Typical is the debate over the cost of housing and the shape of urban growth.
In places, the plan is misleading – like setting “the compact city” as a goal. This is disingenuous and to many, confrontational. It flies in the face of reality. “Compact” is a relative term – what suits one may be an anathema to another. More accurate is the term used in the plan “avoiding growth at the expense of the attributes that make Auckland appealing”. This sets incontestable qualitative goals worth pursuing.
But rather than seeking real responses, the media debate is defined by articles like:
- The Productivity Commission, as reported, perpetuates the myopic approach illustrated by the group that criticized the Puhoi and Victoria Park tunnels as too expensive options - but fails to take into account the wider less quantifiable issues. Who agrees with them now on the tunnels?
- The pronouncements of politicians like Mike Lee in the Herald 17 December use extremes to achieve their goal of getting media attention.
- The self serving land development/house building
ind ustry presents new subdivisions as the only solution. There are many other elements to the problem. - The architects don’t help by promoting ‘design lead’ solutions as the panacea to all problems. Important yes, but there are other issues.
They are all right – and wrong – to an extent. There is no single silver bullet. What should be debated is the balance - but not in the absolute terms the plan sets out. City growth is a dynamic, ever changing pattern. Council needs to establish an interactive process that encourages innovative solutions responsive to Auckland’s changing needs. That would be good government – and possibly achieve the Mayor’s goal of ‘the most livable city”. But if the media choose controversy over substance, is there any hope?
