Turning suburbs ‘blue’: ‘It’s just common sense’
Wednesday, 17 June 2026
Tensions around housing intensification in character suburbs run high, but it doesn’t have to be either-or ‒ it’s possible to have both character and density, an Australian architect says.
Central and local government efforts to increase the build capacity of New Zealand’s main urban centres to help ease housing affordability problems tend to become battlegrounds between those who support intensification and those who don’t.
The most recent example is the long-running saga over Auckland’s Plan Change 120, new zoning rules developed in response to Housing Minister Chris Bishop’s mandate that Auckland Council should enable at least 1.4 million new homes.
Opposition to the plan has been particularly heated in established suburbs, with pro-heritage advocates arguing upzoning will negatively affect the character of these areas.
Read more:
It’s still not cheap, but housing affordability in Auckland has improved
Housing growth fund leaves councils with ‘no excuses’ for inaction
But Adelaide University associate professor of architecture Damian Madigan told The Post he has developed an architectural solution which could support intensification of established areas without destroying their character.
He calls his solution “bluefields development”, and described it as a gentler type of intensification which revolves around the modification and extension of existing homes for “co-location” on different titles.
“Basically, the idea is to allow people to add to their houses but instead of just making them bigger, the house or property is reconfigured to get more people into a place.
“So there would be different dwellings on a property that looks like single household housing, but they would have their own titles and operate like a small block of units.”
The “bluefields” concept grew out of thinking about demographic changes, and how existing properties might be able to accommodate new housing without destroying the existing neighbourhood fabric, he said.
In Australia’s cities, as in New Zealand’s, many established suburbs are made up of large single-household homes on big sections, and they tend to be close to employment hubs and amenities.
But the average number of people living in most homes is falling, the number of people living alone is on the rise, and many older people are looking to downsize their homes.
Madigan said people regularly adapted and expanded their houses with alterations and additions, and there was little opposition to that - even in “character” suburbs.
“Bluefield” development would utilise that type of building activity to create more smaller homes for one and two person households, rather than knocking down an existing house to build six townhouses, he said.
“The kicker is that people would have to work with an existing house, and incorporate it holistically into any development. There would also need to be a shared garden area that's significant enough to support the growth of a large tree.
“You don’t want to wreck a place. It’s about reusing patterns of development that we are familiar with, while protecting the houses and neighbourhoods that we love, and care for.”
It would allow older people living in large homes without a lot of capital to downsize and age in place, and enable their children or younger generations to live near them, and leverage some of the value in the property, he said.
“On top of that, it would also preserve the character and the nature of the area, maintain trees cover and gardens, and reduce the waste of demolishing older properties.
“But the key to the model is that people have to give up a single-title arrangement for a common, strata title. That enables people to get funding for one of the houses in their share of a property’s space.”
Madigan said retitling meant it was technically a subdivision, but there were differences and it required amendments to existing planning rules.
“Planning on lot sizes needs to be flexible, but any sized block should be considered as long as the applicant can demonstrate the number of houses on the property can be supported by the infrastructure in place, and it is a quality application.
“It’s not tricky or complex, it’s just common sense, and it’s close to what we already do. We just need to tweak things about 3% to 10% to unlock it. It’s subtly radical.”
In 2025 the South Australian government adopted a planning rule change to support “bluefield” development, and six councils have now adopted the legislation.
Off the back of that, councils were fielding inquiries from people, Madigan said.
“Nothing has been actioned or built yet but people are keen, and South Australia’s Office for Ageing Well wants to do a pilot project to demonstrate its potential.”
There had been interest from New Zealand too, which was not surprising given it was dealing with similar issues, he said.
“New Zealand architect Patrick Kelly received a grant to take the model and test it on social housing, and that project is known as ‘paint the town blue’.
“And an AUT student has done her thesis on the role of bluefield resume and infill development in Auckland residential suburbs.”
While many of those houses and suburbs could support more people, it was important not to tell people to get out of the way, he added.
“This is about finding ways for those people who want to downsize to do so, but we have to be careful not to demonise people for wanting to stay in their homes.”
Madigan will be a speaker at the NZ Institute of Architects’ in:situ conference in Auckland later this year.