When density meets transport

Both Auckland Council and central government are signalling a stronger push to intensify housing around major public transport corridors - and the logic is clear. If the city is going to accommodate more people without sprawling ever further out, new homes need to go where high-capacity transport already exists, or is on the way.

This approach, known as transport-oriented development, clusters higher-density housing within walking distance of rapid bus routes and rail stations (including the fast-approaching City Rail Link stations). In theory, it makes economic, environmental and social sense. It reduces reliance on cars, makes better use of infrastructure, and helps create more vibrant, connected neighbourhoods.

At the same time, transport-oriented development isn’t just about letting buildings get taller or squeezing in more units. Its success depends on careful planning and attention to the local context.

The devil in the detail

Higher-density living isn’t inherently a problem. That said, it’s easy to see why people worry - about overcrowding, loss of sunlight and privacy, poorly designed apartments, or a shortage of carparks.

But evidence from here and overseas shows that well-designed higher-density neighbourhoods can offer a really good quality of life. Hobsonville Point is one example in Auckland where relatively higher density has gone hand-in-hand with strong public amenities and positive outcomes for residents. The difference has been comprehensive planning rather than piecemeal development.

Here are a few things to keep in mind as we move forward:

• Targets should reflect population growth. Housing numbers, whether two million or 1.6 million, are only meaningful if they’re tied to projected population increases over a defined period.
• Density should be strategically located. Growth works best near transport hubs and in areas that can support more residents with parks, schools and other community infrastructure.
• Transport hub neighbourhoods. These need to be comprehensively planned and designed for walkability to social and community facilities, such as schools, parks and shops.
• Height and form matter. Higher density doesn’t mean a uniform landscape of tall apartment towers. A range of building types, including lower-rise forms, can achieve substantial increases in housing. Taller buildings near transport nodes should step down gradually to surrounding neighbourhoods. Vancouver’s Cambie Corridor offers a useful example.
• Heritage and character count. Development doesn't have to erase what we value. Britomart shows how historic buildings can be integrated with new development, creating lively public spaces connected to the rail network.
• Peripheral growth needs planning. Expansion on the city’s edges should only happen where transport links and community facilities are delivered alongside housing.
• Natural hazards must be considered. Building in flood-prone or otherwise risky areas isn’t wise, especially with more frequent extreme weather. Suitability assessments should be part of any intensification strategy.

Making the marriage work

Central government and Auckland Council are broadly on the same page about focusing intensification around transport corridors, but there have been a few bumps. The recent U-turn on housing targets, cutting the goal from two million homes to about 1.6 million, has left the council unsure how to move forward, with all the flip-flopping so far already costing around $13 million. It’s still not entirely clear which rules they should follow.

To make growth work for Auckland, the two will need to find a way to move forward together. And that success depends on keeping everything in step – projections, targets, infrastructure and design quality. Transport-oriented development provides a clear framework, but how well it works will ultimately come down to how carefully it’s carried out.