SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 20 of 73 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The Milford Shopping Centre (Milford Centre) is undergoing an extensive redevelopment to turn what was once a tired, neglected shopping mall into an attractive, upmarket, mixed-use retail and living environment that complements and supports a vibrant and vital Milford Town Centre. The transformation is designed to provide a stimulus for business and employment opportunities in Milford and will widen the diversity of housing choices available to local and other residents. The first redevelopment stage - an extensive interior refurbishment of the existing area - is complete and visitors to the Centre can now shop and and socialise in an upmarket, lively and sophisticated boutique style environment. Stage Two has consent to proceed and Stage three plans are underway.

STAGE TWO:

The retail extension and integration of residential living is the next step in creating an attractive, innovative and modern mixed-use centre in the heart of Milford village. Stage two of the development will increase the existing retail and service component at the Milford Centre by another 21% (2590m2) and add a residential component. Fifteen three-level luxury townhouses will be built on the corner of Milford Road and Ihumata Road, a new underground car park and rooftop car park will be added and the street and residential boundaries will be professionally landscaped. Each townhouse will feature three bedrooms and have a total floor area of up to 181m2. The exterior cladding will include a combination of stone and pre-cast concrete, aluminium joinery for windows and French doors, wooden shutter treatments, glass and concrete balustrading and membrane and ply for the roofs. This design is consistent with the high quality aspirations attached to the entire Centre development. Resource consent for Stage Two has been granted.

STAGE THREE:

The third stage of the Milford centre transformation involves building medium-rise luxury apartments above the existing Milford Centre along with additional rooftop car parking. These apartments will have impressive urban and sea views and generous balconies. Thoughtful and careful design means the residential towers are located in areas where they will have the least visual impact on the surrounding area. For instance the highest residential tower (Omana Road South) is constructed on the lowest point of the site. Up to 235 high quality apartments will be constructed within three medium-rise residential towers of varying heights, in three defined locations:

Omana Road South: 16 storeys above street level

Omana Road North: A tower of three varying heights up to eight storeys above street level

Milford Road: A tower with four varying heights up to 11 storeys above street level

A rooftop car park of up to seven levels.

Milford Centre Limited is seeking a change to the North Shore Section of the Auckland District Plan to allow additional flexibility in order to proceed with this third development stage. Subsequent resource consent applications will then be required to enable Auckland Council to assess building design and construction details.

 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
I personally feel that these will be some of the best designed apartments in Auckland ....









What the locals are so "terrified" of - shading:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
First time I have seen the renders - looks great. If more development like this can be built I think Auckland is going to look more Sydney - but better!
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
First time I have seen the renders - looks great. If more development like this can be built I think Auckland is going to look more Sydney - but better!
I am hoping that the "locals" don't stand a chance. Auckland Council's vision encourages more of this type of development so I am sure that they will push it through :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,611 Posts
Well from what I've read the taller buildings are what people are complaining about due to shading, if they get the lower ones on the go they can slowly win people over.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Opinions pour in on shape of Akl high-density future


The first test for the Auckland Plan's push for high-density living has started, and 3800 submissions are offering views on how the North Shore suburb of Milford should grow. Milford is one of only four town centres marked in the Auckland Plan as "most market attractive" for intensification because of its existing amenities and bus service. Yesterday, a developer began putting a case for changing the district plan provisions to enable high-rise apartments at the Milford Shopping Centre. Planner Peter Reaburn, for Milford Centre Ltd, told a council hearings panel that many Milford resident were "happy with the area the way it is and do not want significant change". But, he said, the "village character" would change, because it was marked on statutory planning documents for a high-density centre.

The Auckland Plan's directions meant the character of 200ha around the Milford shops would change over the next 30 years from its low-density residential nature. Three- to four-storey homes would be built to give a further 3500 units sought by planning documents in the town centre. Current zoning in the area did not allow for a doubling of dwelling densities. Mr Reaburn said the developer's proposed plan change would allow intensive residential development within the 2.9ha shopping centre site through a substantial increase in possible building heights. Residential development would occur at specific points in an "overlay" area above the business 2 zone of the shops. He disagreed with Auckland Council planning officials about the need for changing the sizes of the building envelopes, saying it would drastically change the amount and cost of development.

Height reductions for two of the tallest buildings were proposed by council landscape architect Leo Jew. This would mean the loss of 48 units which could come out of the plan change. Mr Jew told the panel that he was concerned that design controls did not go far enough to balance the dominance and shadow of buildings. He wanted the proposed 63m and 59m buildings reduced to 40m maximum height. Mr Reaburn said the developer followed new design standards in proposing minimum sizes of 40sq m for studio or one-bedroom units, 55sq m for two-bedroom units and 70sq m for units with three or more bedrooms.

MILFORD PLANS

*
250 apartments on 2.9ha shopping centre site.
*
9 buildings proposed - from 21m (4 storey) to 63m high (16-17 storey).
*
Issues include: Height, form and quality of buildings; effects on the amenity; traffic and parking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,700 Posts
I wish NZ Herald would realise that three to four storeys is medium density not high. The debate can't be held intelligently until people realise that we aren't going to see tower blocks everywhere rather that most of growth will be in terraced housing, low rise apartments and semi detached housing.
 

·
All over the place
Joined
·
786 Posts
^^
Anyway surely "The Circle" apartment building in Kitchener Road (about 11 or 12 storeys high) has already set a precedent?
It was built in the early 1970's...no problem back then ;)
I live in Milford and support the developer's plans for the new apartment buildings above the Mall.
At the moment the site is way under used.
 

·
Just like Sister Ray said
Joined
·
1,359 Posts
At the moment the site is way under used.
Yes, if this doesn't get approved I can't see much hope in achieving the Auckland plan's goal of intensification. The location is perfect. With the exception of the largely senior, conservative population which surrounds it (no offense intended to Mr. Dazzle.)
 

·
All over the place
Joined
·
786 Posts
No offence taken!!
Though I did just turn 50 :) !!
I like to think I am a little more progressive than the usual suspects (nimbys)
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Opponent says 235 apartments sought for towers above Milford mall could rise to 874

Resource management consultant & local resident Stephen Havill told the hearing on a private plan change for the Milford shopping centre today the proposed development controls could accommodate as many as 874 apartments – more than 3 times the number suggested by developer Milford Centre Ltd. The developer, part of Mark Gunton’s NZ Retail Property Group, has said it wants a plan change allowing 3 apartment towers above the shops, up to 63m tall, providing for 235 apartments. The company presented its application for private plan change 34 last week and, this morning, the Milford Residents Association began what’s expected to be a week of opposing submissions.

Mr Havill, director of SFH Consultants Ltd, has been involved in preparing the association’s campaign to stop the highrise proposal. He set out reasons for preventing the plan change going ahead in its present form and outlined an alternative containing controls on height & density limiting development to 235 units & 20,000m². Mr Havill said the 2.9ha site’s business 2 zoning was an inappropriate regulatory framework for intensive housing: “The zone focus is business-orientated with the objectives, policies & rules written accordingly. This evidence concludes that a purpose-designed zone frameworks needs to be written for any intensive housing development on the Milford Mall site.

“This is the ‘first cab off the rank’ for intensive housing in town centres. It is important that the council gets it right now. Failure to do so will have serious consequences for future development in Auckland. For this reason the intent & text needs to be clear & concise.” Mr Havill said the business 2 zone had a disconnect between density & height: “As written, plan change 34 is based on the premise that 235 units – or any other such number – is permitted with consent sought for the bulk & form only as a limited discretionary activity. "Density & height (bulk) must be interrelated. That is, ‘up to 235 units’ needs to be directly reflected in the bulk provided for in appendix 15P of the plan change.”

He said both the applicant & council relied heavily on the council’s Good solutions guide for apartments in relation to urban form, but this was a non-statutory document. While the assessments of potential effects of the plan change was based on 235 units, Mr Havill said up to 650 units could be accommodated as a discretionary activity within the bulk provided for in the appendix. The residents association accepted there was scope for more residential development within the mall boundary beyond the 15 townhouses originally consented, but suggested it would be more appropriate & sensitive to increase the height limit of the adjoining town centre from 9m to 12m, make the mall plan provision for up to 235 units a discretionary activity, provide for intensive housing around the nearby Smales Farm environs where there was already a substantial workforce – Mr Havill suggested the Atlas Concrete plant site as a possibility – and encourage redevelopment within the residential 6C zone fronting the northern side of Shakespeare Rd.

The residents association advocated spreading the effects of growth rather than centralising them and had been asking since 2008 for a Milford strategic or village plan to be undertaken as a framework for prioritising growth areas. Mr Havill said the council had now allocated funds & resources to prepare one. He said the residents association had pointed out 3 years ago that the plan change for the mall allowed far more height than necessary for 235 units. From a detailed floor-by-floor calculation, the association showed the potential for about 60,000m² to be built. It calculated the potential capacity for 874 units by using a 49m² unit as its base, staying just under the 50m² limit which meant only one parking space was required for each unit. Mr Havill said it was possible to accommodate the developer’s 235 units with a 24m height limit and a limit on gross floor area was appropriate.

The way the plan change was worded, Mr Havill said it was possible the development potential could be read as a mixed-use zone allowing more than 76,000m² of development. Half of that would be in extra mall space, 19,800m² would require limited discretionary consent and 18,00m² would require discretionary consent. Mr Havill said the plan change should specify an agreed maximum gross floor area or maximum number of units, and the appendix needed to be changed to reflect this. He wasn’t unreasonable for the community to want to retain Milford’s village character and a 24m height limit at the mall would help in that aim: “The association has taken a realistic view that intensification will happen. The question is, ‘How much intensification is appropriate on the mall site?’ – this is not a Nimby (not in my back yard) argument.

The residents association’s co-chairmen, Debbie Dunsford & Norma Bott, both expanded on their written submissions today. Dr Dunsford had asked how the council could approve large development now when one big retailer was originally excluded from the mall because of excessive traffic pressure that would have arisen in the feeder streets of Kitchener & Shakespeare Rds. “There will be significant adverse impact on the Milford village and a loss in the community amenity. The proposed change would allow so dramatic an alteration as to destroy the existing character of Milford. The assumption apparently underlying this plan change is that Milford is a characterless suburb without significant history. “The proposal presents a greenfields approach to development, with total disregard to the existing nature of the suburb & its community.”

After outlining its gradual transformation from a holiday settlement, she said infill housing had led to intensification but Milford had managed to retain its essential character of a beach suburb by remaining lowrise & people-friendly. She said the proposed development would dominate the skyline & streetscapes, casting deep shadows on surrounding commercial streets & some residential properties and drastically reducing some sea views. Noise & lights from the highrise apartments would be intrusive. Dr Dunsford said Milford had always been secondary to the regional centre of Takapuna and had minimal services: “It seems the huge influx of new residents would be offered only one recreational activity, that of shopping. This is totally at odds with the ‘healthy city’ concept the council claims to support.

“There is a precedent for highrise residential living in Takapuna and this type of development should be restricted to that area. Takapuna is a real transport hub and has the regional facilities that mean people can reduce their number of vehicle journeys. Milford is not in this situation at all.” Ms Bott said if terraced housing were to occur locals would be quite satisfied with that over time: “It’s the intention to turn it into a metropolitan-type area that we think is inappropriate.” She asked how families could enjoy the beach if there was only to be limited parking in the area. “The North Shore as a whole has engendered a holiday atmosphere for its residents. It’s part of being low-key - a human scale is what we really want to have, and to see those connections going down to the beach. We can draw a lot from that.”

The hearing is before a panel of David Hill (chairman), Janine Bell, David Mead & council hearings committee chairman Noelene Raffills.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
The blatant NIMBYism of Dunsford really annoys me. "Oh no shading, oh no change, oh no smelly people in my "village" in the middle of a giant city". Get real.
 

·
If seagulls could talk...
Joined
·
700 Posts
I just got back from Sydney (NSW) yesterday. While there, I stayed in a condo development called Waterfront @ Meadowbank: http://www.waterfront-apartments.com.au/property/castlehillsmercer/SubCatid/18/act/dis which is exactly what I think Auckland needs a lot more of.

It's far better to embrace intensification and plan for clusters of 6-storey condo developments around a compact retail centre. It all has to be walkable, so it must be connected by a frequent PT route - the busway for example.

A few towers of 15+ storeys are fine as I think they are necessary to build critical mass and pay for infrastructure & new amenities.

At some point the accommodation needs of 800 people must outweigh the sunlight needs of a few. Those affected residents should take it as an opportunity to sell their land for a fortune,with development potential .
 
1 - 20 of 73 Posts
Top