CBC had a story today which is not bad, other than devoting valuable space to some NIMBY who represents like 10 people and is against building housing because...
One can certainly disagree with Mr. Kettel, but his views hold sway with a lot more than 10 people, as such they are worthy of consideration.
I don't mean deference, I mean giving thought to the argument, so that one can intelligently counter it.
For instance, I agree that a six-storey building next to a bungalow is a non-sequitur. Its very hard to create a working design for that, that makes sense for both uses.
Now, that doesn't mean you don't build the six-storey.
It means you rightly answer the concerns this way:
1) All bungalows will be removed from upzoned main streets. SFH housing will remain on main streets only where historically designated, and that is a reasonable retention, over a relatively small distance/area.
2) In general SFH properties which back into a main-street fronting lot, where there is no laneway as a divider, will also see redevelopment and intensification, at a lesser scale (topping out at 4s) creating a gradual transition to lower density.
3) Laneways, deep lots and rear setbacks above the the 3rd floor can maintain an illusions of privacy and reasonably ensured continued skyview/sunlight for much of the day.
4) The proposed changes will not impact the interior of 'neighbourhoods'
There, now Mr. Kettel can be quiet.
Lets not just shout down Nimbys, lets understand the arguments, provide reasonable replies that mix 'selling change', with an awareness that change is easier to sell if you mitigate it at the edges.
s.cotsurvey.chkmkt.com
www.stats.govt.nz
