SkyscraperCity Forum banner
941 - 960 of 1,028 Posts
Seascape will be similar if not better. The others to consider would be 51 Albert St, which looks promising as does 65 Federal St and the Wall and Mable development. NDG is an unknown, it will certainly have the height. The main disappointment appears to be Voco development with the blank walls and utilitarian design. Of course architecture is like art, for me the main issues is the quality and aesthetics of the build and how it fits into the environment. Unfortunately the CBD is a hotchpotch of designs, the main disappointment being those cheap 10-20 level apartment blocks built in the 90's and 2000's, mainly in the CBD fringes. Just dreadful.
 
Seascape will be similar if not better. The others to consider would be 51 Albert St, which looks promising as does 65 Federal St and the Wall and Mable development. NDG is an unknown, it will certainly have the height. The main disappointment appears to be Voco development with the blank walls and utilitarian design. Of course architecture is like art, for me the main issues is the quality and aesthetics of the build and how it fits into the environment. Unfortunately the CBD is a hotchpotch of designs, the main disappointment being those cheap 10-20 level apartment blocks built in the 90 and 2000's, mainly in the CBD fringes. Just dreadful.
I really hope 65 Federal gets underway. It looks the best of the lot.
 
Seascape will be similar if not better. The others to consider would be 51 Albert St, which looks promising as does 65 Federal St and the Wall and Mable development. NDG is an unknown, it will certainly have the height. The main disappointment appears to be Voco development with the blank walls and utilitarian design. Of course architecture is like art, for me the main issues is the quality and aesthetics of the build and how it fits into the environment. Unfortunately the CBD is a hotchpotch of designs, the main disappointment being those cheap 10-20 level apartment blocks built in the 90's and 2000's, mainly in the CBD fringes. Just dreadful.
I’m no fan of the ‘cheap’ apartment buildings that have sprung up around the city fringes in the last couple of decades either. But putting aesthetics to one side I think the supply and house price crisis is so bad now that we need to just build whatever we can.
 
Much as been documented on the post war tower blocks that sprang up in the UK the US and in Europe and the often negative social impact is has had on societies ie. increase in violence, drug havens, vertical ghettos, etc. and being unsuitable for young families with children. Mental health also became a concern as people became separated and detached from normal societal interactions. Mass economical housing for the poor. Still they provided shelter and they were an 'improvement' on the slum housing estates that existed previously. Many of those post war tower blocks have now been demolished, the ones that are left in places like London and Manchester are now been redeveloped into upmarket multi million pound apartments for the rich and the well to do mobile professionals. The displaced tenants are being rehoused in low rise homes in the area. Of course the Auckland CBD and other urban centers in NZ have different economic demographics, however the concerns remain, like do these fringe CBD 10-20 level development improves social interactions ? do they engage people into the physical environment ? are mental health issues a concern ? will these cheap tower blocks in them selves develop into vertical slums ?. Many on those tower blocks built on the cities fringes in the past 30 years now house students and new comers to NZ who by default tend to be isolative in the first place. Local councils and town planners have a lot to blame for in the way many of these tower blocks were built cheaply and without being aware of the long term social and environmental implications. New developments, preferably affordable low level social housing, has to be sustainable, environmental friendly and integrate people better into their neighborhoods. They should create a sense of belonging. Housing supply is in short supply and house prices are out of control so councils and central Govt.need to act fast as really over the past decade councils and central Gov.T have failed in their duties.
 
Sorry if that was confusing, I was referring to the existing 10-20 level apartments built on the city fringes over the past several decades. The Auckland Unitary Plan includes expanding boundaries and the intensification of housing. The areas defined as 'Metropolitan Areas' [Suburbs outside the CBD ] buildings of up to seven storeys in identified areas will be permitted, there are rare exceptions and some building go to 72.5m can be built as long as they comply with strict shadowing, wind and other environmental and cultural concerns. The edges of Auckland under the existing Rural Urban Boundary are expanded, allowing dwellings on land that was previously zoned rural for 'low - medium' height development. Overall, the proposed Unitary Plan is set to enable 1/2 million extra dwellings by 2040 as Auckland will house 2.5 million then. [The Auckland Unitary Plan is complex and 7000 pages long and somewhat challenging to interpret]. High rises will still remain in the CBD and city fringes as long as they comply.
 
The well-documented failure of post-war high rises in Europe and the US was really more to do with the exclusively poor and disadvantaged demographic that they stuffed them full of as it was the negative psychological effects of vertical living. One can just as easily study Hong Kong and New York for examples of societies accustomed to living in such towers functioning just fine. Besides, there will always be a demand for accommodation in the center of Auckland, so fears of even the worst designed blocks deteriorating into slums is pretty far-fetched to me. And good luck getting a twenty floor tower built in Auckland's fringe suburbs!
 
''One can just as easily study Hong Kong and New York for examples of societies accustomed to living in such towers functioning just fine''
Agreed other cultures have adapted to high rise living successfully esp. those with limited land use like in various Asian countries and New York with Manhattan again with limited land use.
The more successful high rise apartments have not been designed for the poor and working classes esp those outside of Asia.
Don't forget some metropolitan centers do have high rises. like the 15 level / 57 m Merchant in New Lynn and multiple others is New Market and Manukau City. Yes, no 'high rises' will get built in the actual 'suburbs'. I hope you are correct in that even the worst designed tower blocks will become vertical slums. I still believe they city fringe accommodation tower block were poorly designed by a council and town planners ignoring the long term social, cultural and environmental issues. I doubt the longevity of some of those tower blocks as the majority were poorly designed and built. Weather tightness has been and is a major concern with some. Sorry getting off topic.
 
941 - 960 of 1,028 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top