Aspects of urban form: a descriptive technique and investigation of the form of a New Zealand urban environment

http://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz ResearchSpace@Auckland

Copyright Statement

The digital copy of this thesis is protected by the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand).

This thesis may be consulted by you, provided you comply with the provisions of the Act and the following conditions of use:

• Any use you make of these documents or images must be for research or private study purposes only, and you may not make them available to any other person.

• Authors control the copyright of their thesis. You will recognise the author's right to be identified as the author of this thesis, and due acknowledgement will be made to the author where appropriate.

• You will obtain the author's permission before publishing any material from their thesis.

To request permissions please use the Feedback form on our webpage.

http://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/feedback

General copyright and disclaimer

In addition to the above conditions, authors give their consent for the digital copy of their work to be used subject to the conditions specified on the Library Thesis Consent Form.

ASPECTS OF URBAN FORM.

A DESCRIPTIVE TECHT.]IQUE AND INVESTIGATION OF TI-IE FORM OF

A NEITI ZEALAND URBAN ENVIRONMENT

DENISE CIVIL

A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN ARCHITECTURE,

UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND, L984.

ACKNOIVLEDGEMENTS

while undertaking this study r have received herp and

support from many people. Their kindness is appreciated.

speciar thanks go to Etaine l,tccurloch and the stllf at the

university creche. without their roving care of my children I would not have been able to ^proceed.

rn collecting data r am grateful for the assistance of Barbara cuthbert and the other staff of the one Tree Hill

Borough councir who made their records freel-y avairabre.

r received invaluable herp in technicar matters from ^a

number of people. Dr Brian Murphy advised on the statistical aspects of the work. Dr David Hawke was helpful in ^preparing tl. computer program for the graphs. oeniie Moore rrerpea

with the photography. These peopre and others gave up thEir time to pass on their experience.

r would rike to thank Michaet pritchard _and crinton Bird, my

supervisors, for their advice and st.eady guidance through to the concrusion of this work. Their understanding of the nature of research and their sympathetic approach to the probrems r faced during the study have been lppreciated.

Finarly mention must be made of the encouragement and effort of my husband, Ian. Not only have I had his constant support

for this undertakirg, lrut arso he has contributed in the

typing and processing of this document,

l Ll,

ABSTRACT

This thesis investigates factors which influence ^the physical form of the urban environment at the micro-scale.

Three aspects of form are considered. These are

configuration, separation, and consistency. A method of assessing the form of a property from a public place with respect to these aspeets is outlined. ^The technique breaks

each aspect into a scale of form types aE a tool for measuring the formal characteristics of the environment.

ftrese form types are used to describe an urban environment.

A comparison of this description with the physical attributes of the area identifies four f,actors which ^may have affected the patterns and distributions of the forms

observed in the description. These are land use, ^Iand ownership patterns, time, and regulatory controls. Detailed studies of these factors in five particular areas reveaLs

that relationships between each of the factors and the incidence of the various form types exist. Correspondences

which suggest ttrat the factor probably has an influence on

the forms identified are evident in varying degrees depending on the factor considered.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTION . .

II A ^TECHNIQUE TO IDENTIFY ASID DESCRIBE THE FORM OF NEW ZEALAND URBAN ENVTRONMENT

Introduction

The theoretical basis for formal description t4ethodotogy of ttre descriptive ^technique The application of ttre descriptive technique III ANALYSIS OF THE URBAN FORM

Distribution of the formal categories Description of the Borough

Forms and influence relationship

IV ^METHODS OF INVESTIGATING THE ^FORM - ^INFLUENCE RELATIONSHIP...

GeneraL

Identifying and describing five study areas Data collection methods

Analysis and assumptions

V ^LAI{D USE. . . . . . ^. Introduction

Land uses

Discussion

VI PROPERTYOWNERSHIP . . . . . . . ^. Introduction

Source of information

Classification of like status ^grouPs Classification of ^owners

Form ownership correlation

SummarY

VII TIME AS AT{ INFI,UENCE ON FORM

Introduction

Method

The form - time period relationship Development sequencing

SummarY

VIII ADMINISTRATIVE FACTORS AS AN INFLUENCE ON

THE FORM OF DEVELOPMENT . . . ^. Building by-Iaws

Town planning

Town planning form correspondences Conclusions

IX SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Sunmary

Results

Overall pattern and prevalence of forms Discussi-on

Conclusions

.7

7 9 24 24

.31

31 35 52

.55

55 56 64 68

.75

75 75 79

.8r

BI

B2 86 87 91

10r

103

r03

103 107 110 L22

125

I32L25 140

r47 L49 L49 150 L52 L52 r55

vr-L

BIBLIOGRAPHY . 16I

APPENDIX A : Experiment to determine consensus

on a spacing relationship ¹⁶⁵

APPENDIX B : Form maps for One Tree Hill Borough 171

VIII

2.022.OL 2. 03

2.04 2.05

3.0r

3.02 3.03 3. 04

3.05 3. 06 3.O7 3.08

LIST OF FIGURES

Vase/Face Profile

Relatedness

Form Assessment from Aerial photographs Photograph euality

Topography Effect

Prevalence of Form Categories for

One Tree Hill Borough

Prevalence of Form Categories in Five Borough Areas

Location of the Borough

It{ap of One Tree Hill ^Borough

Location of Facilities _and Institutions

Distribution of Usualty Resident population of

One Tree Hilt Borough by Age and Sex,

1981 Census

Comparison of Occupation of Working population over Fifteen years between One Tree Hill

Borough and Nation, l9B1 Census

Comparison of Tenure of ^permanent private

Dwellings between One Tree HiIt Borough and

Nation, 198I Census

I3

15 27 2A 28

32 33 35 37 47

49

50

5I

4.OL

4.02

4. 03

4.04

4. 05

4.06

4.O7 4. 08

5.01 5.02

6. 01

6.O2

6. 03

6.04

Location of Five Study Areas 57

Deeds 52 Blue, 1859 5g

Early Subdivision patterns _Sg

Crown Grants, 1847 60

Land Use, 1940 62

Comparison of Form Prevalence for Each Study Area 63

Comparison of Form prevalence for ^properties

Developed at Greenwoods Corner

by 1925 with IgBt 72

Comparison of Form prevalence for properties with and without Building permit Applicatj_ons,

AII Study Areas 73

Form Prevalence for Various Land Use Categories,

AtI Study Areas 77

Form Prevalence for Various commercial Activities,

AII Study Areas 79

Comparison of Form prevalence for the Managerial and Generally Skilled as Developing Owners,

AII Study Areas _9I

Comparison of Form prevalence for Farmers,

Buildersr and the Genera1ly Unskj-lled as

Developing Owners, A1I Study Areas 93

Comparison of Form prevalence for Companies

and Public Authorities as Developing Ovrners,

All Study Areas

Comparison of Form prevalence for Developers

with the Overall prevalence, AII Study Areas

ix

95 97

6.05 Comparison of the length of Time of Property Retention by Developing Owners against

Form Type, AII Study Areas ⁹⁹ 6.06 Comparison of Form Prevalence for Developing

Ownership Retaining Property for less ^than

30 Years with ^more than 30 Years,

Atl Study Areas I00

7,0I Comparison of Form Prevalence for Properties

Developed in Each Decade, ALl Study Areas ^f05 7.O2 Comparison of Form Prevalence for Properties

Developed in Alternative ^Decades,

AII Study Areas ^f06

7.03 Overall Form Prevalence, All Study Areas ^I08 -1.O4 Comparison of Form Prevalence in ^1931-4O with

that at 1981 ^f09

7.05 Comparison of Prevalence of Configuration Form

Categories in Each Decade, AII Study Areas llt 7.06 Comparison of Prevalence of Separation ^Form

Categories in Each Decade, All Study Areas ^LL2 7.O7 Comparison of Prevalence of Consistency ^Form

Categories in Each Decade, All Study Areas II3 7,08 Comparison of ^Number of Properties Developed

by Each Period for Each Study Area ¹¹⁴ 7.09 Comparison of Prevalence of Configuration

Form Categories in the Northern Corner for

Propert.ies ^Developed in Each Period fI6 7.LO Comparison of Prevalence of Configuration Form

Categories in Greenwoods Corner for

Properties Developed in ^Each Period ¹¹⁷ 7.IL Comparison of Prevalence of Configuration Form

Categories in Walls ^Road Area for Properties

Developed in Each Period ¹¹⁷

7.L2 Comparison of Prevalence of Separation Form

Categories in the Northen Corner for

Properties ^Developed in Each Period fl8 7.L3 Comparison of Prevalence of Separation Form

Categories in Greenwoods Corner for

Properties Developed in ^Each Period ¹¹⁹ 7.L4 Comparison of Prevalence of Separation Form

Categories in Walls Road Area for Properties

Developed in Each Period II9

7.L5 Comparison of Prevalence of Consistency Form

Categories in Norttrern Corner for Properties

Developed in Each Period ^f2O

7.LG Comparison of Prevalence of Consistency Form

Categories in Greenwoods Corner for

Properties Developed in Each Period ^L21- 7.17 Comparison of Prevalence of Consistency Form

Categories in Walls ^Road Area for Properties

Developed in Each Period L2L

x

B.OI Comparison of Forrn Prevalence for Development

Pre L926 with 1926-8I, AII study Areas ^L28 8.02 Comparison of Form Prevalence for Development

Pre L926 with 1926-35, A1l Study Areas )"29

8.03 Comparison of Form Prevalence for Development

Pre L969 with 1969-91, AII Study Areas I30

8.04 Comparison of Form Prevalence for Development

1959-68 with 1969-81, AIl study Areas f31

8.05 Height and Area Districts on Zonings ^L32 8.06 ^Onnnn Form Building Envelope ¹³⁶ B.O7 ^AAAAA Form Building Envelope ¹³⁶ B.OB Variations from ^L976 District Scheme ^L37 8.09 Comparison of Form Prevalence for Each Zone

Type, L976 District Scheme, AII Study Areas l3B

8.10 Zoning, 1941 ¹³⁹

8.11 Land Use, 1941 ¹³⁹

A.L2 Comparison of Form Prevalence for Development

Before and After the Introduction 'of the

Undisclosed District Scheme, AII Study Areas ^14O 8.13 Comparison of Form Prevalence for Development

in l93l-4o with 1941-58, Arl study Areas ^L42 8.14 Comparison of Form Prevalence for Development

pre ₁₉₅₈ with 1958-81, AI1 Study Areas ¹⁴³ 8.15 Comparison of Form Prevalence for Development

Pre 1965 with 1965-8I, AIl study Areas ^t-43 8.16 Comparison of Form Prevalence for Development

Pre L976 with 1976-8I, AII Study Areas ^L44 8.17 Comparison of Form Prevalence for Each Period

of Operation of District Schemes,

AII Study Areas ¹⁴⁵

xl_

I"IqiT

gr

rABr,Es

3.1

Populiat,ion crowth

'4.L

Ex,anBne o-f Fropertli Fin-e

5.I

^Land Use

Activities

48 65

v6

6.1

N.Z.S.C.O. Occupations of, lrlorking Population,

Major

croups

^A7

6.2

Detailed Classification

of

Property Owners

by

Statsus'

^Ba

6.3

CLas,eifi-eati.on

of

Froperty Or*ners bXr Status,

t'{ajor

Groups

⁹⁰

6.4

Number

of

Dev.elopers

in

Each Ownen Occupation

e

oup

90

6.5

Forrn

of

Propertles ^Developed by

FIearE

⁹⁴

6,6

Eraniples

of

the Forms

of

Properties E€tabllslted

by

DeveLopers

⁹⁶

6.7

^Nuuiber

of

Developing Owners

in

^Ea.clr C1ass of

Ow.rrership f.oE Each Studly

Area

⁹⁸

6.8

'Xrine, Forrn, and Developing Owner Property

Retention

Patterns l0l

7.L

eurrent Incidence

of

kkktk ^{and zzazz Form}

Tlpes

L22

8.1

^gununary

of

General Bql,l( and Lecation Controls

' for

^One Tre€!

IItI"l

tsorougli

Dietrict

Planning

EelieneB

¹³⁴

8.2

P;ermitted Usee

in

^Ee,c?r Zone f,or Each

Sclreme

^lr41

eppendioeg

A.L

Various ConditLons XllustraLed

in Experi.ment

^1,67

AZ

Rating Distribution

for

Eaotr

lrnage

¹⁶⁸

XLL].