Appropriate Pacific Island Housing and Urban Design in South Auckland

Appropriate Pacific Island Housing and Urban Design in South Auckland By: Joel Cayford. For: Planning 724, Auckland University Dated: 15 Sept 2009 Abstract: Pacific Island families make up a growing proportion of Auckland’s population, many of whom reside in homes rented from Housing New Zealand in South Auckland suburbs now scheduled for “transformation” and redevelopment. This research examines indigenous Pacific Island settlement patterns and considers their appropriateness for Auckland and the extent to which Pacific Islanders are now adapting their Auckland homes to better suit their specific cultural and social requirements. An understanding of the cultural needs of Pacific Islanders is pertinent when designing policies aimed at delivering appropriate housing and urban form for Pacific Island families – particularly those living in state housing. 1. Introduction During the 1970’s and 1980’s significant numbers of Polynesian families and individuals migrated to New Zealand from Samoa, Tonga and the Cook Islands in the search for a better lifestyle. Auckland is informally recognised as the “Polynesian Capital of the Pacific” because of its significant Pacific Island population. According to the 2006 Census of Population and Dwellings, New Zealand’s Pacific Island peoples’ population was 7% of the total population on average - made up of Samoans (50%), Cook Islanders (22%) and Tongans (19%) - with more than two thirds of these people living in Auckland Region. Pacific Island people have preferred to live in communities in South Auckland suburbs, for example Point England’s population is 53% Pacific Island, Glen Innes West - 48%, and Glen Innes East - 45%. The 2006 Census records that 22% of New Zealand’s Pacific Island adult population own or partly own the home they live in. Thus rental accommodation provided homes for the majority of New Zealand’s Pacific Island population, with almost 40% of that being provided by Housing New Zealand and the balance privately provided. Problems have arisen. For example, Government “assimilation” policies to disperse Pacific Island families throughout urban New Zealand (sometimes referred to as “pepper-potting”) have had limited success. Public concerns have been expressed about perceptions of crime and other social issues within neighbourhoods with large Pacific Island populations. And the Pacific Island community itself has concerns about how Pacific Islanders and the Pacific Island culture is faring in New Zealand.

The problem with housing in the Auckland area is that it was designed to meet the needs of domestic groupings of the dominant ethnic group ie middle class and pakeha. These Pakeha households have been described as a ‘privatised’ lifestyle ie private dwelling exclusively for nuclear family activities. Government Housing advisers made assumptions about the lifestyle and requirements of the ‘typical family’ incorporated in design briefs since the state became involved in financing home ownership… the lifestyle of Tongans is very similar to that of Samoan domestic groups. Cluny McPherson describes it as ‘communitarian’ ie dwellings used frequently for activities involving large groups of people…. (Alatini, p.90)

Planning Theory basis for the Research There is a significant body of academic research into the relationships that exist between urban form and urban planning, and social relations and culture. For example, Thompson-Fawcett and Bond (2003) state:

Appropriate Pacific Island Housing and Urban Design in South Auckland – Joel Cayford – 14 September 2009 1

“… (the urban landscape)… acts as a signifying system through which a social order is communicated, reproduced, experienced…”

and, in respect to changes in the urban landscape the same authors state:

“…landscape transformation entails duplicitous processes, ‘high tension’, and continual power contestation…” where: “…landscape can be seen as not an ‘expression’ of ideology, but a particular ‘production’ of ideology transformed into a unique entity…”

The placement of houses, shops, churches, parks, fences, gardens and trees in the urban landscape is not a random action. It is planned. Those plans have a social, cultural and political purpose – even if that purpose may not always be obvious or transparent. And those plans have consequences – some unintended. Urban transformation is therefore problematic. Objectives of the Research Research is needed to better understand the urban landscape form that is most appropriate to Pacific Island populations living in urban Auckland. That research also needs to highlight the converse – namely urban forms which run counter to what might be termed “the Pacific Island way”. Urban forms which are “against the backbone” quoting the words of Alfred Ngaro Pacific Island adviser to the Tamaki Transformation project. An understanding of the urban form and settlement patterns of indigenous Pacific Island populations, and of Pacific Island communities already resident in Auckland, will suggest fundamental design characteristics that may need to be present in urban designs to ensure they will be more successful in future, meeting the housing, neighbourhood and community development needs of Auckland’s growing population of Pacific Island communities. The overall objective of the present research is to bring together a body of relevant information that can be used to inform the preparation of an urban design framework or set of policy guidelines to be taken into account when planning and designing urban landscapes and housing for Auckland’s Pacific Island urban communities. Research emphasis is on state housing provision and the Tamaki area of South Auckland. Content of this Research Paper The first section of this paper reports relevant research findings into the relationship that exists between what is generally termed Pacific Island culture, and housing and urban layout patterns that are observed in indigenous Samoa and Tonga. The paper then presents research findings about how the Pacific Island community lives in urban Auckland, and how it has been able to adapt that urban setting to meet its cultural needs. These findings are then drawn together in the final section of the paper, tested against New Urbanism ideas and Rapoport’s urban and culture relationships thinking, to arrive at a set of relevant Auckland Pacific Island community urban design considerations.


2. Urban Layout and Housing in Pacific Island Countries The origins of the planning approaches that have shaped New Zealand’s urban landscapes came mostly from England, with a smattering of European and American influence. Many readers will have travelled in these countries and noted the similarities that exist between their settlement patterns and urban layout, and those we see in New Zealand. Readers will also have noted cultural influences, for example in the world views, english language, and christian religions that predominate and inform pakeha New Zealand culture. 2.1 Pacific Island Culture Just because Pacific Islanders have chosen to live in Auckland, it cannot be assumed that Auckland’s urban layout and housing provision is a good fit with Pacific Island culture. Therefore it is appropriate to understand what Pacific Island culture is, and how it is manifest in indigenous Pacific Island urban layout and housing design.

Cut off from the outer world for about two thousand years, the Tongans have developed their own special way of life which they call fakatonga (the Tongan way). This very much influences their relations with people, their attitude toward possessions, and the way they organise their social life. The Tongan lifestyle is very similar to that of their fellow Polynesians in the Pacific – Samoans, Cook Islanders… foreign ideas and values… are bringing changes in the Tongan way of life. These ideas are called fakapapalangi, which means ‘the way of the people who came from heaven’ (the white men)…. Pakehas will find much that is different (about the Tongan attitude to life)… (Crane, p.1)

This is not the place to describe all of those differences, but it is necessary to explain the key concept of kinship which is very important in Tongan social life, and is usually illustrated as a series of concentric circles. The inner circle is the ‘api’ or household and consists of the father, mother, their children living in one ‘fale’ (house), although it may include other kinsfolk such as adopted children, grandchildren, a son-in-law, or a daughter-in-law. The ‘famili’ is the next wider circle of close relations and includes from 50 to 100 relatives, grand-parents, aunts, uncles, cousins and in-laws on the father’s side. The famili acts together on tasks needing a lot of labour, and on special occasions like weddings and funerals. The outer circle is the ‘kainga’ of distant relations which usually contains all of the members of a village. All Tongans gain security and strength from their kin relationships. Bound by the spirit of ‘ofa’ (love), every Tongan tries to grant the requests of family members for food, clothing, shelter, money, or land for crops. 2.2 Traditional Pacific Island Village While there are specific differences between Samoan, Tongan and Cook island cultures, there are far more similarities (see Crane, above). These next sections explore specific urban layout and housing characteristics in Samoan villages.

In general, Samoan villages look very much alike… all focus on an open space, the malae. All are composed of architecturally similar buildings. These have no walls, and their rounded, thatched roofs are supported on vertical posts. These fale are usually set apart from 15 to 20 metres or more, althought there are often gaps and open spaces… Apart from the fact that each village has a malae, which is used for both recreational and ceremonial purposes and towards which the main buildings face, the shapes of villages have little in common… the malae is an open space, sometimes several acres in extent, covered with grass, or in some cases with white coral sand. Tracks traverse it, and in many villages its centre is occupied by a concrete cricket pitch. It may be either entirely open or dotted with breadfruit or


coconut trees… Most structures about the malae are built in traditional Samoan style, but two others, usually of Western design, are present. One is the church… this is far more than a building; it provides a spiritual focus in Samoan life… the other non-traditional building is the store…. Functionally one village is usually a replica of the next… the village… joins together hundreds of people of various families into a tight-knit group with an intense local pride and a close community of interest. (Fox et al. 1962 p.180-184)

Fig. 1. Pattern of settlement at Vaipua Village. South- western Savai’i. Samoa. (Fox, 1962) Note the central malae, with main meeting houses facing it. Note also the two churches.

Fig. 2. Central malae in Vailele Village, Samoa. With fale facing it. Note the absence of boundary fences and the predominance of community or common space. (Author, 1972)


Fig. 3. Inside typical fale. Vailele.

Fig. 4. Volley Ball on grassed area of malae. Vailele

Fig. 7. Cooking house. Vailele.

Fig. 5. Feast preparation in ground floor of 2 level fale.

Fig. 6. Family outside fale built with palangi materials

The photos in Figs. 3-7 were taken by the author in the Samoan village of Vailele in 1972. They record aspects of village life, and its layout and housing design. Fig 3 conveys the sense that people tend to look out of their homes to the common areas, which are where most of life is carried out. The malae is regularly used for games, feasts and ceremonies. Fig 5 shows the preparation of a feast in the ground floor of the matai’s (chief) home. Many of the buildings in Vailele are now built of modern materials – including brick, weatherboard and corrugated iron – an obvious sign of adaptation. Fig. 6. shows how the features of the traditional fale are retained in the new home. While nuclear units live in fale, the extended family and broader village populations rely on community facilities.


2.3 Pacific Island Village Today The Pacific Islands are urbanising rapidly today, and many villages have reduced in size as the population has drifted to the major urban centres of Apia (Samoa) and Nuku’alofa (Tonga). But the malae (open space) continues to be a common feature in modern villages in Tonga and Samoa. Modern building materials are used more and more, but some things have changed very little. For example: “Overall, in the independent Pacific Island nations around 90% of land continues to be held in traditional ownership the highest proportion in any geo-cultural region in the world.” (Smith et al, 2007). This tradition has, and continues to have, profound affects on the way land is settled by Pacific Islanders.

…the location, layout and fabric of villages or settlements… reflects the social system or systems that have created the patterning of the cultural landscape in general. In particular, the location of villages commonly reflects traditional land tenure, each village being located on land owned by the community and in proximity to gardens and other resources – the sea and the forest. In many parts of the Pacific the household and village continue to be basic social units, and in their diverse structure and layout, express various kin systems across the region. Few places in the Pacific continue to use, or to exclusively use, traditional building materials however the designs and functions of dwellings, communal spaces and ceremonial places and the layout of the village continue to reflect traditional social relationships and hierarchies and cultural practices. (Smith et al, 2007 p.45)

Fig. 8. Samoan village houses today. Note lack of fences, and presence of extensive community areas.

Fig. 9. Samoan house. Modern building materials. Everything on display. Little private.

Fig. 10. Samoan Village today. Volley ball in the malae. Buildings grouped around.

Fig. 11. Modern coastal Samoan village. Malae is the beachfront. Note lack of boundaries.


2.4 Comparison between Pacific and Papalangi Housing There is some literature and research exploring the differences between what might be termed indigenous or traditional Pacific Island housing designs, and Papalangi (or European) housing designs, and how these differences reflect the different cultures.

Fig. 12. Pattern of settlement and the differences between a Tongan home and a European home.

Key difference is the close proximity of a communal area. (Tuita, 1988. p.87) Ideas about differences between Pacific Island and European housing, are expressed in the Tongan vernacular research recorded in the Tonga:Apt Housing thesis (Anderson, 1983):

The Tongans build the ‘umbrella’ form of the roof first which means the walls are non-structural, secondary elements to the whole. The basic idea of ‘shelter’ from the elements is reinforced i.e. the roof being primary to the shelter of the occupants from rain and providing shade on the many hot days but allowing the cooling breeze to circulate. In Samoa Fales have retractable walls to allow full benefit of breezes. The walls become privacy screens from the public and are not security-oriented as in many palangi houses.

“The Englishmans home is his castle armoured to keep out intruders – not so the Polynesians from the islands; his home is open with the warmth of his land in his heart for any who desire to come within.”

The climate allows a high proportion of outdoor living… outdoor living allows a higher degree of social interaction than the Papalangi lifestyle where most socialising happens indoors. Socialising retains a community spirit amongst all ages… the youngest children are cared for by elder sisters within the family but anybody will


look after anybody else’s children if required… The main living areas of the house are outside… therefore outside spaces are very important to the Tongan way of life… Roads often do not have to be followed to arrive at one’s destination as a route through several ‘back yards’ will arive at the same place a lot faster… security fences grace the boundaries of some Papalangi residences isolating their inhabitants from the community to even a greater extent, than need be – a sign of the value Papalangis place on protecting material possessions. (Anderson, 1983. p.66, 94-95)

The research presented in this section is intended to convey a sense of Pacific Island culture and how that is manifest and reflected in the urban layout and settlement patterns of Pacific Island villages. The importance of a malae to Pacific Islanders cannot be overstated. Equally, the function of outside spaces for community interaction should not be under-estimated, alongside the cultural attitude of open-ness and sharing. Finally, while this report has not provided detail about the sheer amount and extent of ceremonial activity carried out within a Pacific Island community, it is evident that provision for communal food preparation and places to meet under shelter form a significant part of a Pacific Island village built environment, and meet different needs from the ever-present church building.


3. Pacific Islanders living in Auckland In the 1950s and 1960s Samoa, Tonga and Fiji were seen as important sources of cheap labour in the post-war development of New Zealand (Gibson, 1983). Between 1945 and 1971, New Zealand's Pacific island population increased from around 2,000 to 44,000 most of whom were living in cities, Auckland in particular. The earliest concentrations of city migrants were in central areas of older housing. However, massive suburban development after the Second World War, especially areas of State-built housing, attracted new migrants out of the central city and into low cost housing in the suburbs. 3.1 Assimilation and Pepper-Potting and Integration The question of how to best “integrate” or “incorporate” or “include” Pacific Island peoples into New Zealand’s predominantly European or pakeha population has been a taxing one for decades, and will likely remain so into the future. It is an issue which can inflame discussion and generate community fear, concern and backlash around proposals to house and accommodate Pacific Islanders. An understanding of this debate is essential when considering how to meet the housing needs of Auckland’s Pacific Island population.

From the early 1960s, integration of Maori and immigrant minorities into the majority urban culture of white, middle class New Zealand was pushed actively on the assumption that "people understand and appreciate one another better and mutually adjust themselves easier, if living together as neighbours than if living apart in separate communities" (Hunn, 1961, 16). This attitude drove the policy of 'pepper-potting' in the allocation of state housing. Because the state owned and controlled significant amounts of the low-cost public housing stock, a deliberate strategy of 'pepper potting' neighbourhoods with immigrants was followed as part of a wider policy of assimilation…. However, by the 1970s, distinctive concentrations of urban-based Pacific Islanders were emerging, especially after the abandonment of assimilation as an official policy. (Bedford et al 2000, p.23)

The pressure on the state to meet the demand for state housing during this period at an acceptable price, led to the purchase of large areas of land on the suburban fringe. Despite a policy of selling a proportion of the lots into individual ownership for private development, the resulting suburbs were still generally known as “state housing areas”.

Changing patterns of affluence have meant that it is no longer “worker’s housing” but housing for the disadvantaged. Among these are the Polynesians, and it now believed that the majority of applicants for State Houses are Polynesians. The “worker’s house” is steadily becoming a Polynesian house, and the class difference has become an ethnic difference. (Austin, 1976, p.167)

Whatever the history, the 2006 census figures clearly show that around half the population of some South Auckland suburbs is Pacific Island. Casual observation of areas of state housing in those suburbs, and reports from Housing New Zealand staff, indicate more than half the state housing tenants are Pacific Islanders. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Should there be more integration? Should these populations be pepper-potted?

This issue of pepper-potting, while perhaps having some appearances of being straightforward, raises several important questions. There is firstly, the matter of achieving social goals through manipulation of environmental patterns and whether they are in fact achieved, which in turn raises the question of the nature of the social goals, and whether such essentially moral or political positions are legitimate in respect of the minority group… To reduce this complexity to a concept such as “integration” may be useful for some purposes, but to use it as a base for planning can


cloud the issues on which decisions are made… the imposition of an environmental pattern does not seem to lead to corresponding social patterns, unless other factors such as kinship (in traditional communities), class (in industrialized communities), or identity of interests activates these patterns. On the other hand, this does not mean that a social pattern cannot be disrupted by environmental disruption, and policies which to the administrator appear to aim as achieving positive goals, to the Polynesian may appear as disruptive – even coercive…. In an egalitarian society the isolation and identity of an ethnic group is considered undesirable, and translation of this into a residential pattern is also resisted. Yet in spite of attempts to introduce mixing, ethnic identity persists… It is also evident that residential heterogeneity is a surface phenomenon that does not substitute for, or form, neighbourhoods or social communities (Austin, 1976, p.171-175)

3.2 How have Pacific Islanders adapted New Zealand housing to their needs? Social research investigating housing issues for the Tongan population living in Otara, Auckland, was conducted and reported by Alatini (Alatini, 2004). Survey results and census data for the sample reveal that:

• In 2001, 65% of all Tongan people lived in rental accommodation. • Extended family households accounted for 38% of all Tongan people in 1996 and

33% in 2001. • In 2001, the average occupancy was 4.6 for Tongan homes, while the national

average was 2.7. Alatini’s research indicates the factors leading to this include the cultural tendency for Tongan homes to accommodate extended family members and: “may also be due to the unaffordability of acquiring a much larger home…” (Alatini, p.113)

The problem with housing in the Auckland area is that it was designed to meet the needs of domestic groupings of the dominant ethnic group i.e. middle class and Pakeha. These Pakeha households have been described as a ‘privatised’ lifestyle i.e. private dwelling exclusively for nuclear family activities… Government Housing Advisors made assumptions about the lifestyle and requirements of the ‘typical family’ incorporated in design briefs since the state became involved in financing home ownership… i.e. typical low-middle class families consisted of two parents and 2.11 children… (Alatini, 2004, p.90-91)

Alatini reiterates the types of social and cultural activities typical of Tongan people; extended family living under one roof; the number and extent of Tongan cultural and ceremonial functions that involve the preparation of food; the need for informal community meeting places for kava ceremonies and other social get-togethers important for social cohesion, and notes that in Auckland: “a mismatch between the cultural requirements of Tongan people and the design of available homes evolves.”

Fig. 13. Small Housing NZ home occupied by Tongan family in Maybury Estate.

Fig. 14. Another typical Housing NZ home occupied by Tongan family in Maybury Estate.


The images in Figures 13-15 are from a section of Maybury Estate, Point England, Tamaki, Auckland, which consists almost entirely of state houses owned and administered by Housing New Zealand, and which are occupied predominantly by Pacific Island families. The estate is a far cry from the typical Pacific Island urban layout depicted in Section 2 of this paper, particularly Figures 8-12. The small lots and restrictive fencing in particular militates against the possibility of common social areas, or of any land area that could serve the purpose of a community malae. The small homes are examples of the ‘tight fit’ that state housing provides extended families of this highly sociable and communitarian orientated people. However, Pacific Islanders are resourceful, and there is evidence of some adaptation of these homes and lots to better provide for their cultural and social needs.

Fig. 15. Aerial photo of section of Maybury Estate, Point England, Tamaki. The location of the house pictured in Fig.14. is shown here: as the third house from the right, at the bottom of the picture.

Fig. 16. The carport is modified, holding tables and seating. Additional lean-to shelter also.

Fig. 17. Caravan offers additional accommodation. Useful outside seating.

Fig 18. House façade highly decorated, reminiscent of ‘home’.

Fig 19. This Tongan Church and buildings has been relocated into the heart of Maybury block.


Interestingly, the kiwi garage has also been strongly adopted and adapted when opportunity has arisen by Pacific Islanders in South Auckland suburbs. Alatini, Austin and Bedford all mention this phenomenon. Where space has allowed, rather than go through the pain of renovation and house extension, or of moving to a bigger home, many Pacific Island families that own their own home, have simply added and modified a garage their property. The cost of adding the equivalent amount of floor area to the main house is significantly more, and the related planning regulations far more stringent than building a simple garage and fitting it out for activities including: the storage and preparation of food; storage of ceremonial goods, as well as addditional living quarters. Garages have also been used as chapels, and some have been converted into kava drinking clubs.

These clubs are not only a place for Tongan men to socialise and converse, but more importantly the ‘faikava’ can be liked to a classroom, where men are able to learn about tradition and its protocols as well as engage in issues which are of concern to Tongan people today. (Alatini, 2004, p.119)

The literature suggests that the Pacific garage adaptation phenomenon is located at the South Auckland suburb of Otara. Casual observation did not reveal any such modifications to properties in the Maybury Block. There are two reasons for this. First – a large proportion of Housing New Zealand homes do not have garages. (Alatini, 2004, p.118). Second - because Housing New Zealand would be unlikely to grant permission to tenants to establish additional buildings or make structural additions to rented properties because of the temporary nature of their tenure. Alatini has collected statistics which show that: “occupancy of garages for both home owning and private rental Tongan tenants is almost three times that of Housing New Zealand tenants.” (Alatini, 2004, p.119) 3.3 Future Housing Policies for Auckland’s Pacific Island peoples So where to from here for New Zealand? Or more particularly, where to from here for Glen Innes and adjacent suburbs and their 50% Pacific Island populations, now living in homes and communities built by Housing New Zealand? Pressure is being applied on Housing New Zealand to deal with this matter. It is assumed that some combination of ‘pepper-potting’ and ‘private home ownership’ and ‘appropriate state housing redevelopment’ will solve the problem. But what combination? And what form of state housing would be appropriate? Since former National Party leader’s “we are one people” speech at Orewa (in 2004), the foreshore and seabed debate, and the 2008 change in Government, quick and expeditious solutions are now being called for, and solutions that place as few demands as possible on the public purse. It is useful to recall the policy options that JK Hunn considered when writing the Hunn Report (Hunn, 1961) about New Zealand’s Maori and Pacific Island populations. The purpose of this report was generally to recommend abolition of “laws and other policies that set Maori apart from the general population, and that setting apart should cease forthwith or as soon as was possible”. (Williams, 2004). Hunn presented four policy options, summarised below:

• Assimilation: To become absorbed, blended, amalgamated, with complete loss of Maori culture.

• Integration: To combine (not fuse) the Maori and pakeha elements to form one nation wherein Maori culture remains distinct.

• Segregation: To enforce a theoretical concept of 'apartheid'. One school of thought in New Zealand advocates 'parallel development', which in essence is segregation under another name.


• Symbiosis: To have two dissimilar peoples living together but as separate entities with the smaller deriving sustenance from the larger (seemingly an attempt to integrate and segregate at the same time). (Williams, 2004)

Characterised in this way, it is easy to see why the policy of integration (including pepper-potting) was adopted at the time. However, with the apparent failure of pepper-potting, and recognition that other innovative options exist (such as urban marae for Maori1), it is appropriate to rethink Hunn, and to develop options more suited to Pacific Island culture. The crisis for urban Maori was the loss of the marae. This loss was not about the loss of the building – it was the loss of social space and social contact (Austin, p.209). Similarly, Pacific Island peoples, displaced into European urban environments, can be expected to suffer the loss of the malae (for Pacific Islanders from Samoa and Tonga) and the loss of all of those activities, learnings, beliefs and associations that go with it. As Austin notes: “this cannot be seen independently of the ‘housing problem’…”, when discussing maori marae (Austin, p.209). His thinking about marae and maori social spaces, can be equally applied to malae and to Pacific Island social spaces.

It is suggested that analyses of housing start from consideration of the provision of social space…. housing can be conceptualised as as system of social spaces, the size type and nature of these to be derived from existing patterns… we suggest that for the Polynesian there is a pressure for marae (malae) as a focus for his social life. Without that focus, housing, the house, and its facilities become a problem… (Austin, p.229.)

Austin considers various layouts which might naturally provide marae/malae spaces, such as a system of bays. But his comments about suburban form and its ability to provide social space are most relevant to this research:

The suburb is quite different from other forms of housing such as the courtyard house which defines within the house a social space, or terrace housing which defines the street as social space or the apartment block which defines the space around… the potential of the suburb for forming social spaces is substantial…. Opportunities for self-expression are offered in the façade that each house presents to the street… The space of the front yard … could become the social space for the Polynesian – but only with a group of other Polynesian houses with an identity of interests (village origins or kinship)…. a focus could be achieved if Polynesian people were given the opportunity to cluster in groups – the basis of the group’s composition being existing social connections. This clustering and focussing can be achieved within the structure of the suburb, disrupting existing patterns far less than many proposals offered as alternatives to the suburb… the only way by which such space can achieve meaning and significance is through social interaction… it could be that an urban marae (malae), however it is conceived, becomes the centre… the houses could help define a space that the inhabitants use, modify, and treat as their own. (Austin, p.231-233.)

This may seem radical. But in fact it describes the essence of a traditional Pacific Island village, and its urban layout. Using the Hunn categories, it is a mix of integration and segregation. It is likely to allow the best of both worlds.

1 Urban marae have been proposed as a solution to the dilemma faced by urban maori. A cross-tribal marae is now well-established at Mangere in Auckland. (Austin, p201-202)


4. Urban Vernacular or Design Vernacular Approach? While the main purpose of this research has been to draw together a body of information relating to Pacific Island urban settlement patterns, both in the Pacific Islands and in Auckland New Zealand, this work would be incomplete without some attempt at suggesting an appropriate theoretical planning approach to take this matter forward. 4.1 New Urbanism There is a superficial attractiveness about New Urbanism with its emphasis on vernacular architecture and the development of neighbourhoods. Perhaps its charter should be applied to this particular urban design problem. A helpful account of New Urbanism is provided by Cliff Ellis in a paper which engages with criticism of New Urbanist approaches:

New Urbanists subscribe to definite principles which are clearly stated in the CNU Charter. By now the list is familiar: metropolitan regions that are composed of well-structured cities, towns and neighbourhoods with identifiable centres and edges; compact development that preserves farmland and environmentally sensitive areas; infill development to revitalise city centres; interconnected streets, friendly to pedestrians and cyclists, often in modified grid or weblike patterns; mixed land uses rather than single-use pods; discreet placement of garages and parking spaces to avoid auto-dominated landscapes; transit-orientated development; well-designed and sited civic buildings and public gathering places; the use of building and street building typologies to create coherent urban form; high quality parks and conservation lands used to define and connect neighbourhoods and districts; and architectural designs that show respect for local history and regional character (Katz, 1994; CNU, 2000). (Ellis, 2002 p.262)

Ellis acknowledges that the three main debates over New Urbanism are: empirical performance; ideological and cultural issues; and aesthetic quality. I will concentrate on the second of these, as it has most bearing on the matter of Pacific Island communities living in Auckland, New Zealand. David Harvey is one of the most strident critics of New Urbanism. He argues it: “assembles much of its rhetorical and political power through a nostalgic appeal to ‘community’ as a pancea for our social and economic as well as our urban ills.” (Harvey, 1997)

The presumption here is that neighbourhoods are in some sense “intrinsic”, that the proper form of cities is some “structure of neghbourhoods”, that “neighbourhood” is equivalent to “community”, and that “community” is what most Americans want and need (whether they know it or not)… the New Urbanisn in fact connects to a facile attempt to transform large and teeming cities, so seemingly out of control, into an interlinked series of “urban villages” where, it is believed, everyone can relate in a civil and urbane fashion to everyone else. (Harvey, 1997)

Harvey is among those who point at the expensive developments New Urbanists are proud of, and claim that New Urbanism is essentially an upper-middle class form of development, that perpetuates segregation by class, race and ethnicity (Lehrer & Milgrom, 1996), and which is likely to suppress cultural differences. (Shibley, 1998, p.81) In defending New Urbanism against such criticism, Ellis writes:

New New Urbanism has always advocated infill development, mixing people of different income groups within the same communities, and providing dignified affordable housing that looks like normal housing. (Ellis, 2002, p.279)


In this text Ellis advocates just the sort of “mixing” that has been resisted by the Pacific Island population, and advocates housing that “looks like normal housing” without acknowledging the fact there may need to be different types of “normal housing” for different cultures. To be fair, Ellis notes the challenge posed in large cities “that are meeting grounds of diverse cultures”, but asserts that: “no movements in architecture and planning have solved the problem of racial and class segregation in the American city”, and acknowledges that: “the New Urbanism does not claim to have a comprehensive solution to problems of class, race and gender.” (Ellis, 2002, p.281) However, after consideration of the “13 elements of new urbanism” according to Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk (two of the founders of the Congress for New Urbanism), it seems obvious that the cultural origins of new urbanist thinking have been strongly influenced by the founders’ experience living in New Haven, USA. And while that thinking has much to offer, it is essentially a mono-cultural and homogenised view of the world. 4.2 Human Aspects of Built Form in Urban Design Professor Amos Rapoport is known for his research into the relationship that exists between culture and built form. He questions that while human activities, behaviours and needs are relatively few in number (shelter, eating, pro-creation, sleep, warmth), why are there such an extraordinary diversity and number of cultural landscapes evident across the world? He aserts: “what makes environments different is that different groups create them – groups which differ in terms of culture.” (Rapoport, 1986, p.405)

…there would be no built forms without culture. One also finds that culture makes us variable. It is culture which seems to define groups and leads to latent aspects of activities… and lead to varied needs, wants and interpretations of “requirements”. Built environments are group specific and culturally variable. Thus, culture seems to play a central role in both these very inescapable facts about built form. (Rapoport, 1986, p.405)

Rapoport notes that for any group or culture to survive there must be some sort of continuity, which may be partially expressed through the built environment (Rapoport, 1986, p.424). This might be expressed in the setting (he cites the marae of urban maori) or in terms of specific elements (he cites vernacular housing traditions). In this respect he notes, rather controversially that:

..many of these roles of built form.. may in turn, be dependent on the maintenance (or creation) of homogeneous areas… but this is often discouraged or made impossible for ideological or political reasons…(Rapoport, 1986, p.425)

A key assumption underlying Rapoport’s research is that: “the purpose of design is to produce a good environment for people.” (Rapoport, 1970, p.63). And that: “environmental quality is a variable concept changing with culture, value systems, life style, ethnic or class membership – or the context. It is also changes with time…”. Rapoport draws a contrast between traditional development carried out at the time, and what happens today, when looking back at those historic urban patterns and attempting to replicate or reproduce aspects of them.

In primitive situations people build their own buildings, know their own needs perfectly and are all members of a single culture with fixed norms – and forms. In these vernacular situations builders are specialists only part-time, all members of the group share skills, knowledge of the forms and cultural attitudes. There is a close link between “designer” and “user”. The “architect” designed for a specific user had the


opportunity to investigate his way of life, needs, values and the like. (Rapoport, 1970, p.64).

For an example of this sort of practice, the reader is referred to the images in Figs. 2-7. These show buildings and spaces that were built by the people who live in them. Rapoport contrasts this with the situation common today:

Currently we find that: (a) the designer usually works for an institution, committee or authority who are not the user; (b) the users are unknown, often change many times during the life of a project and, with our culture becoming more heterogeneous, the users also tend to be more variable; (c) there is also the problem that designers and the public can be seen as different cultures with different values, world views etc. (Rapoport, 1970, p.64)

Rapoport has considered this problem in depth. His thinking about how people interact with and are affected by their environment is refreshing, when set alongside the common prescriptive, anonymous, rules-based approach to planning and urban design:

There is much evidence that people wish to manipulate their environment, change it, adapt it, rather than passively adapt to it… yet this need is often frustrated either through the constraints imposed by the design or by the way large scale projects are managed and rules imposed… (Rapoport, 1970, p.70)

Another issue of relevance to the present research is the modern urban designer’s desire to create a sense of community or neighbourhood. Rapoport has this to say about that:

Neighbourhood is, of course, mainly a social concept, one of social links, social networks and friendship patterns. Many of the assumptions which have been made in the design and layout of neighbourhoods and housing have been put into doubt by recent work. The idea of creating friendship purely through propinguity and clustering has been shown to be questionable… People thrown together by propinguity will only develop friendship if they have some common interests. This presents interesting problems in deciding at which scales to aim for homogeneity and at which for heterogeneity… there are many other aspects that could be discussed. Generally, though, one could say that life style, values, cultures, and so on should affect (urban) design more than economics or technology…(Rapoport, 1970, p.70-73)

Urban design for Pacific Island communities is not made easy by the ideas that Rapoport espouses. However, in my opinion, it is essential to step beyond the rather tight constraints imposed by – for example – the New Urbanism, which at its most reductionist emphasises verncular architecture and streetscapes. Environment-behaviour research would appear to offer a more comprehensive theoretical basis when considering appropriate urban design for Pacific Islanders. To conclude this section I quote one last Rapoport research paper:

…one must deal with vernacular design rather than vernacular architecture. It is a truism, but one often forgotten, that people do not live in buildings alone. They inhabit and use a system of settings which includes buildings of many types, streets, open spaces, settlements – in a word, cultural landscapes… these systems of settings support particular activity patterns in differing and highly culture-specific ways. (Rapoport, 1982, p.351)


5. Conclusions Of the 200,000 Pacific Island people living in Auckland, about 30% live in state housing provided by Housing New Zealand. Pacific Islanders account for 50% of the population of the South Auckland – Tamaki suburbs of Point England, and Glen Innes East and West, many of whom occupy state houses in areas which are targetted for redevelopment. This research has considered the challenge of housing South Auckland Pacific Island communities, and has arrived at various conclusions. Firstly, because Pacific Islanders have the lowest rate of home ownership of ethnic populations recorded in the NZ census (22% compared to the national average of 53% (NZ Census, 2006)), and noting that this follows a drop of 8% points in home owndership over the last 10 years, it is highly likely that demand for State Housing by Pacific Island families will continue, if not increase, in future. The current impediments to home ownership of low incomes and job security are unlikely to improve quickly given the current economic climate. The present research notes that previous policies of pepper-potting and heterogeneous integration for Pacific Island peoples have not been successful, and notes the growing evolution of homogeneous Pacific Island communities and neighbourhoods. We therefore conclude that not only should provision be made to house Pacific Island families in state housing into the foreseeable future, we also conclude that every effort should be made to ensure the establishment of homogeneous Pacific Island communities and neighbourhoods in such housing. The theoretical basis for this recommendation is the environment-behaviour research carried out by Amos Rapoport into urban settlements. His findings are in many ways a cultural generalisation of the Western world view of the New Urbanists. We find that the approach of the New Urbanists, while there is much to recommend it, was not born out of an understanding or appreciation of Pacific Island culture and settlement patterns. The core findings of this research are drawn from indigenous planning research (including the findings of three University of Auckland research theses by Tongans) and an analysis of images of Pacific Island settlement patterns over the past forty years. This research demonstrates the significance to Pacific Island culture and peoples of the malae (akin to the Maori marae); ceremonial activities involving the extended family which place specific demands on buildings; and the importance of shared communal space around homes for social activities. All of these are critical components of Pacific Island culture which are given effect and enabled by the design and layout of Pacific Island urban settings. Literature research and an analysis of images of Pacific Island homes in the Maybury Block of Point England, Tamaki – South Auckland, have enabled the identification of patterns of adaptation, where aspects of Pacific Island culture have been introduced into South Auckland, by the creative and determined efforts of Pacific Island locals. These include the use of garage buildings for ceremonial related activities plus additional accommodation on privately owned sites, and caravans, façade decoration and lean-to structures on state housing sites. We also noted the proud placement of a Tongan church in the middle of the Maybury Block. In conclusion, it is our view that Housing New Zealand has a social and cultural duty to properly understand the role that Pacific Island vernacular urban design has in shaping the behaviour and education of Pacific Island people, in order to design and build the most appropriate urban landscapes for Pacific Islanders in Auckland.


References Alatini, Moses Ngaluopea. Housing and Related Social Conditions of the Tongan Community living in Otara. Thesis. Master of Arts in Political Studies, University of Auckland, 2004 Anderson, Andrew J. (1983) Tonga: Apt Housing. Thesis. BArch, University of Auckland Austin, Michael R. Polynesian Architecture in New Zealand. Thesis. PhD, University of Auckland, 1976 Bedford, R. Macpherson, and C Spoonley, P. (2000) Perspectives on International Migration, Urban Social Transformation and the Research/Policy Interface. Divided City? Tangata Pasifika In A New Zealand Metropolis. Population Studies Centre. The University of Waikato. Discussion Papers. No 36. October 2000. Crane, Ernest A. (1978) The Tongan Way. Published: Auckland, NZ: Heinemann Educational, 1978 Ellis, C. (2002) The New Urbanism: Critiques and Rebuttals Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 7, No. 3, 261-291 Fox, James W. and Cumberland Kenneth B. (1962) Western Samoa: Land, Life and Agriculture in Tropical Polynesia. Published: Christchurch, NZ: Whitcombe & Tombs Ltd Gibson, K.D. (1983) Political economy and international labour migration: the case of Polynesians in New Zealand. New Zealand Geographer 39(1): 29-42. Harvey, D. (1997) The New Urbanism and the Communitarian Trap, Harvard Design Magazine, Winter/Spring, pp. 68-69 Hunn, D. (1961) Report on the Department of Maori Affairs (aka The Hunn Report), Appendices to the Journal of the House of Representatives G10. Wellington: Government Printer. Katz, P. (1994) The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community (New York, McGraw-Hill) Lehrer, U & Milgrom, R. (1996) New (sub)urbansim: countersprawl or repackaging the product, Capitalism Nature Socialism, 7(2), pp. 49-64 Macpherson, C. (1997b) A Samoan solution to the limitations of urban housing in New Zealand. Published in J. Rensel and M. Rodman (eds) Home in the Islands: Housing and Social Change in the Pacific. Honolulu: University of Hawai'I Press, 151-174. Rapoport, A. (1970) Programming a Housing Estate. Paper 6, Thirty-three Papers in Environment-Behaviour Research. The Urban International Press Rapoport, A. (1982) An Approach to Vernacular Design. Paper 24, Thirty-three Papers in Environment-Behaviour Research. The Urban International Press Rapoport, A. (1986) Culture and Built Form – A Reconsideration. Paper 27, Thirty-three Papers in Environment-Behaviour Research. The Urban International Press


Shibley, R. (1998) The New Urbanism and the partial practices of place-making, Utopian Studies, 9(1), pp 80-102 Smith, A., Jones, K (2007) Pacific Island Cultural Landscapes ICOMOS World Heritage reference group. Theme Paper: 2007 Statistics New Zealand. Samoan People in New Zealand: 2006. Wellington, 2006, p.27 Thompson-Fawcett, M., Bond, S., 2003. Urbanist Intentions for the built landscape: examples of concept and practice in England, Canada and New Zealand. Progress in Planning 60 (2003) 147-234 Tuita, Solomon (1988) Toward a Tongan Architecture: a commentary from a Tongan perspective. Thesis. BArch, University of Auckland, 1988 Williams, D. (2004) Myths, National Origins, Common Law and the Treaty of Waitangi. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Australia and New Zealand Law and History Society Conference, Murdoch University, Western Australia (2-4th July, 2004). Volume 11, Number 4 (December 2004) ENDS


Appropriate Pacific Island Housing and Urban Design in South Auckland

Documents

Transcript of Appropriate Pacific Island Housing and Urban Design in South Auckland