As it stands, the spatial plan would shrink protected character areas by 71 per cent, while allowing at least six-storey developments in suburban centres and along key transit routes. That development can happen within “walkable catchments” which were increased to within 10 minutes of all railway stations, instead of five, and within 15 minutes of the central city boundary, instead of 10. While councillors voted not to allow unlimited building heights in the city centre, there would be a minimum building height of six storeys.
I have a certain sympathy for the heritage advocates, and disagree entirely with the currently in-vogue argument that the Edwardian villas are somehow outdated symbols of colonialism. These aren't symbols of oppression, they're just a manifestation of cultural tastes when the city was young. Many of them are splendid examples of weatherboard architecture that represent a major contribution to the built heritage of the city.
But density advocates, and now a majority of Wellington City councillors, are just making the point that the arbitrary planning decisions holding that 'no-one wants to live in or near medium or high-density' is both wrong-headed and has serious real-world consequences. Medium and high-density living is not for everyone, but plenty of young and old alike would love to own or rent an apartment of their own if it meant not having to live in overpriced houses, or having to flatshare. So would lots of people on the social housing waiting list.
New Zealand cities and towns have for decades chosen low-density construction and internalised that it's the only way housing should ever be built. But for a comparison all we have to do is look across the Tasman, which is culturally very similar but where huge parts of the major cities have apartment blocks and walkups. Particularly near the train stations, which is great for tackling congestion and pollution. Even in New Zealand we used to build denser forms of housing until the end of the '70s - witness all the suburban brick and tile units that were all snapped up by the landlord class for rental portfolios in the mortgage boom. They're like gold-dust now because there's such huge demand for that type of accommodation, smaller than a standalone family dwelling.
As Fonseka says, outdated thinking is now rightly being challenged and overturned:
Many homeowners would prefer people live in a car, on the street, in a tent, or a tiny-home on some unserviced piece of rural land, than a small apartment right next door.
If Wellington is to retain its reputation as a young and vibrant city, and if it is to address the climate crisis, it needs to catch up from decades of under-building. The rest of the world knows that apartments, units and terraced townhouses are perfectly normal accommodation. Now it's time for the city to grow up, in more ways than one.
