Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Design Review: Volume 5, Issue 1 (March-April 1953)

Letters …

page 21

Letters

Dear Sir,

“Sharawag”, writing in the October/November 1952 issue of Design Review, briefly stated the case for high density housing and related his arguments to the Freemans Bay re-housing scheme here in Auckland. He claims that the proposed densities for the new development are such that no more people will be housed there than are housed in the area now and, consequently, the project contributes nothing to curbing urban sprawl.

In reply, I would like to point out that the existing population of 6,500 people is largely overcrowded; in some cases, as many as ten people occupying one room and provision of schools and open space is at a low standard. The proposed scheme will house 9,500 people on the same area and at the same time eliminate overcrowding, make provision for a large new school and the extension of two existing schools, and increase the area of parkland from 16½ acres to 83 acres.

The average nett density for the Re-development is 75 people/acre obtained, as “Sharawag” observes, with the use of two-storied terrace houses. Multi-storied flat buildings for families were rejected for a number of reasons, some of which are listed here:

(a)

The cost is not just high; it is prohibitive. Indeed, the saving in land cost due to the density of, say, 120 persons/acre, does not offset the high cost of earthquake resistant multi-storied construction until a land cost of £71,000/acre is reached. The cost is far beyond what would reasonably be paid for any housing land:

(b)

Flat living has an alarming effect on the birth-rate in all cities of the western world:

(c)

High density developments are vulnerable to disease epidemics and bombing in time of war:

(d)

Difficulty of supervision of children playing on the ground many floors below their flat.

Returning to the question of urban sprawl, “Sharawag” implies that the use of very high densities will result in large savings in transport, services and agricultural land. This is true when comparing nett densities such as 120 persons/acre with those obtaining at present but, in comparing 120 persons/acre with the 75 persons/acre proposed for Freemans Bay, the gain is very small.

Indeed, if the whole of Auckland were to be rebuilt with housing at 120 persons/acre, and space was allocated as follows:—

12,500 acres for all industrial, warehousing and commercial uses.
5,000 acres for a cultural group including university college, theatres, museum, libraries, churches, stadia auditoria, etc.
6,250 acres for schools, shopping, playing fields, etc.
2,750 acres for housing 330,000 people at 120 persons/acre.
26,500 acres.

—then Auckland could be enclosed within the circumference of a circle 3.6 miles radius, centred on the Post Office. But, if Auckland were to be rebuilt on the basis proposed for Freemans Bay, namely 75 persons/acre, then the result is as follows:—

12,500 acres industrial.
5,000 acres cultural.
6,250 acres schools, shopping, playing fields, etc.
4,400 acres for housing 330,000 people at 75 persons/acre.
28,150 acres.

This corresponds to a radius of 3.75 miles or only 0.15 miles (260 yards) greater than the high density proposal. At 3.75 miles radius, parts of Mount Albert, Epsom, Meadowbank and Kohimaramara and all beyond would pass back into pasture land.

E. C. McClean.

“Sharawag's” reply is as follows:

Mr. McClean is right in correcting me on the numbers to be housed in the Freeman's Bay scheme. But as for the rest of his letter, I simply do not agree. My main argument remains unshaken.

Mr. McClean's other figures appear to be arbitrary, and construed to suit his own argument. He compares the figure of 75 persons per acre with 120 for multistoried development. Why 120? The figure for nett densities with maximum standards of light, sun and open space can be at least 200.

His figures for overall land use are also well out. 12,500 acres for industry and commerce? According to Mr. F. W. O. Jones, Auckland Metropolitan Planning Officer, 10 acres per 1000 of the population is the figure taken as a guide in the Outline Development Plan. Thus on the basis of 330,000 taken by Mr. McClean, 3,300 acres would be sufficient for industrial and commercial purposes. An error of nearly 400 per cent! Five thousand acres for cultural activities is also excessive—more than the total for housing. Most of the activities under this heading are included under other headings. So this figure can be crossed off. The open space figure is high, but desirable. On the basis of these amended figures, the answer will be entirely different from that of Mr. McClean, and one not so favourable to his argument.

These figures are liable to confuse, and as Auckland is not surrounded by land there is not much point in considering the hypothetical case of all the population being housed at 75, 120 or 200 persons to the acre. In any case we must always accept that the majority of the people—the family people—will live in detached houses. But if they are all to continue to live in detached houses and our cities continue to grow, a point will be reached when conditions will become unbearable—they are rapidly becoming so in Auckland now. Thus it is important that those who can live in flats should do so. And at least one-third of the population could well live this way. Many more could live in terraces as proposed for Freemans Bay and the rest in single units. But to make it worthwhile there must be a much greater concentration than there is now—and this does not mean overcrowding. But it does mean some multi-storied development—8 or 10 stories.

To say that multi-storied housing is ruled out because of excessive costs shows that the overall problem has not been considered. If no other considerations entered into the case, two-storied flats would certainly be cheaper than ten-storied. But this is only part of the picture. What are the costs for travelling to and from the suburbs; how much time is lost and nervous energy shattered in suburban transport; what are the costs of roading servicing and administering new suburbs; what is the loss to primary production through the continual encroachment on to first class farm land; and what is the result in terms of visual dreariness and indescribable monotony?

I suggest that to continue building such a proportion of low density housing is far and away more costly. In fact it is so costly that our whole urban economic structure is only maintained by higher and higher rating.

Mr. McClean's other arguments against high flats I have heard before. What “alarming effect on the birthrate” is that of which he speaks? Alarmingly high, or alarmingly low? Can he give us some statistics or is this another drawing-room prejudice? In Stockholm, 86 per cent of the people live in apartments, nearly all tall ones, and their birthrate is much the same as ours and their general health higher, It all depends on what you are thinking of when you refer to multi-storied flats. Mr. McClean is obviously thinking of prevailing conditions in big cities as London and New York, where most of the housing lacks any elementary amenity. But who cares for this? My idea is based on the Scandinavian model, which could well serve as an example in New Zealand. Tall towers, four apartments to a floor, free standing with the highest standards of sun, air, light, view and open space.

Finally, I should like to raise my hat to the Auckland City Architect and his staff for the high standard of layout and design of the scheme itself. But I suggest that the town planners have failed to see the overall implications of their housing policy.

page 22