Expert opinion from Victoria University Wellington - Te Herenga Waka
Unaffordable housing prices and pressing shortages dominate discussion of New Zealand’s housing crisis. But too often, the health implications of the urban landscapes we are shaping take a back seat.
That needs to change. As we grapple with the rapid growth of our cities, it’s high time we reconsider large-scale housing developments and their profound impact on the health and wellbeing of our communities.
The urgency of the housing crisis has led to a surge in large-scale developments, defined as primarily residential developments of at least 50 new units. While the focus on swift delivery and increased housing supply is commendable, the current trajectory raises questions about the broader implications for our urban environments and the health of their residents.
Aotearoa’s historical emphasis on residential property ownership, coupled with market-oriented approaches since the 1990s’ neoliberal reforms, has given rise to a system where developers and investors often take precedence over local communities. This dominance of corporate interests results in a prioritisation of profit-driven decision making.
Large-scale urban projects, like large-scale developments, are portrayed as vehicles for future growth, guided by efficiency criteria that may not align with the social, cultural, and health needs of our communities. This narrow focus risks perpetuating socio-economic imbalances and neglecting the diverse health priorities of different population groups.
The Wellington region, which faces substantial population growth and a surge in (mostly low-density) large-scale development projects, serves as a microcosm of the larger national trend. My recent research found the power dynamics associated with these developments in Wellington often favour the preferences of high-income groups, contributing to socio-economic polarisation and missing opportunities to enhance social and natural capital that could strengthen health outcomes.
More than a commodity
We need to recognise that housing is not merely a commodity but the foundation for various urban processes, such as transport mode choice, that profoundly impact health and wellbeing.
In our pursuit of addressing the housing crisis, we must not lose sight that health promotion goes beyond affordable housing and a lot-scale perspective—it involves creating environments that foster people-place relationships and a sense of belonging, support diverse lifestyles, and prioritise collective wellbeing. This includes vital opportunities to connect with nature.
To this end, encouraging higher density living is typically favoured, driven by the aim of reducing commuting times, enhancing affordability, and meeting the demand for more compact urban designs. A preference for medium-density housing is also on the rise, reflecting aspirations for a 15-minute city, transit-oriented development, or mixed-use spaces.
However, there’s still a gap in our knowledge about the optimal housing density in diverse Aotearoa (sub)urban settings to guarantee positive health outcomes for residents.
The Medium Density Residential Standards, introduced under the previous government and which permit up to three homes of three storeys per site, were a step to streamline the planning process for higher density construction within existing urban areas. However, the standards fail to provide sufficient guidance on where and how such developments can contribute to a city’s health vision—by, for example, integrating housing and proximity to nature.
There remains a pressing need to align urban transformations with the genuine needs of residents, fostering flexibility, innovation, and inclusivity in our urban planning approaches.
What needs to change
We need to re-evaluate decision-making processes and outcomes of LHD to ensure they align with residents’ definitions of healthy places.
This requires a more holistic approach. Such an approach would see developers and other urban actors integrating communal assets within housing developments, actively contributing to the creation of liveable areas. Public participation and engagement, moving away from a market-driven model, are also essential to ensure diverse communities have a voice in shaping urban development.
Support for small-scale, community-driven housing initiatives is equally vital, offering an alternative pathway for future urban growth that aligns with the diverse needs of Aotearoa’s population.
By challenging the dominance of market-driven solutions and embracing a broader range of possibilities, we can prioritise not only the quantity but also the quality of our housing developments, fostering healthier, more inclusive, and adaptable (sub)urban environments.
Rethinking large-scale housing developments is not just about addressing a shortage; it is a call to shape our cities in ways that prioritise our collective health. The choices we make today will resonate through the fabric of our cities, influencing the wellbeing of generations to come. It’s time for a transformative shift towards healthier, more liveable urban futures in Aotearoa.
The photo, being getty images is likely not to be taken in NZ. I have not seen such a tenement hall being constructed in Auckland yet and hope it won’t happen. Future ghetto. Sure, we have several storied buildings with very little room between, little consideration to view or light, and (on some) almost complete concrete coverage of the site. Future flooding risks, but perhaps not future ghettos. The article lacked specific solutions and perhaps that was not the intent. But the mention of connection to nature was very relevant. If Councils and Central Government developed regulations that made such a concept mandatory, it would be a start. It is not difficult to incorporate urban forests (a new concept of heightened greenery set in small spaces – look up Sponge Cities and Miyawake method of planting) into every development. It would encroach on profit but the writer is correct that a huge mistake has been made when profit is the only outcome that is seriously considered in most of these housing developments. It would have been interesting to discuss the implication of contributions to reserves, which I understand is meant to be applied in these sort of developments. In the suburb in which I live, developed in the 1960’s, there is a green space on almost every block, behind the square of houses that face four adjoining streets. Many are devoted to sport and well used, others are just a nice green rest for the eye. They are connected to the streets by walkways. They were threatened some years ago when developers wanted to eliminate them, but public protest brought an end to that.
When I lived in Perth, Western Australia, housing development was proceeding apace. However, unlike in New Zealand, developers had to include green space, a shopping precinct and in some cases room for a school. They were not “add-ons” and they were hard wired in to the consent – not to be “forgotten, traded out or just ignored. In many cases a sound wall was also required to separate houses from the rail/road corridor.
Coming to New Zealand I saw how it really works – the school at Manor Park was closed and 70 houses built on the site (which flooded during construction – never mind). The shop had long gone, the PO removed the Post Box. Now the council have zoned a large portion of adjacent land from Rural to Industrial, with long-established residential houses now 30 m away, and no plan or budget (“maybe the developer will add a reservoir”?) to increase the water supply to the suburb, already at capacity and limited by the size of the old, earthquake prone reservoir, currently providing insufficient supply to fight a significant fire according to the local brigade. The NZ planning system is simply a joke.