The unintended consequences of new regulations

On March 1 the Licensed Building Practitioner regime comes into effect.  This began as a response to the Leaky Homes issue, and was generally supported by architects as recognising professional competence and responsibilities.

The danger is that the complexity of the system will create a costly process that will frustrate and add unnecessary costs to building procurement.  

The NZ building industry is not alone in this dilemma.  The proliferation of rules that have good intentions but impose huge cost burdens collectively is becoming a major concern everywhere.  Like most countries, NZ needs a smarter approach to regulations. First, all important rules should be subject to cost-benefit analyses by an independent watchdog.

Second, all big regulations (like the LBP regime) should come with sunset clauses so they expire say in 10 years unless Government reviews and renews them. 

But most important of all - regulations need to be simpler.  All-purpose regulations submerge the important issues in a sea of verbiage.  Far better to lay down broad goals and prescribe only what is necessary to achieve them.  And the danger of handing too much power to unelected bureaucrats must be addressed by making them more accountable. 

Measuring Local Authority performance

The  obsession with rates as the measure of Local Government performance, however sensational, focusses on the wrong issue.  No one is happy with rises – that’s a given.  But the Shand report rightly points out how Local Authorities provide services people expect, have acceptable levels of debt, and in their widening functions do not significantly contribute to rates rises. But Shand also ignores the measure that people understand  - the perceived efficiencies where their functions interface with the public.

I doubt you can find a Local politician or senior officer not concerned at rising costs. And we all expect them to continue deliver an increasing range of services and environmental outcomes.

The real challenge is at the mid level of Local Government administration. This is where job role protection, team expansion, process complication and process time extensions provide job insurance. Anyone dealing with Planning or Building consents will have seen it.

Therein lies the real challenge! Talk to any of them and they will persuade you of the importance of their function - but the sum of the parts exceeds the outputs and creates the sad reality of non-performing Councils.

Is there a politician who will take up this challenge?

High density housing in Auckland and misleading journalism.

I,m all for investigative journalism- interrogating official positions and the like. But the privilege of newspaper space brings with it a responsibility to not mislead.   The Jan 15 HERALD ON SUNDAY article Slums to replace decent housing was an abuse of that privilege. 

The subject is worth debating – but not sensationalizing!  The Damien Grant article was journalism at its worst – presenting propositions as if they were indisputable facts.

To imply that the housing in The Strand, Parnell is an ‘upmarket version of what is proposed’ is at best disingenuous.

Claims like “high-storey housing is inhabited by sex workers, and urban poor” is speculative – and no doubt news to those who live in the upmarket high rise apartments in Auckland. What evidence is there that “Most people do not want to live in high-density housing”?  Do they all want to live on life style blocks?  Has such a statement been peer reviewed for accuracy?

The economic analysis, such as it is, of Greenfield costs and relativities is deficient, cursory, inaccurate and mis- leading.

This is a topic worth debating – referencing Auckland conditions with unbiased accurate data. This article reads like an argument supporting one point of view – Auckland deserves better.

AUCKLAND’S SPATIAL PLAN DESERVES BETTER

In reporting on Auckland’s “Spatial Plan” the media seems to strive for controversy.  And in so doing, it does a disservice to the plan’s potential.  Polarized views define the parameters of an issue, but not its substance.  That may sell news, but it doesn’t help the outcome.

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:

1. 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?
2. The pronouncements of politicians like Mike Lee in the Herald 17 December use extremes to achieve their goal of getting media attention. 
3. The self serving land development/house building industry presents new subdivisions as the only solution.  There are many other elements to the problem.
4. 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?

SHAME ON YOU ANGLICAN CHURCH AND CHRISTCHURCH COUNCIL

For agreeing to demolish the Anglican Cathedral Christchurch City Council and the Anglican Church should hang their heads in shame.  Despite the devastation wrought by the earthquakes, there were a number of buildings critical to what Christchurch is – the Anglican Cathedral was one of them.  Cities throughout history have shown how these valued parts of our past, destroyed by tragedy,  must, and can be re-built – even if it takes years to achieve.    Rather than rush in and demolish, or replace in a compromised way, they fenced off the treasures until they were able to rebuild them – as they were.

It can be done – and it is disingenuous to label it as Disney Land.  It has much more integrity, reflecting deeply held feelings for built heritage and human values.

I fear that the Church and Council have been hijacked by bureaucratic box tickers given authority they exercise within narrow definitions.  History, culture, heritage – don’t seem to rate compared with narrow code compliance, OSH and economics. 

The Church, the Council and committed individuals must stand up for the historic values of Christchurch – or stand condemned by the future.

AN UNUSAL FASCINATION WITH TOILETS

In addition to natural features and public spaces, most towns and cities are identified by their iconic buildings.  This is usually a cathedral, concert hall, art gallery or museum.    Some have their seat of government and some like Dubai rely on the unusual size or design of major buildings.            

I suspect we are the only nation that identifies towns with their public toilets.  The most recent is the Hobsonville lot – then we have the Hundertwasser ones in Kawakawa and those that have become the focus of the Matakana town centre. 

Town dunnies continue to receive awards from the Institute of Architects – no doubt warranted for individual excellence.   But surely there are more significant architecturally significant buildings, monuments or icons in each place!   What does this tell people about a town and its leadership?

SUPPORT A CAUSE – RENT A JOURNO.

I usually defend Brian Rudman, not because I agree with him (I seldom do), but because he is true to his ‘leftist’ bias in reporting on issues he considers important.  But his article “Queens Head horror too awful to destroy” illustrates the danger of his leanings – that he becomes the ‘hand maiden’ (his term) of any protest cause, regardless of its merits.

“Facadism” is worth debating – but we are entitled to expect some investigative journalism if it is to feature in our major daily.  From being a “cause” (not without validity), heritage issues are now hopefully receiving more balanced treatment.  Age is not the only value to be considered – not everything from the past is that much better than what we do today. 

The Queens Head was, in 1986, a façade with a dilapidated timber building behind that had been constantly, and badly, renovated.  Perhaps the only thing of historic value was the 1950’s Formica sheet lining to bathrooms – but even that was delaminating through neglect.  And while criticizing this and the Jean Batten Building, Rudman ignores such acclaimed buildings a Lloyds Insurance in London which does exactly the same with the old façade.

Facadism has its place in an urban environment where the spaces around buildings are as important as the interiors.  And the notion of “palimpsest” with parts or all of existing buildings is an important way of ensuring the dynamism of urban growth is not frozen by blind ideology triumphing over reason.