Flats Now Too Costly

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 809, 1 November 1929, Page 8

Flats Now Too Costly

Architect Criticises New By-Law FEARS are held by some Auckland architects and builders that the new regulations imposed by the City Council upon flat-building in the inner city area will kill flaterection enterprise, and force people into unfavourable conditions. The restricted height of buildings is, in their opinion, to be. the chief factor in making flats prohibitive, as the removal of the top storeys will eliminate the profit-making elements of the scheme.

Top floors in Auckland flats command top rents. Panoramic views of the Waitemata Harbour cost money, and flat promoters in the past have derived much of their profits from this widely-sought residential asset. Up to the present time it has been possible under the city by-laws to build up to a height of 102 feet, thus allowing for six and seven storeys, each divided into select, self-contained dwellings, overlooking even the tall industrial buildings which line the waterfront. Under the new regulations, however, the height of flats—or multifamily dwellings, as they are now called —is restricted to 65 feet, which, when the sloping ground of some sites and the provision for basement are considered, will reduce many of them to within the five-storey limit. Thus the two most profitable storeys are cut off. It is this aspect of the new regulations which has provoked one or two Auckland architects to express the opinion that future flat-building in the inner brick area will be too costly to be profitable. “The tentative regulations issued by the town-planning committee of the City Council will stop flat building almost altogether,” one man said. “They restrict the height of buildings to 65 feet, and stipulate also that at least half the ground upon which they are erected must be devoted to air space. Assuming, then, that a section 50 feet by 150 feet is required, at least 3,750 square feet must be left untouched for air space. Assuming, also, that the price of land in the city is £IOO a foot, and that the flat promoter requires a return of from 8 per cent, to 10 per cent, on his outlay, the combined restrictions are going to reduce the proposition to a non-profit-i able one. “The same building, according to Section 299 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1920, is required to leave an unobstructed air space of 50 feet by 30 feet, or 1,500 square feet—2o per cent, of the total land. “If we take the model by-laws propounded by the Health Department in 1926 and sent to local authorities as a guide for the preservation of health building, w r e find that the air space

required under the Municipal Corporations Act is considered sufficient for a similar building up to seven storeys in height. “The council, then, in issuing its tentative guide to flat-builders, has set a standard 250 per cent, above that set by the Health Department as a reasonable one. "By restricting the flats to 65ft in height, the council ■will be reducing them to five floors —six at the very outside—so that, with restrictions both ways—laterally and vertically—the syndicate of flat promoters of the future has a small chance of making a return. -» “It costs something like £5,000 for the section, and about £BOO a flat to build. So it will be readily appreciated that a reasonable return upon the money would be difficult to secure under the new restrictions. In addition, some buildings will have to be provided for a light well, which will occupy more unobstructed space.” This architect believes that the Town-Planning Committee will modify its impositions before endeavouring to force them on to the people. Flats he considers to be essential to the life of Auckland, and so long as they are reasonably light and airy and comfortable, he cannot see why the standard set by the Health Department should not be adhered to. “We need not fear —as so many people seem to do—that flats will inundate the city,” he adds, “for flats, like everything else, are built according to demand. But let us frame our future by-laws so that those who are prepared to meet this demand by erecting flats on high-priced land may be encouraged to look for a reasonable return on their money.” It is true that, although bachelor flats, as such, are prohibited by the City Council, all over the city, particularly within the inner area, oneroomed self-contained flats are being let as parts of dwellings, and used actually as bachelor flats, but merely under the name of flats. Whether the prediction of the architect quoted will be fulfilled time must tell, but before that, it is likely that a legal battle upon this question will be fought in the Supreme Courts to test the reasonableness of the law itself.