Auckland needs to get bigger
January 27th, 2012 at 3:32 pm by David FarrarIn my Herald column I argue Auckland needs to get bigger:
I’m not sure if Aucklanders are aware how much is at stake with this Auckland plan. Do they want a city where almost half the dwellings are apartments?
The other impact of this proposed intensification will be on house prices. Currently there are 400,000 houses and 100,000 apartments for 1.5 million Aucklanders. By 2040 there would be 2.5 million Aucklanders competing for only 500,000 houses. I can’t think of anything more guaranteed to push house prices up massively so only the rich can afford one.
House prices are deemed to start to become moderately unaffordable when the median house price is three times the median income, seriously unaffordable at four times and severely unaffordable at five times.
In Auckland the median house price is currently 6.4 times the median income.
Under the draft Auckland plan, Auckland could by 2040 end up like Hong Kong – where house prices are more than ten times the median household income. Again, this will restrict ownership to the wealthy, but also lead to rents significantly increasing as a proportion of income. Already a growing number of families are paying more than 30% of their income in rent. Under the intensification plan, some families could end up having to spend over half their income on rent.
I conclude:
Auckland needs to grow outwards as well as upwards. A plan to have 75% of new dwellings occur within the current urban limit is too draconian. A 50/50 split would be a far better balance for Auckland’s future. The Government and the Productivity Commission have both asked the Council to alter their plan, to allow the city to grow outwards as well as upwards. I hope they listen.
If they don’t, I pity those under 20, who will have to live with the consequences.
January 27th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
Len brown wants his choo choo trains
That he is going to wreak auckland in the process who cares
avondale to penrose to panmure to devonport all intensive housing
by by leafy suburbs hello concrete jungle
By BY wooden villas bungalows Hello cloned cubical houses for cubical monkeys
Yellow taxi
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 4:28 pm
David,
When were you last in Liverpool, Manchester etc. ?
Do we really want their problems?
When did ‘cratic intervention ever solve problems?
Let it be.
What will be, will be.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 4:29 pm
David, are you able to clarify whether the Auckland median house price is 6.4 times the national median income, or 6.4 times the Auckland median income?
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 4:34 pm
The issue is whether enough housing is built, not so much where. While building up has its place, and building out has its place, the problem is that setting a target (75/25, 50/50, or any other prescribed ‘target’) is foolish. That we have a ‘city plans’, or district plans, is exactly what keeps housing expensive in NZ. That I agree, or disagree, with DPF’s point is not relevant, the problem is that no matter how much I ‘agree’ with a target it will always change when real circumstances appear, particularly all the ones we don’t know will happen. Instead, why not just leave this alone and let Aucklanders decide how much building they want to do and what sort of housing they really want?
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 4:49 pm
About damned time, if you ask me. As a young Aucklander, I think it’s absurd how difficult it is to find a place in the central suburbs but outside of the CBD. Note that high(er)-density housing doesn’t have to be all big square Warsaw Pact apartment blocks. Just removing density restrictions and minimum parking requirements would allow for terraced housing development.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 5:00 pm
The problem is that people ASSUME we need to get bigger
Why? What’s wrong with keeping a steady population in Auckland and pumping the excess across te rest of the country?
Having been an Aucklander since 1979, I’d be quite happy to STOP GETTING MORE PEOPLE.
Economic growth is about productivity per person, not cheating by adding more people
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 5:28 pm
Like the reserve bank, the council should be charged by law with the responsibility of providing an adequate supply of land commensurate with population growth. As land owners, council members are quite happy to see land prices continue to inflate so measures have to be emplaced to counteract this self interest.
And private businesses could help matters by relocating south to where there is plenty of land available for development.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 5:30 pm
Well if everyone wants to live on quarter acre sections then the city must grow. However there are benefits from apartment living and having terraced housing. This would allow houses to be sold at a cheaper price to people, along with improved efficiencies for public transport etc. Are people willing to commute two hour or more to work? that is what you will get it you insist that everyone has a massive section.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Scott Chris – the only way you’d be able to force the council provide an adequate supply of land would be if they were appointed not elected (like the Reserve Bank board). There will be no way to enforce such legislation on an elected body since they will just say “we were following the wishes of the electorate who elected us”. That is before you take into account self interest.
Vote:Before I get howled at, I don’t advocate for that at all, I’m just pointing out a problem with the argument above
January 27th, 2012 at 5:34 pm
BAW – there is a lot of merit in more urban sprawl, and not all the jobs need to be in the CBD – in fact, most aren’t. The decentralisation should be encouraged, then we wouldn’t need to spend as much on public transport and everyone could drive or walk to work.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 5:49 pm
You can’t just expand a city indefinitely though without causing permanent environmental damage, or worse, by building on farmland and cutting into our food supply/ best source of export money. If you want to live in a large city, then you will just have to deal with the fact that it will be crowded. We do not have the spare land for Auckland to simply grow outwards.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 5:54 pm
awb – Singapore doesn’t have the spare land to simply grow outwards. New Zealand does.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 5:58 pm
gazzmaniac – Our islands are a finite space. Are you advocating we use farmland, which is currently our most productive resource, for more houses?
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 6:03 pm
elscorcho I agree. There is no advantage in Auckland or even New Zealand having more people. More people means more infrastructure of all kinds. With more restrictions on immigration (from all sources not just anti chinese or whatever) and less encouragement for people to have kids they cant afford many problems including housing affordability would be solved.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 6:07 pm
gazzmaniac says:- “the only way you’d be able to force the council provide an adequate supply of land would be if they were appointed not elected”
Hmm, interesting point. Perhaps the responsibility of issuing building consents could be delegated to an appointed board.
But I can already hear the cries of “unconstitutional”. I guess that’s one of democracy’s inherent problems, when the governing body is essentially appointed by self interested rate payers. Who else bothers to vote in local elections?
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 6:12 pm
This isn’t an either/or debate. Auckland will be going upwards and outwards and also retain many a leafy suburb with separate houses. Controlling development does make sense. Especially when you need to move the people and goods from one side to the other in an orderly fashion.
If I were proclaimed Imperator of Auckland I would:
1) Identify key transport hubs at town centres/ malls throughout the ‘burbs.
2) Build train/bus centres at these locations, park & ride facilities, and covered/secure bike storage.
3) Run track or bus-only corridors between the hubs, creating a network of radial spokes of direct in/out lines into the CBD and circle lines around the city. Run dual walking/ cycleways also to connect the hill reserves and parks in the city.
4) Operate an Auckland wide electronic bus/train ticketing system.
5) Zone within a 10 min walking distance of the major hubs as intensive living for apartments (high rise)
6) Zone within 20 mins walk as townhouse living.
7) Beyond that leave as low rise.
8.) Expand the city boundaries by developing satellite towns connected by major transport links – either rail or bus-only corridors, as well as close proximity to motorways. Separate them from the main city limits by parks and reserves. Develop the satellite towns on the same zoning principles as the transport hubs in the city from the get-go.
9) require all new office workplaces to provide showers, change facilities and secure bike storage for employees.
Of course that will all take many years, and $, but Rome wasn’t built in a day. Thinking of Rome, perhaps to fund it we should invade a small corrupt African despotic regime rich in natural resources and mine the hell out of it. Give our young unemployed something productive to do, develop their country enough to keep the locals happy, and use the profits to build a clean green Auckland. Win win?
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 6:16 pm
Except the fun and interesting cities of the world have millions of people. I live in Sydney now and it’s a lot more happening than Auckland is. I could be wrong about the ‘high population = fun’ causation link but that’s how it seems to me.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 6:31 pm
mavxp – They tried that at Robina and Coomera in Gold Coast City. Guess which property on the coast lost the most value in the last three years? It was the medium density townhouses. The suburban apartments never really took off to start with.
Vote:People don’t want to live in high density areas, they want to live with space around them. This has been proven time and time again. High density living also creates traffic problems, which are definitely a negative even if some people think it’s a good thing to encourage public transport.
It is interesting that the parts of the Gold Coast that have bad traffic problems are the bits where there are apartment buildings.
January 27th, 2012 at 6:36 pm
None of the above have actually asked why we need more people.
Vote:ZPM. Zero Population Movement. It’s the future
January 27th, 2012 at 6:40 pm
<>
Las Vegas: population 580k
Vote:End of topic.
January 27th, 2012 at 6:48 pm
I think the people are coming to Auckland whether we want them or not.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 6:49 pm
Hear hear DPF.
People criticise it as a brick & tile spec home hell, but I view the design of Botany Town Centre and Dannemora, out near the East Tamaki industrial zone, as one of the more forward-looking and inspired pieces of planning that has happened in Auckland in recent times. An attempt to build a new centre where people can live and work, without having to go into Auckland every day, but not so far away that it’s disconnected socially.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 6:50 pm
and the population of vegas 15 years ago was what?
Las Vegas is the 28th-most populous city in the United States, with an estimated population by the U.S. Census Bureau of 583,756 as of 2010. The 2010 population estimate of the Las Vegas metropolitan area was 1,951,269.[2]
Auckland City’s pop. is 400,000 but the metropolitain pop is 1.5million your point is what
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 7:07 pm
If I remember correctly, growth in central and north Auckland is set to cease altogether. The real growth for the Auckland region is actually in Counties Manukau. It is the youngest district in the region and therefore the most likely to expand over the course of many years.
This is where the real investment will need to be focused. Building well beyond Papakura and Dury will help with those efforts. Maximising land in existing suburbs in the Counties Manukau area will also lead to greater success in the long-term.
But shrinking the land area of housing is not the answer moving forward. People need recreational space to breath and cutting into the front and backyards is not the answer. Nobody wants to be so close to their neighbours that shower time in the morning becomes a challenge.
Great thinking David, we need to build outward.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 8:00 pm
Auckland can only dream of becoming like Hong Kong.
Vote:For a starter the welfare bill would diminish and taxes would halve.
Happy times.
January 27th, 2012 at 8:29 pm
This letter has not been published by the Herald.
Robertson”s letter was a result of an error in the Herald’s reporting. But his letter stands while Demographia’s response goes unread in NZ but is distributed widely in the international media.
Here is the unpublished truth. David, maybe you could persuade the Herald to set the record straight.
THINGS AREN’T THAT BAD IN SAGINAW
by Wendell Cox 01/24/2012
Our 8th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey included the Saginaw, Michigan metropolitan area, which we noted had the lowest Median Multiple (median house price divided by median household income) among the included 325 metropolitan areas. This made Saginaw the most affordable metropolitan market, principally due to depressed economic conditions. Saginaw has been ravaged by the loss of manufacturing jobs and a generally declining economy because of its strong industrial ties to the Detroit metropolitan area.
D. Robertson of Freeman’s Bay (Auckland, New Zealand) must think that things are much worse, as indicated by a letter to the editor in the New Zealand Herald on January 24 (The Herald does not post letters to the editor on its internet site). Robertson says that including and prominently reporting the result of Saginaw Michigan (population 297 in 120-odd dwellings) was inappropriate. Robertson makes a 99.9% error, having apparently confused Saginaw, Missouri (population 297) with Saginaw, Michigan. According to the 2010 US Census, the Saginaw metropolitan area has a population of 200,169. That would be substantial enough to qualify Saginaw as one of New Zealand’s largest metropolitan areas if it were there.
Does the Herald have no regard for reporting the truth?
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 10:29 pm
Auckland needs to get bigger because property developers run the country.
Despite the rough economy, Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) attitudes about real estate development projects are stronger than ever. In fact, Americans’ opposition to new local development actually intensified for the first time since 2008, the 2011 Saint Index found. Cynicism about how and where development takes place is pervasive when Americans consider their own communities. Politics will continue to influence the development process, the results show, as Americans place high importance on a candidate’s position on growth and development issues when considering candidates for local office.
…
A great majority of Americans — in fact, the highest level in six years of Saint Index surveys — oppose new development in their own community. 79 percent said their hometown is fine the way it is or already over-developed. Some 86 percent of suburban Americans do not want new development in their community. Asked, “What type of new development would you most like to see in your community?” the most common answer was “none.”
http://saintindex.info/general-attitudes#nimbyattitudes
and they get way with it because of the left:
Anti-immigration feeling has no place in the Green party Immigration and Population policies released today, Green MP Keith Locke says.
“Our policy is the opposite of Winston Peters’,” the Party’s Immigration Spokesperson Keith Locke says.
“We have no fear of migrants. The Green Party says ‘Welcome Home – this is your country now’. Our welcome extends to the families of new migrants. The Green Party policy is fundamentally humanitarian, not exclusionary like Mr Peters’.
http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/greens-counter-peters-welcoming-immigration-policy
New Zealand’s change in immigration policy dates back to the early 1990s when the gap in productivity with other nations became pronounced between the years 1970 and 1990. Higher immigration was intended to fix the problem.
In its report, the SWG claims the move backfired.
Vote:http://www.interest.co.nz/kiwisaver/52140/migration-policy-linked-inflated-housing-prices-government-spending-and-low-savings
January 28th, 2012 at 1:00 am
Cactus is right, you’re bloody dreaming if you think Auckland is capable of growing into an affluent sprawling mega city.
Vote:January 28th, 2012 at 1:06 am
What is needed is central government planning – new land secured for building and public transport (rail most likely) into Auckland. Even government finance and development – and then builders supplying home buyers.
We need new land made available for building to hold down land values and ensure builders can build property throughout the area that people can afford to buy.
Vote:January 28th, 2012 at 7:38 pm
Somebody else raised the point about South Auckland. There is a change happening up here, where once South Auckland was seen as the ghetto and a no go area it is slowly changing into a more desirable place to live.
Before I am shouted down I am sure that other Jafas can remember the time that one only ventured into Ponsonby under armed gaurd.
Of course if the scum are all leaving South Auckland then they have to go somewhere, that just happens to be bad news for anybody who lives out West.
Vote:West Auckland is fast becoming a shit hole, while it has always had it’s fair share of losers it also had a healthy number of honest battlers who purchased their own house and did their best to raise their kids. These poor sods are now seeing the scum from South Auckland (along with their own home grown ferals) all move out west.
January 29th, 2012 at 8:20 pm
Increasing housing stock by 100,000 is significant though – about the size of Manukau.
But why focus on house prices? If there are more apartments, the average cost of a dwelling would actually fall. Increasingly more people are choosing to live in apartments. Like yourself, DPF.
The Real Estate Institute and media also fall into the same trap, constantly quoting the median house price rather than the median dwelling price.
There is a brilliant series of posts on Auckland’s spatial plan here:
http://transportblog.co.nz/tag/spatial-plan/
Vote: