Wellbeing and the Auckland housing debate

3 August, 2022 in Newsletter

What could a more human-centred process offer to us as New Zealanders?

Watching the current public debate on the new planning rules to enable more high-density housing (NPS-UD and MDRS) has been disappointing and at times brutal.

New Zealand has an urgent need for more housing that will support people’s wellbeing by providing them with a warm, dry, safe, accessible, affordable, conveniently located home.

Creating this new housing should be a joyous process — one which is life-giving, which strengthens communities, enabling creativity and sustained opportunities for people to serve each other.

One of the stated policies in the NPS-UD says that:

“Councils are directed to give greater consideration to ensuring that cities work for all people and communities. Particular focus is given to access, climate change, and housing affordability.” (Hud.govt.nz link below)

But neither the detail of the new planning rules nor the process of arriving at them seem adequate to fulfil this goal. Instead, people have been suddenly put into a vulnerable position — including those currently priced out of home ownership who could be helped by the changes, those who already own homes, and those on low incomes who are unlikely to be helped by the planning changes alone.

Public debate on the issue quickly became highly charged and polarised, with contributions from each side often quickly dismissed by the other. Participation in the discussion and public consultation process has been most accessible to those with financial resources or relevant professional expertise — coupled with either a thick skin or solid meditation practice!

Limitations of the public engagement process have included:

Making a submission is largely a “speak without listening” process — you get to send in your feedback on the changes, but with limited opportunity to also hear a range of other’s views and potentially amend your feedback in response.
Information about the changes available to the public is full of technical terms (eg “management layers, walkable catchment, qualifying matter) which may be difficult for people to understand in terms of real life impact.
The overall tone of communication to the public is dry — as if the changes are to models or lego pieces, failing to acknowledge the need for care around potential social and community impacts.

A human-centred process could be much more effective to inform the design of a planning framework which is acceptable across communities and which can then be a springboard for new housing development.

This would need skilled mediation by people who can take a neutral role, and would need to be fair, selective, and curated — a well managed dialogue not a free-for-all, which allows multiple perspectives to be shared and heard, working within and between communities and networks. (For case studies of this approach, see Reos Partners link below.)

Given that we live in a place where communities are interdependent, leadership within this process must include ensuring that you (and those you lead) hear other perspectives, not just advocating for the needs of your own interest group.

Especially in the parts of the current debate with the most unproductive conflict (arguments over increased density and the Special Character Areas), Pākehā are visible in greatest numbers. This makes me question if there are aspects of our usual ways of operating which could be preventing a productive way forward.

Oppositional processes and attitudes are common, at both a larger scale (lengthy, expensive political, legal and bureaucratic processes which throttle actual change) and locally (development pitting neighbour against neighbour). There is also a tendency to expect people to put up with things which are unsafe, when everyone needs safety in order to endure the discomfort of conflict and change.

I hope that an outcome of the planning changes consultation is that future processes will be improved, as there is so much change ahead of us if we are to address the impacts of climate change, inequity and more.

Change which is imposed — even for good reasons — can only get us part of the way there.

Links:

Originally published on Medium.