Ivy build dismaying
It is with total dismay that I read about the proposed The Ivy retirement village in Ōrewa (HM May 30). Mr Martin does not see that the public should be concerned with a development that will produce 73 mixed use apartments supplying only 16 parking spaces and supposedly have “less than minor effects” on the surrounding environment or adjacent landowners. There is not enough parking throughout Ōrewa at present for local business clients.
What about parking for visitors, health workers for the proposed “in home care” and the cleaners for the new tenants of the Ivy? His presumption is most that tenants won’t own a car is also rather naïve. The impact of shadowing and removal of view to the residents of the Nautilus are huge. I am sure there was some conflict in his thought process, particularly as his previous Nautilus project is one of the most expensive leaking building repairs in the country. The Ivy should be put to public process as I am sure I am not alone in my concern for the environmental effects.
Janine Malatios, Hatfields Beach
New Ōrewa highrise
The plan revealed in Hibiscus Matters for another highrise (if you call eight storeys that) in Ōrewa is a sign of things to come. Once you have a zone that allows taller buildings, especially when there’s a possibility of a sea view, they will continue to build up and in front of each other to gain access to that view and increase the value of their property. A million dollar view indeed. Anyone who has been to any seaside place where highrise buildings have been permitted will see what happens. Sturdy rules regarding shading, height to boundary, and overlooking (privacy) are needed. But no-one’s views are guaranteed, as this developer notes.
Kevin Buchannan, Ōrewa
A step too far
As a Whangaparāoa resident, I have absolutely no problem with sharing my slice of paradise with more people. But I am opposed to the increasing density (HM May 30) which some friends of mine in other parts of the Coast see as NIMBYism. They already have apartments going up across their boundaries and say ‘if we’re having to deal with it, why not the peninsula?’ The issue with more housing, as I see it, is about the limitations on the infrastructure and the simple fact that we have a narrow, steep piece of land. Every place where humans live has a capacity, beyond which the impact on everyone else, and the environment, becomes unsustainable. What is proposed here is that step too far.
Miriam Wills, Manly
Better vision needed
Culture is defined as: ‘the customs and beliefs, art, way of life and social organization of a particular country or group’. All societies have a culture – the New Zealand way, we’ve evolved with space around us, so to reduce this with intense housing will go against our very psyche. If councils think for a moment their intense housing policies will benefit long term they’re dreaming, it’s a recipe for disaster….it is not our way. A while ago when the need to plan our growth more finitely was evident, very little consideration was given to the infrastructure and how it could cope, obvious to all it cannot. I, like many subscribed to the thought that satellite towns would be the way forward. To develop small existing towns plus establish new ones would be more in keeping with our way of life, this too would engender more of a community spirit. With new technologies (green and otherwise), the need for the cost benefits of intensification is not as foremost as it used to be. To plan growth you need to understand human nature and have true vision, these are the basic ingredients for any future success. The only ones to benefit from the current policies will once again be the developers, they’ll just hop their helicopters and fly off to a quiet spot.
Robert Bicker, Gulf Harbour (abridged)
Roads for everyone
Dropping the speed to 60kph down Silverdale hill (HM May 30) may raise a few hackles among local drivers. Not that long ago it dropped from 80kph-70kph and there were protests about that, but we all got used to it. May I point out that this hill is also a roadway that needs to be crossed by pedestrians and made safe for cyclists and other users. Yes, we may need to touch the brakes more often as we drive down this hill, but roads are not just for cars and if we can make them safer for all, that gets my vote.
Kevin Ross, Stanmore Bay
Put people first
When my wife and I moved to the Coast some years ago, we remarked how laid back and accepting everyone was. I have just read your issue of 30 May. Now I’m not so sure. Your front-page story about housing density made me shake my head with sadness. Sad for those residents who think like that, sad for the possible missed opportunity of building more vibrant communities, and sad for the local businesses who would benefit from having a larger pool of customers. I though NIMBYism was mainly confined to the leafy suburbs of the isthmus. It appears that the people of the coast value their views more than they value people.
Stephen Doyle, Ōrewa