRKENHEAD, NORTHSHORE CITY

The site is adjacent to commercial developments, justi-fying higher density housing by location, with a slope of5m to the south west; there are views of Auckland City andthe upper Waitemata Harbour. The three storey house typeused is a deep plan version aligned in east–west blocks tomaximise solar access; all units have a double stack garageplus a parking space. Three variations of the townhouseplan type are used, to offer different unit sizes and accom-modation packages. Allowing all parking indicated on thesite plan, the development provides a high ratio of threespaces per unit and three additional visitor spaces. Tworefuse collection compounds are provided.

Turning and access driveways between the two higherblocks is landscaped to form an acceptable, but car–domi-nated area, sufficient to use the dual aspect plan. An unusu-ally high percentage of the site area is not privately owned,and is maintained to a high standard.

Blocks are stepped and decorated at parapet level to articu-late, minimally, the length of the façade, but a repetitiveand unvaried elevation is not significantly affected by thismove. The spectacular prospect of the upper harbour bene-fits only the lowest rank of the three blocks, since viewsfrom both other blocks are obstructed.

The small park between Blocks B and C is a tapered plan,and is equipped with a pergola and a petanque court

The centre block (Block B) uses a variation of the threestorey townhouse type that illustrates an aspect of theevolution of the type in recent local examples: the groundlevel plan provides a double length (stacked) garageconnected to an entrance hallway by a sliding door. Theoriginal drawings indicated a rear room at this level,accessed from the garage, which appears to have beendeleted on the first and third blocks.

Architect: Hornby Architects

Case Studies 71

no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

24 2.95 4358 141 182 55 0.77

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

+ - +

(31) GALWAY STREET, ONEHUNGA,AUCKLAND CITY

This development is included to represent numerous exam-ples of small housing schemes in this and other parts of theregion. Infill developments, not tied to normal residentialregulations by location on Business zoned sites, haveoccurred in a fairly piecemeal pattern. These are under-stood by most to be typical of the medium density housingtypology.

In this instance, the diagrammatic and barrack–like sitelayout seeks no advantage from the slope of the site, andwhere mixed uses might have produced a better design forthe developer as well as the wider community, two rows ofmore or less identical three storey blocks, the secondlooking at the back of the first, have been permitted. Theforward (northern) block at least has a half level connec-tion from the first floor living spaces to the garden, using astep in the land slope.

Front entrances are adjacent to the garage double door atroad level, approached from the vehicular access, which istarmac. The internal planning is extremely confused andimpractical, affected by height to boundary regulations onthe south side. The scheme is an instructive example of theinternal difficulties in planning three storey house types.Refuse is collected from wheeled bins parked at the siteentrances.

There is little to say in defence of development of thisquality; public doubt about higher density housing is likelyto be reinforced by such schemes.

Architect: Anthony Davis Architects


no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

16 2.00 2,620 172 163 61 1.05

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

- - -

(32) KRISLEY COURT, AMBRICO PLACE, NEWLYNN, WAITAKERE CITY

This site, part of the Ambrico Place development, uses aversion of the three storey townhouse type and is plannedat a lower density than the two storey project opposite.Street level entrances with deep north or west facing firstfloor decks provide weather protection to one third of thehouses.

The triangular site has a boundary to the Western RailCorridor on the northwest side. On–site car parking islimited to 1.12 vehicles per unit, supplemented by thepublic street in front of the development. This strategysacrifices higher parking provision to achieve higherdensity and results in a congested ground level spacelacking any significant pedestrian domain.

A tilt slab construction system has been used, with internalstructures in timber framing, ensuring good standards ofsound and fire insulation. The floor plans vary betweenblocks, averaging 134m2 per unit including a single garageand a ground floor rear bedroom, similar to others of thistype in recent Auckland developments. With few excep-tions (case study 30 is one) these schemes demonstrate thelimitations of the house type: all developments of this typeare characterised by poor standards of privacy, car-domi-nated access, poor or non-existent public space, andimpractical internal planning.

At the time of development these houses were the lowestpriced new units in the area.


Case Studies 73

no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

25 1.12 3,389 134 135 74 1.01

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

- - -

(33) KEELING ROAD, HENDERSON,WAITAKERE CITY

The Keeling Road development is a variation on the threestorey townhouse type, in this case with a density of 94dphmade possible by a two bedroom top floor plan based onfloor plate areas of approximately 31m2, and a low parkingratio of 1.5. Although housing at this density falls outsidethe density range, this scheme illustrates a number ofpoints useful to the study.

The dimension between party walls is 3.85m, producing aninternal garage width of less than 3.0m, requiring a slidingdoor between the hall and the garage. All internal habitablespaces are under–sized for practical or comfortable use:the top floor bedrooms are 9.0m2 and 6.7m2 respectively,with short dimensions of under 2.0m. A rear room atground floor level, entered through the garage, also has aminimum dimension of less than 2.0m, while the garageitself is less than 5.2m long. The total floor area of 88m2

including the garage is not adequate for a three bedroomtownhouse unit. Market prices at the time of sale were thelowest for new houses in the area.

Public space on the site is principally the roadway, open onone side for the western block, and with a 7.6m wide spacebetween the other two blocks. Overlooking is unavoidable.Private external space is accessible only through the garageand the back room, which includes a toilet accessed fromthe room. Laundry facilities are on the first floor.

This scheme demonstrates both the shortcomings of thetype of house used, and the constraints this type imposeson site planning.

Architect: ADC Architects


Ground floor plan: Typical unit

no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

22 1.50 2,330 88 106 94 0.83

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

- - - +

(34) EDEN 1, MT EDEN, AUCKLAND CITY

Eden 1, on Enfield Street in Mt Eden, is an early exampleof the advantage taken of ‘Business’ zoning in AucklandCity Council, to build high density housing without needof compliance with standard residential design controls.This loophole has been exploited by several developmentcompanies in the past decade. At 125 dph, the densityplaces the scheme well outside the remit for this study, butit is included to illustrate the limitations of the three storeytimber–framed townhouse option for medium densityhousing.

Eden 1 also exhibits many of the problems associated withhigher density urban housing: apart from constructiondefects relating to the monolithic cladding system, therehas been criticism of errors including balconies over-hanging public footpaths on the perimeter, bedroomwindows on the back pavement line at street level—alltypical and symptomatic of detail design issues in thetypology of medium density housing. Internal semi–publicstreets are no more than continuous walls of facing garagedoors separated by a 6m wide driveway of tarmac. Use ofthis access is necessarily highly disciplined. Entry to unitsfrom this street are unceremoniously industrial in theirpresentation. The development would not have beenpermitted in any Australian city or in the UK at the time itwas built.

The FAR at Eden 1, at 1.36, is the highest in the survey,which indicates a need for a building form of at least fourstoreys, and with underground parking a necessary corol-lary of good design for public and/or private open spacewithin the layout, as well as solar access, privacy distances,and acceptable relationships to the surroundingneighbourhood.

Architect: Richard Priest Architects.

Case Studies 75

no unitsparking


averageunit area

(m2)density 1:

m2/unitdensity 2:

dphdensity 3:

FAR

83 1.90 6,641 109 80 125 1.36

openspace

(public)

openspace


collection

- - - - - -

Best practice in medium density housing design Case Studies 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

No. site and street name no. unitstotal site area

(m†)density 1:m2/unit

density 2:dph

density 3:FAR parking ratio

total floor area(m†)

average unitarea(m†)

site coveragebuilding

footprint (m†) 2 storeys (%) 3 storeys (%)car parks -

outdoorcar parks -

indoor

driveway areaincl. footpath

(m†)

outdoor carparking area

(m†)hard surface

area (m†) citydate of

approvalmarket

indicatorsite layoutclassification

1 Vinograd D r 19 5,742 302 33 0.59 2.20 3,400 179 2,439 100 - 22 19 655 286 941 WCC 1998 4 1

2 Adelphi Villa s 30 8,135 271 37 0.52 2.30 4,248 142 2,770 100 - 13 56 1,360 169 1,516 MCC 2002 4 1

3 Seymour Rd 89 24,600 273 37 0.43 2.08 10,652 118 6,181 100 - 98 77 1,274 WCC 2004 2 1

4 Corban Village 83 20,686 249 40 2.20 8,707 4,443 69 31 99 83 5,501 612 6,113 WCC 2003 3 1

5 Fairhaven 98 24,728 252 40 0.56 2.30 13,783 141 6,163 68 32 130 98 9,233 1,717 10,950 WCC 2001 2 1

6 Romola S t 13 3,140 242 41 0.73 2.10 2,292 176 1,252 69 31 2 26 392 26 418 ACC 2002 5 1

7 Tuscany Tower s 97 23,017 237 42 0.61 2.44* 12,651 130* 6,660 72 28 114 143** n/a - - WCC 1998 3 1

8 Melvie w 22 2,768 227 44 1.00 2.18 2,772 126 1,958 100 - 4 44 52 WCC 1998 3 1

9 Albion Vale 94 20,800 221 45 0.52 2.23 10,850 115 4,881 64 36 116 94 1,508 WCC 2004 3 1

10 Arawa St 19 4,168 219 46 0.51 1.70 2,127 112 1,155 100 - 16 17 1,090 234 1,324 WCC 1996 2 1

11 Oates Rd 25 4,941 198 51 0,55 2.00 2,693 108 1,609 100 - 25 25 325 WCC 2002 3 1

12 Mt Taylor D r 30 5,658 187 53 0.78 2.70 4,433 148 2,086 50 50 26 56 1,394 338 1,732 ACC 2001 5 1

13 St George s Terrac e 45 8,427 187 53 0.62 2.30 5,220 116 2,393 60 40 59 45 2,042 791 2,833 ACC 2000 3 1

14 Gunner Dr 31 5,076 164 61 0.70 1.90 3,536 114 1,790 100 - 27 31 553 351 904 WCC 1999 3 1

15 Rowena Cres 16 6,570 410 24 0.28 2.01 1,856 116 1,072 100 - 17 16 221 ACC 2001 2 2

16 Tuscany Wa y 13 3,539 272 37 0.58 2.00 2,042 157 1,430 100 - 3 23 720 39 759 WCC 1998 4 2

17 Sacramento 1 A 46 13,440 292 34 0.36 2.40 5,198 113 2,599 100 - 63 47 756 ACC 2001 3 3

18 Oatland s 140 64,800 277 37 - - - - 83 17 n/a - - - - (Aus) 2003 4 3

19 Fontenoy Rd 35 8,900 254 39 0.44 1.5 3,955 107 100 0 57 (Aus) 1983 3

20 Carolina Pl 33 6,300 191 52 0.31 1.97 1,936 59 1,452 62 38 33 32 192 NSCC 1999 2 3

21 Bush Rd 105 18,750 178 56 0.33 1.86 6,312 60 3,821 100 - 144 51 1,728 NSCC 1999 2 3

22 Holly S t 80 12,870 161 62 0.55 1.60 7,080 89 4,140 100 - 115 10 3,477 1,495 4,972 ACC 2001 3 3

23 Cottontree 19 3,572 197 63 1.18 (Aus) 1995 3 3

24 Soljak Pl 61 9,350 153 65 0.49 2.00 4,574 75 2,287 100 - 124 - 1,667 1,612 3,279 ACC 2000 3 3

25 Ewenton S t 38 5,669 150 66 0.71 1.5 4,039 107 2,211 100 0 56 (Aus) 1990 3

26 Beaumont Quarte r 70 10,150 145 69 n/a 1.10 n/a n/a 82 18 21 56 ACC 2002 5 3

27 Sacramento 1B 50 6,900 138 72 0.53 1.64 3,675 74 2,418 100 - 30 52 390 MCC 1999 3 3

28 Hillsborough Rd 51 6,175 118 85 0.66 1.00 4,108 79 1,799 72 28 13 38 168 ACC 2001 4 3

29 2 Ambrico Pl 22 2,538 115 87 0.67 2.00 1,690 77 971 100 - 44 0 631 572 1,203 WCC 1997 1 3

30 Mokoia Rd 24 4,358 182 55 0.77 2.95 3,376 141 1,287 - 100 27 48 351 NSCC 2002 3 4

31 Galway S t 16 2,620 163 61 1.05 2.00 2,752 172 1,166 - 100 - 32 641 - ACC 1997 1 4

32 Krisley Cour t 25 3,389 135 74 1.01 1.12 3,352 134 1,139 4 96 3 25 1,619 39 1,619 WCC 1997 1 4

33 Keeling Road 22 2,330 106 94 0.83 1.50 1,934 88 839 18 82 12 22 590 162 778 WCC 2000 1 4

34 Eden 1 83 6,641 80 125 1.36 1.90 9,024 109 3,770 12 88 2 159 2,085 26 2,170 ACC 1997 3 4

Discussion andConclusions

6

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

The case study review indicates thatmedium density housing in New Zealand ishighly varied, wide–ranging in quality, andevolving within a relatively de–regulatedenvironment. This section discusses theissues that emerge from the case studies,and develops a profile for a New Zealandmodel for medium density housing designat different levels of density.

Three clear points from the context andliterature review (Sections 2 and 3) providethe platform for this section:

(i) Medium density housing hasdeveloped in the last decade as acommon housing typology, but is notforeign to the urban culture of NewZealand;

(ii) Planning strategies to consolidateurban growth pre–suppose a higherdensity housing form that, at thisstage, lacks any clear definition orpreferred model; and

(iii) Research and other literature onmedium density housing in NewZealand is limited in scope, quality,and quantity.

In all medium density housing there is anelement of compromise relating to housetype, car access, external private space, thepublic domain, and construction costs. Forthis reason the case study comments andsome of the discussion in this sectionnecessarily focus on areas in which themost significant compromises are identi-fied, thereby constructing a criticaltemplate for the analysis. Most of theexamples included in the study have somemerits in at least one area.

Density and Layout Type

Density has been taken in this study as theprincipal quantifiable ‘indicator of differ-ence’ between housing developments thatare similar in other respects. The sense of

crowding in some of the case studies gener-ates the perception that privacy is reducedor lost altogether, in turn suggesting thatpersonal security and individual identityare also reduced. This leads to a progres-sively higher level of discomfort in theenvironment as a whole, which is associ-ated with ‘density’.

Different developments exhibit these char-acteristics of medium density housing todifferent degrees, sometimes at verysimilar (quantified) densities. Variations inthe type of layout used are considered topartly account for such differences.

Secondary indicators are landscaping,building detail, diversity (apparent oractual) in built form and mix, arrangementsfor refuse collection, exposure of privateopen space to overlooking, and evidence ofcare taken in the maintenance of publicspace.

By classifying all case studies according tothe four principal layout types, compari-sons can be made between developmentswith the same layout type at similar densi-ties, and different layout types at similardensities (where overlaps occur in densitylevels). The layout types are thereforediscussed in order, and as summarised inthe data chart.

Layout Type 1: Case studies 1–14

At the lower end of the density scale twoschemes of similar size and layout type,Seymour Rd (caser study 3) and Fairhaven(case study 5) offer a comparison based ondensity: Seymour Rd uses rear accessparking for part of the layout, while Fair-haven achieves a slightly higher density byuse of the three storey house type. Bothdevices are trade–offs against the standalone house type preferred by most of thehousing market.

A larger and more positive use of the samedevices occurs in the Fontenoy Rd scheme(case study 19; a Type 2 layout), at aboutthe same density, where most units do not


have attached garages. The amenity loss(represented by refuse collected from thesite entrance, remote parking affecting55% of the residents and a relatively lowparking ratio) is balanced by a quiet, highquality internal site environment with veryhigh standards of privacy, and good land-scaping in the public areas.

At the same density, case studies 3 and 5achieve high levels of direct car access, andpublic service refuse collection from about80% of the units, but at the expense of poorpublic space, and low standards of indi-vidual unit privacy. The strong sense ofcrowding in both these developments isentirely absent at Fontenoy Road.

Detached and attached (i.e. paired) housetypes occur at the lower ends of the densityscale; they generally fail to provide work-able layouts at any point in the rangebetween 30dph and 66dph; a not unex-pected conclusion. Romola Street (casestudy 6) demonstrates the limitations, as adevelopment that only succeeds at all byvoluntary restrictions on car size, powersteering, and permanently curtainedwindows. However, this project, and casestudies 1 and 2, suggest that density is amarket choice and not an index of socialstanding.

Short two storey terraces are oftenfavoured by developers. In a block of three(for example, Fairhaven (case study 5),only the centre unit has two inter–tenancywalls, which are expensive to build, andend units are perceived in the private sectormarket to be worth more than middleterrace units.

Three storey house types are used inschemes with densities as low as 40dph forthe amenity value of front access. The mixof two and three storeys helps to producediversity in built form, and identity in thestreet, (Albion Vale, case study 9), a qualityless easily achieved in two storey terracedlayouts. This strategy, however, results inloss of privacy to adjoining two storeyunits, and loss of the active street frontage,

and therefore casual surveillance, withliving rooms and kitchens at first floorlevel. To reduce overlooking some of thehybrid mixed type schemes locate the threestorey type on the boundary (CorbanVillage (case study 4), Fairhaven (casestudy 5), Albion Vale (case study 9)) effec-tively enclosing the development, althoughthe higher buildings on the perimeter maysometimes adversely affect neighbourhoodrelationships.

At the high end of the scale, examples oftwo storey terraced housing include OatesRoad (case study 11; 51dph.) and GunnerDrive (case study 14; 61dph.).

The Gunner Drive project was revisitedtwice to observe different conditions inuse. A large public park adjoins the devel-opment of 31 terraced houses, justifyingthe lack of public space within the site. Thevery high density, approximately 20%more than the next highest figure in thelayout type, is reflected in the high FARfigure (0.7) and partly explained by theparking ratio of 1.9, one of only two exam-ples in this layout type with a ratio of lessthan 2. On street parking adjacent to thesite is used by residents at night and week-ends, but is not included in the datarecorded. Privacy between units isminimal, with overlooking from first floorwindows affecting all houses and particu-larly the three in the centre of the layout;there is much evidence of domestic activityover–flowing to the public side of housesdue to small or shadowed rear gardens.Comments on the internal planning ofhouse types, which also explain the trade–offs involved in achieving the density, havebeen made in the case study notes (p55).

In the Oates Road scheme (case study 11),a small park is important spatially, alongwith street frontages varied in height bysingle storey garages alternating with twostorey houses, in that it relieves the sense ofcrowding, and reduces bulk andperceptions of density. The row of six unitson the north side are over–shadowed by a5m high back wall to adjacent retail


buildings, and face towards garage doorson the internal street. This contributes tothe car–dominated environment thatestablishes the street, not as a communityspace (able to serve unspecified butimplied communal activities) but as theservice conduit between them:relationships of houses are based on tarmacrather than a shared public space, offsetonly by the park area.

The most unusual, and perhaps experi-mental, scheme in the lower range ofdensity is the terraced front access develop-ment at Melview Place (case study 8;44dph) based on a courtyard house type,one of only two examples in the study(Tuscany Way, case study 16, is the other).This design prioritises privacy and security,as well as preferred front access and closeconnections between the car and house; theonly apparent trade–off is in the under–sized access ways on the public side.

Layout Type 2 (Rear Access): Casestudies 15–19

Several examples of hybrid layouts use therear access system to provide parkingwithin the curtilage, including SeymourRoad (case study 3), Sacramento 1A (casestudy 17), Oatlands (case study18), OatesRoad (case study 11), and Corban Village(case study 4), in each case to locallyincrease density and resolve site planningproblems caused by the preferred frontaccess type.

Only two examples are planned to exploitthe full advantages of the rear access type,Rowena Crescent (case study 15), andTuscany Way (case study 16). Rear accessalters the relationship of the car and garageto the house, placing the working entranceon the ‘back’, and removing the vehicularaccess from the front, thus relieving thestreet of traffic crossings for each house.The layout type is strongly endorsed byNew Urbanist planners, and many others,and attracts equal criticism from somemedium density housing advocates.

The principal contemporary merit in theNew Zealand context is that the garage canfunction independently of the house andthe public street for domestic or otherpurposes, including home business. Anexample is provided by the Oatlands devel-opment, where the ‘mews’ rear accessprivate roadway is lined with garage doors,relieved, as an urban space, by studio unitsbuilt above double garages (see text, p59).The additional studio unit that is sold withthe house provides passive surveillance ofthe mews, and offers a live–work option, orseparately lettable accommodation. (Theseventeen studios in this scheme are notrecorded as separate household units in thedensity figure of 37dph).

The 32 units in two groups at the Edgeleadevelopment are accessed from three sepa-rate lanes linking garage courts to thepublic street network. The rear accesssystem is developed to the most sophisti-cated standard seen in the case studiesreviewed. Reasons for the relative absenceof this type in medium density develop-ments in New Zealand include:

i) density over about 40dph is difficultto achieve because of the site spacerequired for the rear lane;

ii) the cost of construction andmaintenance of the rear lane;

iii) the house type, which is expensive tobuild because of the necessarily highexternal wall to floor ratio and


Tuscany Way (case study 16) in theEdgelea block context.

additional internal space required fordual entry planning;

iv) the non–traditional ground floor inwhich the back door serves as theprincipal entrance from the garage;and

v) the unresolved dilemma of locatingthe kitchen and laundry. Examplesinclude all possible variations ofkitchen location, the preferencegenerally being for a location on thegarage side of the house for directaccess to refuse disposal and use ofthe private rear garden for washing.

Where the formal front elevation faces ontoa pedestrian–oriented public space as atOatlands, the front door, which tends to beredundant in layouts without access to apublic space, (for instance, Corban Village(case study 4) and Oates Road (case study11)) can come into more frequent use.Short walking distances, and pedestrianroutes to shops, schools and other services,also help to justify the arrangement. Theadvantages are in the formal relationship ofthe house to the wider community, theurban qualities achievable, and the flexi-bility of the house type.

Three schemes reviewed, (case studies 17,18 and 19) all at densities of less than40dph, are hybrid layouts mixing front andrear access with integral and remoteparking.


Parking and car storage detached from thecurtilage is regarded by developers andhouseholders as a less convenient and lesssecure arrangement. It is apparent from thisstudy that such sacrifices are justified bythe developer as a trade–off against thehigher density achieved, and is acceptableto some purchasers in terms of value andthe quality of the housing environmentoffered.

From the data chart it is apparent that theType 3 (dedicated remote parking) layouts

range in density from 52dph to 87dph (2Ambrico Place, case study 29). Type 1layouts are displaced at a density of about50dph, with the exception of Gunner Drive(case study 14; 61dph), which is an unsatis-factory housing environment in numerousrespects.

The characteristics of Type 3 layouts arerelatively low Floor Area Ratios, lowerparking ratios, and significantly smalleraverage unit sizes. With Type 3 layouts it iscommon to find moderately large projectswith little or no variation of house type, forexample, Soljak Place (case study 24) andHolly Street (case study 22).

The layout type is therefore considered tobe an option that suits higher density devel-opment in the private sector, where lowermarket expectations are established bylocation, and where little variation isintended, and where the urban potential ofthe typology is not a priority.


The three storey house type, and its effecton site planning, has been discussed in thecontext of its role in predominantly twostorey front access layouts, as a device toincrease density, and variation in builtform. The five examples included here area small representative selection from alarge number of similar developments inthe Auckland area.

From densities listed in the data chart it isclear that this house type relates to highdensity rather than medium densityhousing. The internal limitations of thetype have been considered in Section 3 andcommented on in case study notes, particu-larly when the type has been used toincrease density. In all such examples theposition of first floor living spaces imposesoverlooking and reduced privacy on adja-cent two storey units. The ground levelenvironment is invariably car–oriented,unless the layout and density objectivesallow enough space for separate pedestrianmovement, as at Mokoia Road (case study


30); at this density (55dph) however, otherlayout and house types are also options.

On sloping sites the construction ofretaining walls for garaging, as at MokoiaRoad and Galway Street (case study 31),introduces the principle of underground, orpart underground parking. At the highestdensity in the schemes reviewed, (Eden 1,case study 34; 125dph), also on a slopingsite, access and garaging are in effectentirely underground, but not enclosed.

Type 4 layouts are not considered useful insite planning for affordable housing atdensities of less than 66dph. It is alsoapparent from the examples of this layouttype reviewed that establishing any signifi-cant public open space—the prerequisitefor the development of a community—isnot achievable at any level of density.

Summary

The most successful developments withType 1 layouts are all at densities of lessthan 46dph. The terraced housing form inNew Zealand is an acceptable house type inthis density range, but works most effec-tively in shorter terrace lengths of 6–8units, beyond which the tradition (in NewZealand) of greater individual identity isdifficult to retain. The long straight blocksat Tuscany Towers (case study 7) andSacramento (case study 17) reflect Euro-pean and British design rather than thedeveloping local custom. The shorter rowsat St Georges Terrace (case study 13), orArawa St (case study 10), and elevationsvaried in detail are examples of this recom-mended local practice.

Small, secure garage courts are justified atall densities, and particularly above 45dph,in two storey layouts where density beginsto require remote parking if good residen-tial standards are to be retained. This maysuggest rear access for some units.Progressive undergrounding of parking is aconsideration at densities over 55dph, andfor the most satisfactory environments, arequirement at densities over 60dph, unless

house types include duplex or verticallyarranged units, in a multi–storey develop-ment with low parking ratios.

Vehicle Planning and Parking

The distinction between ‘building–domi-nant’ and ‘landscape–dominant’ designmade originally by the Essex Design Guide(Stones, 1997) needs to be revisited in thecontext of New Zealand and Australianmedium density housing to include a thirdcategory, that of a ‘car–dominated’ envi-ronment. By observations from casestudies, planning for the manoeuvring andstorage of, and access to the car, and thedomestic value of the garage as an exten-sion of routine household activity areconsidered to be central to the analysis ofthe typology.

Many aspects of this issue have been dealtwith in previous sections and the case studycommentaries. Further points, of generalvalue, are made as follows:

i) Underground garaging: cars inunderground parking spaces relievethe ground level environment of thepresence of the car, and cantransform the quality of theresidential environment. Casestudies 25, 26, 28 and 30 illustratethis; all have achieved goodstandards of public space and privacyat densities between 55dph and85dph. Progressive under–groundingas density increases is shown, bythese developments, to be necessary,from approximately 60dph in twostorey housing.

ii) The Dutch ‘Woonerven’ integratedtraffic and pedestrian design systemmay have some application in twostorey housing where a Type 2 layoutis used. There is a moderately highmaintenance penalty to consider withthis design. The nearest examplesfound in this study (to the modeldeveloped in Holland) are Fontenoy


Road (case study 19), andHillsborough Road (case study 28).

iii) Four wheel drive vehicles are inevidence on many sites investigated.These vehicles, which cannot usuallybe accommodated in standard heightgarages, tend to be parked outsidehouses, where they block views, anddominate by bulky ‘presence’, andby noise. Four wheel drive vehiclesnow represent 8% of private cars inNew Zealand (198,000 in total), areincreasing in popularity, and presenta particular problem in mediumdensity housing design. Similarremarks apply to ‘people–mover’vehicles based on one–tonne vans(Toyota Hiace, etc.), and the vansthemselves, owned and used forcommercial purposes.

Mixed Development and Internal Design

A broad preference for a developmentmonoculture is evidenced by a largemajority of the schemes reviewed in theprivate sector: there is an apparent reluc-tance to experiment with mixing of house-hold sizes or types. In developments wherea mix of types has applied, there is atendency to restrict the range to adjacentsocio–economic groups, with no more thanone or two steps between groups. Of theminority in the mixed category, Sacra-mento (case studies 17 and 27), andTuscany Towers (case study 7) are typicalof schemes offering housing to a narrowsocial range. In smaller schemes the mono-culture of a single house type is morepronounced (Soljak Place (case study 24),2 Ambrico Place (case study 29), RowenaCrescent (case study 15), etc.). Repetitionof house types, creating monotonous envi-ronments in some of these schemes, helpsto build the sense of crowdedness that char-acterises the typology in the public mind.This perception occurs at all density levels,for instance Adelphi Villas (case study 2:33dph) and 2 Ambrico Place (case study29; 87dph), but is diverted by the constant

variation of building style at CorbanVillage (case study 4), the Harbour Viewdevelopment (case studies 1, 14 and 16),and others.

Some of the schemes that embrace diver-sity of household type, and variations inexternal design, also, perhaps predictably,generate a lively, vibrant community,visible even from relatively brief site visits.

Comments on internal details are limited toa small number of examples where accesswas available, and cannot be regarded ascomprehensive in this study. Commentsnoted in the case studies are summarised asfollows:

i) garages and ground floor toiletsshould not be accessed from livingrooms or kitchens;

ii) internal routes for laundry and refuseneed to be planned to avoid passingthrough living rooms;

iii) kitchens should be ventilated andable to receive natural light bylocation on external walls;

iv) ground floor toilets in two–bedroomed four person units aredesirable;

v) rear garden access should includeexternal pathways whereverpossible;

vi) more use should be made of firstfloor single aspect house types tocontrol overlooking;

vii) single aspect two storey house typesbased on courtyard front access plansshould be considered;

viii) the actual higher building cost ofmedium density housing needs to berecognised, particularly wheredensity exceeds 45dph.

In addition, the regular appearance of smallextra spaces within a house plan for‘study/office/sitting’ uses, including powerpoints, telephone connections andtelevision aerials often in quiet corners orfirst floor landing areas, is noted as a


reflection of changing domesticrequirements.

In several developments, semi–commer-cial activities were observed during visits.These generally consist of garages in use asworkshops with doors open for light andair, and in one case several people workingat sewing machines on tables and benchesset up for out–work or ‘work from home’business operations. Sub–letting of roomsor garages is another common form of use,reflecting demographic change and newpatterns of work in New Zealand’s urbancentres. Activities of this type are invisiblein the suburbs, but are often conspicuous inmedium density housing.

Further Research

This study has been restricted to the densityband between 30 and 66dph, in which thestandard form of construction is two andthree storey housing using timber frames asthe primary structure. Medium densityhousing in other countries is now movingtowards multi–storey development atdensities up to 120dph. In the context ofthese two observations, the report has iden-tified several areas that need further study:

i) Research is needed to relate costsof construction to density to determinesteps in the density scale that are critical inthe process of medium density affordablehousing design.

ii) Increasing density will requireconsideration of underground garaging at

the upper end of the present scale: researchis needed to examine the costs and benefitsof this option.

iii) Technical aspects of sustainabledesign, particularly energy consumption,but also water services, in medium densitydevelopments, needs further research toestablish criteria for cost–effective insula-tion methods, orientation, and constructionmaterials.

iv) Retained capital value is consid-ered to be a vital indicator in sustainablemedium density housing; a long–termstudy that tracks re–sale prices relative tolocal property values is needed to establishsimilarities and differences.

v) Public acceptance of the typologyis known to be linked to the widespread‘leaky homes’ problem, originating fromthe housing construction industry gener-ally. A study to identify this issue in thecontext of medium density housing wouldaim to recommend design practices toovercome the effects of association withthis problem.

vi) A more detailed study of internaldesign of components and fittings isneeded to identify durable specifications inthe context of medium density housing.Access to as–built plans and constructiondetails would be necessary for such a studyto be effective.


References

Auckland City Council (1958). City ofAuckland District Scheme: Code ofOrdinances and Scheme Statement(Recommended for Approval),Auckland: Auckland City Council.

Auckland City Council (1968). City ofAuckland District Scheme: SchemeStatement (Recommended forApproval), Auckland: Auckland CityCouncil.

Auckland City Council (1976). Housing: AChallenge for Council, Auckland:Auckland City Council.

Auckland City Council (1977). City ofAuckland District Scheme: SchemeStatement (Public Notification),Auckland: Auckland City Council.

Auckland City Council (1999). GrowingOur City through Liveable Commu-nities 2050, Auckland: AucklandCity Council.

Auckland City Council (1999). The UrbanDesign Code for Liveable Communi-ties 2050, Auckland: Auckland CityCouncil.

Auckland City Council (1999). The Live-able Communities 2050 StrategyDraft, Auckland: Auckland CityCouncil.

Auckland City Council (2001). The Resi-dential Design Guide for Develop-ments in Residential Zones inStrategic Growth ManagementAreas, Auckland: Auckland CityCouncil.

Auckland City Council (2003). AucklandCity District Plan: Plan Change 58,Auckland: Auckland City Council.

Auckland Metropolitan Planning Organi-sation (1951). Outline DevelopmentPlan for Auckland, Auckland:Auckland Metropolitan PlanningOrganisation.

Auckland Regional Authority (1967).Regional Master Plan: Housing(Preliminary Report), Auckland:Auckland Regional Authority.

Auckland Regional Authority (1975).Auckland: Population, Employmentand Land Use Patterns, Auckland:Auckland Regional Authority.

Auckland Regional Authority (1987).Residential Consolidation Study,Auckland: Auckland RegionalAuthority.

Auckland Regional Authority and Mt.Albert Borough Council (1976).Housing Density Study, Auckland:Auckland Regional Authority.

Auckland Regional Council (2000a).Building a Better Future: Intensifica-tion Review—Summary of ResearchFindings, Auckland: AucklandRegional Council.

Auckland Regional Council (2000b).Building a Better Future: Intensifica-tion Review—Community Percep-tions & Attitudes, by ResearchSolutions. Auckland: AucklandRegional Council.

Auckland Regional Council (2000c).Building a Better Future Intensifica-tion Review—Urban Design Review,by Boffa Miskell. Auckland:Auckland Regional Council.

Auckland Regional Council (2000d).Building a Better Future: Intensifica-tion Review—Review of Literature onHousing Preferences and Choices,by Synchro Consulting & P.R.I.S.M.Auckland: Auckland RegionalCouncil.

Auckland Regional Council (2000e).Urban Area Intensification:Regional Practice and ResourceGuide, Auckland: AucklandRegional Council.


Australian Model Code for ResidentialDevelopment (1992a). AmcordUrban: Guidelines for UrbanHousing Vol 1, Canberra: Common-wealth Department of Housing andRegional Development.

Australian Model Code for ResidentialDevelopment (1992b). AmcordUrban: Guidelines for UrbanHousing Vol 2, Canberra: Common-wealth Department of Housing andRegional Development.

Australian Model Code for ResidentialDevelopment (1992c). AmcordUrban: Guidelines for UrbanHousing Vol 3, Canberra: Common-wealth Department of Housing andRegional Development.

Carmona, M. (2001). Housing DesignQuality through Policy, Guidanceand Review. London: Spon Press.

Centre for Housing Research AotearoaNew Zealand (2003). Review ofStatistical Housing Data, by J.Leung–Wai & Dr G. Nana.Wellington: Centre for HousingResearch Aotearoa New Zealand.

Christiansen, W. K. S., Ed. (1991).Mahoney’s Urban Land Economics.Wellington: New Zealand Institute ofValuers.

Colquhoun, I. (1999). RIBA Book of 20thCentury British Housing. Oxford:Butterworth–Heinemann.

Colquhoun, I. and Fauset, P. G. (1991).Housing Design in Practice. Harlow:Longman Scientific and Technical.

Commission for Architecture and the BuiltEnvironment (2003). The Value ofHousing Design and Layout,London: Commission for Architec-ture and the Built Environment.

Commission for Architecture and the BuiltEnvironment (2004). Design

Reviewed: Urban Housing, London:Commission for Architecture and theBuilt Environment.

Commonwealth Information Services(1989). Australian Model Code forResidential Development. Canberra:Australian Government PublishingService.

Darroch, R. (1983). “Concepts of Privacy”.In B. Judd and J. Dean (eds) MediumDensity Housing in Australia. RAIAEducation Division: Canberra.pp81–83.

Dixon, J. & Dupuis, A. (2003) UrbanIntensification in Auckland NewZealand: A Challenge for NewUrbanism, Housing Studies Vol 18No.3; pp 361-376.

Droege, P. (1999). The Design Dividend.Sydney: Property Council ofAustralia.

English Partnerships and The HousingCorporation (2000). The UrbanDesign Compendium. London:English Partnerships.

Fader, S. (2000). Density by Design: NewDirections in Residential Develop-ment. Washington D.C.: Urban LandInstitute.

Forsyth, A. (2003). Measuring Density:Working Definitions for ResidentialDensity and Building Intensity.Minneapolis, MA: MetropolitanDesign Centre, University ofMinnesota.

Garreau, J. (1991). Edge City: Life on theNew Frontier. New York: Doubleday.

Hoque, A (2001) Urban Design Interven-tion for Intensive Housing, PlanningQuarterly 141, June 2001 pp 19-22.

Housing New Zealand Corporation(2002a). Ki Te Hau Kainga: NewPerspectives on Maori Housing Solu-tions, by R. Hoskins, R. Te Nana, P.

References 89

Rhodes, P. Guy, C. Sage. Wellington:Housing New Zealand Corporation.

Housing New Zealand Corporation(2002b). Pacific Housing DesignGuide: Guidelines for DesigningPacific Housing Solutions,Wellington: Housing New ZealandCorporation.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life ofGreat American Cities. New York:Modern Library.

Jain, U. (2001). “Effects of PopulationDensity and Resources on theFeeling of Crowding and PersonalSpace”. Journal of SocialPsychology (127(3)), pp331–338.

Johnston, R. J. (1973). Urbanisation inNew Zealand. Wellington: Reed.

Judd, B. (1993). Designed for UrbanLiving: Recent Medium DensityGroup Housing in Australia.Canberra: The Royal AustralianInstitute of Architects.

Judd, B. and Dean, J., Eds. (1983). MediumDensity Housing in Australia.Canberra: RAIA Education Division.

King, S., Rudder, D., Prasad, D. andBallinger, J. (1996). Site Planning inAustralia. Sydney: AustralianGovernment Publishing Service.

Kohler, A. (2004). “Land of Confusion”.Progressive Building,February/March 2004, pp24–25.

Krieger, A., Ed. (1991). Andres Duany andElizabeth Plater Zyberk: Towns andTown Making Principles. New York:Rizzoli.

Kunstler, J. H. (1994). The Geography ofNowhere; the Rise & Decline ofAmerica’s Man–Made Landscape.New York: Touchston, Simon &Schuster.

Kunstler, J. H. (1998). Home fromNowhere. New York: Touchstone(Simon & Schuster).

Leccese, M. and McCormick, K., Eds.(2000). The Charter of the NewUrbanism. New York: McGraw–Hill.

Marcus, C. C. and Sarkissian, W. (1983).The Medium–Density Housing Kit.Milsons Point, N.S.W.: SocialImpacts Publications.

Marcus, C. C. and Sarkissian, W. (1986).Housing as If People Mattered.Berkeley & Los Angeles, CA:University of California Press.

Mt. Eden Borough Council (1980). ThirdReview of the District Scheme: Back-ground Report on Residential Zoningin Mt. Eden, Auckland: Mt. EdenBorough Council.

Mumford, L. (1938). The Culture of Cities.London: Marin Secker & WarburgLtd.

Muthesius, S. (1982). The EnglishTerraced House. New Haven: YaleUniversity Press.

New South Wales Urban Design AdvisoryService (1998). Better Urban Living,Guidelines for Urban Housing inNSW, Sydney: Department of UrbanAffairs and Planning.

New South Wales Urban Design AdvisoryService (1998). Residential Densi-ties, Sydney: New South WalesDepartment of Urban Affairs andPlanning.

New South Wales Urban Design AdvisoryService (2001). The Residential FlatDesign Pattern Book, Sydney: NewSouth Wales Department of UrbanAffairs and Planning.

New South Wales Urban Design AdvisoryService (2002). Residential FlatDesign Code, Sydney: New South


Wales Department of Urban Affairsand Planning.

North Shore City Council (2001). GoodSolutions Guide for Intensive Resi-dential Developments, North ShoreCity: North Shore City Council.

Perkins, H. and Thorns, D. (1999). “Houseand Home and Their Interaction withChanges in New Zealand’s UrbanSystem, Households and FamilyStructures”. Housing, Theory andSociety 16 pp124–135.

Plunz, R. and Sheridan, M. (1999). “Dead-lock Plus 50; on Public Housing inNew York”. Harvard Design Maga-zine, Summer 1999.

Radford, A. and Sarris, T. (2003). “Trendsand Strategies in the Design ofMedium Density Urban Housing”.

Radford, A. and Sarris, T. (2003). Afford-able Medium Density Housing Solu-tions for Adelaide, Adelaide:Australian Housing and UrbanResearch Institute, SouthernResearch Centre.

Rapoport, A. (1975). “Towards a Redefini-tion of Density”. Environment andBehaviour 7(2), pp7–32.

Rapoport, A. (1985). “Designing for Diver-sity”. In D. Brown, B. Judd, and J.Dean, (eds) Design for Diversifica-tion. RAIA, Education Division:Canberra; Portland, OR. pp30–42.

Regional Growth Forum (2003). AucklandRegional Affordable HousingStrategy, Auckland: AucklandRegional Council.

Stones, A., Ed. (1997). Essex Design Guidefor Residential and Mixed Use Areas.Chelmsford: Essex County Council;see also editions of this Guide fromthe original publication dated 1973.

Tetlow, J. and Goss, A. (1965). Homes,Towns and Traffic. London: Faberand Faber.

Vallance, S., Perkins, H. and Moore, K.(2003). The Effects of Infill Housingon Neighbours in Christchurch,Christchurch: Lincoln University.

Victoria Department of Planning andHousing (1992). Victorian Code forResidential Development—Multi–Dwellings, Melbourne: VictorianDepartment of Planning andHousing.

Victorian Department of Planning andUrban Growth (1990). MediumDensity Housing 1990, by TractConsultants, Swinburne Centre forUrban and Social Research andSarkissian Associates. Melbourne:Victorian Department of Planning &Urban Growth.

Yates, J. (2003). A Distributional Analysisof the Impact of Indirect HousingAssistance, Sydney: AustralianHousing and Urban ResearchInstitute.

References 91

General Media References

Barton, C. (2004). “Escape from theGhetto”. New Zealand Herald.Auckland.

Berry, R. (2004). “Govt Calls for Councilsto Introduce Low–Cost Zones”. NewZealand Herald. Auckland.

Beston, A. (2003). “Snapshot of Life in theBig City”. New Zealand Herald.Auckland.

Chapman–Smith (1993). “The Future Styleof Infill Housing”. Architecture NZ,May–June 1993, pp77–78.

Chapple, I. (2001). “Developers Have CafeSet Firmly in Their Sights”. NewZealand Herald. Auckland.

Cumming, G. (2003). “The Big Squeeze”.New Zealand Herald. Auckland. 01–02/11/2003.

Dey, B. (2003). “Security Issues: The Riseof the Gated Community”. Metro(NZ). Auckland.

du Chateau, C. (2001). “Little Boxes”. NewZealand Herald. Auckland.

Editorial (2003). “Act Now to Halt UrbanFree–for–All”. New Zealand Herald.Auckland.

Editorial (2003). “Our View”. NewZealand Herald. Auckland.

English, P. (1998). “Living in UrbanDenial”. New Zealand Herald.Auckland.

Gaynor, B. (2003). “Aggressive BanksDrive Housing Boom”. New ZealandHerald. Auckland.

Gibson, A. (2003). “$1m to Fix Unit Leaksat Albany”. New Zealand Herald,Auckland.

Gibson, A. (2003). “Tiny City ApartmentShockers: Developer”. New ZealandHerald. Auckland.

Gibson, A. (2003). “Dream of an UrbanParadise”. New Zealand Herald.Auckland.

Gibson, A. (2004). “Housing Market underScrutiny”. New Zealand Herald.Auckland.

Gibson, A. (2004). “End of the QuarterAcre Paradise”. New ZealandHerald. Auckland.

Gibson, A. (2004). “Auckland’s GrowingPains”. New Zealand Herald.Auckland.

Hawley, J. (2003). “Humungous”. GoodWeekend. Sydney.

Jacques, R. (1999). “Co–Housing—theNew Suburbia?” Build. Wellington.

Johnston, A. (2003). “Setting up YourBody Corporate”. Build, April/May2003, pp60–61.

Kohler, A. (2004). “Land of Confusion”.Progressive Building,February/March 2004, pp24–25.

Ledbury, M. (2003). “Reviving Our UrbanCentres”. NZ Environment, 39, pp6–8.

McLeister, D. (1999). “Consumers FavourGrowth, Oppose Density”. Profes-sional Builder, July 1999, p42.

McShane, O. (2003). “Pollution, Conges-tion Will Leave City Empty”. NewZealand Herald. Auckland.

Orsman, B. (2001). “High Density Bendsthe Rules”. New Zealand Herald.Auckland.

Reid, G. and Watkin, T. (2003). “BlankFaces a Blot ...” New ZealandHerald. Auckland.

Rudman, B. (2003). “Quick Look at What$1.74m Buys”. New Zealand Herald.Auckland.


Turner, D. (2001). “Better Design, Layout,Vital for High–Density Housing”.New Zealand Herald. Auckland.

Turner, D. (2003). “In Defence ofDensity”. Property Business (28),pp28–30.

Ward, P. (2000). “Save Our Suburbs”. TheAustralian. Melbourne.

References 93

Appendix ALocal Authority

IntensiveHousing Policies

in MetropolitanAuckland

NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL

District Plan & Plan Change 1

Plan Change 1 updates policies dealingwith intensive housing. The location ofmedium density housing is required to bewithin easy walking distance of shopsincluding proposed shops, (defined asoffering a “wide range of goods andservices”); public transport (defined asfour or more trips/hour at peak periods);and public open space for recreation. Easywalking distance includes some recogni-tion of topography, while public openspaces may vary in character and not allreserves provide all recreational opportuni-ties. It is noted that existing retail benefitsfrom greater density of population.

Roads serving new medium densityhousing must provide the opportunity for“significant” visitor parking, communityservices, and essential public infrastruc-ture, including refuse collection. There are,in addition, a series of urban design objec-tives listed in the Plan Change, item 1.1.3.Amongst these, and continued in paragraph1.1.4, is the stipulation that mediumdensity housing sites should enable “allresidential units to face or relate closely topublic streets”, and be capable of formingrelationships with “nearby properties andpublic areas.” This requirement is toprevent spatial separation of new neigh-bourhoods, even if built at higher densities,from existing ones; to “facilitate the inte-gration of the development.”

Plan Change 1 observes that:

“Quite significant adverse effects,both immediate and cumulative, canarise, and accordingly intensive resi-dential development warrants adistinct objective and associatedpolicies.”

Plan Change 1 defines “intensive housing”as terraced housing and other forms ofmulti–unit development generallyinvolving more than five units on a site.

Generally it is two–storeyed, though threestoreys are also possible. Densities will notexceed one unit per 150m2 of land area.

Intensive housing developments must beon sites that are capable of providing thedesired environmental outcomes, bearingin mind their shape, size and location rela-tive to other public facilities. Because lessopen space is usually a concomitant ofintensive housing, the design detail is ofgreater significance, as well as the shapeand size of the site proposed fordevelopment.

Section 2 of Plan Change 1 deals withimproving subdivision processes.

Referring to Area ‘D’ applications, (for‘varied residential and mixed use overlayareas’) Plan Change 1 requires a ConceptPlan that addresses all aspects of macroplanning of roads, parking, and public openspace in relation to new housing proposals.On–street parking must be provided at therate of 0.5 per unit proposed, and by thearrangement of indented bays that do noteffectively widen the street when not inuse. The following section (includingamended Table 17A.1) provides for varia-tions to previous District Plan(s) to revisecategories for sizes of unit lots and recog-nising smaller areas. This results in a revi-sion to Table 17A.3 which now stipulates“Density” defined as minimum net sitearea per residential unit of 1 unit per 250m2

in Area D, and 1 unit per 250m2 in theprevious category of mixed use overlayarea, in place of nil. The definition ofdensity is determined as “the net site areaof the site being developed divided by thenumber of units proposed.”

Further amendments allow for redistribu-tion of public and private open space, topermit communal space in lieu of, but notwholly in place of, private open space: thisallows for and encourages the developmentof medium density housing with commu-nally owned, and useful, park areas sepa-rate from traffic spaces. A minimum areaof 200m2 is accepted, at a minimum rate per


dwelling of 25m2; design and managementof the public space is to be approved in theprocess of consent.

Regarding vehicle access, Plan Change 1replaces previous regulations with a rulethat not more than five units will bepermitted access from a single privatedriveway, defining at the same time (4.2:rule 17A.5.1.10(d)) requirements forpedestrian access, street frontages (at leasttwo habitable rooms facing directly ontothe street), and reinforcing urban designintentions inherent in the intensive housingdevelopment process.

Thus, in explanation,

“...units fronting the street contributeto the liveability of the principalpublic space in a residential area.They foster a sense of ownership ofthe street, and where doors andwindows face or front the street, resi-dents can observe and overlook thestreet, thereby enhancing thepersonal security of people in thestreet.”

Additional criteria for assessing all inten-sive housing development include thefollowing:

� Streetscape and neighbourhoodcharacter and amenity� Building form� Outlook and outdoor spaces� Privacy� Landform, vegetation and

landscaping� Traffic, parking, access and

pedestrian amenity

Each of these headings is explained ingreater detail. Together they demonstrateNorth Shore City Council’s determinationto bring high standards to the environmentof future medium density housing or inten-sive housing proposals.

Testing some of the individual develop-ments studied in the case study section ofthis Report, it can be stated that few of theschemes built in the period between 1995

and 1999 would meet the criteria nowestablished in this Plan Change 1document.

Privacy, in particular, is relevant to anystudy of medium density housing design.Other authorities, and commentators,measure privacy by fixed minimumdistance, as well as by other means. NorthShore City Council define acceptable stan-dards of privacy in general terms, referringonly to “acceptable” levels, as in

“...private outdoor spaces should belocated, designed and screened tomaximise privacy for unitoccupants.”

All designers will acknowledge the valueof this intention, and the difficulty ofachieving a good standard in these termswhen the most common block form is aterraced plan of connected units, of what-ever height, and at whatever density.

North Shore City Council also notes thesignificance of refuse and recycling collec-tion systems, and requires a “well inte-grated” provision, which is readilyaccessible by service vehicles, and whichwill not “detract visually or generate healthrisks in the area.”

MANUKAU CITY COUNCIL

Operative District Plan 2002: Chapter13: Residential Areas

Six issues relating to Manukau City Coun-cil’s residential areas have been identifiedfor further discussion, including:

Issue 13.2.2:

“Intensified residential developmentcan enhance the efficient use of theCity’s infrastructure … and createenergy savings, but it also has thepotential to cause adverse effects onresidential amenity values.”

Discussion advises that it is difficult todetermine the cumulative effect of


intensification on residential amenity.Referring to the Victorian Code for Multi–dwellings (Nov. 1993), the discussionconcludes that reasonable levels of amenitycan be provided by appropriate designinput: design quality is the critical factor.

Intensification also alters the existing char-acter of an area, and is widely resisted byexisting communities.

Issue 13.2.6

This relates to the (current) lack of diver-sity in residential environments, whichlimits different lifestyle options for currentand future generations. Manukau CityCouncil’s population is becoming increas-ingly diverse. The present patterns of tradi-tional subdivision, albeit at slightly higherdensities, may be market lead, but may alsobe encouraged by current developmentstandards and policies. These policiesappear to limit choice in housing, as well aslimiting choices for a culturally andsocially diversified population, and choicesin terms of transport options other than theprivate car.

In outlining the Residential Strategy, thedocument quotes from studies referred toin the AMCORD Urban 1 1992 in which:

“...no single form can achieve allenvironmental, social justice,economic and lifestylerequirements...”

and that

“...the most acceptable approachseems to be selectively making citiesmore compact, to increase housingvariety (and) access.” (p13).

In a strategy to moderate the impact ofhigher density housing on existing lowdensity suburbs, Manukau City Counciluses a “special policy zone” applied to verysmall pockets of land around the BotanyCentre (only), requiring net site areas of400m2. A special design code applies tothese areas.

Density rules are also used in the MainResidential Zone (MR) so that “residentshave certainty about the potential of devel-opment on any adjoining site.”

In higher density areas, the Councilreserves rights over the following:

(a) Neighbourhood design, streetlayout, street frontages, vehicle access,public open space, and parking and land-scaping provision.

(b) Site design including front yards,front doors, back yards, balconies, buildingenvelope and frontages, landscape &vehicular access.

(c) Servicing.

In all these developments the Council willhave regard to all elements of the intensivehousing code (App. 1)(p51).

Appendix 1 covers two sections, A and B,dealing with Neighbourhood Design, andSite Design respectively (as listed above,and p80–102). The Design Code outlines acomprehensive set of urban design princi-ples including street design, street front-ages, development interfaces (withexisting: height to boundary regulations),and general rules for traffic managementwithin larger sites. Typically, Public OpenSpace is described as needing to protectsignificant landscape features, to protectprivacy of dwellings, and to be designed toensure a high degree of public surveillanceof the space proposed (p90). Public OpenSpace should therefore be adjacent topublic streets (rather than tucked behindhousing), and should avoid back yardsadjacent to it. In the same vein, publicparking is endorsed on secondary streets,and in positions where security is providedby overlooking.

Streets must not be dominated by parkingor by garage doors, “to conserve andenhance neighbourhood landscape visualamenity values.” (p92). Privacy is deter-mined by sections B3 and B4, where detailssuch as fences and balconies are recom-mended, and privacy distances between


buildings are proposed: 12m betweenfacing frontages, and 20m between backsof dwellings set around a 10m radius circledetermining acceptable relationships.Where two separate dwellings meet at acorner and at an angle of 135 deg. or less, a4m distance is required between windows.Side yards are reduced to nil metres in thiscode.

Section B7 deals with car parking,including dimensions for shared drivewaysfor horizontal and vertical standards ofamenity.

AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL

District Plan operative 1999

The Plan acknowledges that there are fewsites left in the city for traditional subdivi-sion, and therefore addresses the need forresidential growth in terms of infrastruc-ture limitation, and the concerns of thecommunity to preserve and enhance theexisting character of residential areas.(pA4).

Residential zones 1–5 are either specialcharacter or low density areas, althoughsome higher density development may bepermitted in Zone 5. Zones 6–8 aremedium and high density areas. Zone 6(b)provides for sites down to 300m2 per resi-dential unit, with 2 height limits applied todiffering contexts.

Residential 7 is called “High Intensity”, thepolicy providing for

“minimal development controls …while affording appropriate protec-tion on the interface with lowerintensity .. zones.”

Two height limits, of 10m and 12.5mpresuppose 3 and 4 storey developments,respectively, in order to “facilitate moreintensive development in areas near majorpublic transport routes, … commercialcentres, ” (etc.).

Residential 8 zone, introduced in 2003, isapplicable to Strategic Growth Manage-ment Areas (SGMA’s). (pA17). This zoneapplies to sites of 1 ha. or more, and antici-pates 2 and 3 storey buildings in the 8(a)areas, and 3–4 storeys in the 8(b) areaswhich will generally be within five minuteswalking distance of a town centre or majortransport centre. Development controls arelimited to overshadowing, overlooking,visual domination and loss of privacy. TheResidential Design Guide applies to thiszone in order to achieve quality medium tohigh density development.

Density limitations included in zone 8(a)and (b) propose a minimum of 150m2 ofgross site area per unit (8a) and 100m2 inzone 8(b); in all areas a minimum of 40m2

of floor space is required per unit. (pB25).This lower limit is supported by regulationsdealing with Maximum BuildingCoverage, para. 7.8.1.4 (pC8); allowing55% coverage for sites up to 200m2, and asliding scale reducing to 35% for sitesbetween 200– 499m2. Further controls areexercised through the Maximum Heightregulations, para 7.8.2.2 (pC13), asoutlined above.

Visual privacy is ensured at a minimal levelof operational usefulness by off set dimen-sions for windows facing each other lessthan 6m apart by 1m vertical or horizontalre–alignment, or other devices includingcill heights and glazing options. Acousticprivacy is addressed in similarly minimalregulations, including external trafficnoise. (pC18–19). Parking standards aresimilar to those elsewhere in the Aucklandregion, allowing 1 space per unit up to75m2, and 2 spaces + 0.2 visitor spaces perunit for all larger dwellings. Up to 100mdistance is permitted for visitor spaces.

Innovative housing development is antici-pated on large sites, and in combinationwith mixed uses including housing otherthan standard use types (elderly personshousing, etc). (7.7.4., pB11).


Interpretations and Definitions explainsFloor Area Ratio (FAR), as the gross floorarea of building proposed, divided by thesite area defined as exclusive of adjoiningroads (that is, area to site boundary ratherthan the net residential calculation used byAMCORD), and Gross Floor Area details.

WAITAKERE CITY COUNCIL

The principal documents relating to theWaitakere City Council’s policy onMedium Density Housing are:

1) WCC medium density housing criteria:an 18 page sub–section of the District Plansetting out criteria designed to ensure thatsuch housing developments “provide apositive contribution to the character andamenity of residential areas”, and dealingwith 8 separately headed areas of design;

2) WCC developers’ design guide for resi-dential subdivision and medium densityhousing, (1998), a 59 page illustratedrecommended practice guide intended toadvise developers, residents, and designerson matters relating both to subdivision andthe urban qualities attainable through theprocess of higher density housing.

This Guide has 3 sections covering (i)subdivision design; (ii) design elements formedium density housing; (iii) house types.

The Guide makes recommendations inconsiderable detail for narrow lot widths,living room surveillance of the street, andactive street frontages. It advises lot widthsfor single and double garages, and allowsupper level living rooms where views arepossible, and minimum lot depths (22m)for north and west facing sites, and 18m forsouth or east facing sites (entrance side).

The Guide refers, with the same diagram-matic control detail as used in the NorthShore City Council’s Guide (see above), toheight to boundary requirements foradjoining pre–existing developments,anticipating the difficulty of stitchingmedium density housing into the existingsuburban landscape. Privacy is addressed

with the proposal that “a reasonable degreeof privacy in … dwellings” can be achievedby back to back dimensions of 16mbetween upper level windows and 10mbetween ground floor windows; in otherdetails, the Waitakere City Council guideadopts identical separating dimensionsbetween adjacent houses as the ManukauCity Council guide.

In addition, the Waitakere City Councilrecommendations include the advice thatwindows of kitchens and living roomsshould not overlook adjacent private openspace, which is also defined as minimumareas for different sized houses and units.

Parking and garaging are advised with aview to ensuring safety of vehicle move-ment and to enhance street quality. In thissection, the Guide considers rear servicelanes as a “last resort”, particularly“through” lanes which are seen as a secu-rity hazard, and are required to have frontdoor access and visitor parking on thestreet side of the dwelling if used inmedium density housing layouts. The clearobjection in the Guide to rear accessreflects a legitimate concern for streetdesign where access is reversed in such away that the street itself is a back lane spacelacking interest, casual surveillance, andactive frontage.

In the third section the Guide House Typesare outlined in detail, covering varyingorientation of types, mixed use types, andcorner lot design preferences. There is noattempt to relate house types to layout vari-ations, or to density.

The Waitakere City Council approach tomedium density housing is an “effects–based” one, in accordance with the inten-tions and principles of the ResourceManagement Act. Density is not used bythe policy–making group of the City Coun-cil’s planning section as a regulating toolfor judgements or guidance in theprocessing of housing developments, otherthan as a rough estimating device at anearly stage, here based on square metres


per unit proposed rather than in dwellingsper hectare.

The guide is a comprehensive and detailedhandbook for good design in this housingtypology, recognising the essentially urbancharacter of higher density housing, andaddressing the principal differencesbetween medium density housing andtraditional suburban layout.


Documents

Medium Density Housing