Best practice in medium density housing designfor Housing New Zealand Corporation A report on Best practice in medium density housing design for Housing New Zealand Corporation September 2004 David Turner John Hewitt Cesar Wagner Bin Su Kathryn Davies . New Lynn. Pennant Hills Road. Waitakere City (4) Corban Village. Manukau City (18) Oatlands Development. Glendowie. Waitakere City (15) Rowena Crescent. Henderson. Sydney 31 11 21 39 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 . Waitakere City (17) Sacramento 1A. Glen Eden. Auckland City (16) Tuscany Way. Auckland City (14) Gunner Drive. and Attitudes Towards Residential Density Literature Review New Zealand Australia North America United Kingdom Summary and Conclusions A New Zealand Definition of Medium Density Housing Introduction Density Density and Privacy Security and Privacy Car Parking and Storage External Style Summary Case Studies: Methodology and Criteria Introduction Methodology Site Selection Location Multi-development Sites Methodology Topographical Criteria Value and House Types Refuse Collection Washing/drying Arrangements Case Studies Case Study Conventions Case Study Data Case Study Evaluation Glossary (1) Vinograd Mews. New Lynn. Auckland City (13) St George’s Terrace. Avondale. Harbour View. Waitakere City (8) Melview. Ambrico Place. Waitakere City (12) Mt Taylor Drive. Waitakere City (2) Adelphi Villas. Glendowie (Project). Waitakere City (9) Albion Vale. Harbour View. Glen Eden. Waitakere City (5) Fairhaven.i Contents Executive Summary Summary of Conclusions Introduction 1 5 Context and Research Aims Legislative Background of Medium Density Housing in New Zealand. East Tamaki. Auckland City (7) Tuscany Towers. Waitakere City (11) Oates Road. Ambrico Place. Waitakere City (6) Romola Street. Harbour View. New Lynn. Waitakere City (10) Arawa Street. Manukau City (3) Seymour Road. Glendowie. Sunnyvale. Sunnyvale. Botany Downs. Auckland City Case Studies Data Table Discussion and Conclusions Introduction Density and Layout Type Summary Vehicle Planning and Parking Mixed Development and Internal Design Further Research References General Media References Appendix A Local Authority Intensive Housing Policies in Metropolitan Auckland North Shore City Council Manukau City Council Auckland City Council Waitakere City Council 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 77 79 87 95 Acknowledgements The report was commissioned by the Research and Evaluation Team of Housing New Zealand Corporation and was prepared by the Housing Research Group of the School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture at Unitec New Zealand. North Shore City (31) Galway Street. Mt Eden. Architects. for supply of data material. Auckland City (27) Sacramento 1B. The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution of Cook Sargisson Pirie. Birkenhead. Macquarie Park. Lynfield. Henderson. unless otherwise indicated. Albany. (Sydney) and Architectus Ltd.ii Best practice in medium density housing design (19) Fontenoy Road. Waitakere City (30) Mokoia Road. All photographs and drawings used in the report were produced by David Turner and Cesar Wagner. JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd. Sydney (20) Carolina Place. New Lynn. Waitakere City (33) Keeling Road. Ambrico Place. Avondale (Project). New Lynn. East Tamaki. North Shore City (21) Bush Road. . Auckland City (25) Ewenton St. Balmain. Auckland City (29) 2 Ambrico Place. Brisbane (24) Soljak Place. Waitakere City (34) Eden 1. North Shore City (22) Holly Street. Manukau City (28) Hillsborough Road. Mount Albert. Sydney (26) Beaumont Quarter. The views contained in the report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Housing New Zealand Corporation. Onehunga. Auckland City (23) Cottontree. Auckland City (32) Krisley Court. Albany.. Executive Summary . good design becomes critical above a density threshold of approximately 30 dwellings per hectare. appearance (style). car access. and quantity. site specifics (e. within a development. . with few developments catering for a housing mix. and construction costs. extra development costs of higher density can be recovered by better unit values if design improvements are made. house sizes. refers to a mix of house types. 4. no single design factor determines best practice. Summary of Conclusions 1. interface with the public domain. along with a notably more 2. development values will be retained or improved at higher densities if design techniques are sophisticated. including the intended resident mix. neighbourhood character. and tenure-types (owner-occupiers and rental). Medium density housing invariably involves a degree of compromise. the literature review suggests that where a broader strategy has influenced design a more mixed development has been achieved. privacy. topography). but is not foreign to the urban culture of New Zealand.2 Best practice in medium density housing design MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study identifies the characteristics and potential of medium density housing as a typology suitable for affordable urban development in the New Zealand context. the need for developers and designers to acknowledge that one 'highvalue' compromise often reduces the quality of the whole living environment for all units. (iii) Planning strategies to consolidate urban growth pre–suppose a higher density housing form that. security. and the term medium density housing refers to different density ranges in different jurisdictions. landscaping. (ii) Research and literature on medium density housing in New Zealand is very limited in scope. This is a consequence of building at higher density levels (than traditional suburban housing) while seeking to address multiple objectives. at this stage. and refuse collection. in this report. privacy.g. as illustrated in the case studies reviewed. The literature on medium density housing and the case studies reviewed in this report indicate that: density ceilings can be identified for different layouts (defined primarily by types of car parking provision). lacks any clear definition or preferred model. quality. interface with the public domain. car parking. the most successful developments take detailed account of all design issues. the trade-offs that occur between different objectives can be located on a density scale. low maintenance. 3. including the mix of house types. A review of the literature indicates that: there are numerous ways of calculating density. The conclusions listed below are based on three premises: (i) Medium density housing has developed in the last decade as a common housing typology. The case studies in this report are mainly private sector schemes that reflect a desire for commercial certainty of outcome. security. However. Housing Mix: mix. In addition to the above: 7. demographic shifts. including rear access layouts. seen in private sector developments. as already occurs in New South Wales. the United States. and Australia as a key factor in increasing the degree of public acceptance of medium density housing. New projects could follow the recommendations of Australian researchers to select architects by reputation and design skill. The principles of high quality urban design could be applied 9. as needs change over time. home-based employment). and that the challenges of changing urban lifestyles.g. Public acceptance of medium density housing is affected by location. could impact on design in all housing forms. Medium density housing in New Zealand needs to identify with the local traditions of domestic design (while avoiding a 'compacted suburbia' approach) and at the same time establish its own language without reference to imported 'style' and expression. house sizes. including the medium density category. a wider variety of activities to be more readily undertaken (e. 5. The study observes that traditional housing forms are widely re-employed in New Zealand in modified forms and in compacted versions. and environmental conditions cannot be adequately met by this 'compacted suburbia' approach. Many contemporary medium density developments demonstrate that a wide variety of styles can contribute to the critical strategy of disguising the differences between medium density housing and traditional lower density suburban housing. in many new developments. Future medium density housing should avoid a 'compacted suburbia' approach and consider the development of climate-responsive. character. the external style of medium density housing is a significant factor in creating both identity. and increasingly. up to identifiable density 'ceilings'. The trend towards more flexible living space in new housing. More flexible internal space facilitates: occupation by more varied forms of family and household composition. Best practices in other comparable countries have developed house types and layouts specifically suited to medium density housing. Good design quality has been identified in Britain. Victoria. and compatibility within a given neighbourhood. and design. and tenure types makes an important contribution to the success of many medium density developments. adaptable house types. . at all levels of density A review of the literature suggests that a carefully considered mix of house types. Public and neighbourhood expectations of new schemes include their ability to offer economic and social integration. adaptability) in the design of the best examples of medium density housing is established in the literature. legibility. It is considered that quality medium density housing environments cannot be achieved by this strategy. and courtyard types. 8. Design: In New Zealand. socially active community.Executive Summary 3 diverse. 6. The recognition of the relevance of urban design principles (e. in other centres. both inside the house and in the site layouts.g. As a housing type. In future. and earlier. Improvements in the design of medium density housing can enhance the quality of life for residents. privacy. in line with urban initiatives currently being considered in New Zealand and overseas.4 Best practice in medium density housing design more positively in the medium density typology. increase public acceptability of more intensive housing. security. Medium density housing in New Zealand is capable of providing residential environments of excellent quality. and contribute to the building of more sustainable communities. and ground level external private space. evidenced by schemes developed in other countries in the 1970s and 1980s. it can be designed to achieve affordable and sustainable buildings and communities. . In the best models it offers identity. proximity to private vehicles. increasing numbers of New Zealanders will live in medium density housing. 10. 1 Introduction Context and Research Aims . 1958) attempted to foster . particularly in the private sector. Similar policies to impose spatial limits on suburban growth are established in countries comparable to New Zealand. that demonstrate the potential. the Outline Development Plan for Auckland (Auckland Metropolitan Planning Organisation. planning strategies to intensify cities have been widely adopted in international practice. 1951) specified as an objective the need “to provide a means of checking the tendency towards uneconomic and unsatisfactory sprawling development. and offered as an alternative residential form to low density suburban development. The report focuses on medium density housing in the Auckland region but has wider relevance for other New Zealand urban areas undergoing intensification. to meet the needs of many sectors of the urban community. These may be regarded as prototypes in the genre. without supplying a clear variation identifiably ‘of New Zealand’ in the medium density typology.” The Auckland City Council’s first operative District Planning Scheme (Auckland City Council. Auckland’s first comprehensive town planning proposals. special housing for the elderly. urban planning in New Zealand has moved towards growth policies that seek to consolidate city development in all the main centres. medium density housing has been recognised as a form of housing with definitive characteristics. and Attitudes Towards Residential Density The debate concerning Auckland’s urban form. in Wellington.” It also noted that “if a satisfactory urban structure is to be developed… various forms of residential development will have to be considered. or evolved. The conclusions drawn from this are set out in Section 6. as well as the problems of evolution. Legislative Background of Medium Density Housing in New Zealand. There are also examples of medium density housing developments in the supply of affordable housing. and produce sustainable urban environments. These strategies reverse longstanding preferences for suburban expansion at low density. Each section of the report is supplemented by endnotes. and particularly its low–density ‘sprawl’. there are now many recent medium density housing developments. As part of this process. Underlying the intensification policies now in place in New Zealand is the assumption that a relevant higher density housing typology can be designed. Although not without opposition. Australia. In many other countries. and the USA. in an unfamiliar typology. The report is presented as an extended summary of research into the relevant context and literature. is not new. A study of New Zealand housing in the period between 1960–1990 reveals a small number of examples. by Peter Beavan. In the period from 1990 to the present. including the1970 Pitarua Court development. The analysis is summarised by a data chart providing an overview of quantifiable material collated from case studies. and student accommodation.6 Best practice in medium density housing design INTRODUCTION Context and Research Aims The purpose of this report is to examine medium density housing as a typology to determine best practice in design for an affordable and durable model for New Zealand urban conditions. and provide evidence of New Zealand’s capacity to experiment with different housing models. supporting the theory that compact urban morphologies can and do achieve growth through higher densities. where supporting material relevant to the project is included. followed by a description of the case study-based methodology for the critique and analysis of recent medium density examples in the Auckland area. including Canada. with low density signalling an unsustainable design 4 approach.g. have stifled much creative endeavour and favoured the development of ‘standard solutions’. as the 1991 Act requires. The District Plans in all cases are reinforced by Design Guides advising developers and designers on a variety of ‘best practice’ solutions to an unfamiliar typology. been largely unsuccessful. and of the existence of a causal link between increased density and decreased 3 environmental standards. these often illustrating regional and local variations. new concepts of housing and comprehensive developments where a number of different types of residential buildings are located in a well planned relationship to one another and to the adjoining development.” and “Medium density housing types should be designed and built comprehensively and where at all possible permit separate legal title after development. One such is the ‘sausage’ flat block. and associated in the 2 public mind with increased density. these each address the issue of higher density housing. e.7 Other cities in New Zealand. have also recognised the need for higher density housing design to be regulated separately from subdivision rules. 1968).” Since the reorganisation of Local Government in 1989 and the replacement of planning legislation by the Resource Management Act in 1991 the four new cities of the Auckland region have developed their own coordinated District Plans. with regulations controlling design decisions concerning site coverage. Conversely. and at the same time engage with matters relating to sustainability. setbacks and height to boundary dimensions. . they represent much research effort. the proponents of urban intensification use the concept of density as a readily identifiable criterion of ‘good quality’ urban environments. in the Auckland area. In the most recent editions. produced as a part of the Regional Master Plan by the Auckland Regional 6 Authority (1967): “Higher density housing types should be located: within or near main commercial centres…” “Subdivisional standards for a variety of residential zones should be formulated to permit the provision of a greater range of housing types of suitable design.” Similar sentiments were espoused in the conclusions of the preliminary report into housing. together with the folk–memory of the ‘slums’ in Newton Gully (5 room. which notes that: “New concepts of residential design will be encouraged. Subdivision standards.Introduction 7 such variety through the use of residential 1 zoning. particularly Christchurch and Wellington. Such attitudes. The various District Plan sections relevant to this report are summarised in Appendix A. In addition. abbreviated to “dph” in this report) reinforce the public (mis)conception of what constitutes medium and high density development. including the City of Auckland District Scheme (Auckland City 5 Council. and provide an effective platform for the generality of new medium density housing. recognition of the interrelationship between housing density and urban design is evident in local town planning literature. introduced in the 1960s. single storey cottages at approximately 40 dwellings per hectare. increasing maximum density controls in order to stimulate innovative approaches to housing design has. However. Together. ” Noting that Auckland’s density. Residential C (250 persons per hectare). 1967). with an average family size of 4. 1976) notes that the construction of such blocks has contributed to an increase in net residential density from 10–15 dph in 1956 to 25–35 dph in 1976. 4 The Auckland Regional Authority’s Planning Division (1967) stated that “present uneconomic densities of up to 50–60 persons per hectare cannot be sustained. At the 1956 figure of 3. notes that “as long ago as 1926.) At the 1821 figure of 5. It should be noted.000.75 persons per dwelling this equals 300 dwellings per hectare (although contemporary reports of overcrowding may equate this figure with that for habitable rooms). outdoor living and it is apparent that many potential occupiers of medium density housing are rejecting this type of development because of this deficiency” (Medium density housing was defined for this report as 25–40 dph). The Garden Cities of the early twentieth century. associated in the public mind with the ‘ideal’ of low–density living are. and of these 62% were in the five largest urban areas—Auckland. that the lower density zone B accounted for 3611 of the 3963 hectares. at a net residential density of 218 persons per hectare—at 1900 figures of 5. and Residential D (500 persons per hectare). the figures show a marked correspondence with those proposed in Sir Patrick Abercrombie’s County of London Plan of 1944. It also notes that the response of the (Mt. 1976). Johnston (1973). 1951). Albert) Borough Council was to seek to reduce the maximum permitted residential density (Auckland Regional Authority. falls within the definition of low density at under 54 persons per hectare net. where. Despite a popular conception of New Zealand as a recently urbanised society. This net housing shortage was attributed to the fact that “we have few if any examples of satisfactorily and 2 5 3 . (The occupancy rate has since declined to 2. zone C 228 hectares. which recommended net residential densities of 250–500 persons per hectare for improved post–war living standards. This concern with the urban design implications of Auckland’s ubiquitous low density sprawl is a restatement of previous planning policies. “moderate increases in density achieved by the provision of a variety of dwelling types would be most economic…” (Auckland Regional Authority. Dunedin. and flexibility and variety. and indicate that both the Auckland City Council and the Auckland Metropolitan Planning Organisation (who acknowledged their debt to Abercrombie in the formulation of their proposals for ‘flexible zoning’) were well aware of international trends. 1982). A study of housing density in the Auckland suburb of Sandringham (Auckland Regional Authority.8 persons per dwelling in 2003 (Statistics New Zealand. in terms of land conservation. which reached a net residential density of 1730 persons per hectare (Muthesius. The image of the British slums that the early European settlers wished to avoid recreating may be exemplified by the Liverpool ‘courts’ (mainly back–to–back and basement dwellings) of the early nineteenth century. 2004)). 1958).2 persons and 92 dwellings per 100 families (Auckland Metropolitan Planning Organisation. London’s late nineteenth century outer–urban suburbs were built at net densities of 150–500 persons per hectare (Muthesius. Nonetheless. “in all sections of the city”. and in fact do not produce the choice either of housing type or environment demanded by a large and complex urban society. Christchurch.” Figures for the Auckland urban area in 1926 show a population of 192. 1982).8 persons per dwelling this produces 33 dwellings per hectare (dph). and that the District Scheme stated that “it is unlikely…that this site density will be reached on more than a small proportion of the total number of available residential sites” (Auckland City Council. the report suggested that the optimum range of net residential density is 100–225 persons per hectare. 1965)— directly comparable with the ‘high–density slums’ of Newton.20 persons per dwelling producing 42 dph (Tetlow & Goss. capital cost.38 p/d this provides figures of 28–93 dph. at 1881 figures of 5. 65dph and 130 dph respectively. (Muthesius notes that this is only half of the density of Berlin’s city blocks of the same period. Hutt and Wellington. just 86 years after the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. and zone D only 38 hectares (with the Freeman’s Bay Transitional Zone occupying the remaining 86 hectares). but that “the type of multi–unit development in the area rejects the value of open.8 Best practice in medium density housing design ENDNOTES 1 Residential zones covered 3963 hectares (almost 90% of the zoned area of the city) and were categorised in terms of site density as Residential B (125 persons per hectare). however. 63% of New Zealand’s inhabitants lived in its cities and towns. The acknowledgement that “design quality. This time. developers. due to the consequent increase in overall density…” “The variety of housing needed can be met with predominantly low rise construction (i. designers. 1967 7 A clear pattern may be seen to emerge from the above synopsis: of repeated attempts by local planners to instil what they consider to be essential urban qualities into the amorphous urban mass of Auckland. rather than density.e. is the predominant factor in maintaining amenity for both residents of a development and its neighbours” (Auckland City Council. and of variety and flexibility in living environments made possible through residential intensification.” “A greater variety of housing is needed…” “The provision of this greater variety will result in land savings. “The Residential Design Guide is a statement of what is considered to be good urban design practice… (and)…has been introduced to promote and encourage well designed residential developments within SGMAs. . Therefore the higher residential densities will be located near these centres where services may be most conveniently obtained. is a well– timed and executed addition to the Council’s range of persuasive powers. public and its elected representatives. fundamental significance.” Auckland City Council.)” Auckland Regional Authority.” Thus. up to 4 storeys. and at worst antipathetic. the recent inclusion of the Residential 8 Zone (Strategic Growth Management Areas) in the Auckland City District Plan is receiving a predictable public response. only to be repeatedly rebuffed by an at best apathetic. the familiar promotion of “sustainable urban environments which provide opportunities for medium to high density housing within walking distance of town centres…” coincides with an increase in the status of urban design.” “Residential development will be diversified to provide for a wide range of different kinds of housing and physical groupings to meet the varying needs of the community. builders and managers—are currently espousing the added–value of design. 2001 The focus of SGMAs is generally beyond the levels of density covered in this study. All members of the local building culture— clients. however. 2001).Introduction 9 comprehensively designed housing schemes other than those incorporating single unit house development for three or more persons”. 1951). however. and the publication of The Residential Design Guide for Developments in Residential Zones in Strategic Growth Management Areas (Auckland City Council. planners. resulting in “a large percentage of the area being developed for streets with monotonous similarity in the form of development. it has been recognised that “all types of residential development have their place in a large modern urban structure…” (Auckland Metropolitan Planning Organisation. After a half–century of reiterating the advantages of vibrant urban and suburban centres. 6 Further extracts from this document include: “Residential development will be closely related to the availability and most efficient use of public services and facilities…” “The urban and suburban commercial centres will contain the most widely used services. from the time of the first attempts to develop comprehensive town planning guidelines for Auckland’s projected growth. 2001) has. . 2 Literature Review . rather than independent households. Perkins and Moore. which tend “to be embedded within an extended family household”. The developer wants density. “A further barrier to good design is that in many cases rules and procedures developed for traditional low density housing are now being applied to medium density developments. The paper considers the relationship of the strategic planning systems that provide the legislative . It is not always possible to design a solution that overcomes all these trade–offs. low density development is still the popular choice …” (p9) “.” and “. New Zealand Medium density housing is a product of the strategic planning policies in place in most New Zealand cities. After recognising the universal problem of assembling sites for larger developments.. while the community wants a good relationship to the street. and in the Auckland region particularly.. New Zealand: A Challenge for New Urbanism” (Dixon & Dupuis.intensive developments involve a number of trade–offs. the trend in Auckland towards middle–class couples delaying family formation. 2003). These include the growth of sole–parent families. The material covered includes social studies.” (p5) “.. the Auckland Regional Council’s urban design review goes on to identify the standard lot dimensions in Auckland (based on the 55m x 18m quarter acre section) as one of the impediments to higher density devel2 opment. This study is a rare example of social and physical planning research conducted in the field. and policy publications. Statements reflect much of the social research in the field: “Over two-thirds also believed that infill housing would bring social problems later. Recent research relevant to this report includes studies conducted by the 1 Auckland Regional Council. and that the most effective process for intensification involves housing development on a reasonably large scale to ‘provide a sense of community for residents’ (Auckland Regional Council. in New Lynn..figures imply that peri-urban. The quality of the built environment in medium density housing is discussed in the context of the large-scale development at Ambrico Place. 2000a p12).. There is evidence from these studies that a perception of impending ‘slums’ is normal in public attitudes. to contain future population growth in an intensified urban form. Perkins and Moore. 2002 The Briefing Paper to the Auckland Regional Council Forum on Affordable Housing (Portal Consulting.12 Best practice in medium density housing design LITERATURE REVIEW The literature review in this section is selective. design literature.” Auckland Regional Council. and is summarised on a country by country basis. 2000) identifies the principal demographic trends in New Zealand as far as they affect the issue of affordability..consolidated urban living is not presenting them [residents of medium density housing] with any benefits …” (p43) Vallance. the neighbour wants privacy. 2000a p21 The report to the Christchurch City Council entitled The Effects of Infill Housing on Neighbours in Christchurch (Vallance. the resident wants a good view and aspect. and the impact of Asian immi3 gration during the 1990s. 2002) generally confirms the widely–held attitude of the New Zealand public to medium density housing. in “Urban Intensification in Auckland. deals with house type . using examples from the history of urban housing to reinforce the principles discussed. 2003) emphasises the need for affordable higher density housing to achieve high standards of design. Useful insights and comment are often found in this material. published for internal use. The New Zealand literature reviewed also includes reference to regular features on medium density housing in the general print media. ‘ghettos’. reservations felt by developers about the three storey townhouse model which in one project has been modified (by raising the rear patio level to the first floor) to enable direct access to the space for barbeque use. to achieve integration in neighbourhoods. however. Literature from 1975 to the present has The residents were more critical. the development is regarded as a success by its residents: “There were high levels of satisfaction with privacy. which can affect security of settlement. and the social and community effects. “Dense City: The Incredible Shrinking Section”. the Report to the Auckland City Council on proposed Residential 8 Zone changes. in a study of approximately one-fifth of the Ambrico Place households. and its relationship to layout. In broad terms. 8. An important factor in the typology is the choice of house type. for instance. for instance. and relatively high percentages of recent immigrant families) are confirmed in this study. and magazines such as Metro and North & South. These publications normally engage expert opinion in their feature articles.” Dixon & Dupuis. with almost all respondents saying that privacy was important to them and more than four-fifths reporting that their indoor space was private. and is described further in Endnotes to Section 4. particularly the New Zealand Herald. Contributions to the debate in the print media frequently take the form of detailed. public concerns about ‘slums’. At different densities this decision becomes a critical indicator of the residential environment. The Ambrico Place development is the subject of four case studies in Section 5 of this report: numbers 7. of the planning process. and by the same journalist. 2003 selection along with good practice for site layout design. The characteristics of occupancy of medium density housing (high levels of tenanted property. The HNZC Housing Design Guide (undated). edited summaries of reports of Council deliberations on changes to development policy. in part a discussion of the trend towards gated communities. May 2003). (Metro. The Auckland Regional Affordable Housing Strategy (Regional Growth Forum. which did not make public the whole strategy for the development of the scheme. reviewing declining lot sizes in Manukau City. avoiding at the same time the penalties associated with higher building costs. November 2003). 29. and to be responsive to cultural and age–related issues. Typical of such journalism is the feature article “Security Issues” by Bob Dey (Metro. and similar supposed consequences of intensification are discussed. and the Christchurch Press newspapers. the Dominion Post. The impact of views expressed in newspaper and magazine journalism is considered to have significant influence on public attitudes to intensification. to suit social habits. In others. and 32. Australia Medium density housing is a common form of urban housing in Australia. In the area of physical planning it comments on the impact of New Urbanism in this housing typology.Literature Review 13 framework for medium density housing. vehicular access and parking. A second Australian review. and the Residential Flat Design Code (2002). which needs to “give rental housing some of the external trappings of owner–occupied housing. The study Medium Density Housing 1990 (Victorian Department of Planning and Urban Growth. 1990) includes nine examples of lower density range developments. been controlled by the Australian Model for Residential Development (AMCORD). Designed for Urban Living (Judd. Professional journals also feature medium density housing developments at regular intervals. such as territorial control. for more than a decade. based on experience in South Australia. privacy. and affordability. effective management systems. the better the yield. Included in the recommendations are recognition of the potential of the typology in terms of sustainability. in Judd & Dean. and indeed the ability to purchase. Woolongong. and other urban centres in New South Wales. Evolution of an urban Five detailed case study examples are used to illustrate public sector housing at densities between 26 and 83 dph (dwellings per hectare). Residential Flat Design Pattern Book (2001). The objective in this study was to address the issues of declining interest in Melbourne in medium density housing as a choice for buyers and developers.14 Best practice in medium density housing design documented the evolution of the typology in detail. The text relates to housing design in the Commonwealth of Australia (rather than a particular State) which has. urban design. 1992) more recent publications refer to the above texts as primary sources for medium density housing design. Judd identifies key design issues as follows: urban and neighbourhood design. at densities ranging from 20dph to 67dph. environmental fit. economic. and all drawn from the private housing sector. some freedom to personalise. This comprehensive study includes a summary by John Byrne of medium density housing in the public sector. Prasad and Ballinger. Following the Victorian Code for Urban Residential Design (Victoria Department of Planning and Housing. 1983 p68). illustrating developments that represent good practice in the period up to 1993. Byrne’s comments on the public sector deal with the social. 1983) is a general description of the typology. Site Planning in Australia (King. none over 26dph. Residential Densities (1998). security. however. Rudder. but potentially the greater the problems of noise interaction and privacy invasion. and marketability. 1996) is a comprehensive summary of good housing layout planning principles with sustainability. others discuss the process of development. published in 4 1990. ecologically sustainable design. 1993) extended the relevant design area to include environmental issues. Medium Density Housing in Australia (Judd & Dean. identity. 1992. and revised in 1995. dwelling layout. coverage of consumer and neighbourhood attitudes is valuable. and practical house types for the genre. and political issues.” He observes that: “The narrower the (street) frontage. as well as design. in Judd & Dean 1983 p99 Designed for Urban Living includes 21 case studies from all the principal Australian urban centres. climate control and energy conservation. pedestrian access and way–finding. and higher density housing as a focus. and a section dealing with community attitudes.” Byrne. parts of this text present the case for medium density housing as a solution to urban housing in general (Newman. . between them providing the platform for all new medium and higher density development in Sydney. These include the New South Wales Urban Design Advisory Service handbooks Better Urban Living (1998). Density has been at the core of the debate about city form since Stein. North America Since 1990.” Building envelopes. particularly for subsidised accommodation (Garreau. In the development of higher density housing. 1986). in a “search for meaning in our physical environment” (Fader. Literature is diverse and regional. writing in the 1930s. Density by Design (Fader. The paper concludes: “There is essentially little difference in the design of built form between well designed medium density housing for low/medium income families and (that) in the private sector. 1991. site planning. extracted from the Final Report to AHURI (Southern) on the subject of affordable medium density housing solutions for Adelaide. for economic and environmental reasons. security and privacy. 2003).). new regulations do not recognise density in any of the AMCORD definitions as a primary development control tool. Rather. 2000) is the second publication by the Urban Land 5 Institute of America under this title. The focus of the New South Wales Residential Flat Design Code. and others. 1983) and Housing as if People Mattered (Marcus & Sarkissian. Mumford. refers to literature dating from 1983–1993 (covered above) as the primary research in the field in Australia. Brisbane. Fader identifies the issue of ‘urban liveability’ as a key element in urban housing. Two further texts are significant contributors to the literature: The Medium Density Housing Kit (Marcus & Sarkissian. parking. is on the urban design issues relating to development. and side and rear setbacks are of equal importance in the design and control process to the Floor Space Ratio. and others. height. generally apartments. Plunz & Sheriden. Both extend the detail of design advice in the area. and reviews the principal issues of parking. seeking typologies that reverse the trend in the US . and Perth) low rise housing at medium density continues to be the preferred form. In addition. internal spatial design and fitting out. and the challenge faced by US cities to achieve higher standards of urban design. 1999). housing design in North America has acknowledged the parallel needs of containing ‘sprawl’. domesticity. separation. and has applications in the New Zealand context for the Residential 8 Zone category of the Auckland City Council’s planning document.” The paper recognises the fundamentals of medium density housing set out in Judd 1993. with emphasis on children. and Jacobs (1961) began a critique of urban and suburban development and the consequent deterioration/decline of the quality of urban life. etc. The study confirms that medium density housing was defined in earlier research and writings with relatively minor adjustments necessary for current applications. and with the most valuable contributions tending to be aligned to New Urbanism. depth. with a current emphasis on defeating suburban sprawl. 1999. In other cities (Adelaide.Literature Review 15 housing typology in Melbourne and Sydney has seen a shift to densities higher than those in the range considered in this report. in particular. and landscaping. Privatisation philosophies have lead to a broad literature of critiques of the standards of housing. as well as development process and building costs. adding references to the Melbourne study Medium Density Housing under the Good Design Guide (King. use is made of Floor Space Ratios and a building envelope device (described as a “three dimensional zone that limits the extent of building in any direction”) to “inform decisions about appropriate density for a site and its context. 2000 p2). the paper entitled “Trends and Strategies in the Design of Medium Density Urban Housing” (Radford & Sarris. Relevance to the development of medium density housing in New Zealand lies primarily in the comparisons that can be made with the land–use policies outlined in Appendix A. and p237). ‘New Urbanism’ is a planning and urban design theory that emerged in the 1980s.16 Best practice in medium density housing design of fortress–like gated developments. and options for layout 7 design (p180–193. The book represents the broad theories of 6 the New Urbanist movement. against what are acknowledged to be additional costs. The authors recognise that social and cultural differences have a fundamental impact on choices relating to housing density. and parking ratios. of which the second deals with innovations in the control process in relation to design guides. Housing Design Quality through Policy. Housing Design in Practice (Colquhoun & Fauset.” In a discussion of layout design. and others. which are commonly used in the United Kingdom. In these developments density is often much higher than the density levels of concern to this report. The book is divided into three sections. Fader advocates rear access systems. Planning controls are operated in a highly regulated environment in comparison with New Zealand. Guidance and Review (Carmona. and is adopted as the preferred design approach by the Urban Land Institute of America and many real estate organisations and State housing authorities. through the work of Calthorpe. In their analysis of residential planning. lot sizes. 2001) is a detailed examination of control mechanisms and their effects on the housing process. three are selected here for their relevance to the study. for the street-side advantage to parking and walkability. impacts that are illustrated by comparisons between the numerous countries studied. and that re–engage the street. pointing to successful developments where “integrating varying market segments within small neighbourhood units (single block or street. Duany. or developments carried out by the various privately managed. The movement has become a major influence in the planning of new communities. setback standards. summarising twentieth century advances in design at all levels of density. . The study also deals with mixed housing. state–supported agencies such as Housing Associations. 1991) is a broad–based compendium of all aspects of housing design. street and alley dimensions. for example)” is a traditional urban pattern that can continue to work in new schemes. Also considered and discussed is the relationship between increased densities (and the consequential increase in development cost). which is balanced for developers by decreasing site acquisition costs per unit. Of numerous recent publications. Medium density housing generally refers to urban public housing. It establishes the principle that building form (of housing) is the determining factor in the development of urban quality. the authors deal with detailed strategies: for instance. density to car parking (p173). United Kingdom Housing in the United Kingdom has been developed at higher densities for many years: speculative housing in the private sector is normally built at between 25 and 30 dph in wholly suburban locations. The selected examples used in this study “highlight emerging quantitative standards for the basic building blocks of housing and community development: for example. and in urban regeneration. New Urbanism is endorsed by federal agencies such as the US Department of Housing. of the relationship of density to cost (p175). The book is a detailed and illustrated study of housing in Western Europe and North America. including references to Australian (p146) and New Zealand (p148) examples. and maintain values in the marketplace. founded on experience in practice. institutional. particularly in larger cities. A critical threshold. Car ownership levels are assumed by planning directives and providers of housing to be acceptable at levels lower than those applied in New Zealand. is identified as the point at which high design standards become an essential factor in the developer’s calculation of density and value. and Habraken. and by differing standards of maintenance in the public spaces of the site. and particularity of location and context. 2003) is a report which considers alternative layout and house type designs in an environment where the Government’s policies require the private housing sector to increase residential densities. provides a useful catalogue of the achievements and processes of housing in the United Kingdom. The review of North American practice and literature is abbreviated by the apparent shortage of relevant material. including medium density housing. if designed with skill and care. In the literature.8 After establishing the principle of density as a governing factor. It concludes that increased density of development. and have relevance to conditions in New Zealand. by external form. 2000). though it requires . and not covered in this review) dealing with the notion of territoriality. and it is noted that. density is at once a quantifiable ratio and a condition of quality in design relating to privacy. and continue to attract the attention of contemporary theorists by contributing to the critique rather than solutions in practice. Rapaport. The Australian experience is directly relevant to New Zealand. It is not thought that solutions in the North American context contribute significantly to a better understanding of medium density housing in New Zealand conditions. and political) for traditional design is reinforced by conservation–based planning controls. affecting both layout design and density. particularly affecting the inner urban areas most likely to be selected 9 for redevelopment. the British publications are comprehensive. The widespread preference (public. The foundations of design theory in this area have been clarified by the influential writings of Oscar Newman. and identity. at 30 dph. security. Affordable housing is generally supplied through rental housing offered by Local Authorities and Housing Associations. no distinct body of literature on medium density housing appears to have emerged in the USA. which includes a general summary of current housing finance methods in the United Kingdom. building practice. if modified by culture. Differences between housing in the private and the public sectors are identifiable by location. Chermayeff. (dating from the 1960s. the report also develops a methodology for assessing the relationship of density to value. Of the studies in detailed site planning and internal design in medium density housing. and of public and private space. the RIBA Book of 20th Century British Housing (Colquhoun. Current published material in the United Kingdom confirms the continuation of a strongly traditional orientation in housing design. and climate.Literature Review 17 In addition. neither of which relate directly to low cost housing design. apart from relatively recent texts inspired by the Smart Growth and New Urbanist movements. can both improve development margins and urban living environments. lifestyle. although there is a considerable quantity of case 10 study data. Summary and Conclusions A consistent feature of the literature is the agreement that the term ‘medium density housing’ is characterised by complexity. The value of housing design and layout (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. including the cost of facing materials. and probably due to the same prescriptive system. and detachment from ground level access for a high proportion of units. and affects all market sectors. In the most common form this housing is between four and five storeys in height. has been defined by the most recent literature emanating from the Department of Urban Affairs and 11 Planning in New South Wales. the diversity of style seen in New Zealand is not a characteristic of medium density developments in Australia. and the use and application of Design Guides. Adelaide. and is based on a more prescriptive regulatory system. design traditions. there are fewer examples. Melbourne. including numerous case study–based texts. Newer urban housing appears to be shifting towards a different model characterised by significantly higher densities than ‘medium’ density housing as defined in this report. and combined with a generally more prescriptive planning regime. This literature has informed the evolution of the typology. on a smaller scale. The four and five storey block form is now the prevailing form for higher density housing up to 140 dph in Sydney.g. In other Australian cities where population growth is lower. and. and reliant on a building form that introduces common internal spaces.18 Best practice in medium density housing design conversion of building systems. . underground parking. There is a large and well–regarded body of literature dating from housing developments in the 1970s and 1980s. Brisbane. Regrettably. e. has contributed significantly to a good quality standard in the genre. an urban design review in which the impacts of intensification on the traditional residential environments of Auckland are assessed. it is noted that other indicators and current Statistics New Zealand figures do not fully align with the Portal summary.Literature Review 19 ENDNOTES (Housing New Zealand Corporation. site selection and layout. and suggests that declining immigration will reduce simple growth–driven change. The view is not supported by the evidence. p11 5 6 . AMCORD covers all aspects of urban housing. 2002a). and ‘gross dwelling density’ to describe different conditions. preference. single and without children” and that “There is a common perception amongst neighbours that medium density housing attracts ‘transient’ people who are renting and who will move frequently. 3 The paper concludes with the observation that demographic changes are driven by compositional change (ethnicity). or the medium density typology. 1999). Neither report addresses the issue of housing at higher densities. The first edition (Wentling. dealing with the principles of design for traffic. 2000c p21). The ‘shift–shares’. As an alternative to modernism. (Housing New Zealand Corporation. will affect household demographics. 2000a. 1988) is a source quoted in Australian literature. recommending the use of three terms. and an analysis of the implications for the Regional Growth Strategy. particularly those that aimed to establish medium density housing as a housing typology. to the process of developing better models. Some of the same issues of anticipated social change are addressed in the paper entitled “House and Home and their interaction with changes in New Zealand’s urban system. Ki Te Hau Kainga. 2000c p 31). which. community attitudes to it. and impact more directly on affordability. households and family structures” (Perkins & Thorns. with case studies prominent in the methodology. in accord with more recent policy statements from all four councils in the Region (Auckland Regional Council. and demographic profiles most likely to be affected by higher density development policy. This analysis of demographic change acknowledges increases in smaller households and the impacts of lifestyle choices in a discussion of the nature of place– making and suburban values in New Zealand. ‘site density’. Figures used in this paper are based on the 1996 census. ‘net dwelling density’. The research studies from the Auckland Regional Council’s “Building a Better Future” programme do not deal in design detail except at the urban level: the emphasis is on social attitudes and levels of acceptance. John Simpson and others: this may be regarded as an extreme reaction to the inadequacies of modernism. particularly but not exclusively for Maori and Pacific Island families. and business and political decision–making.” Auckland Regional Council. The North American movement followed a revival of interest in classical origins of architecture begun in Europe a decade earlier by Leon Krier. until this intervention. New Perspectives on Maori Housing Solutions. 2002b) both contribute at the level of house planning and detail. 2000a) covering the issues of housing choice. this should involve comprehensive integrated design codes with a focus on the encouragement of sustainable living environments. includes definitions for density. it is predicted. and the Pacific Housing Design Guide: Guidelines for Designing Pacific Housing Solutions The AMCORD document. 4 2 The urban design review of this research recommends that developers should collaborate with the city councils and the Auckland Regional Council to promote innovative ‘best practice’ intensive housing design and construction practice (Auckland Regional Council. classical architecture is unlikely to have any relevance to 1 These reports are summarised in Building a Better Future: Intensification Review– Summary of Research Findings (Auckland Regional Council. The reports taken together record the expectation that: “Higher density housing (has) fewer people per dwelling reflecting the fact that higher density residents are more likely to be younger. in three parts. had been the unchallenged design reference for all but a tiny minority of housing schemes. rather than numerical population growth. but the market segments are not segregated one from the other. and achieves variety of house type. 14. A mixed scheme of low rise medium density housing combined with a group of 15 storey apartment blocks.” Fader. some rental. involving the community affected by a sequence of workshop 'charrettes' to establish a sense of ownership in the generation of new (usually higher density) proposals. unit value. structured. extra development costs of higher density can be recovered by better unit values if design improvements are made. based in the movement's theory. 1991 p284 8 In case studies. is the best known development in the genre. A key strategy of New Urbanist theory is a systematic. good design becomes critical above a density threshold of 30dph. often of good quality and architectural standard and at relatively high density. but two well regarded developments based on New Urbanism have been carried out in Sydney. and some subsidized housing. as: “Some of the units are for-sale. and inclusionary methodology for the process of planning new developments. 1997). of varying quality. control of small children. preventing any stigma from being attached to specific units. and the disposal of rubbish” Colquhoun & Fauset. or split between the two floors? It is generally considered that a split … (is) … the most inconvenient arrangement.20 Best practice in medium density housing design higher density housing design in New Zealand. one–off developments. and very high density social housing ‘projects’. development values will be retained or improved at higher densities if design techniques are sophisticated. design choices are constrained by prescriptive planning systems and design guides. A frequent objective. except Gunner Drive (case study 14). include the following: “… is a housing form that has never been entirely popular in Britain. as follows: (i) evidence from research indicates that there is no penalty attaching to higher density for developers. they are co–ordinated with nationally directed practices for road and traffic design. has been to mix housing tenure in larger projects without making physical or spatial distinctions between social or economic groups: various design and housing management techniques are used to achieve this. heritage policies and locally drawn District Plans. providing the most relevant models. and a variable density across the site. for instance. the Oatlands development (case study 18) draws on some New Urbanist ideas for layout design. It is relevant to emphasise the point that following the moves to consolidate city form. comments on three storey houses with integral garages. within the pool of rental units. … (the type) particularly creates difficulties with … washing. such as the Essex Design Guide (Stones. The latter variations most frequently take the form of apartment blocks with low parking provision. 10 11 . Further. subsidized units are rotated periodically. In this case (Crawford Square. (ii) (iii) (iv) 9 In other contexts. and 16). The example in New Zealand nearest to New Urbanist design principles is the Harbour View development in Te Atatu (case studies 1. The issue of affordable urban housing appears to be resolved by continuing use of the various established mechanisms of low rent private sector. These design guides are effective in so far as they ensure compliance with good practice via prescriptive planning regimes. at Raleigh Park. It is mainly used in urban areas where high density is necessary … The problem relates to the distribution of rooms— should all the living accommodation be located on the ground floor or the first floor. higher density housing in two and three storey layouts is undoubtedly successful in a large number of developments to be seen in Australian cities. some market rate. a standard achieved through the influence of comprehensive studies researched and published in the period between 1978 and 1993. now extensively used as a model for design in all southern areas of the United Kingdom. with small. These developments have a density of around 40 dph. the CABE research team established findings relevant to this study. 2000 p13 7 The merits and constraints of all multi–storey house types are outlined in Chapter 7. Pittsburgh) the key to success was that no visual distinctions were made in the housing designs to signal the type of housing tenure: a rental townhouse looks like a for-sale townhouse. 3 A New Zealand Definition of Medium Density Housing . ..22 Best practice in medium density housing design A NEW ZEALAND DEFINITION OF MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING Introduction This section discusses medium density housing in the New Zealand context.. attached or terraced. They refer to “many different ways in which this relationship can be expressed” (AMCORD. including ‘unit title’ ownership. or 30–66 dwellings per hectare (dph). Density The most common definition of medium density housing in current use in New Zealand is: Housing at densities of more than 150m2/unit and less than 350m2/unit. no lifts’” (Victorian Department of Planning and Urban Growth. A recurring feature of the literature defining medium density housing is the view that the concept of ‘density’. Density is discussed in this section. The AMCORD documents use the term ‘density’ to refer to a ratio describing the relationship of a given number of household units to an area of land. and A measure of development potential. The word ‘curtilage’ is used in the British literature to describe the territorial limits of identifiable private ownership of a property within a larger housing development. 1992a pp16–17). and architectural style. and apartments in low rise blocks. This definition is used by the majority of City Councils and the Housing New Zealand Corporation. 1993 p8). House types that may be included are detached. as a system of measurement that references dwelling units to a given area of land. or multi–unit development. The four City Councils in the Auckland Region. and the nature of ‘medium density housing’. 1990 p1). The extended definition that generally embraces examples in Britain and Australia would suggest that the following characteristics are also relevant: Ground level entry from a public space A dwelling type with private external space within the ‘curtilage’.” (Judd. A measure of the form of the built environment. recommending three principal definitions. Separation of titles is also a New Zealand preference.. and secondly. According to the Australian Model Code for Residential Development (AMCORD). Australian literature further defines the typology as “small lot subdivision. To form a definition of medium density housing in the New Zealand context it is also relevant to address the issues of particular concern to developers and designers: security. as a factor that influences perceptions of privacy. and as “horizontally attached dwellings which… rarely exceed three stories above the ground with individual access and private open space at or near ground level . or territorial boundary of ownership A dwelling type with direct or close proximity to secure parking Separate legal title. . Housing New Zealand Corporation. and both Wellington and Christchurch City Councils operate a density range on the basis of site areas of 150m2–350m2 for . firstly. density is: A measure of population or the number of dwellings per unit of area. of which the term and definition ‘site density’ is most relevant to this report. in order to define the typology in contemporary urban residential conditions. car parking. have no universal or standard application. (with the characteristics of) ‘attached. and the socially complex issue of privacy. without using absolute or pre–determined rules to govern housing development.A New Zealand Definition of Medium Density Housing 23 medium density housing. and comparisons that do not use a density indicator can function only in terms of their nominated criteria (for instance. In his seminal study “Towards a redefinition of density”. using density as a mechanism alongside other factors. landscaping. The CABE report (2003) takes a different stance. The practice in Britain is to define development capacity. which applies an ‘effects–based’ process to decision–making on medium density housing proposals. density is therefore used as a reference or guide rather than a precise measurement regulator. and to a high degree of specificity. (b) density is a human perception. and consequently ‘density’ as a planning tool is not a sole arbiter of the design process. 2000 p 31). reserves. railway lines. Australian planning systems recognise that a density definition relevant to Brisbane or Darwin is different from one applicable to inner suburbs in Sydney and Melbourne. and other open space) but includes public areas within the boundary of the land predominantly occupied by the housing itself.1 Most recent references to the concept of density confirm the relevance of two general points: (a) density is not a useful mechanism for determining quality in residential design because other factors in various combinations impact on the outcome. density is usually the first point of reference in forming bases for comparisons: an ‘after the event’ position is created by a density calculation. Rapaport discusses the nature of ‘density’ in terms of perceptions of crowding. This practice is typified by Waitakere City Council. embracing the developer’s perspective. The Auckland Regional Council identifies “residential intensification as developments with a net site density of 500m2 or less”. in suburban locations. To enable this comparison to be made. This aligns with the first AMCORD definition. The technique of applying a Floor Space Ratio (FAR) or a Floor Space Index (FSI) is commonly used in development control in central and local urban areas in preference to density. “It is essential to consider in detail. this report will use a simple net site area basis of calculation. It is also the case that in the analysis of built housing developments. excludes areas external to the site (public roads. building type or detail. As a method of setting maximum development limitations. and higher density at 200m or less (Auckland Regional Council. the relationship of given socio– cultural groups to traditional density figures. and therefore a highly variable factor in housing design. While other factors affect the quality of outcome. … the detailed layout and design of the . Density and Privacy Studies have established that density and privacy are interdependent and that achieving acceptable standards of privacy is a key issue in the design of socially successful higher density housing. usually of a sense of ‘crowding’. medium density at 350m2 2 or less. enclosure systems. a density calculation on some recognised basis is necessary for valid comparisons to be made. in defining site area as the area of land that is required for a given development (which may include significant public works).). or a control mechanism that provides certainty of outcome. etc. with other controls relating to form and site coverage in others. even where density is not a significant factor in the design. the relationship of a particular area to the larger context. the greater the likelihood that privacy will be optimised. In other projects. the social rules available and used. such as a controlled entry gate. The greater degree of control that can be given to residents as to how their private territory is defined and personalised. In … housing of two or more storeys. construct a passive surveillance environment that discourages intruders. . where security is in the form of a physical barrier. 1975 p153 windows and doors. the developer’s determination to remove the possibility of concealment results in barren. which often have higher rates of burglary and personal crime. uncomfortable spaces that also discourage communality.” Judd. As Judd says: “.” (Newman’s work is open to criticism for over–emphasis on “design solutions to crime”. 1993 p30 The connections between density and privacy are further analysed in the basic Australian text. 1986 p39). which notes that: “One important way of enabling control over privacy is to provide a clearly defined hierarchy of public. medium density housing .. There is some evidence from the case studies that in pursuit of a well–lighted ‘defensible’ (in the sense of ‘secure’) common area. Judd makes reference to the issue of ‘Security’ related to Oscar Newman’s theory of ‘defensible space’ which has direct relevance to site layout design: such spaces should be “assigned to specific groups of residents” and “good territorial definition can help to enhance identity … and contribute to relieving social conflict between residents.. Medium Density Housing 2 in Australia (Judd & Dean. by placement of Advocates of Smart Growth in the USA identify security amongst the three highest priorities in their intensification agendas. but with little evidence to support the view that higher density housing generally. It is typologically characteristic that greater concentration of building. in which security and control are more severe difficulties. there is a sense that anyone seen ‘inside the fence’ is . 1993). semi–private. senses. overlooking of the private open space of adjacent dwellings from upper level rooms represents one of the most common privacy problems. and in Judd’s later text Designed for Urban Living (Judd. 1983).24 Best practice in medium density housing design setting in terms of privacy. and has limited application to a New Zealand definition for its focus on North American social housing. concentrated in mid to inner–suburban areas or on public housing estates... or medium density housing as a typology is either less safe or more susceptible to crime than other housing types. and proximity of public open space can create anonymity (and therefore lessen the possibility of intruders being noticed) and equally.” Judd. criminal behaviour is related to broader social problems and their geographic distribution rather than housing type or density per se. and private outdoor spaces which discourages intrusion by outsiders and provides necessary buffer space between dwellings and associated common access routes (quoted from Marcus and Sarkissian. 1993 p30 Security and Privacy Security (or its absence) has been an issue associated with medium density housing since the term came into common use. (has tended to be) . as well as spatial. and so on…” Rapaport.) Defensible space is thus an abstract term that describes a relationship of private and public domains in perceived. The Dutch Woonerven system (a ‘residential precinct’. . placing high value on achieving the optimum density for the perceived market. The loss of security of a vehicle parked ‘not within the curtilage’. External Style Speculative housing development has a long history of modifying and adapting existing architectural styles to meet perceptions of market preferences. The vehicular environment has a dominant role in many examples of the typology. Coogee. preferring a tried and trusted model before an innovative one as a matter of course. are a normal specification in New Zealand’s medium density housing schemes. particularly in the private sector. representing one of the most significant differences between it. with lower levels of use of public transport than Wellington or Christchurch. In addition. (King. obviating the 3 value of passive or casual surveillance. usually with less car dependency than observed in the case studies included in this report. Rudder. reflecting a dilemma at the heart of medium density layout design. Comment in the literature consistently refers to the need for affordable housing to be indistinguishable from other housing. and lower density suburban housing. public space. particularly Auckland’s high rainfall. it is apparent that standards of parking provisions vary. From the literature. high standards of security fittings to doors and window openings. Low speed internal roadways are regarded as preferable. and consequent loss of amenity compounds the difference. not used as a case study) achieves an acceptable level of safety with narrow drives and without footpaths. Prasad and Ballinger. As in other housing forms. In so far as design solutions can achieve good security in an undefined community. Minimum ratios are required through District Plans but are commonly exceeded by developers. and traffic in a mixed environment (Colquhoun and Fauset. 1996 p66). although designed for urban regeneration developments. even when the car itself is also protected by an alarm system. rental housing in the public sector should be as similar as possible to private sector housing in the same neighbourhood. and a maximum of 30 houses are served by the road. sets a relevant standard for medium density housing by combining landscaping. Medium density housing has developed in other countries with localised variations for parking and traffic design. with reduced street widths also possible if measures are taken to ensure pedestrian safety. on minimising construc4 tion costs. and electronic intruder alarm systems. encourage planning that locates the car in close proximity to the house. including architectural expression or image. climatic differences. Investors as well as developers are risk averse. In particular. and on street or ‘kerb’ appeal. The speculative industry also takes a cautious approach to all aspects of housing development. 1991). In the New Zealand context the parking issue also reflects differences between the main urban centres: Auckland has a road– based transportation system and the typically car–oriented culture of a low density city. One of the more successful examples in Australia (Moverly Green. in which pedestrian priority is assumed). and at all densities. Sydney. and the case studies (Section 5). the ability of owners to view their car is significant. The desire to increase both proximity and total parking provision is evident in examples from all countries.A New Zealand Definition of Medium Density Housing 25 probably entitled to be there. Car Parking and Storage Restricted parking and storage space for privately owned vehicles is inherent in the typology of medium density housing. Others explore vernacular architecture from England (Melview Place. simplicity. case study 7) or draw on late modernism to express complexity. (Tuscany Towers. and choice of materials. this study recognises that New Zealand architecture in medium density housing cannot be fully represented by examples selected entirely from the Auckland region. and Beaumont Quarter. ‘French rural’. by use of colour to differentiate one house from the next. Within the limited range of examples. with European influences most widely used. Some of the larger developments in West Auckland illustrate the high degree of design licence possible in the typology. (eg. Sacramento (case studies 17 and 27). A complete catalogue of stylistic influences is beyond the scope of this report. lack of self–conscious expression or reference to a foreign vernacular. Styles vary widely. of this study. The Arawa Road project (case study 10) is arguably the closest design to a recognisable New Zealand architecture. More expensive facing materials tend to be used in the higher priced developments. Both developers and the public seem prepared to accept imported domestic vernacular architecture in some form. two storey Breton terraced cottages with quoins. case study 24). by form. which in some cases has led to an architectural style associated with a particular design ‘school’: Beaumont Quarter (case study 26) is an example. many variations based on the Spanish Colonial style. At the Corban Village development (case study 4) each sub–section of the layout is architecturally distinctive. Italy. again using colours of the style to distinguish one unit from another. and several of the North Shore schemes. but a short summary of the principal variations is considered useful. Medium density housing design in Australia has not . Gunner Drive. window architraves and reveals.5 Stylistic variation occurs across all the layout classifications: this study found no apparent correlation between style and density band. A greater mix of dwelling types is also a perception (but not always the reality) generated by stylistic variations. amongst other styles. the developments illustrated therefore provide a partial but not complete picture of the issue of external design. Most of the case studies in this report illustrate architectural forms that reflect commonly held ideas of domestic building. reducing perceptions of mass. The Harbour View development exhibits. and regarded as critical to success. including the following: undecorated modernist externally plastered three storey houses differentiated by colour. case study 14). and by variation in form. and the single unit within the part. Medium density housing is generically a repetitive typology: stylistic variation within a general theme (‘Spanish colonial’. case study 6. case study 8). In spite of the great variety of style there is little sense of ‘theme park’ architecture in these developments. and difference (Romola Street. traditional Dutch decorated curved gables and party wall profiles. other cities have developed models in the typology that add significantly to the body of relevant work. as do St Georges Road (case study 12). and parapets at the party walls.26 Best practice in medium density housing design With regard to design style. widely adopted.) conceals repetition by allowing building detail to be read. etc. and a strong sense of free market choice. and geography. In the best schemes the perception of anonymity in the ‘mass’ of a large development is replaced by clear identity of the parts. The architectural variety contributes to the strategy. that seeks to disguise the differences between medium density housing and lower density suburban housing. and a group of Art Deco houses with streamlined curved corner windows. variety. or style and market sector. with no particular theme. A New Zealand Definition of Medium Density Housing 27 generally experimented in a comparable way. This section serves as a platform for the following case studies which provide a more detailed review of contemporary 6 medium density housing in New Zealand. . preferring traditional. Summary This section examined key design issues based on relevant literature and current practice in medium density housing. less exuberant residential styles that understate rather than celebrate diversity. usually much larger. both of these issues may need further consideration. There is a pronounced need distinguish between developments.28 Best practice in medium density housing design ENDNOTES 1 In the light of the debate regarding the usefulness or otherwise of ‘density’ as an indicator. design is architecturally experimental. a different type of building has to be generated to meet the typological requirement of medium density housing. lists and illustrates several projects of apparent relevance to this study but states density figures that place them outside the range of 30–60dph. novelty is often welcome in the marketing process. can be consistent and accurate. opting for auto–gated compounds. 1983) 3 New housing developments in many countries including New Zealand reflect this concern. often including work from home room(s). the Auckland Regional Council publication Urban Area Intensification (Auckland Regional Council. adjusted to the new product. and the numerous differently defined bases for calculation. and for developers. evidenced by contemporary housing design in New Zealand. different. This tentative conclusion may lead to two other issues relevant in the New Zealand context: (a) the custom in New Zealand society of constant do–it–yourself alteration of the home. or because of the controls imposed by a management structure representing community ownership. 2000e) referring to the AMCORD ‘net residential density’ term. A thirty year old house originally built for a modest market price will frequently be more cheaply replaced than modified to meet current lifestyle requirements. 2) complete definitions of privacy need to take account of the critical role of ‘control’ in the understanding of privacy. and/or heavily defended ground floor openings. There is evidence that insurers. it is hardly surprising that inconsistencies occur in the literature when density figures are used in comparisons. the development of a separate housing type (medium density housing) which does not lend itself to alteration. suburban detached house is not adaptable to higher densities. of which two are quoted here: “1) privacy is essentially a matter of person/environment transactions. that is. and with up to date services for electronic uses as well as bathrooms and kitchen. storage for recreational equipment. At the same time. having met a claim. either because of inflexible design. doors. In some instances. (iv) . For instance. 1975 (quoted by Darroch. electronic alarm systems fitted during construction.” Altman. Darroch refers to Altman’s six definitions of privacy. it is a dialectic or dynamic system— it is not a static event or state. to in the the 4 (ii) (iii) Stylistic definition can establish certainty of product for investors and funding institutions. as a condition of re–insurance. For medium density housing to be part of the same housing market in which rapid redevelopment is a regular market activity. both for buyers and residents. There is an increasingly common pattern of suburban re–development in North American and Australian cities. (as in case studies 13 and 24). the house itself has to be physically and architecturally independent of it neighbours. 2 (b) In the process of identifying a design model for the New Zealand context. most of these schemes do in fact coincide with the density range considered here. where houses are demolished after 25 years.Using the AMCORD methodology and revised calculations. and stylistically indeterminate models may need to be evolved. including the development of medium density housing. in Judd & Dean. the opportunity to change the architectural style is usually taken. 5 In these circumstances the extreme variety of external design in medium density housing in New Zealand is a phenomenon for which several explanations are offered: (i) The generic single storey. For this to be possible. will demand higher specifications for locks. order to establish identity. In a chapter entitled “Concepts of Privacy”. Cost estimating. with a different plan configuration reflecting contemporary use of domestic space. and sometimes upper floors also. and alarm installations. In medium density housing this independent condition is not usually possible. to be replaced with a ‘new model’. In the process. The ‘leaky building’ issue is local to the New Zealand building industry. If the wall has been built without the means by which such water can drain from the cavity the untreated framing starts to rot. associated with this housing type in the press. causes cracking in the external wall surface allowing water to enter the cavity within the wall. thus affecting much of the housing built. This failure may occur in a short period: a few months is not uncom- . The monolithic systems align readily with the stylistic preferences of developers and the buying public: various ‘European’ styles in particular the ‘Mediterranean’ styles rely on some form of stucco-like finish to the external walls. It is. The movement of framing timber after construction. since the cheapest cladding system able to gain approval from the central and local building authorities is attractive to developers. however. and therefore in public perceptions of higher density housing in general. The Building Research Association of New Zealand (BRANZ) issued appraisal Certificates for numerous proprietary cladding and finishing systems of this type after 1994. Evolution of the notion that housing is a commodity governed by the same market rules that apply to other commodities: housing is less short term (as a personal investment) than other domestic ‘durables’.A New Zealand Definition of Medium Density Housing 29 (v) A broadly open-minded. the Building Industry Authority (BIA) accepted untreated timber for external and internal construction in 1997. leading. and other details that suit dry hot climates. and is considered to be a technical matter relating to construction rather than a systemic issue in medium density housing. but still a commodity possession. this is in contrast to the conservative styles seen in the same market in the United Kingdom. or modernminded public encourages more rather than less experiment with external style than the industry offers. The period of development of most medium density housing in New Zealand has been subsequent to both these dates. 6 The house building industry has been affected by the problem called ‘leaky buildings’ since 2001 when the consequences of construction using monolithic plastered cladding systems fixed to untreated timber framing were first detected. eventually to structural failure of the wall. (vi) mon. Many schemes included in this review are affected by the problem. and is paralleled by design in Australia. often due to shrinkage following drying out. . 4 Case Studies: Methodology and Criteria . (iii) record and establish a database of quantifiable evidence to represent key aspects of each scheme relative to density. Type 4: layouts dependent on the three storey house type with internal garaging. and access to the private car. To construct a basis for valid comparisons different site layout types have been classified. The methodology separates. House types are also directly affected by the density scale. with the car internally garaged within the house type. to recognise the distinctions between layout amenity to householders in terms of car access. and ‘not within’ the curtilage. or provided with a carport or parking space within the property boundary. and in the New Zealand context. by the unit but also accessible from a public area and therefore not secure. and possibly owned. to acknowledge the amenity factors of security. In New Zealand. as defined in Type 1. as elsewhere. (ii) identify changes in the quality in the residential standards achieved. for different levels of density and layout types. It is acknowledged in the literature and amongst design professionals in housing that as density increases. The layout classifications are defined as: Type 1: front access to the house. referring to internal planning and external space standards. to acknowledge the local influence of climate. to: (i) track the pattern of compromise as it occurs for different levels of density and layout types. British literature makes frequent use of the term ‘curtilage’. Type 3: front or rear access with the car parked outside the property boundary: called. the proximity of the private car (and its security) is regarded as a secondary performance indicator. The analysis therefore aims to evaluate New Zealand examples. In New Zealand’s relatively informal society rear access is a common habit: the ‘back’ door does not represent a high level of social familiarity. Density is considered to be a performance indicator in all ‘after the event’ analyses of housing developments. aspect. some of which are referred to in previous sections. reducing options for frontage widths. layout types by vehicular proximity. and. for convenience. Methodology A methodology to select and critique examples was developed from Australian and British models. specifically in relation to car storage and parking.32 Best practice in medium density housing design CASE STUDIES: METHODOLOGY AND CRITERIA Introduction This case study examines contemporary medium density housing with particular reference to the relationship of density to amenity. Site layouts that provide similar car access validate comparisons between schemes at different levels of density. . Type 2: rear access to the house. (iv) assess the physical environment of medium density housing relative to lower density housing. distinguishing between ‘within’ the territorial boundary of a property (curtilage). and internal planning as density is increased. internal and external space standards. for reasons outlined in Sections 2 and 3. following this model. and including car parking adjacent to the house in a space controlled. compromises affecting the quality of the residential environment accumulate. access. and access in use. therefore. ‘remote’ parking. secure parking. (iii) Schemes previously included in other studies are generally excluded. The final list yielded 34 examples. with resource consents granted but not yet built. utility and servicing design.Case Studies: Methodology and Criteria 33 Site Selection Initially. facing materials. Glendowie (case study 12). Two storey house types dominate in the density range studied. 15. and are selected as examples at two different density levels. further criteria were established to identify representative schemes covering the principal layout 1 types. and Mt Taylor Drive. (vi) Affordability: a general preference is expressed for private sector developments at low and middle ‘market levels’. and part of the Sacramento development. because they are not. There are few ‘pure’ examples of Type 2 in the Auckland region (where all the New Zealand examples are located). Avondale (case study 22). The quality of the environment achieved is determined by density conditioned by other choices made in the scheme including house types. landscaping. Public sector schemes are also reviewed. was seen to impact on design options. selection has not excluded such schemes. 16 and 31 are included to illustrate a particular layout characteristic. described in the data chart as a ‘market level’. (vii) Quality of environment: schemes were selected primarily to illustrate the critical relationship of density to layout. in response to the focus in this report on affordable housing. for comparisons. (ii) Schemes of interest for reasons of layout type or density. New Lynn (case study 10). were included: Holly Street. Sites considered included composite or hybrid layouts. often combining Types 1 and 4. this option is considered sufficiently common for the case study selection to include a small number of examples for comparisons. with the three storey elevated living area house type used in some examples. and affect validity of comparisons. in some instances indicating an explanation for the choice made. drawing on the Australian experience in the typology. (v) Value: a significant variable observed. including schemes reviewed in other studies. however. East Tamaki (case studies 17 and 27). without reference to layout type or density where known. (iv) Density: schemes at densities higher and lower than the range identified as ‘medium’ density (30–66 dph) were included to provide comparisons. with the exception of Arawa Street. Case studies 6. under 40dph (in the lower range) and above 60dph at the high end of the medium density range. This has been recorded as a factor influencing layout design. and the provision of public open space. and layout to density characteristics increase significantly. 60 examples were listed for consideration. permitting gated examples to be included for comparison of layout types. It would be misleading to suggest that these developments are representative of the average standards achieved in Australia. They do. (i) Size: schemes of less than nineteen units were discounted: in smaller projects it was considered that variables of shape of site. From the original list of 60 schemes. rather than perceptions of residential quality. although smaller than the preferred lower limit. These . demonstrate achievable standards. including four Australian schemes. location. (viii) Management: the existence and effectiveness of Body Corporate management schemes affects many of the developments reviewed. it seems that few commercial house builders are prepared to take on a single project of more than 100 units. in some cases. and to some extent. and were therefore not quantified in the assembled database. Topographical Criteria Since severe slopes tend to distort other factors. and Harbour View) are large sites that have been parcelled into smaller sites to attract commercial development: from the overview of the study. and is recorded as an .34 Best practice in medium density housing design four developments illustrate established. and private gardens and patios. half of the case studies are drawn from Waitakere City.2. parking ratios. total floor space.3 Methodology The methodology involved visiting Council offices to obtain scale plans and details of the main house types used in each development. House types are described and discussed in the notes with each case study to establish a generic relationship between house type and layout classification. public open space. as far as possible. Where slope is significant to the layout design a note is made in the accompanying description. This is partly due to time limitations on the report. or where site areas given did not align with the preferred base data for density calculation. to be comparable. This is necessary to eliminate—as far as possible—disadvantage to very low–cost schemes and to identify high–cost schemes. within a single location. market. The methodology used included scanning scale drawings to provide data by digitally isolating built and non–built areas. Site areas given in City Council records. floor area ratios (FAR). only one of which (Coroglen) is located in West Auckland. including four on the North Shore. providing opportunities for useful comparisons of different layout and house type options. and high quality housing in which market performance has paralleled or exceeded similar developments. but is not otherwise indicated on the thumbnail plan. with flat or near flat sites taking priority. All schemes selected were visited and photographed. A further justification for the use of West Auckland examples lies in the perception that many. The pilot study also revealed that small variations— where extra but numerically insignificant variations such as modified end unit plans occurred—had little effect on density or the FAR. and to the ease of access to data (and the lower costs of retrieving data) in the Waitakere City Council procedure. From a pilot exercise it was found that this data yielded sufficient material to quantify density. of medium density housing projects in Waitakere are set at a low or medium point in the market scale. developments have been selected. Corban Village. The process of selection also took into account the medium density housing study carried out four years ago by the Auckland Regional Council (2000c). road areas. perhaps the majority. Multi-development Sites Three of the West Auckland examples (Ambrico Place. Location Excluding the Australian examples. Value and House Types From site observations and. which documented nine projects. and therefore gain relevance to a study focusing on this typology as an affordable housing proposition. site coverage footprint. well–regarded. and to identify house types as percentages of totals. an assessment was made of market position. These three larger developments have yielded eight examples between them. or taken from dimensions and bearings on survey drawings were checked by this method where a simple arithmetic check suggested the possibility of error. local real estate enquiries. In larger developments. Such arrangements reflect the small. It is apparent that some developers take care with this matter. with subdivisions to avoid an excessive agglomeration of bags. In the best schemes the process of refuse storage and collection is virtually invisible. the street impact of scores of bins. Many of the schemes visited have a refuse enclosure at the site entrance where refuse is deposited by residents. which is regarded as a relevant item of information in the assessment of the quality of the environment achieved relative to levels of density and layout type. In some instances ad hoc clothes drying arrangements occupied front gardens. using various semi–permanent lines sometimes fixed under balconies. estimated by building detail and location. or by the developer’s expectation of sale prices. In other schemes where development has been carried out behind houses on an existing road frontage. in the suburbs. with few roadside entrances and collection points. where known. while retractable lines and collapsible racks are common. Building roads to ‘adoptable’ Local Authority standards is expensive in construction costs and in site space at higher densities. in less concentrated forms. Observations confirmed that external clothes–drying is a common preference but not always a straightforward option for householders. and should be provided for wherever possible in all housing with ground level access to private open space. A minimum requirement for back– land sites should be a ‘compound’ roofed enclosure. damages the locality beyond the site itself. in some cases. as they are. although infrequent. 13. An unregulated refuse system. and others do not. but is generated by knowledge of the original property sale price. severely undermines the development’s potential. is very considerable. Storage of refuse inside the unit curtilage needs to be planned carefully for reasons of hygiene and practicality in the functioning of the household. and supplies a strong argument to reinforce public prejudices against increased densities. For soft collection systems based on polythene refuse sacks a maximum number of units served should be established if roadside (not internal) collection is necessary. located behind the front property boundary and screened from the street. Washing/drying Arrangements Site visits were conducted in good weather in June and July 2004. a workable and hygienic solution up to a maximum of about 25–30 houses. Kerb–side collection from individual properties is the preferred option for a high quality residential environment. kerb–side collections are sometimes seen to cause unacceptable weekly conditions for those houses. and often shadowed rear external spaces (case studies 10. and 24 provide some examples).Case Studies: Methodology and Criteria 35 approximate indicator of market value in column 19 of the data chart. Open air clothes drying is also a long– standing tradition in New Zealand households. Refuse Collection Refuse collection is referred to in the literature as a significant factor in determining the acceptability of higher density housing. may have to be tolerated as an annual event. Site planning to ensure even small rear yards with orientation to allow some solar access is possible up to approximately 60–70 dph. This number should not be more than ten. The number given on this scale is not quantified. on a scale from 1 (low market) to 5 (high market). and the difficulty of identification. and at higher density levels if the . and in some cases is not a practical option for reasons of access. Inorganic collections. in the best examples taking the form of an external enclosure with an external route to the collection point. The purpose of the scale is therefore to indicate the market ‘intention’. 36 Best practice in medium density housing design development incorporates underground car–parking. where relevant. and communal facilities. . where provided 4 by the developer. The case study commentaries discuss other factors that affect the overall quality of the residential environment including management by body corporates. Case Studies: Methodology and Criteria 37 ENDNOTES 1 The Tuscany Way site (case study 16) forms the southern boundary of the Edgelea block of 43 houses. The block is one model for greenfield medium density housing, planned as a perimeter of outward facing (front access) linked, or detached houses enclosing two garage courts serving rear accessed units not from the developer for associated infrastructure costs, but the bond payment took the form of security against certificates of title on unsold houses in the scheme. The Waitakere City Council was not the first mortgagee on the titles, effectively making the bond a debt to the Council alongside other unsecured creditors. Mr P Brown, Waitakere City Council Resource Management and Buildings Service manager said the arrangement at Tuscany Towers was unusual, in that neither a cash bond nor a bank guarantee was required from the developer. Because medium density, in this case on a large scheme of 97 units, normally cannot avoid unit titles (rather than the standard sub-division freehold title) the developer’s contribution cannot be ‘staged’ across the financing of the project in smaller increments; the cost of a long–serviced bank guarantee is high for the developer, who is dependent on sales and contract completions over a longer period than normal in suburban sub–division developments. It would seem that in this instance, in order to encourage the development (as a landmark medium density project, amongst the earliest in West Auckland) the Waitakere City Council took a step back from their usual bond requirements (Western Leader, Thursday 1 Nov 2001 p1 (Tuscany Towers, New Lynn) “Caught in Collapse”). 4 It is noted that some Body Corporate management schemes in higher density developments ban external clothes drying, requiring occupiers to use only tumble dryers. The same restriction is applied in some medium density developments, to protect external appearance from the domestic intrusion of washing. At densities between 30dph and 66dph these restrictions are not necessary, although at the upper end of the band, as case studies show, private open space becomes increasingly difficult to achieve. The Edgelea block site plan located on the block perimeter, in this case a courtyard type. A small semi-private ‘pocket’ park with no vehicular access but accessible to emergency traffic is defined by the frontages of eighteen units occupying the core of the block in three separate developments. A similar hybrid layout is used in the Oatlands development (case study 18), with a similar intention: to provide variation in house type, price range, and to gain density. 2 Ambrico Place, New Lynn. The Ambrico Place development occupies land previously used for industry, including a brickworks serving the local district of New Lynn; the site has been re–built since 1996 as the first larger scale medium density housing in Waitakere City. The development now consists of approximately 350 houses. There have been nine separate developers involved, all except two using architects for the layout design. Each parcel is different in architectural style and there are significant differences in layout principles, and in relational possibilities, that are reflected in varying densities (see case studies 25 and 29). Three of the Ambrico Place developments have used the narrow frontage dual aspect three-storey townhouse plan form. One of these is reviewed (case study 29). 3 Tuscany Towers (case study 7): Waitakere City Council required a bond of $485,000 5 Case Studies the under-sized space is not counted in the total. indicated on the sketch plans by a broken line. access and parking. the spaces between them. including visitor and casual parking. In some instances the sketch plans are simplified to clarify the layout type. where known. with other relevant data for date and place in columns 17 and 18. and Ambrico Place. Case studies are presented with the following conventions: (i) Sketch plans are diagrammatic. Parking: the total parking provision is given as a ratio of car spaces per unit. Case studies are presented in ascending order of density in each layout type. to illustrate the scale and form of the scheme. Beaumont Quarter. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (column 5) indicates the density of the development as a ratio of total floor space to site area. New Lynn. Column 20. Columns 1 and 2 list basic data describing development size. (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi) (vii) Where possible. Case studies 13. Tuscany Towers. case studies are numbered and named in the left hand columns. Botany Downs (3). In some instances there are variations between approved plans and the development ‘as built’. resulting in under-sized parking spaces in front of garage doors: where this has been noted from site visits. column 8: includes the large lower ground floor in the total site footprint. with North point to the top of the sketch. to avoid higher– end examples that may benefit from a developer’s willingness to invest more in building costs in anticipation of higher returns or faster sales. The figure generally rises with increasing density. the authors acknowledge a small degree of injustice to the designers in such cases. and balances or off–sets the variations in unit sizes. 26 and 28 use underground garage parking. Where a scheme uses more than one layout type. Case studies 25. reflecting increasing footprint. groups schemes according to the four layout classifications employed in this study (see p32).40 Best practice in medium density housing design Case Study Conventions Each site is illustrated with a thumbnail sketch plan showing the distribution and orientation of buildings. (ii) . Where communal or public open spaces are significant the area is indicated by a diagonal line. and the organisation of roads. The numerous candidates around central Auckland were reduced to one. Exceptional or non–standard figures are noted as follows: (i) Tuscany Towers. Columns 3 and 4 then arrange the schemes in ascending order of density within the layout type. 15 and 28 are Housing New Zealand Corporation owned developments. A summary of statistics is included with each study. Architects are credited. Integral garages are included in the unit floor areas where they occur. particularly Glendowie (3 schemes). slightly raising the total parking ratio for the development. Columns 12–16 all quantify other aspects of the parking and vehicular access arrangements.44*. the schemes reviewed have been selected in groups to minimise the effects of differences between locations. Case Study Data On the data table (p77). the secondary type is indicated in brackets in column 20. and column 13: 143**: figures include three storey units with four or five parking spaces available in a lower ground floor garage/ workshop. column 6: 2. The plans are not to a given scale. Glossary Terminology or abbreviations used for convenience in the case study analysis and the data chart include: Dph: dwellings per hectare. indicating positive. quality of the public environment within the development.Case Studies 41 (iii) Sacramento 1A. and maintenance. defined by perceptions of individuality within the whole development. standard of private vehicle parking achieved. See Section 4. 7. Floor Area Index (FAI). defined by overlooking and by perceptions of crowdedness. Case Study Evaluation The criteria that determine the quality of the residential environment in New Zealand's medium density housing developments are identified and discussed in the preceding sections. standard of identity achieved. Each study is therefore accompanied by a table of seven sections corresponding to the criteria listed above. 3. standard of privacy achieved. and arrangements for. defining density for a fuller explanation of the term. etc). 6. defined by convenience of proximity and access. The case studies selected display some characteristics typical of the typology in relation to more than one of these summarised criteria. washing. also abbreviated in the literature as ‘dpha’. quality of. and provision for private open space defined by convenience of access. method of. negative and neutral resolutions of the relevant issue. and capacity for extended domestic uses. ‘DpHa’. including out-door meals. and by perceptions of personal territorial ownership. . and marketing intentions. as with similar schemes (case study 24. the principal criteria are identified as: 1. collection of refuse. children's play area. defined by function. standard of security achieved in the detailed design of the physical environment and house unit. 4. FAR: Floor Area Ratio: also referred to elsewhere as Floor Space Index (FSI). landscaping. and ‘Du/Ha’. there are fewer than 2 car parking spaces per dwelling in the overall development. used here as the reference for the total floor space built as a ratio of the total site area. column 9: excludes carport roofs. and recreational gardening activities. 2. 5. including site topography and shape. Although the relationships between the criteria are complex. and vary between developments according to specific factors. privacy. Parking ratio: the ratio of total car parking provision to the number of dwellings in the development: where the ratio figure is less than 2. Architect: Grant Neill open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection no units 19 parking ratio 2. HARBOUR VIEW. the core of the site is planned with the balance of units permitted.0m is not an efficient house type for this purpose.59 . and a TV position under the stair cannot be viewed by any practical arrangement of living room furniture. To retain the highest possible density.20 + average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 5. the street is positively defined. upper floors are windowless on the back. The scheme illustrates many of the issues confronted by designers working in the medium density housing field. to reduce overlooking and satisfy height to boundary regulations. Other details suggest further problems with an unfamiliar house type: the third bedroom on the ground floor has to have a separate bathroom.742 179 302 33 . These compromises are reflected in the site planning. in which the density achieved is not justified by the crowded environment of the space between the houses. and is used to advantage in this layout. WAITAKERE CITY Vinograd Mews is a small development of nineteen houses at a density of 33dph. not located practically for use as a ground floor toilet. In this instance the site itself is also a challenging shape. Internally the planning makes considerable effort to avoid habitable rooms on both sides of party walls (built in 200mm concrete blockwork) at both floor levels. This development employs terraced housing but with compromised amenity in comparison with traditional suburban housing.42 Best practice in medium density housing design (1) VINOGRAD MEWS. causing a sense of crowding. making the rear elevation a featureless wall.7m and an overall length of nearly 15. Street frontage is an important requirement in the Harbour View strategy. Two storey units with integral garages address the street with small set–backs and vehicle crossings at over–frequent intervals: however. The ‘Z’ plan unit with a cross wall dimension of 9. and without domination by garage doors due to the recessed plan detail. Refuse is collected from an enclosure (not roofed) at the site entrance.135 142 271 37 0.52 . Overlooking remains a problem in spite of attempts in the planning of the site to protect privacy. Parking occupies all available space adjacent to the internal road. 37 dph and a FAR of 0. lacking ownership or organisation. property boundaries are indicated by concrete strips set into the (otherwise uniform) tarmac surface. MANUKAU CITY For reasons of typicality this project is included to represent a housing form that minimises the value of public space in order to gain density and private garden area. a factor most apparent in the service access.52). and security measures are the dominant feature in detailing. The elevation to the distributor road to the north of the site presents a wholly suburban identity. There are numerous developments of about this size and type in New Zealand: at this density (two storey housing in semi–detached units. EAST TAMAKI. the type has become a standard product in the market. planting is insignificant. Garage doors dominate. Architect: Alan Rolston Residential open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection no units 30 parking ratio 2. its appearance made more unsightly by an irregular arrangement which conveys an impression of haphazard use.Case Studies 43 (2) ADELPHI VILLAS.30 average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 8. fronted by letter boxes. The quality of the residential environment is necessarily compromised in this layout type. This contributes to a density of 37 dph. SUNNYVALE. with the majority of units either detached or linked detached sharing only the party wall between garages. The scheme makes no concessions to recent good practice in higher density design. Architect: Fuller Design open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection no units 89 parking ratio 2. The internal road is a public street in a compacted version of a traditional suburban layout. designed by Sinclair Knight Mentz. WAITAKERE CITY The development occupies land not previously built on. dual aspect houses. The layout is a hybrid. locally increasing density and introducing a variation on the otherwise comprehensively suburban theme. this approach has little to recommend it. such as this. perhaps reflecting the amenities close to the site. close to the Manui rail stop and the Parrs Park recreation area in West Auckland. which would improve the quality of this development. The scheme is included in this study to provide evidence of the need to recognise the difference between suburban (in the Auckland and New Zealand traditions) and medium density housing design. A compacted version of low density housing.08 - + - + average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 24. To ensure market diversity a small group of thirteen units has been arranged around a rear access garage court. The development has been built to attract investors in rental property. A landscaping scheme. As a residential environment. or to New Urbanist theory. or to the potential of urban housing to contribute lively neighbourhoods as part of the intensification process. and front access.43 . cannot achieve the potentially excellent residential environments of either suburbia or medium density housing. has not been implemented. The development loses most of the benefits of suburban layout design without gain in any area. No public open space has been included.44 Best practice in medium density housing design (3) SEYMOUR ROAD. providing an explanation for the variety of separate house types used.600 118 273 37 0. a level at the lower end of the medium density range. 686 249 40 . Overall. but succeed in enclosing this edge of the development and retain a lively street elevation. best illustrated in the central (rear access) group served by a private access driveway. no provision for internal communal areas. and rear entry predominantly with two storey house types. All units have one secure car space. WAITAKERE CITY The layout is based on two separate design principles: a front entry type using two and three storey house types. it also generates a tarmac and car–dominated environment at ground level. Although the house type is justified by a south–facing slope on this site. due to adjoining public open space. evidenced by architectural variety that removes any sense of uniformity or repetition. excessively so at this density. In this group the north–south orientation raises the question of the inactive entrance on the south side where recessed ‘front’doors are not in use in all cases.Case Studies 45 (4) CORBAN VILLAGE. The plan includes an adopted road which provides service access and refuse collection. HENDERSON.20 + average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 20. The same three storey type used in short terraces north of the internal road are detached from the rest of the development by their own paved forecourts. and. The whole development was packaged into approximately six developments. the development illustrates the quality of a residential urban environment possible at this density without sacrificing access to and security of the car. and the majority have a second space within view from the house. Terraced three storey townhouse types as built on the north–western boundary are not as articulated in plan as indicated on the original drawings. Architect: Various open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection + no units 83 parking ratio 2. accessed.46 Best practice in medium density housing design (5) FAIRHAVEN. The market. of two storey dual aspect units. is developed around a public loop road providing access for refuse collection and other services. and the Corban Village (case study 4) development. and to increase the number of ‘end’ units.30 - + - + average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 24. and is now being completed with 98 units. at the lowest levels on the site. GLEN EDEN.728 141 252 40 . including a play area. The core of the site.56 . in this variant. Architect: Harrison Grierson Consultants open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection no units 98 parking ratio 2. is likely to be sales to investors. The layout design is comparable to Seymour Road (case study 3). Short terraces of three units have been used to maximise side access to rear gardens. in this case. Back to back dimensions are minimal for the house type. WAITAKERE CITY This scheme was started in 1999. These have a ground floor room behind the garage. by a corridor alongside the stair leading to living accommodation on the first floor. giving a strong vertical emphasis. Density depends on the use of 26 three storey townhouse units on the perimeter of the site. A narrow plan is further expressed by dividing the front elevation into two. leading to a rear garden environment of a heavily fenced and enclosed warren of private spaces where overlooking is a significant issue. similar to two previous schemes. Two small areas adjoining the road provide public open spaces. seen by the market to have higher value. next to a stream. a factor that generally deters the dense planting which would be necessary to both improve the public side of the development and reduce over looking in the private garden spaces. Internal planning of the houses is conventional and also reflects new domestic uses of space by layout and spatial diversity. Access is from private culs de sac serving up to five units.140 176 242 41 0.10 - + average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 3. All the buildings are strongly articulated by form and by facing materials used. and planning the development at this density. power steering. where new residential property is replacing dilapidated housing stock and at the same time lifting density levels. Two pairs of houses. The total average floor area. Architect: Powley Architects open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection no units 13 parking ratio 2. contributing to perceptions of a crowded plan.73. The site plan illustrates two relevant points: (a) an architectural intention to propose higher density housing without loss of a modern tradition to treat each building as an object of design quality in its own right. shown as attached in the plans. also appear to have been built as single units.Case Studies 47 (6) ROMOLA STREET. and medium size rather than large cars are necessary. The FAR is 0. particularly between external private spaces. to such a degree that the site plan sketch is highly simplified. also a high figure for this layout type. but would not permit a detached unit design. GLENDOWIE. The project stands at the top of the market value scale in this study. At this density a different layout type would resolve these and the access problems. (See also Mt Taylor Drive—case study 11). a consequence of pursuing a market goal of building detached houses. including the 2 garages. dimensionally minimal so that the shared access function is only possible if rigorous discipline in use is maintained.73 . and upper floor rooms look directly into opposite units. Privacy between house units is inevitably very poor. at 176m indicates a relatively large unit size. (b) the extreme reduction of space outside the separated houses. AUCKLAND CITY This small development is part of the regeneration of the Madelaine Avenue area of Glendowie. and achieves good standards of privacy between units. The architecture is uniformly ‘tuscan–suburban’. and also from the external public road by a second ‘front’ door. A storey–height step inherited from former use of the site on the east site boundary introduces a third variation of larger units on a platform over a four car garage. reinforced by controlled rather than abundant landscaping. Architect: not known open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection + no units 97 parking ratio 2. including details of ornament. fences and walls. marked by a tower. These are standards of amenity that are possible at this density level. consequently.017 130* 237 42 0. providing extra non–allocated parking: the public domain is thus represented at several hierarchical levels. The development aims at a high standard of urban public space. WAITAKERE CITY Tuscany Towers was the first and largest stage of the development in Ambrico Place. The majority of houses are two storey three bedroom terraced units with garages accessed internally. The scheme of 97 units includes a tennis court and a public ‘square’/community space. careful detailing of paths.44* + - + average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 23. AMBRICO PLACE. and variations of height forming a coherent. The layout also achieves a high level of car proximity and security. using a plan form that provides accommodation at ground floor level for living or business use. offering live/work options to some residents. The public areas are included in the density calculation. colour palette. Access to these units from street level is via an ornate tiled stair shared by two adjacent houses. the layout and the street articulated by three storey four bedroom houses at corners and junctions. The internal streets are also public spaces. NEW LYNN.61 . which also houses the communal television aerial. the urban environment is vehicle– oriented rather than pedestrian–oriented and in this respect simulates suburban models. and knowledgeable example of the genre.48 Best practice in medium density housing design (7) TUSCANY TOWERS. consistent. and progressively more difficult to maintain at higher points in the density range for this layout type. Essentially. with an attached garage.00 . The layout design involves agreement from the controlling Territorial Authority to a high FAR. illustrated in the bottom photograph. in this case a wide–frontage two or three bedroom unit with a double garage connected to it. in this case calculated as 1. Diagonal cross–over garden walls divide rear gardens.768 126 227 44 1. At a density of 44dph. one more than would currently be permitted under regulations in another part of the Auckland region.Case Studies 49 (8) MELVIEW. AMBRICO PLACE. or into units from the public side—and consequently little contribution to the sense of community in the neighbourhood. WAITAKERE CITY This variation is the only semi–courtyard house type included in the survey. The design achieves a high level of security and privacy— there is minimal overlooking between units.0. Comparisons can be made with Rowena Crescent (case study 15). NEW LYNN. and one of the few recent developments of the type in the Auckland region. and use of a house type generally considered to be expensive for medium density housing. with two ‘attic’ bedrooms to reduce roofline heights for minimum back to back dimensions. Architect: not known open space (public) open space (private) refuse security collection privacy parking identity no units 22 parking ratio 2. The design identifies by materials and scale with the brick and tile suburban model bungalow. The minimised vehicular space requires disciplined use by residents. In this description there is a clear implication of an experimental type. On the public side the ‘mews’ access ways are shared by six dwellings. however. The high standard of private open space achieved by the courtyard house type is severely affected by a later development on an adjoining site. a single storey design has been used. and blank rear walls to the garages form the ends of the small courtyard gardens which are also accessible through the house. underlining the need for co–ordination of the whole site strategy from an early stage if higher density housing is to be successful. Planting in these accessways succeeds in softening the otherwise entirely hard surface. the layout achieves a higher standard of privacy than most comparable schemes.18 + + average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 2. Overall site density is increased by the inclusion of a three storey. a better solution to space necessary for light and privacy distances between buildings than privately owned back gardens. case study 3) the influence of the developer’s interest in building for investment is apparent. screens and entrances introduce variety to the street elevations. uses curved roads to avoid repetitive and tedious views. semi–detached. which are minimised. Details of shutters. add a further option to the investment market. dual aspect house type. The scheme is included in the survey to illustrate the impact this variety can have on the resulting environment. Numerous materials are used. and facing brick. The development is not close to shopping or transport other than bus routes. plaster finishes. but is adjacent to the West Auckland Marae. and the major public recreation space in the district. board and batten. unusually in this typology. This diversity is reinforced by the site planning.5m. This interrupts and varies the street terrace and forms a larger block at the entrance to the site. with front access and attached garages. In this layout (see also Seymour Road. The site plan includes two small pocket parks towards the north end of the site. represented by the variety of detached. including metal sheet. Architect: Powley Architects open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection no units 94 parking ratio 2. SUNNYVALE. WAITAKERE CITY The majority of units in this scheme are two storey three bedroom houses in terraced or detached type. Seven two storey detached houses with remote parking in carports opposite.52 .50 Best practice in medium density housing design (9) ALBION VALE.800 115 221 45 0.23 + average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 20. The high parking ratio may be partly explained by the location. which. narrow fronted. and short terraces built. and space between the units of less than 1. reducing the space the road needs clear of building. This significant design flaw could have been avoided by provision of a boxed compound at each exit. All units are clad in timber products and thus avoid association with ‘leaky building’ external finishes. The refuse bags form an unsightly weekly event at the site entrance. Most units have good orientation. 3m wide driveways in and out of the site operate on a strict one–way basis. and a better site services solution would have relieved most of the problems. and affect the outlook from other properties on the street. Carports behind this group reduce natural light to kitchen windows (which could have been placed on the gable walls) and front gardens tend to be dominated by washing lines. A slightly smaller development of seventeen units at a density of 41dph. made possible by the assembly of under–used land at the rear of several properties fronting onto Arawa Street. Proposals to double up the western rail link and increase rail traffic will affect the quiet environment of this development in the future. resulting in private space on the south side that is unacceptably small at 1. WAITAKERE CITY The development is one of the early new generation medium density housing schemes in West Auckland. NEW LYNN. good access and parking. Medium density classification is justified by proximity to New Lynn and the Fruitvale rail station. This compresses the site area available for four north facing units. quiet residential environment. and a reasonable outlook. The layout is compromised by the tapered shape of the site at the west end. and also by the decision to provide a second exit at the east end. Bagged refuse is collected from the roadside at the exits onto Arawa Street.Case Studies 51 (10) ARAWA STREET. in an otherwise pleasant. and not stigmatised by the type of house offered. and overshadowed. Architect: Insite Architecture open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection no units 19 parking ratio 1. one recent re– sale suggests that invested values are in line with other property values in the area.51 . to which it is linked by a footpath at the bottom of the rail embankment on the southern edge of the site.5m wide.168 112 219 46 0.70 + - average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 4. 52 Best practice in medium density housing design (11) OATES ROAD. Rear gardens are. and to visitors parking on the street. despite its convenience for access to local amenities. and the small park. including washing lines. The street form is a successful contribution to a more urban identity in Glen Eden. and partly to the use of a hybridised layout design resolving the main street frontage access to seven units by the use of rear garaging. inevitably small.55 places the layout in the middle of the density range. and excellent security. In other respects it is an unremarkable scheme of two storey three bedroom houses. have metal ‘pool’ fencing 1. and the small private area adjacent to the front door not apparently functioning as a garden in all cases. and rear access from open–sided garages within the curtilage approached from the two–way internal driveway. The seven frontage units are less practical in this respect. while mail delivery is to individual properties. the majority (18 of 25) with attached single garages not accessed from inside the units. it is apparent that not all the residents use the front door access onto Oates Road. Architect: Tse Group Architects [for HNZC] open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection + no units 25 parking ratio 2. giving a slightly defensive impression but also clear definition. but adequate for their purpose. The site includes a combined park and children’s playground on the west section of the front terrace. GLEN EDEN.2m high. and at a high point for the layout type. The Oates Road frontage on the south boundary is established by a terrace of seven houses with front doors and kitchen windows facing the road (south). apparently well–used. which diminish the quality of the streetscape. and adding the important dimension of space to an otherwise compact development.55 . at this density.00 + average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 4. transparency to pedestrians. The internal street also suffers from the garage doors. WAITAKERE CITY The density at 51dph and a FAR of 0. All properties. This is partly due to the regular shape and dimensions of the site. Refuse is collected from both Oates Road entrances (no enclosures: informal on–street arrangement).941 108 198 51 0. From observation. the private garden space dominated by the back wall of the garage. would reduce the parking ratio. reflecting minimal private open space proposed. and some ground level areas are required for parking and manoeuvring of cars. The project (not built) is included in the survey to illustrate the potential for mixed housing and architecturally complex design in this process. The proposal consists of two and three storey terraces in linear form on a narrow site. in two storeys proved not to be capable of providing an acceptable residential environment: all external space. providing small open park areas perhaps in compensation for under–sized private gardens. with a group of twelve one and two bedroomed apartment units closing the site plan at the north end. possibly anticipating later conversion to supplementary living space.78. which.78 .70 average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 5. and a high FAR at 0. They also propose housing at moderately high density with minimal external space. This and the Romola Street scheme represent a distinctive and lively architecture characteristic of contemporary Auckland design. This group has a local density of 96dph. The FAR figure is close to that of the Romola Street project designed by the same architects (case study 6). proposed as “innovative” solutions to urban housing at higher densities. if effected. which. AUCKLAND CITY Redevelopment in the area around Madeleine Avenue in Glendowie has included several experimental housing schemes. two wedge shaped landscaped spaces articulate the site plan.Case Studies 53 (12) MT TAYLOR DRIVE. The balance of the layout has a density of 53dph. GLENDOWIE (PROJECT). Some house plans show single width garages with stacked parking plus one external visitor parking space. Architect: Powley Architects no units 30 parking ratio 2.658 148 187 53 0. and variation in unit design to prevent repetitive streetscape. overlooking between houses in this instance controlled by care in site planning. In the Mt Taylor layout. The accommodation is standardised around a two bedroom plus study. overlooking is not a significant problem except for two short groups in the centre of the plan. single bathroom. AUCKLAND CITY The site lies between the edge of the Western Rail Link south of the Avondale Town Centre. The scheme is entirely built in timber framing with a plastered cladding system.30 - + - average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 8. with a manager resident on site. there would appear to be minimal opportunity to achieve a reasonable residential environment. These are planned in short terraces following a curved central access road. refuse bins. This is typical of land in the Auckland region now being considered for housing use. In this context and the configuration of the site itself. open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection Architect: Tse Group Architects no units 45 parking ratio 2. Garage doors are recessed behind the front elevation line.427 116 187 53 0. single garage formula. and the back wall of the Lansford Crescent industrial area.2m floor area. the smaller 2 of two bedrooms has 9. The project was built as an open development. There is a body corporate responsible for maintenance. with some variations. and steps to entrances are not all resolved. balconied decks on the west elevation and 5. A version of the three storey townhouse type has been used in two short groups to screen the 6m high concrete block wall on the east boundary from the bulk of the site. Because of the linear site and terraced housing form. Compensation is provided for the units affected by the use of a modified single aspect plan variant. with poor natural light on the east side of the house. The twelve units in these two blocks are penalised by this strategy: rear patio yards are heavily shadowed.62 . AVONDALE. and is now gated. the public side of the terraces generally produces a satisfactory urban housing environment. and although details such as meter boxes. too small to have practical value. Casual parking spaces occur intermittently along the road without dominating the space. in an 2 average size of 116m per unit. The benefit to the remaining 33 two storey houses is considerable.54 Best practice in medium density housing design (13) ST GEORGE’S TERRACE. which is further enhanced by moderately dense and well maintained landscaping. previously not developed. where back to back dimensions are too small.0m frontages. 70 Type C: Ground floor plan . This scheme achieves minimum standards of private and public space without providing any degree of separation between pedestrian and vehicular space. the exception being in the use of the ‘C’ variation (a dual aspect narrow front type) used for the group of three in the centre of the block—the single aspect unit would have overcome back to back overlooking. The high density achieved is partly the result of small floor areas (allowing for integral garages. or air–tight fittings. does not permit rear footpaths. According to approved drawings a sliding door unit is used between the garage and the living room. The ‘C’ type is a two bedroom plus ‘study’ on the upper floor. WAITAKERE CITY The third site selected in the Harbour View development consists of 31 houses in a rectilinear plan form. the net habitable space 2 averages 95m for three bedroom houses).076 114 164 61 0. Kitchens are placed next to the front entrance in this plan. at this density.Case Studies 55 (14) GUNNER DRIVE. Sliding doors are not supplied as self–closing. but would also have reduced the total number of units. representing a conventional arrangement of medium density housing on a straightforward flat rectangular land parcel. Rear gardens are only accessible through the house in most cases: the site plan. Overlooking is contained by the mix of types. maintaining an active street elevation. HARBOUR VIEW. and the use of narrow fronted deep–planned house types. Architect: Snell Kaiser Hale Ltd Designers open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection no units 31 parking ratio 1.90 - - average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 5. with a poorly planned ground floor internal kitchen and under–sized living room. These have a single aspect configuration at first floor made possible by the third bedroom being accessed from the living room on the ground floor. an internal ground floor bathroom is necessary with access from the living room and headroom partly restricted by the stair. Consequently. Some detail of the units themselves. thus creating the possibility of an urban street dominated by active and continuous facades. The removal of the garage to the back ‘liberates’ the street frontage by separating the main public elevation and the front door from the main car access.01 + + average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 6. The garage is normally separated from the house. including courtyard housing with equal private open space and garaging amenity. The street side of the houses. are less satisfactory. is a successful and welcome variation in a typical low–density Auckland suburb. site dimensions have allowed an extended garden area and thus a distance between garage and house that would appear to be too great. rather than housing at medium density. suggest criticism of the scheme. and the stepped terrace elevation. windows. The rear access layout type is discussed further in Section 6. In this instance. some landscaping. AUCKLAND CITY The section of the development reviewed in this study is limited to the rear access terrace of sixteen units.570 116 410 24 0. GLENDOWIE. with casual parking. Private garden or patio space between the two.28 . particularly the New Urbanist group in the USA. At this density other layout types could have been considered.56 Best practice in medium density housing design (15) ROWENA CRESCENT. as in this scheme. Architect: Architectus Architects [for HNZC] open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection + no units 16 parking ratio 2. the inclusion of this development in the study is justified by an experimental site design. Rear access from semi–private or private rear lanes is endorsed by many housing designers overseas. but remains within the property curtilage. and appears to satisfy the objectives of the design. but recognises the experiment undertaken. Low density housing in the immediate vicinity determines a relatively low density layout on this site (24 dph). and front doors. however. This comment does not. such as patio doors to the garden side serving the rear access determined by the layout. and separation of the extended function of the garage from the house promises a diversity in practical use that usually cannot be offered by the attached garage model. without significant recognition of the connection to the garden and garage. The lane is separated from the adjoining garage court (serving another development) by a robust fence. The house type used succeeds in bridging the transition to the residential character of new housing to the north and west. and improved pedestrian safety creating a wholly pedestrian environment. The design has the potential to offer live/work accommodation. The rear access lane is entirely hard surfaced. and is inevitably a low quality space. In this development the front street is the boundary of a small public park. with a corridor connection between the two parts. The internal wall of the garage is fitted with glazed doors opening into the courtyard.00 + + average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 3. In the second stage. WAITAKERE CITY The first phase of this group.Case Studies 57 (16) TUSCANY WAY. which reinforces perceptions of high security but also regrettably doubles the driveway surface. the plan arrangement is modified to form a small courtyard between a large double garage and the house. or use likely to be made of the ‘back’ door. with insufficient allowance in the planning for planting or variation to the aesthetic of continuous metal doors. adopting the principle of rear access from a private lane. Internally the house type used in the first stage is conventional in plan. Ground floor plan: North Block Benefits to the public street side (both stages) include full use of the frontage without the interruptions of garage doors or vehicular pavement crossings. The site is adjacent to a small commercial area.539 157 272 37 0. HARBOUR VIEW. Orientation places the garden at the back on the northerly side of the terrace. four two storey three bedroom terraced houses was built as an experiment in layout typology. Architect: Richard Lambourne open space (public) open space (private) refuse security collection privacy parking identity + no units 13 parking ratio 2.58 . with the formal house frontage facing a public street. and delayed for several years after the first block was occupied. not yet completed. The development has a density of 34dph.440 113 292 34 0. and overlooking in the corner sites is pronounced. Private gardens are very small. entered from either side with parking either side or more distant (40% of the total). with off–set or stepped plans used at corners. and for lower market positioning. which is also traversed by a public footpath from the perimeter road. and approximately 138m2 floor area (60% of the total). The site is close to the Botany Downs shopping centre. If the public space is deducted the density calculation increases to 44dph. However. relatively low for a terraced housing layout. particularly for perimeter buildings enclosing a communal space. The majority of units are accessed from the site boundary and there are two variations. succeeds in providing a good interface with the public realm. A communal pool with a changing pavilion. some of which do not have attached garaging. with an integral single garage. plus visitor space.58 Best practice in medium density housing design (17) SACRAMENTO 1A. provide public space in the centre of the layout. or east–west) orientation. this figure includes a 2 large public open space of 2900m . open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection + no units parking ratio 2. All units have a rear accessed carport or car parking space. There are few such examples in recent Auckland medium density developments. of 76m2. Density is determined by use of two main house types: (i) dual aspect/dual access two storey two bedroom unit. but the generous central space provides some compensation.40 average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 13. This type can be used in either principal (north. The frontage to the external streets. closer to a representative figure for two storey mixed housing. (ii) a dual aspect front access three bedroom type. with reduced numbers of crossings and few garage doors. perceptions of spaciousness and good distance between terraces. this scheme also provides a comparison with case studies 20 and 21. with no integral garage. BOTANY DOWNS. in other respects.36 Architect: Powley Architects 46 . and a tennis court. MANUKAU CITY Two stages of this scheme are included in this review to offer a comparison of densities achievable in hybrid layouts with mixed house types. while the core density reaches approximately 37 dph. which includes a children’s playground. carefully planned mixed unit housing scheme that combines suburban and urban streetscapes.Case Studies 59 (18) OATLANDS DEVELOPMENT. and a ‘passive’ recreation space. A three storey block of 24 apartments with underground parking encloses the central public space. All units front either the perimeter road or the central ‘village green’ public open space and are accessed from a privately owned rear service lane. on approximately 500m lots. This strategy provides the development as a whole with a reducing scale of lot sizes to form a boundary to surrounding low density housing. and formal architectural detail responding to order in rank and position in the site layout. The layout includes two small parks. The development succeeds in generating a strong sense of communality in the central area.800 277 37 - .5m) the lane is dominated by garage doors with variation provided by open sided carports and seventeen further accommodation units in the form of studio apartments built over double garages. axes. PENNANT HILLS ROAD. SYDNEY This project is an example of a commercial mixed density sub–division that combines three separate layout principles: (a) a perimeter access road serving a lower density 2 detached unit house type. Oatlands is a sophisticated. (c) The whole development is planned in accordance with some of the New Urbanist principles: pedestrian systems. Architect: Stanton Dahl Haysom Spender open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection + no units 140 parking ratio - + + average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 64. and also retains 27 high value houses to sell. Partly because of the narrow lot widths (minimum 4. The average density of the development is approximately 22dph. an ‘activity’ area. (b) A core area of the site contains 50 detached and 2 terraced units on smaller lots varying from 300m to 2 160m . while the character of the perimeter road is not distinguishable from any average suburban street in the area. but with an inactive east façade to the park. landscaping organised in geometric patterns. the studios accessed from external stairs entered from the service lane. and to illustrate a twenty year old design that has matured and improved as a living environment. Architect: Lend Lease Homes (Architects) 1983 open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection + no units 35 parking ratio 1. Three bedroom units are designed with a second bathroom on the bedroom floor. Others have direct access from parking or temporary unloading space: garages and carports are generally a short walking distance from the house unit. along with Ewenton Street (case study 25) to reflect the greater familiarity of Australian housing designers with the design of medium density housing. and reflect the space standards applicable at the time rather than current Australian standards. and the acceptance of separate car storage and parking. the majority (25 of 35) with two large bedrooms and a ground floor bathroom in addition to a ‘two–way entry’ bathroom on the upper floor. without alteration or significant re–investment over the period.5 + + average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 8.44 . The terraces are connected by steps responding to a sloping site. A high standard of privacy is achieved by pedestrian–only access to most units. MACQUARIE PARK.60 Best practice in medium density housing design (19) FONTENOY ROAD. included. the house areas are small. all of which have been completed at similar densities to Fontenoy Road. All houses in the scheme have small private gardens or patios on both sides of the unit. On this site. and by dense landscaping. a difficult boundary configuration and a steep slope to the north east have resulted in some units being disadvantaged for access from the higher driveway in the centre of the plan. and the efforts made by the designers to articulate the otherwise uniform elevations to the public side. As in the case of the Ewenton Street scheme. SYDNEY Fontenoy Road is the oldest example reviewed in the study. a large central space occupied by the driveway. The site was the first of several stages of medium density development carried out by Lend Lease Homes in the area around Macquarie Park. All units are two storey. seen in this analysis as the product of density of less than 40dph.900 107 254 39 0. Internally. The cause of the problem is the concentration of similar house types and a high parking ratio for this size of unit: a mix of types and a lower density would offer other and better layout options. Shared external stairs provide access to upper units. included in the conventions of this type of unit are one bedroom units with a combined entry space/kitchen/bathroom access located on the south side of the unit. This is a small unit development in a two and three storey building form. but at the expense of back spaces heavily dominated by vehicle parking. that is. All parking is outside the property curtilage. of two “U” shaped courtyards with parking to each side. which create a barrier between this scheme and adjoining housing. Parking is one covered carport for each unit. is considered here. from two bedroom 2 duplexes. The site plan shows both phases of the development to clarify the planning strategy. To break down the repetitive character of the building blocks. ALBANY. NORTH SHORE CITY The scheme designed for this rectangular site consists of a two stage development. The scheme is compared with the adjoining development accessed from Bush Road (case study 21). remote from the dwelling. Architect: Sigma Planners. with 33 units. identity of individual units is sought through the frequently used device of small pitched gables added decoratively to front and back terrace elevations. plus one open parking space. of which the first.Case Studies 61 (20) CAROLINA PLACE. Architects & Designers open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection no units 33 parking ratio 1. The central public open space is landscaped. with each double sided parking block located adjacent to the dwellings served.31 Ground floor plan: Typical 1-bedroom unit . Units vary in size and (presumably) market level. forming a pocket park with a pool and 2 poolhouse/gym of 80m for common use.97 - - average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 6. the layout has consistency. Internal planning is conventional with all units having views onto the central space.300 59 191 52 . to one and two bedroom apartments of 50m . overlooked by no more than half of all units. This arrangement raises problems of sound transmission. and upper floor balconies overlook rear patio gardens to bedroom windows. ALBANY. and high parking ratios demanded by the developer. open space (public) open space (private) 2 privacy parking identity refuse security collection Architect: Powley Architects + no units 105 parking ratio 1. Inevitably the internal road is entirely dominated by parking and carports. This scheme has building and active elevations on its boundaries rather than tarmac and vehicles. and orientation on the north–south blocks. similar to 2 Carolina Place (60m ). surrounded by gardens. NORTH SHORE CITY The Bush Road development is similar to the Carolina Place scheme in density. which reverses lower to upper plans. Each of these projects has been designed to address layout issues generated by large numbers of small units. The central public space is. occupies a small courtyard which also provides access to the two lower units. it is included to provide a comparison. which. alongside the Sacramento development (Stage B).750 60 178 56 0. The average unit size in this project is 59m . A three bedroom ground floor unit (type C) has one bedroom looking into this courtyard. market price expectations at lower levels.31 and 0. because of a cross–over plan type used in the two storey apartment planning. placing living rooms at first floor over bedrooms (in a separate title) below. the central public space has a tennis court and a pool. Parking is remote from the dwelling curtilage. has social significance. reducing security and the practical value of attached garaging. it is necessary to avoid lower floor living rooms on the same side looking directly into the carports lining the internal road.33 . This is achieved without sacrifice of public open space. on the east–west facing blocks private open space is possible at ground level.86 - - average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 18. at ground level. In addition. with a comparable parking standard and FAR (0. A lower parking ratio and a wider mix of unit types would improve the residential environment.62 Best practice in medium density housing design (21) BUSH ROAD. curiously. Upper units are arranged in pairs sharing a staircase. Density achieved in a two–storey development is 56 dph. and for the focus on small unit sizes. As with the Carolina scheme.33). for projects aiming to provide low cost housing for younger buyers. The stair. The layout strategy is different. 870 89 161 62 0. Characteristically in this layout type the house entrance is separated from the parking space or carport by a public footpath. AVONDALE (PROJECT).55. AUCKLAND CITY This is a proposed development of 80 houses on disused industrial land adjacent to Avondale College sports grounds with access from Holly Street. despite a parking ratio of only 1. Architect: Andrew J MacGregor Architect no units 80 parking ratio 1. The layout proposes terraced housing spaced 15m apart with parking on one or both sides of the private access driveway. in an area of low density quarter acre section housing. House types vary. and the public side of all dwellings is thus dominated by vehicles.Case Studies 63 (22) HOLLY STREET.6. At the site entrance five semi–detached units with double garages add another house type variation. The site has a deep hollow in the central section affecting the outlook of fourteen of the units proposed. The scheme was granted consent in 2001 as an ‘innovative housing’ development under the terms of the Auckland City Council District Plan.55 . without nominated recreational uses or children’s play areas. at a density of 62 dph and a FAR of . from a central amenity. as far into the site as necessary for collection.60 average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 12. Part of the internal roading is proposed as a public road. the majority proposed two or three bedroomed two storey terraced type with an average floor 2 area of 89m . of refuse. Public spaces are indicated in three positions on the perimeter of the site plan. open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection + no units 19 parking ratio 1. and identity of individual units at a high point on the medium density scale. private open space. BRISBANE This development is a type of cluster layout. and good environmental amenity. variety in unit value.64 Best practice in medium density housing design (23) COTTONTREE. 85(4). approx. 1996. illustrates a layout that achieves high standards of privacy.572 197 63 . The project demonstrates the possibilities. building heights taper down from three storeys on this boundary to single storey units on the northern frontage. however. The site planning. but can be classified here as a hybrid remote parking type since six of the nineteen units are entered directly from the site boundaries rather than from within the site. 55m ) are placed on the second floor along the southern edge of the site. The 2 smallest units (one bedroom. The project has received awards for design. It is also noted that the layout is governed by climatic considerations (emphasising shade. in a small development. Architect: Clare Design. Fourteen of the nineteen units are entered at ground level. have small patio gardens and secure parking adjacent to their entrances.18 + average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 3. that originate in a brief that required diversity in accommodation. Architects Photographs by Richard Stringer. and cross ventilation for summer cooling) appropriate to the tropical location rather than Auckland’s temperate climate. published in Architecture Australia. The remaining 41 units are planned with entrance through a hallway/kitchen with side access to the stair. modified for this condition. emptied by vehicle mounted hoist. however. The internal plan is not.00 + average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 9. which is consequently both dark and unventilated.49 . To preserve privacy to ground floor public side rooms. Apart from a small recreation space in the north corner. The principal variation is the house type used on the southern boundary for twenty units. and a laundry space but no ground floor toilet. Considerable effort has been made in this project to soften the internal street.Case Studies 65 (24) SOLJAK PLACE. All the terraces are oriented (by the site boundaries) to face northwest or northeast. but uncompromisingly car dominated public space. the layout is a dedicated. Refuse collection has been well designed and planned. Architect: Powley Architects Ground floor plan: Typical unit open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection no units 61 parking ratio 2. on a site next to the western rail corridor. by butterfly roofs to carports.350 75 153 65 0. in this case the kitchen. but no window to the kitchen area. which achieves its objectives to form a pleasant. AUCKLAND CITY The development was completed in 2001. the front elevation includes a glazed door (the ‘front’ or main entry door) 2 and a ventilating window of 0. and heavy landscaping and planting.25m for the laundry. except for front entry to the living room. and a small front or rear private garden. small off– sets in the road layout. The first floor is conventionally planned with two bedrooms and a central mechanically ventilated bathroom. with a container discreetly located at the front of the development. The scheme is gated. which provides a front patio garden in addition to space behind the terrace. The scheme is included to demonstrate the limitations of the layout type in which density of development in two storeys does not permit garaging within the individual property curtilage. one of five such sites in this study. MOUNT ALBERT. monotype development of two bedroomed terraced houses with carport parking adjacent to the unit. reflected in the low average size of 107m . a walled. and hobby activities.50 + - + + average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 5. The high density figure and the high quality of the residential environment is achieved by the inclusion of a naturally ventilated single storey underground garage providing all parking for the 38 units on the site (shown broken line on plan). The layout consists of a perimeter two storey terrace of housing enclosing an internal public courtyard defined by 225mm brick screen walls and planters. Houses facing onto the two street frontages (Ewenton and Darling Streets) are two storey square plan two bedroomed townhouses with rooms on the upper floors contained in roof space with dormer windows. SYDNEY This two storey development is located in an inner suburb where regeneration is occurring by a process of infilling and small scale redevelopment in accordance with an intensification policy. workshops. high quality environment. The majority of the mesh–enclosed garage lock–ups are not used for cars but for storage. gated compound adjoining the Ewenton Street footpath entrance.669 107 150 66 0. Fifteen years after construction it is observed (2004) that the development has matured into a comfortable.66 Best practice in medium density housing design (25) EWENTON ST. including a stair. The central landscaped areas. Judd (1993) comments that the position of the garage favours some units over others: there is a considerable walk required for some householders. reflecting the high accessibility of public transport available in Sydney. Refuse collection is from a single point in the development. Evidence of current resale prices suggests parity with other property in the area. Only seven of the houses in the development have three 2 bedrooms. Unit dimensions are not available for a more detailed footprint calculation. to satisfy the heritage context. Architect: Philip Cox Richardson Taylor and Partners open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection + no units 38 parking ratio 1.71 . BALMAIN. in two courtyards are surrounded by private patio gardens accessed from the units. and has high annual maintenance charges levied through the body corporate. by individual electronic alarms. Architect: Studio of Pacific Architecture & S333 open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection no units 70 parking ratio 1. including pressed aluminium.150 n/a 145 69 n/a . patios and rear yards separate house fronts from public spaces which vary in character and planting. Density at 69dph is aided by the inclusion of eight apartments in a central block also containing a small area of lettable commercial floor space. without being ostentatious or expensive. preventing a later move to enclose the public areas. The scheme includes a gym/pool reflecting the market standard. zincalume. or. The majority of the house types used are without internal garaging: cars are parked in front of units with security provided by surveillance from the house and the street. The scheme demonstrates some of the potential of medium density housing by the mixed development strategy. Small courtyards. AUCKLAND CITY The first stage of this development occupies formerly commercial land near the city centre. and by the use of five main variations in the house type. expressed in the external detailing of louvres. Later stages will alter the density (achieved in this stage by adopting underground remote parking strategies) for a high class urban housing solution. for the majority.10 + average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 10. The scheme is included to provide a comparison with others at a similar density. painted brickwork and stained timber. both internally and externally. are paramount concerns partly explained by the scheme being an early intervention in this part of the city. A range of facing materials.Case Studies 67 (26) BEAUMONT QUARTER. Developer contributions were negotiated against the benefit to the city of some aspects of the development. and the standard of urban space achieved. in an underground garage. Finishes are of uniformly high quality. Privacy and security. secure remote parking. provide diversity and identity. The louvres also provide solar control. MANUKAU CITY [See general notes: case study 17] The second phase of this scheme re–uses three of the previous house types. Façade design provides variation. without offering a convincing demonstration of the typology at this density. The apartment unit does. which are oriented north or west. Ground floor external spaces—patios between the apartment and the rear carport enclosure—generally lack sun and privacy.4 to 1. 21).900 74 138 72 0. The one bedroom units are entered from external stairs located between units. This causes upper decks to overlook ground level garden areas (bottom photo. Identity is secured by these methods. the 2 average unit size is reduced from 113 to 74m . and a colour scheme based on traditional mexican shades reinforces the chosen style. with living room over living room (compare to case studies 20. rather than contained in the garage court as in Stage 1. and the parking ratio from 2. add an entry–level market option for first time buyers. Some ground level enclosed space is used for covered parking. with parking on both sides of the roadway.64. 2 approximately 44m .64 average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 6. alongside set–backs. The central spaces within the site are entirely car–dominated. More critically. Architect: Powley Architects open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection no units 50 parking ratio 1. however. calculating the bedspace/hectare ratio also increases the effective density (163 maximum in Stage 1 to 191 maximum in Stage 2). despite the lower ratio. in terms of the residential environment achieved. but adds another. EAST TAMAKI.68 Best practice in medium density housing design (27) SACRAMENTO 1B. and the omission of public space. the second stage necessitates the majority of parking for the small units to be located off the main access through the site. smaller unit type: a one bedroom apartment in a two storey block: “Arizona”. increases the net density to 72 dph. The stairs lead to balconies shared between two upper units.53 . left). This small unit. and other media. and the retaining wall over– shadowing north facing units on the eastern corner. The site context consists of an arterial road frontage dominated by commercial uses. necessitating the 12 centrally placed carports and their access through the centre of the layout. The decision to separate the bulk of parking in a lower level naturally ventilated garage has had the effect of liberating internal site space at ground level to produce a landscape– dominated environment.Case Studies 69 (28) HILLSBOROUGH ROAD. LYNFIELD. AUCKLAND CITY This development is located next to the large and expanding shopping facility serving the Lynfield District. Topography and access dictated the position of the garage on the west boundary. non–secure parking cavities beneath a larger building mass.00 average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 6. of unenclosed. All units are spacious by comparison with private sector apartments. and planned with care and consideration for elderly residents. The project is included because it illustrates innovative site planning and the quality of a housing environment possible where larger schemes are undertaken and are driven by a singular design philosophy. suggesting that a critical mass factor has potential in the typology. including those from Hillsborough Road. and is reminiscent of a form. where details have been fairly widely publicised. This distances the parking from accommodation on the east side of the site.66 . Despite this compromise. the development is able to exploit the low parking ratio required in housing for the elderly to achieve a high quality and relaxed example of housing at higher densities. The west elevation consequently exposes the basement garage to external views of the development. Architect: Woodhams Meikle Architects [for HNZC] open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection + no units 51 parking ratio 1. typically commercial.175 79 118 85 0. The scheme has been reviewed in the Architecture NZ journal. Internal planning of the units is conventional. it offers a lower priced alternative to the earlier scheme but at the cost of a severe reduction in quality of the residential environment.00 - - average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 2. The site dominates the entrance to Ambrico Place. The scheme exceeds the density limits compatible with good residential design for this layout type. and the site is classified by parking layout as a comparable scheme. WAITAKERE CITY This development is included in the review to provide a comparison with projects 22 and 24. Unit sizes are similar. partly because of a regular site boundary. Architect: not known open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection no units 22 parking ratio 2. The two terraces of housing enclose a 16. A few of the householders have erected car ports which contribute a small element of variation in a barren public space. The density is over 30% higher than the two most similar schemes.538 77 115 87 0. an unfortunate location in that it affects perceptions of quality in the rest of the development. The scheme borders the Tuscany Towers development. NEW LYNN. 2 in this case a two storey two bedroomed 77m plan. Accepting the principle of market variety. with a ground floor kitchen on the street or public side of the block overlooking parking on both sides of the central space. in which landscaping is entirely absent.67 . Density is considered to be the primary explanation for this low standard. but mostly the result of ruthlessly efficient use of land.70 Best practice in medium density housing design (29) 2 AMBRICO PLACE.0m wide concreted access roadway and parking space (the dimension recommended in the Waitakere City Council design guide). The blocks are articulated on alternate party walls by small set-backs and steps which are intended to provide some visual relief to an otherwise monotonous elevation. which it post–dates. The spectacular prospect of the upper harbour benefits only the lowest rank of the three blocks. minimally. accessed from the garage. but a repetitive and unvaried elevation is not significantly affected by this move. justifying higher density housing by location. Turning and access driveways between the two higher blocks is landscaped to form an acceptable. to offer different unit sizes and accommodation packages. BIRKENHEAD. Two refuse collection compounds are provided. The three storey house type used is a deep plan version aligned in east–west blocks to maximise solar access. An unusually high percentage of the site area is not privately owned. sufficient to use the dual aspect plan. Architect: Hornby Architects open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection + no units 24 parking ratio 2. the development provides a high ratio of three spaces per unit and three additional visitor spaces. but car–dominated area. Allowing all parking indicated on the site plan. since views from 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 three storey townhouse type that illustrates an aspect of the evolution of the type in recent local examples: the ground level plan provides a double length (stacked) garage connected to an entrance hallway by a sliding door. there are views of Auckland City and the upper Waitemata Harbour. NORTH SHORE CITY The site is adjacent to commercial developments. all units have a double stack garage plus a parking space. Three variations of the townhouse plan type are used.95 + average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 4358 141 182 55 0.Case Studies 71 (30) MOKOIA ROAD. Blocks are stepped and decorated at parapet level to articulate. which appears to have been deleted on the first and third blocks. the length of the façade. and is maintained to a high standard. with a slope of 5m to the south west. The original drawings indicated a rear room at this level.77 . which is tarmac. have been permitted.00 - - average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 2. approached from the vehicular access. two rows of more or less identical three storey blocks. affected by height to boundary regulations on the south side. ONEHUNGA. The scheme is an instructive example of the internal difficulties in planning three storey house types. using a step in the land slope. AUCKLAND CITY This development is included to represent numerous examples of small housing schemes in this and other parts of the region. public doubt about higher density housing is likely to be reinforced by such schemes. Front entrances are adjacent to the garage double door at road level.620 172 163 61 1. These are understood by most to be typical of the medium density housing typology. have occurred in a fairly piecemeal pattern. Infill developments. and where mixed uses might have produced a better design for the developer as well as the wider community. Architect: Anthony Davis Architects open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection no units 16 parking ratio 2. the diagrammatic and barrack–like site layout seeks no advantage from the slope of the site. The forward (northern) block at least has a half level connection from the first floor living spaces to the garden. not tied to normal residential regulations by location on Business zoned sites.72 Best practice in medium density housing design (31) GALWAY STREET. There is little to say in defence of development of this quality. Refuse is collected from wheeled bins parked at the site entrances. The internal planning is extremely confused and impractical.05 . In this instance. the second looking at the back of the first. WAITAKERE CITY This site. The triangular site has a boundary to the Western Rail Corridor on the northwest side. and impractical internal planning. supplemented by the public street in front of the development. car-dominated access. On–site car parking is limited to 1. part of the Ambrico Place development. The floor plans vary between 2 blocks.389 134 135 74 1. ensuring good standards of sound and fire insulation. uses a version of the three storey townhouse type and is planned at a lower density than the two storey project opposite. similar to others of this type in recent Auckland developments. AMBRICO PLACE. Street level entrances with deep north or west facing first floor decks provide weather protection to one third of the houses. NEW LYNN. with internal structures in timber framing. Architect: not known open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection no units 25 parking ratio 1. At the time of development these houses were the lowest priced new units in the area. With few exceptions (case study 30 is one) these schemes demonstrate the limitations of the house type: all developments of this type are characterised by poor standards of privacy. A tilt slab construction system has been used. averaging 134m per unit including a single garage and a ground floor rear bedroom.12 - - average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 3.01 .Case Studies 73 (32) KRISLEY COURT.12 vehicles per unit. This strategy sacrifices higher parking provision to achieve higher density and results in a congested ground level space lacking any significant pedestrian domain. poor or non-existent public space. 0m. The total floor area of 88m including the garage is not adequate for a three bedroom townhouse unit. and the constraints this type imposes on site planning. Laundry facilities are on the first floor.0m.0m. Public space on the site is principally the roadway. The dimension between party walls is 3. open on one side for the western block. All internal habitable spaces are under–sized for practical or comfortable use: 2 2 the top floor bedrooms are 9.0m and 6. which includes a toilet accessed from the room. WAITAKERE CITY The Keeling Road development is a variation on the three storey townhouse type. entered through the garage. with short dimensions of under 2.50 - + average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 2. HENDERSON.85m. requiring a sliding door between the hall and the garage.330 88 106 94 0. Overlooking is unavoidable. producing an internal garage width of less than 3.2m long.74 Best practice in medium density housing design (33) KEELING ROAD. A rear room at ground floor level. Although housing at this density falls outside the density range. and a low parking ratio of 1. Market prices at the time of sale were the lowest for new houses in the area. Private external space is accessible only through the garage and the back room.5.6m wide space between the other two blocks. this scheme illustrates a number of points useful to the study. also has a minimum dimension of less than 2.83 . in this case with a density of 94dph made possible by a two bedroom top floor plan based on 2 floor plate areas of approximately 31m . and with a 7. Ground floor plan: Typical unit This scheme demonstrates both the shortcomings of the type of house used. Architect: ADC Architects open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection no units 22 parking ratio 1.7m respectively. while the garage 2 itself is less than 5. Case Studies 75 (34) EDEN 1. Eden 1 also exhibits many of the problems associated with higher density urban housing: apart from construction defects relating to the monolithic cladding system. The FAR at Eden 1.641 109 80 125 1.36. AUCKLAND CITY Eden 1. Architect: Richard Priest Architects. as well as solar access. is an early example of the advantage taken of ‘Business’ zoning in Auckland City Council. the density places the scheme well outside the remit for this study.90 - - - - average total site unit area density 1: density 2: density 3: 2 2 2 area (m ) (m ) m /unit dph FAR 6. bedroom windows on the back pavement line at street level—all typical and symptomatic of detail design issues in the typology of medium density housing. to build high density housing without need of compliance with standard residential design controls. privacy distances. This loophole has been exploited by several development companies in the past decade. MT EDEN. The development would not have been permitted in any Australian city or in the UK at the time it was built. and with underground parking a necessary corollary of good design for public and/or private open space within the layout. Entry to units from this street are unceremoniously industrial in their presentation. which indicates a need for a building form of at least four storeys. and acceptable relationships to the surrounding neighbourhood. Use of this access is necessarily highly disciplined. Internal semi–public streets are no more than continuous walls of facing garage doors separated by a 6m wide driveway of tarmac. At 125 dph. at 1. on Enfield Street in Mt Eden.36 . there has been criticism of errors including balconies overhanging public footpaths on the perimeter. open space (public) open space (private) privacy parking identity refuse security collection no units 83 parking ratio 1. but it is included to illustrate the limitations of the three storey timber–framed townhouse option for medium density housing. is the highest in the survey. . 728 3.70 0.00 2.900 6.163 1.31 0.71 n/a 0.599 - 77 12 13 14 driveway area incl.49 0.651 2.936 6.770 6.211 n/a 2.042 5.10 1.085 631 390 168 572 351 39 162 26 1.274 16 17 18 19 20 No.572 9.667 1.58 0.56 0.67 0.78 0.5 1.800 4.36 0.175 2.394 2.352 1.619 778 2.170 1.00 2.28 0.166 1.00 2.086 2.70 2.97 1.350 5.64 1.881 1.86 1.52 0.080 107 59 60 89 1.53 0.292 12.324 WCC WCC 1.039 75 107 n/a 2.732 2.108 1.5 1.376 2.675 4.612 3.042 553 338 791 351 221 1.66 0. footpath (m†) 655 1.770 100 100 82 100 72 100 4 18 12 0 18 28 100 100 96 82 88 124 56 1.127 2.52 0.430 2.427 5.768 20.168 4.693 4.783 2.870 3.00 1.600 20.30 2.934 9.33 0.00 2.287 1.18 2.900 6.856 2.220 3.73 0.360 10 11 15 outdoor car parking area (m†) 286 169 1.18 1.742 8.140 23.570 3.60 1.203 5 3 4 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3.330 6.23 1.660 1.20 2.850 2.312 7.609 2.076 6.59 0.707 13.418 1.686 24.30 1.20 total floor area (m†) 3.70 2.941 5.287 2.90 4.955 1.539 13.Best practice in medium density housing design 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 average unit area (m†) 179 142 118 Case Studies 9 site coverage building footprint (m†) 2.83 1.90 2.750 12.62 0.389 2.51 0.536 1.690 3.36 2.248 10.972 NSCC NSCC ACC (Aus) 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0.090 234 325 1.516 city WCC MCC WCC date of approval 1998 2002 2004 2003 2001 2002 1998 1998 2004 1996 2002 2001 2000 1999 2001 1998 2001 2003 1983 1999 1999 2001 1995 2000 1990 2002 1999 2001 1997 2002 1997 1997 2000 1997 market indicator 4 4 2 3 2 5 3 3 3 2 3 5 3 3 2 4 3 4 site layout classification 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 5.495 4.821 4.00 1.01 0.400 4.790 1.669 10.538 4.950 418 - WCC WCC ACC WCC WCC WCC 0.620 3.508 6.135 24.40 1.652 8.574 4.501 9.440 64.61 1.150 6.717 26 52 1.017 2.358 2.728 1.752 3.619 590 2.155 1.139 839 3.393 1.44* 2.08 2.95 2.477 192 1.55 2.30 2.00 0.198 2 storeys (%) 100 100 100 69 68 69 72 100 64 100 100 50 60 100 100 100 100 83 100 62 100 100 3 storeys (%) 31 32 31 28 36 50 40 17 0 38 - car parks outdoor 22 13 98 99 130 2 114 4 116 16 25 26 59 27 17 3 63 n/a car parks indoor 19 56 77 83 98 26 143** 44 94 17 25 56 45 31 16 23 47 57 hard surface area (m†) 941 1. units 19 30 89 83 98 13 97 22 94 19 25 30 45 31 16 13 46 140 35 33 105 80 19 61 38 70 50 51 22 24 16 25 22 83 total site area (m†) 5.024 74 79 77 141 172 134 88 109 MCC ACC WCC NSCC ACC WCC WCC ACC .44 0.772 10.113 10.140 6.658 8.800 8.252 6. site and street name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Vinograd D r Adelphi Villa s Seymour Rd Corban Village Fairhaven Romola S t Tuscany Tower s Melvie w Albion Vale Arawa St Oates Rd Mt Taylor D r St George s Terrac e Gunner Dr Rowena Cres Tuscany Wa y Sacramento 1 A Oatland s Fontenoy Rd Carolina Pl Bush Rd Holly S t Cottontree Soljak Pl Ewenton S t Beaumont Quarte r Sacramento 1B Hillsborough Rd 2 Ambrico Pl Mokoia Rd Galway S t Krisley Cour t Keeling Road Eden 1 no.01 2.77 1.641 density 1: m2/unit 302 271 273 249 252 242 237 227 221 219 198 187 187 164 410 272 292 277 254 191 178 161 197 153 150 145 138 118 115 182 163 135 106 80 density 2: dph 33 37 37 40 40 41 42 44 45 46 51 53 53 61 24 37 34 37 39 52 56 62 63 65 66 69 72 85 87 55 61 74 94 125 density 3: FAR 0.799 971 1.50 1.300 18.10 2.233 392 n/a 612 1.439 2.958 4.05 1.55 0.279 ACC (Aus) ACC 21 30 13 44 27 3 12 2 56 52 38 0 48 32 25 22 159 641 1.833 904 ACC ACC WCC ACC 720 39 756 759 WCC ACC - - - (Aus) (Aus) 33 144 115 32 51 10 3.43 parking ratio 2.433 5.443 141 176 130* 126 115 112 108 148 116 114 116 157 113 3.12 1.452 3.181 4.072 1. 6 Discussion and Conclusions . and evolving within a relatively de–regulated environment. Layout Type 1: Case studies 1–14 At the lower end of the density scale two schemes of similar size and layout type. while Fairhaven achieves a slightly higher density by use of the three storey house type. sometimes at very similar (quantified) densities. where most units do not . thereby constructing a critical template for the analysis. and develops a profile for a New Zealand model for medium density housing design at different levels of density. Variations in the type of layout used are considered to partly account for such differences. a Type 2 layout). and evidence of care taken in the maintenance of public space. By classifying all case studies according to the four principal layout types. and different layout types at similar densities (where overlaps occur in density levels). at this stage. lacks any clear definition or preferred model. car access. The sense of crowding in some of the case studies generates the perception that privacy is reduced or lost altogether. A larger and more positive use of the same devices occurs in the Fontenoy Rd scheme (case study 19. This section discusses the issues that emerge from the case studies. wide–ranging in quality. but is not foreign to the urban culture of New Zealand. In all medium density housing there is an element of compromise relating to house type. For this reason the case study comments and some of the discussion in this section necessarily focus on areas in which the most significant compromises are identified. Both devices are trade–offs against the stand alone house type preferred by most of the housing market. arrangements for refuse collection. and (iii) Research and other literature on medium density housing in New Zealand is limited in scope. Density and Layout Type Density has been taken in this study as the principal quantifiable ‘indicator of difference’ between housing developments that are similar in other respects. Seymour Rd (caser study 3) and Fairhaven (case study 5) offer a comparison based on density: Seymour Rd uses rear access parking for part of the layout. exposure of private open space to overlooking.80 Best practice in medium density housing design DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Introduction The case study review indicates that medium density housing in New Zealand is highly varied. which is associated with ‘density’. and as summarised in the data chart. the public domain. diversity (apparent or actual) in built form and mix. quality. in turn suggesting that personal security and individual identity are also reduced. This leads to a progressively higher level of discomfort in the environment as a whole. Most of the examples included in the study have some merits in at least one area. at about the same density. building detail. The layout types are therefore discussed in order. Three clear points from the context and literature review (Sections 2 and 3) provide the platform for this section: (i) Medium density housing has developed in the last decade as a common housing typology. external private space. (ii) Planning strategies to consolidate urban growth pre–suppose a higher density housing form that. Secondary indicators are landscaping. comparisons can be made between developments with the same layout type at similar densities. Different developments exhibit these characteristics of medium density housing to different degrees. and construction costs. and quantity. case study 9). power steering. is reflected in the high FAR figure (0. this project. A large public park adjoins the development of 31 terraced houses. with living rooms and kitchens at first floor level. Detached and attached (i. and good landscaping in the public areas. but at the expense of poor public space. a small park is important spatially. and public service refuse collection from about 80% of the units. (Albion Vale. approximately 20% more than the next highest figure in the layout type. Albion Vale (case study 9)) effectively enclosing the development. The Gunner Drive project was revisited twice to observe different conditions in use. along with street frontages varied in height by single storey garages alternating with two storey houses. a not unexpected conclusion. On street parking adjacent to the site is used by residents at night and weekends.) and Gunner Drive (case study 14.e. which also explain the trade– offs involved in achieving the density. Fairhaven (case study 5). examples of two storey terraced housing include Oates Road (case study 11. Comments on the internal planning of house types. Short two storey terraces are often favoured by developers. At the high end of the scale. This strategy. The amenity loss (represented by refuse collected from the site entrance. although the higher buildings on the perimeter may sometimes adversely affect neighbourhood relationships. only the centre unit has two inter–tenancy walls. 51dph. The row of six units on the north side are over–shadowed by a 5m high back wall to adjacent retail .Discussion and Conclusions 81 have attached garages. Romola Street (case study 6) demonstrates the limitations.7) and partly explained by the parking ratio of 1. which are expensive to build. 61dph. and case studies 1 and 2.9. The strong sense of crowding in both these developments is entirely absent at Fontenoy Road. justifying the lack of public space within the site. Fairhaven (case study 5). The mix of two and three storeys helps to produce diversity in built form. and loss of the active street frontage.). To reduce overlooking some of the hybrid mixed type schemes locate the three storey type on the boundary (Corban Village (case study 4). results in loss of privacy to adjoining two storey units. At the same density. and permanently curtained windows. Privacy between units is minimal. and identity in the street. case studies 3 and 5 achieve high levels of direct car access. have been made in the case study notes (p55). Three storey house types are used in schemes with densities as low as 40dph for the amenity value of front access. However. and reduces bulk and perceptions of density. paired) house types occur at the lower ends of the density scale. as a development that only succeeds at all by voluntary restrictions on car size. however. one of only two examples in this layout type with a ratio of less than 2. The very high density. In the Oates Road scheme (case study 11). suggest that density is a market choice and not an index of social standing. and end units are perceived in the private sector market to be worth more than middle terrace units. there is much evidence of domestic activity over–flowing to the public side of houses due to small or shadowed rear gardens. In a block of three (for example. with overlooking from first floor windows affecting all houses and particularly the three in the centre of the layout. but is not included in the data recorded. a quality less easily achieved in two storey terraced layouts. high quality internal site environment with very high standards of privacy. remote parking affecting 55% of the residents and a relatively low parking ratio) is balanced by a quiet. they generally fail to provide workable layouts at any point in the range between 30dph and 66dph. in that it relieves the sense of crowding. and low standards of individual unit privacy. and therefore casual surveillance. (The seventeen studios in this scheme are not recorded as separate household units in the density figure of 37dph). and attracts equal criticism from some medium density housing advocates. or separately lettable accommodation. The principal contemporary merit in the New Zealand context is that the garage can function independently of the house and the public street for domestic or other purposes. including Seymour Road (case study 3).82 Best practice in medium density housing design buildings. The 32 units in two groups at the Edgelea development are accessed from three separate lanes linking garage courts to the public street network. and Tuscany Way (case study 16). which is expensive to build because of the necessarily high external wall to floor ratio and ii) iii) . Rowena Crescent (case study 15). An example is provided by the Oatlands development. offset only by the park area. the only apparent trade–off is in the under– sized access ways on the public side. This design prioritises privacy and security. including home business. and removing the vehicular access from the front. by studio units built above double garages (see text. one of only two examples in the study (Tuscany Way. Sacramento 1A (case study 17). Tuscany Way (case study 16) in the Edgelea block context. Rear access alters the relationship of the car and garage to the house. The additional studio unit that is sold with the house provides passive surveillance of the mews. The most unusual. the cost of construction and maintenance of the rear lane. and offers a live–work option. This contributes to the car–dominated environment that establishes the street. as an urban space. Layout Type 2 (Rear Access): Case studies 15–19 Several examples of hybrid layouts use the rear access system to provide parking within the curtilage. Reasons for the relative absence of this type in medium density developments in New Zealand include: i) density over about 40dph is difficult to achieve because of the site space required for the rear lane. not as a community space (able to serve unspecified but implied communal activities) but as the service conduit between them: relationships of houses are based on tarmac rather than a shared public space. as well as preferred front access and close connections between the car and house. relieved. p59). Oates Road (case study 11). Oatlands (case study18). where the ‘mews’ rear access private roadway is lined with garage doors. placing the working entrance on the ‘back’. in each case to locally increase density and resolve site planning problems caused by the preferred front access type. and face towards garage doors on the internal street. thus relieving the street of traffic crossings for each house. is the other). the house type. and many others. and perhaps experimental. Only two examples are planned to exploit the full advantages of the rear access type. 44dph) based on a courtyard house type. The rear access system is developed to the most sophisticated standard seen in the case studies reviewed. case study 16. The layout type is strongly endorsed by New Urbanist planners. scheme in the lower range of density is the terraced front access development at Melview Place (case study 8. and Corban Village (case study 4). and the flexibility of the house type. and where the urban potential of the typology is not a priority. also help to justify the arrangement. (for instance. From densities listed in the data chart it is clear that this house type relates to high density rather than medium density housing. and where little variation is intended. as at Mokoia Road (case study Where the formal front elevation faces onto a pedestrian–oriented public space as at Oatlands. The internal limitations of the type have been considered in Section 3 and commented on in case study notes. The ground level environment is invariably car–oriented. Examples include all possible variations of kitchen location. and is acceptable to some purchasers in terms of value and the quality of the housing environment offered. which is an unsatisfactory housing environment in numerous respects. Three schemes reviewed. with the exception of Gunner Drive (case study 14. The characteristics of Type 3 layouts are relatively low Floor Area Ratios. and the unresolved dilemma of locating the kitchen and laundry. unless the layout and density objectives allow enough space for separate pedestrian movement. lower parking ratios. and significantly smaller average unit sizes. where lower market expectations are established by location. The advantages are in the formal relationship of the house to the wider community. for example. range in density from 52dph to 87dph (2 Ambrico Place. 18 and 19) all at densities of less than 40dph. Layout Type 3: Case studies 20–29 Parking and car storage detached from the curtilage is regarded by developers and householders as a less convenient and less secure arrangement. schools and other services. From the data chart it is apparent that the Type 3 (dedicated remote parking) layouts . which tends to be redundant in layouts without access to a public space. and pedestrian routes to shops. Layout Type 4: Case studies 30–34 The three storey house type. Type 1 layouts are displaced at a density of about 50dph. The layout type is therefore considered to be an option that suits higher density development in the private sector. the urban qualities achievable. as a device to increase density. Corban Village (case study 4) and Oates Road (case study 11)) can come into more frequent use. and variation in built form. The five examples included here are a small representative selection from a large number of similar developments in the Auckland area. 61dph). the non–traditional ground floor in which the back door serves as the principal entrance from the garage. are hybrid layouts mixing front and rear access with integral and remote parking.Discussion and Conclusions 83 iv) v) additional internal space required for dual entry planning. case study 29). Soljak Place (case study 24) and Holly Street (case study 22). (case studies 17. With Type 3 layouts it is common to find moderately large projects with little or no variation of house type. In all such examples the position of first floor living spaces imposes overlooking and reduced privacy on adjacent two storey units. the front door. Short walking distances. has been discussed in the context of its role in predominantly two storey front access layouts. It is apparent from this study that such sacrifices are justified by the developer as a trade–off against the higher density achieved. the preference generally being for a location on the garage side of the house for direct access to refuse disposal and use of the private rear garden for washing. particularly when the type has been used to increase density. and its effect on site planning. Type 4 layouts are not considered useful in site planning for affordable housing at densities of less than 66dph. Progressive undergrounding of parking is a consideration at densities over 55dph. as at Mokoia Road and Galway Street (case study 31). introduces the principle of underground. The shorter rows at St Georges Terrace (case study 13). (Eden 1. At the highest density in the schemes reviewed. 28 and 30 illustrate this. It is also apparent from the examples of this layout type reviewed that establishing any significant public open space—the prerequisite for the development of a community—is not achievable at any level of density. Further points. in two storey layouts where density begins to require remote parking if good residential standards are to be retained. all have achieved good standards of public space and privacy at densities between 55dph and 85dph. at this density (55dph) however. access and garaging are in effect entirely underground. 125dph). of general value. The Dutch ‘Woonerven’ integrated traffic and pedestrian design system may have some application in two storey housing where a Type 2 layout is used. from approximately 60dph in two storey housing. The terraced housing form in New Zealand is an acceptable house type in this density range. by these developments. and access to the car. Case studies 25. case study 34. and for the most satisfactory environments. The long straight blocks at Tuscany Towers (case study 7) and Sacramento (case study 17) reflect European and British design rather than the developing local custom. or Arawa St (case study 10). 26. are made as follows: i) Underground garaging: cars in underground parking spaces relieve the ground level environment of the presence of the car. in a multi–storey development with low parking ratios. and the domestic value of the garage as an extension of routine household activity are considered to be central to the analysis of the typology. Many aspects of this issue have been dealt with in previous sections and the case study commentaries. On sloping sites the construction of retaining walls for garaging. unless house types include duplex or vertically arranged units. and can transform the quality of the residential environment. and particularly above 45dph.84 Best practice in medium density housing design 30). secure garage courts are justified at all densities. Summary The most successful developments with Type 1 layouts are all at densities of less than 46dph. There is a moderately high maintenance penalty to consider with this design. planning for the manoeuvring and storage of. but not enclosed. This may suggest rear access for some units. Small. beyond which the tradition (in New Zealand) of greater individual identity is difficult to retain. and elevations varied in detail are examples of this recommended local practice. also on a sloping site. but works most effectively in shorter terrace lengths of 6–8 units. other layout and house types are also options. Progressive under–grounding as density increases is shown. The nearest examples found in this study (to the model developed in Holland) are Fontenoy ii) . Vehicle Planning and Parking The distinction between ‘building–dominant’ and ‘landscape–dominant’ design made originally by the Essex Design Guide (Stones. 1997) needs to be revisited in the context of New Zealand and Australian medium density housing to include a third category. that of a ‘car–dominated’ environment. By observations from case studies. to be necessary. or part underground parking. a requirement at densities over 60dph. is noted as a Mixed Development and Internal Design A broad preference for a development monoculture is evidenced by a large majority of the schemes reviewed in the private sector: there is an apparent reluctance to experiment with mixing of household sizes or types. the regular appearance of small extra spaces within a house plan for ‘study/office/sitting’ uses. Comments on internal details are limited to a small number of examples where access was available. 2 Ambrico Place (case study 29). Comments noted in the case studies are summarised as follows: i) garages and ground floor toilets should not be accessed from living rooms or kitchens. Similar remarks apply to ‘people–mover’ vehicles based on one–tonne vans (Toyota Hiace.Discussion and Conclusions 85 iii) Road (case study 19). vi) more use should be made of first floor single aspect house types to control overlooking. iv) ground floor toilets in two– bedroomed four person units are desirable. including power points. In addition. In developments where a mix of types has applied. and Tuscany Towers (case study 7) are typical of schemes offering housing to a narrow social range. v) rear garden access should include external pathways wherever possible.000 in total). ii) internal routes for laundry and refuse need to be planned to avoid passing through living rooms. Sacramento (case studies 17 and 27). and others. and Hillsborough Road (case study 28). Four wheel drive vehicles now represent 8% of private cars in New Zealand (198. there is a tendency to restrict the range to adjacent socio–economic groups. Repetition of house types. and dominate by bulky ‘presence’. Four wheel drive vehicles are in evidence on many sites investigated. etc. are increasing in popularity. tend to be parked outside houses. Some of the schemes that embrace diversity of household type. but is diverted by the constant . Of the minority in the mixed category. generate a lively. 14 and 16). particularly where density exceeds 45dph. helps to build the sense of crowdedness that characterises the typology in the public mind. and the vans themselves. where they block views. with no more than one or two steps between groups. owned and used for commercial purposes. visible even from relatively brief site visits. perhaps predictably. and present a particular problem in medium density housing design. for instance Adelphi Villas (case study 2: 33dph) and 2 Ambrico Place (case study 29. 87dph). vii) single aspect two storey house types based on courtyard front access plans should be considered. iii) kitchens should be ventilated and able to receive natural light by location on external walls. This perception occurs at all density levels. Rowena Crescent (case study 15). variation of building style at Corban Village (case study 4). and by noise. These vehicles. the Harbour View development (case studies 1.). vibrant community. also. viii) the actual higher building cost of medium density housing needs to be recognised. which cannot usually be accommodated in standard height garages. and cannot be regarded as comprehensive in this study. creating monotonous environments in some of these schemes.). etc. telephone connections and television aerials often in quiet corners or first floor landing areas. In smaller schemes the monoculture of a single house type is more pronounced (Soljak Place (case study 24). and variations in external design. needs further research to establish criteria for cost–effective insulation methods. originating from the housing construction industry generally. particularly energy consumption. semi–commercial activities were observed during visits. but also water services. vi) A more detailed study of internal design of components and fittings is needed to identify durable specifications in the context of medium density housing. and in one case several people working at sewing machines on tables and benches set up for out–work or ‘work from home’ business operations. v) Public acceptance of the typology is known to be linked to the widespread ‘leaky homes’ problem. orientation. Access to as–built plans and construction details would be necessary for such a study to be effective. reflecting demographic change and new patterns of work in New Zealand’s urban centres. a long–term study that tracks re–sale prices relative to local property values is needed to establish similarities and differences. Medium density housing in other countries is now moving towards multi–storey development at densities up to 120dph. and construction materials. ii) Increasing density will require consideration of underground garaging at the upper end of the present scale: research is needed to examine the costs and benefits of this option. Activities of this type are invisible in the suburbs.86 Best practice in medium density housing design reflection of requirements. but are often conspicuous in medium density housing. In the context of these two observations. in medium density developments. Further Research This study has been restricted to the density band between 30 and 66dph. changing domestic In several developments. iv) Retained capital value is considered to be a vital indicator in sustainable medium density housing. . Sub–letting of rooms or garages is another common form of use. iii) Technical aspects of sustainable design. the report has identified several areas that need further study: i) Research is needed to relate costs of construction to density to determine steps in the density scale that are critical in the process of medium density affordable housing design. A study to identify this issue in the context of medium density housing would aim to recommend design practices to overcome the effects of association with this problem. in which the standard form of construction is two and three storey housing using timber frames as the primary structure. These generally consist of garages in use as workshops with doors open for light and air. References . by Synchro Consulting & P.88 Best practice in medium density housing design Auckland City Council (1958). Auckland: Auckland Regional Authority. Auckland: Auckland Regional Council. Auckland Regional Council (2000d). Auckland City Council (1968). Auckland City Council (2003). by Boffa Miskell. Auckland: Auckland City Council. Housing: A Challenge for Council. Regional Master Plan: Housing (Preliminary Report). Albert Borough Council (1976). Building a Better Future: Intensification Review—Summary of Research Findings.M. Auckland: Auckland Regional Council. Auckland: Auckland City Council. The Liveable Communities 2050 Strategy Draft. Auckland City District Plan: Plan Change 58. Growing Our City through Liveable Communities 2050.R. Auckland: Auckland City Council. Auckland: Auckland City Council. Auckland: Auckland Regional Authority. Urban Area Intensification: Regional Practice and Resource Guide. Auckland: Population.S. Building a Better Future: Intensification Review—Review of Literature on Housing Preferences and Choices. Auckland City Council (1999). Auckland Regional Council (2000a). Auckland: Auckland Regional Council. Auckland: Auckland Regional Authority. City of Auckland District Scheme: Scheme Statement (Public Notification). Auckland Regional Authority (1967). Auckland: Auckland City Council. Outline Development Plan for Auckland. Auckland Regional Council (2000e). Auckland Metropolitan Planning Organisation (1951). Auckland: Auckland City Council. Employment and Land Use Patterns. Auckland: Auckland City Council. Auckland: Auckland City Council. Auckland Regional Authority and Mt. The Residential Design Guide for Developments in Residential Zones in Strategic Growth Management Areas. . Auckland Regional Council (2000c). Auckland City Council (1999). Auckland City Council (1977). Residential Consolidation Study. Auckland City Council (1976). Auckland Regional Authority (1975). City of Auckland District Scheme: Scheme Statement (Recommended for Approval). The Urban Design Code for Liveable Communities 2050. Auckland Regional Authority (1987). City of Auckland District Scheme: Code of Ordinances and Scheme Statement (Recommended for Approval). Building a Better Future Intensification Review—Urban Design Review. Auckland City Council (2001). Auckland: Auckland Regional Council. by Research Solutions. Building a Better Future: Intensification Review—Community Perceptions & Attitudes. Auckland City Council (1999). Housing Density Study.I. Auckland Regional Council (2000b). Auckland: Auckland Metropolitan Planning Organisation. Auckland: Auckland City Council. Auckland: Auckland Regional Authority. Auckland: Auckland Regional Council. References 89 Australian Model Code for Residential Development (1992a). Amcord Urban: Guidelines for Urban Housing Vol 1, Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Housing and Regional Development. Australian Model Code for Residential Development (1992b). Amcord Urban: Guidelines for Urban Housing Vol 2, Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Housing and Regional Development. Australian Model Code for Residential Development (1992c). Amcord Urban: Guidelines for Urban Housing Vol 3, Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Housing and Regional Development. Carmona, M. (2001). Housing Design Quality through Policy, Guidance and Review. London: Spon Press. Centre for Housing Research Aotearoa New Zealand (2003). Review of Statistical Housing Data, by J. Leung–Wai & Dr G. Nana. Wellington: Centre for Housing Research Aotearoa New Zealand. Christiansen, W. K. S., Ed. (1991). Mahoney’s Urban Land Economics. Wellington: New Zealand Institute of Valuers. Colquhoun, I. (1999). RIBA Book of 20th Century 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 Built Environment (2003). The Value of Housing Design and Layout, London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (2004). Design Reviewed: Urban Housing, London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. Commonwealth Information Services (1989). Australian Model Code for Residential Development. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Darroch, R. (1983). “Concepts of Privacy”. In B. Judd and J. Dean (eds) Medium Density Housing in Australia. RAIA Education Division: Canberra. pp81–83. Dixon, J. & Dupuis, A. (2003) Urban Intensification in Auckland New Zealand: A Challenge for New Urbanism, Housing Studies Vol 18 No.3; pp 361-376. Droege, P. (1999). The Design Dividend. Sydney: Property Council of Australia. English Partnerships and The Housing Corporation (2000). The Urban Design Compendium. London: English Partnerships. Fader, S. (2000). Density by Design: New Directions in Residential Development. Washington D.C.: Urban Land Institute. Forsyth, A. (2003). Measuring Density: Working Definitions for Residential Density and Building Intensity. Minneapolis, MA: Metropolitan Design Centre, University of Minnesota. Garreau, J. (1991). Edge City: Life on the New Frontier. New York: Doubleday. Hoque, A (2001) Urban Design Intervention for Intensive Housing, Planning Quarterly 141, June 2001 pp 19-22. Housing New Zealand Corporation (2002a). Ki Te Hau Kainga: New Perspectives on Maori Housing Solutions, by R. Hoskins, R. Te Nana, P. 90 Best practice in medium density housing design Rhodes, P. Guy, C. Sage. Wellington: Housing New Zealand Corporation. Housing New Zealand Corporation (2002b). Pacific Housing Design Guide: Guidelines for Designing Pacific Housing Solutions, Wellington: Housing New Zealand Corporation. Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Modern Library. Jain, U. (2001). “Effects of Population Density and Resources on the Feeling of Crowding and Personal Space”. Journal of Social Psychology (127(3)), pp331–338. Johnston, R. J. (1973). Urbanisation in New Zealand. Wellington: Reed. Judd, B. (1993). Designed for Urban Living: Recent Medium Density Group Housing in Australia. Canberra: The Royal Australian Institute of Architects. Judd, B. and Dean, J., Eds. (1983). Medium Density Housing in Australia. Canberra: RAIA Education Division. King, S., Rudder, D., Prasad, D. and Ballinger, J. (1996). Site Planning in Australia. Sydney: Australian Government Publishing Service. Kohler, A. (2004). “Land of Confusion”. Progressive Building, February/March 2004, pp24–25. Krieger, A., Ed. (1991). Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater Zyberk: Towns and Town Making Principles. New York: Rizzoli. Kunstler, J. H. (1994). The Geography of Nowhere; the Rise & Decline of America’s Man–Made Landscape. New York: Touchston, Simon & Schuster. Kunstler, J. H. (1998). Home from Nowhere. New York: Touchstone (Simon & Schuster). Leccese, M. and McCormick, K., Eds. (2000). The Charter of the New Urbanism. New York: McGraw– Hill. Marcus, C. C. and Sarkissian, W. (1983). The Medium–Density Housing Kit. Milsons Point, N.S.W.: Social Impacts 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). Third Review of the District Scheme: Background Report on Residential Zoning in Mt. Eden, Auckland: Mt. Eden Borough Council. Mumford, L. (1938). The Culture of Cities. London: Marin Secker & Warburg Ltd. Muthesius, S. (1982). The English Terraced House. New Haven: Yale University Press. New South Wales Urban Design Advisory Service (1998). Better Urban Living, Guidelines for Urban Housing in NSW, Sydney: Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. New South Wales Urban Design Advisory Service (1998). Residential Densities, Sydney: New South Wales Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. New South Wales Urban Design Advisory Service (2001). The Residential Flat Design Pattern Book, Sydney: New South Wales Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. New South Wales Urban Design Advisory Service (2002). Residential Flat Design Code, Sydney: New South References 91 Wales Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. North Shore City Council (2001). Good Solutions Guide for Intensive Residential Developments, North Shore City: North Shore City Council. Perkins, H. and Thorns, D. (1999). “House and Home and Their Interaction with Changes in New Zealand’s Urban System, Households and Family Structures”. Housing, Theory and Society 16 pp124–135. Plunz, R. and Sheridan, M. (1999). “Deadlock Plus 50; on Public Housing in New York”. Harvard Design Magazine, Summer 1999. Radford, A. and Sarris, T. (2003). “Trends and Strategies in the Design of Medium Density Urban Housing”. Radford, A. and Sarris, T. (2003). Affordable Medium Density Housing Solutions for Adelaide, Adelaide: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Southern Research Centre. Rapoport, A. (1975). “Towards a Redefinition of Density”. Environment and Behaviour 7(2), pp7–32. Rapoport, A. (1985). “Designing for Diversity”. In D. Brown, B. Judd, and J. Dean, (eds) Design for Diversification. RAIA, Education Division: Canberra; Portland, OR. pp30–42. Regional Growth Forum (2003). Auckland Regional Affordable Housing Strategy, Auckland: Auckland Regional Council. Stones, A., Ed. (1997). Essex Design Guide for Residential and Mixed Use Areas. Chelmsford: Essex County Council; see also editions of this Guide from the original publication dated 1973. Tetlow, J. and Goss, A. (1965). Homes, Towns and Traffic. London: Faber and Faber. Vallance, S., Perkins, H. and Moore, K. (2003). The Effects of Infill Housing on Neighbours in Christchurch, Christchurch: Lincoln University. Victoria Department of Planning and Housing (1992). Victorian Code for Residential Development—Multi– Dwellings, Melbourne: Victorian Department of Planning and Housing. Victorian Department of Planning and Urban Growth (1990). Medium Density Housing 1990, by Tract Consultants, Swinburne Centre for Urban and Social Research and Sarkissian Associates. Melbourne: Victorian Department of Planning & Urban Growth. Yates, J. (2003). A Distributional Analysis of the Impact of Indirect Housing Assistance, Sydney: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. (2001). (2004). New Zealand Herald. New Zealand Herald. (2003). “Our View”. “Reviving Our Urban Centres”. “Snapshot of Life in the Big City”. (2003). (1999). New Zealand Herald. Auckland. A. (2001). B. A. (2003). Auckland. Gibson. C. Beston. New Zealand Herald. “Auckland’s Growing Pains”. A. Oppose Density”. Auckland. English. Metro (NZ). A. Progressive Building. (1999). Zealand Herald. “Consumers Favour Growth. (2003). (2004). “Co–Housing—the New Suburbia?” Build. New Zealand Herald. “Humungous”.. “Living in Urban Denial”. C. New Zealand Herald. “Pollution. Rudman. “Land of Confusion”. p42.” New Zealand Herald. Build.. Architecture NZ. “Govt Calls for Councils to Introduce Low–Cost Zones”. Gibson. (2004). “Escape from the Ghetto”. Cumming. Gibson. R. Gibson. “High Density Bends the Rules”. Gaynor. J. Chapple. A. “The Future Style of Infill Housing”. (2003). July 1999. Auckland. (2001). P. Ledbury. A. New Zealand Herald. Dey. Auckland.92 Best practice in medium density housing design General Media References Barton. T. (2004). Gibson. “Housing Market under Scrutiny”. “Blank Faces a Blot . G. Kohler. . (2003). “End of the Quarter Acre Paradise”. D. 01– 02/11/2003. New Zealand Herald. Auckland. New Zealand Herald. “Aggressive Banks Drive Housing Boom”. A. du Chateau. “Quick Look at What $1. NZ Environment. and Watkin. New Zealand Herald. Auckland. Berry. Congestion Will Leave City Empty”. New Zealand Herald. A. Auckland. Good Weekend. Chapman–Smith (1993). (2003). Reid. Auckland. “Developers Have Cafe Set Firmly in Their Sights”. Wellington. McLeister. (2003). pp60–61. Jacques. “Security Issues: The Rise of the Gated Community”. pp24–25. “$1m to Fix Unit Leaks at Albany”. May–June 1993. (2004). New Zealand Herald. A. Auckland. R. (1998). New Gibson. B. (2003). New Zealand Herald. (2003). Auckland. McShane. New Zealand Herald. Auckland. Auckland. New Zealand Herald. New Zealand Herald. pp77–78. O. New Zealand Herald. pp6– 8. Orsman. Auckland. “Setting up Your Body Corporate”. Auckland. Auckland. 39. Editorial (2003). “The Big Squeeze”. (2003). Professional Builder. Editorial (2003). Sydney. Auckland. B. (2003). Auckland. “Dream of an Urban Paradise”. G. B. Auckland. (2004). Hawley. February/March 2004.74m Buys”. “Little Boxes”. Auckland. M. (2003). Johnston. “Tiny City Apartment Shockers: Developer”. April/May 2003. I. New Zealand Herald. Auckland. “Act Now to Halt Urban Free–for–All”. References 93 Turner. pp28–30. Ward. (2003). “Save Our Suburbs”. “Better Design. P. The Australian. . “In Defence of Density”. New Zealand Herald. Property Business (28). D. Auckland. (2001). (2000). Melbourne. D. Vital for High–Density Housing”. Turner. Layout. . Appendix A Local Authority Intensive Housing Policies in Metropolitan Auckland . both immediate and cumulative. Generally it is two–storeyed. The definition of density is determined as “the net site area of the site being developed divided by the number of units proposed. in place of nil.1. (for ‘varied residential and mixed use overlay areas’) Plan Change 1 requires a Concept Plan that addresses all aspects of macro planning of roads.” This requirement is to prevent spatial separation of new neighbourhoods.96 Best practice in medium density housing design NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL District Plan & Plan Change 1 Plan Change 1 updates policies dealing with intensive housing. There are. from existing ones. Amongst these.” Further amendments allow for redistribution of public and private open space. and by the arrangement of indented bays that do not effectively widen the street when not in use. It is noted that existing retail benefits from greater density of population. Because less open space is usually a concomitant of intensive housing. public transport (defined as four or more trips/hour at peak periods). even if built at higher densities. community services. Easy walking distance includes some recognition of topography. though three storeys are also possible. size and location relative to other public facilities. to “facilitate the integration of the development. can arise. The following section (including amended Table 17A.3. but not wholly in place of. and 1 unit per 250m in the previous category of mixed use overlay area. park areas separate from traffic spaces.1) provides for variations to previous District Plan(s) to revise categories for sizes of unit lots and recognising smaller areas. and be capable of forming relationships with “nearby properties and public areas. Densities will not 2 exceed one unit per 150m of land area. parking. to permit communal space in lieu of.5 per unit proposed.” Plan Change 1 defines “intensive housing” as terraced housing and other forms of multi–unit development generally involving more than five units on a site. private open space: this allows for and encourages the development of medium density housing with communally owned. at a minimum rate per . and essential public infrastructure. and useful. (defined as offering a “wide range of goods and services”).4. and accordingly intensive residential development warrants a distinct objective and associated policies. Intensive housing developments must be on sites that are capable of providing the desired environmental outcomes. Referring to Area ‘D’ applications. A minimum area 2 of 200m is accepted. bearing in mind their shape. while public open spaces may vary in character and not all reserves provide all recreational opportunities. in addition. The location of medium density housing is required to be within easy walking distance of shops including proposed shops. This results in a revision to Table 17A.” Plan Change 1 observes that: “Quite significant adverse effects. and public open space for recreation. a series of urban design objectives listed in the Plan Change. and public open space in relation to new housing proposals. the design detail is of greater significance.1. and continued in paragraph 1. On–street parking must be provided at the rate of 0.3 which now stipulates “Density” defined as minimum net site 2 area per residential unit of 1 unit per 250m 2 in Area D. item 1. Roads serving new medium density housing must provide the opportunity for “significant” visitor parking. as well as the shape and size of the site proposed for development. including refuse collection. is the stipulation that medium density housing sites should enable “all residential units to face or relate closely to public streets”. Section 2 of Plan Change 1 deals with improving subdivision processes. residents can observe and overlook the street.Appendix A Local Authority Intensive Housing Policies in Metropolitan Auckland 97 dwelling of 25m . referring only to “acceptable” levels. and reinforcing urban design intentions inherent in the intensive housing development process.2: “Intensified residential development can enhance the efficient use of the City’s infrastructure … and create energy savings. Thus. as in “. design and management of the public space is to be approved in the process of consent.. in particular. parking.1. “. including: Issue 13.10(d)) requirements for pedestrian access.units fronting the street contribute to the liveability of the principal public space in a residential area.private outdoor spaces should be located. designed and screened to maximise privacy for unit occupants. and which will not “detract visually or generate health risks in the area. Privacy. but it also has the potential to cause adverse effects on residential amenity values. and requires a “well integrated” provision. Other authorities. street frontages (at least two habitable rooms facing directly onto the street).” Additional criteria for assessing all intensive housing development include the following: Streetscape and neighbourhood character and amenity Building form Outlook and outdoor spaces Privacy Landform. defining at the same time (4. thereby enhancing the personal security of people in the street.. They foster a sense of ownership of the street. and where doors and windows face or front the street. North Shore City Council also notes the significance of refuse and recycling collection systems.” All designers will acknowledge the value of this intention. vegetation and landscaping Traffic...2. as well as by other means. and at whatever density. Together they demonstrate North Shore City Council’s determination to bring high standards to the environment of future medium density housing or intensive housing proposals.5. which is readily accessible by service vehicles.” Discussion advises that it is difficult to determine the cumulative effect of . measure privacy by fixed minimum distance. Plan Change 1 replaces previous regulations with a rule that not more than five units will be permitted access from a single private driveway.” MANUKAU CITY COUNCIL Operative District Plan 2002: Chapter 13: Residential Areas Six issues relating to Manukau City Council’s residential areas have been identified for further discussion. it can be stated that few of the schemes built in the period between 1995 2 and 1999 would meet the criteria now established in this Plan Change 1 document. is relevant to any study of medium density housing design. Testing some of the individual developments studied in the case study section of this Report. and commentators. of whatever height.2: rule 17A. Regarding vehicle access. in explanation. and the difficulty of achieving a good standard in these terms when the most common block form is a terraced plan of connected units. access and pedestrian amenity Each of these headings is explained in greater detail. North Shore City Council define acceptable standards of privacy in general terms. street frontages. balconies. In a strategy to moderate the impact of higher density housing on existing low density suburbs. In outlining the Residential Strategy. but may also be encouraged by current development standards and policies. may be market lead. and in positions where security is provided by overlooking. and to be designed to ensure a high degree of public surveillance of the space proposed (p90).. Intensification also alters the existing character of an area. dealing with Neighbourhood Design. to increase housing variety (and) access. public parking is endorsed on secondary streets. Manukau City Council’s population is becoming increasingly diverse. Privacy is determined by sections B3 and B4. landscape & vehicular access. Density rules are also used in the Main Residential Zone (MR) so that “residents have certainty about the potential of development on any adjoining site.no single form can achieve all environmental. albeit at slightly higher densities. Public Open Space should therefore be adjacent to public streets (rather than tucked behind housing). The Design Code outlines a comprehensive set of urban design principles including street design. The present patterns of traditional subdivision. Referring to the Victorian Code for Multi– dwellings (Nov. economic and lifestyle requirements. Public Open Space is described as needing to protect significant landscape features. and should avoid back yards adjacent to it. building envelope and frontages. and privacy distances between . vehicle access. requiring net site areas of 2 400m . and p80–102)..6 This relates to the (current) lack of diversity in residential environments. Appendix 1 covers two sections. and parking and landscaping provision.. to protect privacy of dwellings.. Typically.2. the Council reserves rights over the following: (a) Neighbourhood design. which limits different lifestyle options for current and future generations.the most acceptable approach seems to be selectively making cities more compact. front doors. and general rules for traffic management within larger sites. street frontages. A special design code applies to these areas. Manukau City Council uses a “special policy zone” applied to very small pockets of land around the Botany Centre (only). Issue 13. and choices in terms of transport options other than the private car.” (p13). the discussion concludes that reasonable levels of amenity can be provided by appropriate design input: design quality is the critical factor. public open space. (b) Site design including front yards. In all these developments the Council will have regard to all elements of the intensive housing code (App. street layout. social justice..” (p92). A and B. back yards. In the same vein. where details such as fences and balconies are recommended.” In higher density areas. These policies appear to limit choice in housing. the document quotes from studies referred to in the AMCORD Urban 1 1992 in which: “. Streets must not be dominated by parking or by garage doors. “to conserve and enhance neighbourhood landscape visual amenity values. 1993). as well as limiting choices for a culturally and socially diversified population. and is widely resisted by existing communities. (c) Servicing. development interfaces (with existing: height to boundary regulations).” and that “.98 Best practice in medium density housing design intensification on residential amenity.. 1)(p51). and Site Design respectively (as listed above. para. and the concerns of the community to preserve and enhance the existing character of residential areas. Residential 7 is called “High Intensity”.7. Development controls are limited to overshadowing. the policy providing for “minimal development controls … while affording appropriate protection on the interface with lower intensity . Further controls are exercised through the Maximum Height regulations. The Residential Design Guide applies to this zone in order to achieve quality medium to high density development. Zone 6(b) 2 provides for sites down to 300m per residential unit. Density limitations included in zone 8(a) and (b) propose a minimum of 150m2 of gross site area per unit (8a) and 100m2 in zone 8(b). zones. as outlined above. etc). . is applicable to Strategic Growth Management Areas (SGMA’s). although some higher density development may be permitted in Zone 5. Section B7 deals with car parking. AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL District Plan operative 1999 The Plan acknowledges that there are few sites left in the city for traditional subdivision. and 3–4 storeys in the 8(b) areas which will generally be within five minutes walking distance of a town centre or major transport centre. including dimensions for shared driveways for horizontal and vertical standards of amenity. (pC18–19). allowing 1 space per unit up to 75m2.8. para 7.. in all areas a minimum of 40m2 of floor space is required per unit. … commercial centres. pB11). 7. (pB25). including external traffic noise.. allowing 55% coverage for sites up to 200m2. or less. (pA4).). and anticipates 2 and 3 storey buildings in the 8(a) areas. Zones 6–8 are medium and high density areas. and in combination with mixed uses including housing other than standard use types (elderly persons housing. visual domination and loss of privacy. Residential 8 zone.2 visitor spaces per unit for all larger dwellings. or more. with 2 height limits applied to differing contexts. Visual privacy is ensured at a minimal level of operational usefulness by off set dimensions for windows facing each other less than 6m apart by 1m vertical or horizontal re–alignment. of 10m and 12. (pA17). overlooking. and 20m between backs of dwellings set around a 10m radius circle determining acceptable relationships. Up to 100m distance is permitted for visitor spaces. This lower limit is supported by regulations dealing with Maximum Building Coverage. ” (etc.5m presuppose 3 and 4 storey developments. or other devices including cill heights and glazing options. Where two separate dwellings meet at a corner and at an angle of 135 deg.2.4 (pC8). a 4m distance is required between windows. Innovative housing development is anticipated on large sites. and 2 spaces + 0.4. in order to “facilitate more intensive development in areas near major public transport routes. Residential zones 1–5 are either special character or low density areas. and therefore addresses the need for residential growth in terms of infrastructure limitation.1. Acoustic privacy is addressed in similarly minimal regulations. Parking standards are similar to those elsewhere in the Auckland region.2 (pC13).8. (7. introduced in 2003. and a sliding scale reducing to 35% for sites between 200– 499m2. This zone applies to sites of 1 ha. respectively.” Two height limits.Appendix A Local Authority Intensive Housing Policies in Metropolitan Auckland 99 buildings are proposed: 12m between facing frontages. Side yards are reduced to nil metres in this code. area to site boundary rather than the net residential calculation used by AMCORD). and are required to have front door access and visitor parking on the street side of the dwelling if used in medium density housing layouts. the Waitakere City Council guide adopts identical separating dimensions between adjacent houses as the Manukau City Council guide. with the same diagrammatic control detail as used in the North Shore City Council’s Guide (see above). and minimum lot depths (22m) for north and west facing sites. which is also defined as minimum areas for different sized houses and units.100 Best practice in medium density housing design Interpretations and Definitions explains Floor Area Ratio (FAR). in other details. and active street frontages. The clear objection in the Guide to rear access reflects a legitimate concern for street design where access is reversed in such a way that the street itself is a back lane space lacking interest. Density is not used by the policy–making group of the City Council’s planning section as a regulating tool for judgements or guidance in the processing of housing developments. the Waitakere City Council recommendations include the advice that windows of kitchens and living rooms should not overlook adjacent private open space. Parking and garaging are advised with a view to ensuring safety of vehicle movement and to enhance street quality. The Guide refers. In addition. or to density. This Guide has 3 sections covering (i) subdivision design. and allows upper level living rooms where views are possible. Privacy is addressed with the proposal that “a reasonable degree of privacy in … dwellings” can be achieved by back to back dimensions of 16m between upper level windows and 10m between ground floor windows. mixed use types. in accordance with the intentions and principles of the Resource Management Act. to height to boundary requirements for adjoining pre–existing developments. a 59 page illustrated recommended practice guide intended to advise developers. residents. and active frontage. It advises lot widths for single and double garages. and Gross Floor Area details. (iii) house types. and 18m for south or east facing sites (entrance side). particularly “through” lanes which are seen as a security hazard. In the third section the Guide House Types are outlined in detail. and corner lot design preferences. The Guide makes recommendations in considerable detail for narrow lot widths. covering varying orientation of types. 2) WCC developers’ design guide for residential subdivision and medium density housing. There is no attempt to relate house types to layout variations. and designers on matters relating both to subdivision and the urban qualities attainable through the process of higher density housing. anticipating the difficulty of stitching medium density housing into the existing suburban landscape. living room surveillance of the street. (1998). WAITAKERE CITY COUNCIL The principal documents relating to the Waitakere City Council’s policy on Medium Density Housing are: 1) WCC medium density housing criteria: an 18 page sub–section of the District Plan setting out criteria designed to ensure that such housing developments “provide a positive contribution to the character and amenity of residential areas”. divided by the site area defined as exclusive of adjoining roads (that is. The Waitakere City Council approach to medium density housing is an “effects– based” one. other than as a rough estimating device at an early stage. casual surveillance. here based on square metres . the Guide considers rear service lanes as a “last resort”. and dealing with 8 separately headed areas of design. (ii) design elements for medium density housing. In this section. as the gross floor area of building proposed. and addressing the principal differences between medium density housing and traditional suburban layout. recognising the essentially urban character of higher density housing.Appendix A Local Authority Intensive Housing Policies in Metropolitan Auckland 101 per unit proposed rather than in dwellings per hectare. . The guide is a comprehensive and detailed handbook for good design in this housing typology.