Ryman’s visual rendering of their proposed Devonport retirement village, with a park and skate ramp in the foreground. Photo: supplied

AucklandMay 8, 2017

Nimby wars! What a planned retirement village in Devonport means for all of Auckland

Simon Wilson

Senior Writer, NZ Herald

Ryman’s visual rendering of their proposed Devonport retirement village, with a park and skate ramp in the foreground. Photo: supplied

Do the Devonport nimbys have a point? Is it good enough to settle for developments that are merely ‘good enough’? Simon Wilson reports on the retirement village project that has big implications for the whole city.

My parents spent their last years at a Ryman Healthcare facility, so I know a little about that company’s ability to create good living environments. The buildings were built for bare functionality, softened by a pastel colour scheme. There was one flourish: an atrium featuring a large fish pond and tropical plants, but it was so clammily overheated the air clung to you like something faintly fetid.

And on every wall in every public space they had a metaphor of death. Framed prints of painted sunsets, and empty rowboats drawn up on the beach, trees in winter, barren fields with lonely poplars, sailboats bound for that distant horizon, pre-Raphaelite women with cherubs or decked out as Ophelia, garlanded and lying in a stream. That last one’s not even a metaphor, it’s an image of an actual dead person.

I don’t think it was sadism. But it was surprisingly consistent.

The trouble with Ryman is, they’ve got a formula that works – they have waiting lists – so perhaps they don’t feel the need to do a lot better. They also have in-house architectural designers, so despite their busy expansion programme in both New Zealand and Melbourne they’re not in the market for architects with good ideas. And they’re a big publicly listed company with a solid reputation on the stock exchange.

They also provide a valuable service. We need more retirement villages.

Ryman Healthcare’s concept image of the retirement village it wants to build at Ngataringa Bay near Devonport. Photo: supplied

The ruination of Devonport, or something

In Devonport, Ryman wants to build a big new retirement village on undeveloped land with sea views. Already, they’ve had many expressions of interest from people who want to live there.

That’s not a surprise. If you’re getting on a bit and you live in Devonport or nearby, you might be pretty chuffed at the prospect of being able to sell your home but stay in the suburb you love. As you and your friends sell up, new families will move into the area, your own children possibly among them. This is exactly how the Unitary Plan is meant to work, isn’t it? What’s not to like?

Lots, says the Devonport Peninsula Precincts Society. Maybe they’re just nimbys – but two other groups generally in favour of the greater density encouraged by the Unitary Plan are also opposed to the Devonport proposal: the NZ Institute of Architects and the lobby group Urban Auckland. Does that make them nimbys as well? Because, on the face of it, isn’t Devonport the suburb in the whole of Auckland best suited to welcoming a big new upmarket retirement village?

The answers have more than a little to do with those framed metaphors of death, although the various parties may not see it that way.

What they want to build

The retirement village is proposed for land on Ngataringa Rd in Narrow Neck formerly owned by the Navy. Ngāti Whātua now owns the 4.2ha site and has leased it to Ryman for 150 years. It’s sloping parkland, just off Lake Rd and leading down to Ngataringa Bay, as the aerial photo below shows.

Ryman has a council consent to build a village with 273 apartments, a 120-bed hospital and facilities like an indoor pool, theatre, beauty salon and shops. Apartment blocks will be up to six storeys high, with basement parking for 269 vehicles. It will be home to some 600 people. The visual concept at the top of this story gives a fairly good idea of what it might look like.

In January, consent was granted by independent commissioners in a 2-1 split decision. The DPPS filed an appeal with the Environment Court and the NZIA and Urban Auckland joined them. The whole thing was then channelled into mediation, where it’s been for the last two months.

The outcome is expected today and it has big implications not just for the local area but for the city as a whole. [Update: the decision is now likely to be released May 15.]

Aerial photo showing the site of the proposed development, with Lake Road on the right.

Is it the right site?

The majority report of the commissioners declared: “Even amongst those persons who submitted against the proposal, there was virtually unanimous support for the use of the site as a retirement village.” They noted there is a “lack of such facilities generally and in this part of the North Shore in particular”.

That’s certainly true of the NZIA. Paul Edmond (at the time chair of the association’s “urban group”) told me Ngataringa Bay was a “fantastic place” for a retirement village. That’s not why they objected.

Officially, the DPPS says it agrees. Devonport local Iain Rea, speaking for the DPPS, told the Herald on March 9: “We are not opposed to retirement housing, or more intense development on this site.”

Aren’t they? Rea also said the plan would endanger regenerating kauri and pohutukawa on the foreshore, and that it meant “cutting the bay in half, cutting neighbours off from each other, cutting the community in half”.

Those are not the words of someone who wants a better scheme. That’s the language of complete opposition. It’s also the language of someone who rejects, or simply doesn’t understand, that people living in a retirement village are still part of the community.

Besides, take another look at the map. The proposal doesn’t compromise the bush on the foreshore and it won’t deny anyone access to the water’s edge. It won’t cut the community in half. It won’t cut anybody off from anything.

Devonport Peninsual Precincts Society spokesperson Iain Rea and supporters protesting at the independent commissioners’ hearing in December. Screengrab via nzherald.co.nz

Will it create too much traffic?

This was a big concern: the commissioners noted that around 70 per cent of submissions said there would be problems with increased traffic on Lake Rd. That’s the already-busy arterial route that connects Devonport with Takapuna and the route to the harbour bridge.

But remember, it’s a greenfields site ripe for development: one way or another, something is going to be built there. The commissioners said, “Development of the site for residential housing would generate similar, if not more, traffic impacts… potentially at more congested times of the day.”

In other words, because people in retirement villages drive less often than commuters and rarely at peak times, the Ryman plan would be a good option for Lake Rd. If they build a big housing complex on the site instead, it will generate more traffic.

It’s worth noting that Auckland Transport and the council have the traffic problems of Lake Rd under active review. That’s a local battle all on its own, but the key to resolving the issue is not to limit development. It’s to create more efficient public transport.

Is it the right concept?

In its application Ryman said: “Ryman has given particular consideration in the design of the retirement village to ensure that potential adverse environmental effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated. The landscape plan for the site proposes a park like setting, incorporating the use of both native and exotic species to provide fragrance and colour throughout the different seasons of the year.”

Does that sound lovely? Not to Iain Rea. He says: “Ryman’s proposed complex is not at all sympathetic to its surroundings. A project of this magnitude has to be planned with sensitivity and care, because it will be a significant intervention, not just in a place with a strong character but also in a coastal environment that is an important asset for the whole city.”

Who’s right? Architect Paul Edmond disputes that the area has “strong character”: the Narrow Neck area is not full of character villas, he says, but has a more “hodge-podge” collection of houses.

More importantly, we are not talking about tower blocks here. Take a look at the company’s visualisation. The buildings are not hidden, but because the land is sloping they’re not exactly prominent (and since the initial application some of them have been made lower).

The majority commissioners said, “We find that the bulk, height and location of the proposed buildings establishes a built form on the site that avoids wider dominance or visual effects.”

A section of Ryman’s visual rendering of their proposed Devonport retirement village, with a park and skate ramp in the foreground. Photo: supplied

Is it the right design?

Do the people who put pictures about death on the walls of a retirement village really understand enough about urban design to create a decent place for people to live in the last years of their lives?

This is the heart of the matter. Grey Power has condemned Ryman’s Devonport proposal as “prison architecture”. A bit harsh, but still. Rea believes the scheme is “simply not good enough or smart enough for Auckland in the second decade of the 21st century”. Paul Edmond of NZIA and Julie Stout from Urban Auckland tend to agree. They both told me the Ryman plan was pretty good but they want it to be very good.

That was also the argument of the dissenting independent commissioner, an urban planner called Dave Serjeant. “The nub of the Serjeant objection,” Edmond says, “is that the design should be good. This isn’t bad but it could be better.”

Serjeant wrote: “It would be unfortunate if the interpretation [of the Unitary Plan] were seen to support the proliferation of large bulky buildings that have little or no variation in built form.”

Edmond told me Ryman had not done enough to break up the bulky appearance of the larger buildings in the complex. He suggested one of the problems is that the company does not have at its disposal a “gifted façade designer”.

And that’s what we’re waiting for with the mediation: has Ryman been persuaded it needs better design for its buildings so they’re more pleasing to look at?

Theoretically this won’t be a “test case”, because you can’t set legal precedents when every application has to be considered on its own merits. But it will really. As Edmond says, “This is a test of the assessment criteria and design-related issues.”

We were promised this, when the council adopted the Unitary Plan: councillors and council officers alike assured us the UP contains the mechanisms to ensure really good design.

Does it? That’s what we’re about to find out.

As Rea points out there are six “precincts” like this one awaiting development in Devonport alone. Go with the “good enough” instead of the “really good” here and the city will suffer.

The nimby elements of this case – the elements that say we just don’t want it here – are not the important ones. What’s at stake is: can a developer that already thinks it’s done enough be persuaded that it can and should do better?

And, by the way, you folk at Ryman, that doesn’t mean painting murals on the exterior walls of empty rowboats drawn up on the beach at sunset.

Join the discussion on this story at our Facebook page (direct link here).

The Spinoff Auckland is sponsored by Heart of the City, the business association dedicated to the growth of downtown Auckland as a vibrant centre for entertainment, retail, hospitality and business.

Keep going!

AucklandMay 4, 2017

Hey Bill English, it’s time to champion Auckland!

Simon Wilson

Senior Writer, NZ Herald

Prime Minister Bill English made his big pre-Budget speech in Wellington yesterday. He mentioned Auckland exactly zero times. Is this a deliberate election-year strategy, asks Simon Wilson.

It’s three weeks till Budget Day. Three weeks until the government sets out the financial framework for the programme it will take into the election in September, now less than five months away. How important is Auckland to that programme?

Prime minister Bill English gave us a clue yesterday in a big pre-Budget speech to a lunch hosted by BusinessNZ. In the 2650 words of that speech, not one of them was “Auckland”. Is that bad? You bet it is.

It doesn’t mean Auckland is being ignored. Of course not. The speech was long on social policy, particularly in relation to “social investment” programmes, which I’ve written about previously here. Social investment uses statistical analysis to identify risk factors and the people most exposed to them, so that welfare programmes and other support can be targeted to those most in need. The social investment approach is now central to the government’s approach to welfare, particularly for children and families, and it should be obvious to everyone that quite a bit of that money will be spent in Auckland.

It’s a similar story with road and rail infrastructure and other big-spend areas. Auckland will get slices of all the pies.

So does that mean we should all just zip it, sweetie? English didn’t need to mention Auckland because he really is looking after us – it’s just that he didn’t want to say so for fear of alarming everyone else?

Two things about that. One is this: Auckland needs champions, not supporters too shy to declare their interest. The other is that it isn’t even true: the government does not have a plan for Auckland.

On the first, Auckland needs public advocacy. We need national political leadership that works with local leadership to build a narrative of the city’s importance to the country – if it can be done for dairy it can certainly be done for Auckland. But it can’t be done overnight. It requires a consistent across-the-board approach and it can’t be delayed.

Nine of the 20 cabinet ministers come from Auckland, including Paula Bennett (2^nd ranked), Steven Joyce (3^rd), Jonathan Coleman (7^th), Nikki Kaye (12^th) and Judith Collins (15^TH). None of them has a specific Auckland role, and most of them do almost nothing to publicly advocate for the city. We lack a champion in the cabinet and we suffer for it.

Perhaps they’ve decided it will cost them votes in September, in the rest of the country, if they talk about the city. If that’s true it’s a bit tragic, isn’t it? Are we ever going to stop with the idea New Zealanders are just country kids at heart?

This is important. The issue is confidence. The reason the government consistently talks up the economic strength of the country as a whole is that it builds confidence. Which, in turn, encourages businesses to expand, people to take risks, communities to engage. Confidence in Auckland, among its own citizens and among other New Zealanders, is a key to progress.

But this is not merely a problem with messaging. Oh no. Auckland needs a sustained, focused, concerted plan. Because let’s call it straight: this city is on the edge of crisis.

We all know this. In transport, housing, health, education, crime, the drains when it rains – wherever you look – supply of services has been outstripped by demand, costs have risen beyond the reach of ordinary citizens and existing systems are failing to cope with their workloads. It’s as true for stormwater as it is for school counselling; congestion on the roads mirrors congestion in the health services dealing with diabetes.

A city in crisis is a city that can’t deliver to its potential – for its own citizens or for the country.

Bill English poses with a copy of his budget speech during the printing of the budget on May 24, 2016. (Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)

What do we need? It’s great the government has spending plans for programmes that will benefit Auckland. But we need more than that. We need long-term planning, not just short-term crisis management. Not “Let’s put another motorway lane there” but “How do we restructure the transport systems of the city?” Not “Let’s give that kid a scholarship” but “How do get great teachers into all the schools so obviously most in need of them?”

And we need a special focus. From central and local government, the private sector and NGOs, and from citizens, we need creative, inclusive, new ideas. We could think of it like this: Auckland is a project.

Here are 10 areas desperate for a rethink and 10 ways they could start. It’s not everything.

Māori students at kura kaupapa have achieved some remarkable improvements, and students at most Catholic schools, especially in the lower deciles, also do remarkably well. Why? What are the things these schools do right that can be applied in other lower decile schools and right across the state school system?
We’ve known for a long time that primary health care and public health are the keys to addressing most of the illnesses people turn up to hospital with. So how do we make primary health care more effective?
It used to be said – by members of the current cabinet – that Aucklanders will never get out of their cars. We now know from passenger numbers on the electric trains and Northern Busway that this is simply not true. Yet transport planning is still based on building more roads. Let’s put the focus squarely on public transport, especially rail (trams and trains), and cycling and walking. Not because everyone has to stop driving, but because cities geared to PT have less congestion on the roads than cities geared for cars. Strange, but true.
There’s a mayoral taskforce that has no central political input; there are skilled private sector advocates like Leonie Freeman whose services are somehow not required. Let’s take the current attempts to coordinate an approach to building affordable housing and social housing, and supercharge them. Everybody on board.
The uncomfortable truth: if dairy and bottle store owners were mainly Pakeha there is no way we would put up with their being attacked so often. Yes, we need all the social programmes we can get to steer at-risk kids away from crime, and we also need more police in the community engaged in prevention, and we need a priority alert system to deal with dairy robberies when they occur. Let’s make the armed robbery of dairies a crime that’s very hard to get away with.
When it rains hard in Auckland – which is often, especially in autumn and spring – the stormwater drains can’t cope. The cost is measured in the misery of people repeatedly flooded out of their homes and workplaces; it’s also measured in the pollution of our waterways. Let’s have Watercare come out from whichever underground bunker it’s hiding in and front-foot a programme to get the drains working properly.
In the first city of Māoridom, Māori are at the bottom of almost all the statistics for achievement and the top for the statistics of risk. Māori are not institutionally celebrated as they should be – there’s no cultural centre on the waterfront, for example – and not properly represented on council either. Why? Because not enough of us understand or value our unique bicultural character? How about a citywide programme to teach te reo in schools? With outreach for parents too?
At this point, it doesn’t matter if you think we should have 10 million people here or slam the doors entirely and not let another person in. The fact is, 90,000 immigrants arrived in the country last year and half of them settled in Auckland, but nobody planned for that to happen. Let’s have the public debate, and the political policies on the table, and make decisions as a community.
Auckland the super-city has achieved a lot of things, but it costs more than it was supposed to, it’s not allowed to run enough of its own affairs and the relationship of council to the “council-controlled” organisations is way less functional than it should be. Seven years into the new city governance setup, it’s time for a review.
Back to the start. Auckland champions please. Forward-looking, inclusive, engaged. Not afraid to say, Auckland is important, here’s why, and here’s how we’re going to help it function well for the good of the entire country.