Len’s plan won’t work
February 9th, 2012 at 11:00 am by David FarrarAnne Gibson at NZ Herald reports:
Auckland could need an extra 20,000ha to accommodate new houses in the next three decades if its current style of new housing is to continue.
That’s an area around 14 kms wide by 14 kms long.
Martin Udale, ex-chief executive of McConnell Property, was commissioned by Ree Andersen, Auckland Council’s regional strategy manager, to write an independent review of a report by Studio D4′s Patrick Fontein and architects Jasmax on the controversial plan to ring-fence 75 per cent of all new housing within existing city limits in the next 30 years. …
Udale, of Essentia Consulting Group, also questioned the wisdom behind the plan and raised the prospect of just 15 new houses built on each hectare of land, many small-lot suburban housing and townhouses, and showed how the city would need an extra 20,000ha.
But if 25 houses were built on a hectare and terrace-style residences were a big part of the mix, 12,000ha of land was needed. If 100 dwellings were built on each hectare, just 3000ha of extra land would be needed, he calculated.
100 dwellings per hectare? Shudder.
I just don’t think you can fit an extra 300,000 people within the existing Auckland metro area.
Yet the Auckland plan proposed that two-thirds of all new housing development would be low-rise in the form of attached dwellings and low-rise apartments of four storeys or less.
So Udale posed the question of where all the extra land would come from and calculated that an area about half to two-thirds the current area of the Auckland isthmus could be needed.
So it seems the only way Len’s plan will work is if people all go into high-rise apartments.
Related posts:
- Auckland needs to get bigger
- Land in Auckland
- Free up the land
- Labour’s housing plans – houses for everyone
February 9th, 2012 at 11:08 am
People just don’t want to live in high rises. But Len knows best, eh? And then of course high house prices are attributed to inequality, a lack of capital gains tax, etc. Anything will be blamed except the shortage of houses.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 11:17 am
“Stuart Munro, Milestone Homes’ co-owner, said high-rise housing was not the answer because it could not replicate the quality of life and sense of community that traditional homes offered.”
Ha, yes recent development in Auckland, where you have to drive to do anything really does have a great sense of community.
Why cant we just upzone within and without the urban limits and see where people want to live. All the recent headlines have been about rental shortages and house price rises in the inner suburbs. I think there is demand for more housing in CENTRAL auckland.
But no, NIMBYS are too entrenched in Auckland for that.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 11:19 am
There are no other sensible alternatives to high rise. The transport issues that accompany trying to keep the sprawl growing are just insurmountable.
We also have the compounding problem of reduced occupancy rates with smaller families, and rich non-working people occupying property in Central Auckland suburbs displacing workers further out and further magnifying commuter transport problems. Policies that had the effect of getting these non-productives to move out of central Auckland and drive up productive occupancy would help things greatly.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 11:20 am
I lived in apartments for a few years overseas and then for 18 months in Auckland. The Auckland apartments I lived in were only 8 years old, so they were pretty clean, but the walls were paper thin. You should NOT be able to hear people doing their dishes, sneezing, etc. Apartment walls should have at least a foot of concrete in between them for sound insulation. However, I’m sure construction companies will continue to build apartments with paper thin walls to cut costs, ignoring people’s quality of life.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 11:23 am
You will live in your tenement, Comrade, and you will like it.
Then you can ride glorious train!
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 11:36 am
I would love to live in a high rise if only the appartments were decent sizes liek in Europe, not shitboxes that sprung up all over CBD
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 11:37 am
I am glad I live in the country a long way from town.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 11:38 am
Urban density is plainly best decided by the market: allowing buyers, and not planners, to trade off density, living standards, and cost. It is a complex issue, made considerably more so by the long time horizons, and Len Brown is supremely misplaced to decide it on anyone’s behalf. Let buyers tell developers what they are willing and not willing to pay for. Len Brown needs to stop thinking about this right now.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 11:43 am
AlphaKiwi
However, I’m sure construction companies will continue to build apartments with paper thin walls to cut costs, ignoring people’s quality of life.
Nonsense. The one and only reason they “get away with it” is because folks don’t care enough about it to make it worth the while of the construction company. Soundproofing is easily tested before renting or buying, and if developers know they cannot find tenants without soundproofing they will have to provide it.
All you’ve said is that you really care about that issue and, guess what, you’re no longer living in apartments with paper thin walls. All the folks who don’t care about soundproofing get to live in cheaper accommodation. What is the problem?
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 11:43 am
I’m willing to pay for a 3 bedroom aptment with decent floor space on teh city fringe. No lawns and onsite parking. Just like any village in Germany Switzerland adn Russia has been building since 1969
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 11:43 am
Why Don’t they fill in one of their harbours, they don’t need two.. Plenty of useless bays that are fairly shallow, few loads of boulders and hay presto, new land.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 11:44 am
I like how so many of those who advocate strongly for high density living, and commuting by train, often live in semi-rural environments and use cars to commute between home and office.
And in the case of the Green Party – planes.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 11:47 am
UrbanNeocolonialist: that is obviously untrue. There are literally dozens of cities around the world that are larger than Auckland and each solves the transport problems such scale raises.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 11:56 am
@ Ben
The fact is that Len wants to push Aucklanders into apartments to slow or stop the spread of Auckland. At least give the people decent quality apartments. Anyway, I’m looking to move to the South Island in future and buy a decent piece of land to live on. However, it doesn’t stop me from being concerned about other’s well-being.
The other problem is not purposefully developing a strategy to build the economies of other regions to get people to move to those places instead of Auckland.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 11:56 am
There is certianly a need in NZ for medium density housing built to a high standard purley to escape pressure to build forever outward.
Vote:2 bdrm housing built to (say) 8 stories with onsite parking and seperate storeage spaces and balcony would achieve 200 units per Ha and more if parking was underground.
It is questionable if a NZ developer with his eyes on a short term gain could be trusted to provide a quality product given that our Council officers that would oversee any project are of such shit low quality and are unemployable anywhere else in society.
February 9th, 2012 at 11:58 am
This is bad on so many levels.
The most serious one however is this. Locking up land will keep house prices high and more people will have to be renters (which benefits existing landowners – and it’s a wasted/less productive use of our GDP). A consequence of this – the evidence shows – is that people are less likely to settle in a given area and build the community bonds the strengthen a community. But city planners are obsessed with intensification, and too proud to back down from their almost religious belief in intensification.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
“Other people’ syndrome again. Presumably councillors and planners envisage continuing to enjoy their quarter acres and driving SUV’s to work / meetings. High rise and public transport is for the plebs.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Me and a whole bunch of under 35s would kill to be able to live in NY style appartments in the centre city near our work. Len Needs to wake up and realise NZ is not like it was 40 years ago. Some people don’t give a shit about lawns, schools and playcentres, just want a decent pad to crash at after work without 1.5h in traffic. If Auckland starts building good quality appartments it woudl revitalise the city much more then all the bullshit roadworks and usless “people” areas the council is spending time and money on.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 12:32 pm
Given that there are currently over 800 apartments for sale in Auckland City, it appears that ‘Aucklanders’ are not really keen on purchasing an apartment in a hi rise environment any time soon. Especially when the purchase price varies from a shoebox at around $100,000 to a 3×3 with a price tag of $1.5Million+. Indeed, many of these apartments have been for sale for 18+ months.
http://www.realestate.co.nz/residential/search/districts/225/property_types/2#
Len needs to do more homework.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 1:08 pm
Surely there needs to be a govt. building regulation response to this. It should not be legal to put up some of the shit boxes that have gone up, with the thin walls etc etc.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Len is stuck in the past
Vote:You do not need to be close to the city any more with the internet you can communicate effectively from anywhere
I post on this site from 15 km off the north land coast just as effectively as I do from green-lane. Distributed offices and work from home will become more and more common as we adjusted to the information revolution
To get the density of housing we are projected to require, as proposed by lefty len you will see the wholesale destruction of the city No more leafy pleasant suburbs just concrete and glass for mile after mile
There is a case for some intensification lens plan will bring about wholesale destruction
February 9th, 2012 at 1:29 pm
Elaycee,
And even more houses for sale! Aucklanders dont want them either!
Did you know banks require 30%+ on any apartment these days? Might be depressing the market a bit.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
So now Farrar has joined the can’ts that Steven Joyce was talking about. If Joyce had his way the Auckland CBD would be full of car parking buildings that the commuters (by car) from the outer suburbs have to use to get into town.
The main objections I’ve read in the comments above to apartment living is the poor quality apartments – that is the result of poor building regulations and NACT seem intent on reducing those standards further to appease their developer mates.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 2:32 pm
Auckland is already too big.
Good quality well insulated high density housing is the way. But, they must get the other factors right at the same time. Such as shops, schools, parks & recreation, transport, and so on. There also needs to be stricter noise control rules as conflicts will become worse when people live more closely together.
The monstrosities the council has allowed to date beggar belief. Short term developer profits at the expense of long term development.
However, it is too expensive and too difficult due to our bureaucracy and RMA. Get those fixed and perhaps we can move forward.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 2:55 pm
AlphaKiwi
At least give the people decent quality apartments.
No. Give them the quality they want, not one size fits all minimum quality that makes it illegal to build a lower quality, lower cost dwelling even if that would raise the standard of living for thousands of people compared to the status quo, as it unquestionably would given the poor state of older housing (esp. state housing) in many parts of the country. Now while latte drinking champaign liberals won’t get out of bed for less than top quality, the rest of us can’t afford that. Making it illegal for developers to profitably service that lower budget market produces shortage and – yes – leaving people stuck in current accommodation that is old and dilapidated.
The other problem is not purposefully developing a strategy to build the economies of other regions to get people to move to those places instead of Auckland.
So governments build economies do they? Fail.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 3:03 pm
20,000 ha is only about 4% of Aucklands area, why is this even a problem?
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 3:08 pm
somewhatthoughtful
It should not be legal to put up some of the shit boxes that have gone up, with the thin walls etc etc.
Of course it should be legal to build low quality. There are two reasons allowing this is valuable. One, it is valuable to allow people on limited incomes (which is to say, nearly everyone) to trade off living space and wall density etc for other things they want more (nicer car, more entertainment, more charity, etc).
Two, reduced building quality is a response to the very high cost of land, which is itself a product nearly entirely of government interference which has taken abundant land and made it scarce (Arthur Grimes recently showed this). If folks didn’t have to sink so much of their funds into securing the land, then additional funds would be freed to, in part, demand higher building quality.
Regulating out of existence lower-quality buildings while leaving the cost of land so high through artificial scarcity is the worst of all outcomes.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 3:13 pm
All the folks who think Auckland can’t get any bigger need to get out more. Many cities in the world are much bigger than Auckland and many and perhaps most do a better job on transport and infrastructure. Of course Auckland can be bigger.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 3:14 pm
@ Ben 2:55pm
The phrase was to ‘develop a strategy to build…’ – somewhat different, and this Govt doesn’t seem to have a clue about a strategy for regional development.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Ben
Lower quality apartments are more likely to become run down quickly and even become slums than good quality apartments. It sounds like you’re preaching for allowing potential slums to be built because it fills a need. Many other countries like India and China want to improve overall accommodation of people, i.e. develop. Sounds like you want NZ to “undevelop”.
You know what I meant by “building economies” but you chose to be a dick instead. I shouldn’t need to explain it to you like you’re a 5 year old. Grow up.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 3:20 pm
If you think Auckland is too big, don’t live there.
Telling people they have to live in shoeboxes when there are acres of grass meadows all around Auckland just aching to be built on is communism. It’s as simple as that. It is one rule for the privileged class, and another rule for everybody else on the Animal Farm.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 3:20 pm
I have always considered that some of Auckland’s problems (public transport, for one) are due to its urban sprawl.
And those that shudder at the thought of living in an apartment must have in mind some of the hideous, cramped, cheaply-constructed blocks you see around the city, rather than the positively delightful apartments and medium-density housing you find in Switzerland (as immigant points out above), for example.
I’d hazard that the city can’t afford decent public transport initiatives (subway, light rail, etc.) because there just aren’t any significant pockets of sufficiently-high-density housing to make it cost-effective. I agree that it’s something of a Catch-22, but steps need to be taken either way.
I would say we need to create sufficient centers of higher density such that they can become hubs for public transport. In turn the increased density will require more localised services/shopping/schools/etc. such that we won’t have to drive across several suburbs to get to a particular store/etc.
Increasing our urban sprawl will only exacerbate our traffic and public transport issues.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 3:29 pm
@ BlairM
Overall, although I can see a need for some reasonable priced apartments, I agree with you. I doubt city councilors would choose to live in the apartments they’re promoting in the CBD.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 3:36 pm
At last a reliable calculation of the land area required to accommodate the expansion of Auckland while retaining the present housing mix. 14kms x 14kms would amount to about 6 km expansion across a front on the southern boundary (12kms (approx.) wide harbour to harbour) and an expansion of 8 kms on the northern boundary (18kms wide). Big deal.
Vote:Unfortunately the proposed plan is designed to justify spending zillions on a rail system. A better approach may be to look at promoting satellite cities along the rail line where low and medium density housing can be easily accommodated.
February 9th, 2012 at 3:41 pm
BlairM – “acres of grass meadows all around Auckland just aching to be built on” – really? Most of it looks quite productive to me, or are you happy to import even more fruit and vegetables from somewhere…
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 3:41 pm
The common complaint from the comments seems to be that everyone wants nice high quality apartments in central Auckland but don’t seem to appreciate the cost involved in providing same. Dan, we could all afford Swiss style apartments if we were as wealthy as the Swiss, and guess what, we’re not, and not by a long chalk. Only Ben seems to have a grasp on reality so far.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 3:43 pm
There are 2 or 3 families to a home in parts of Auckland.
AlphaK wants to restrict the supply of houses as much as possible to prevent slums. Hard to believe.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
@unaha-closp
Vote:No, I’m actually against shitty apartments being built. I support more housing being built.
February 9th, 2012 at 4:02 pm
For many decades it was illegal to sleep overnight in Auckland overnight except in licensed accommodation. I tried to change this silly rule during the mid sixties at the same time as we legalised town houses etc but failed.
Then came the great property boom of the eighties when office blocks were going up all over the CBD. Then came the crash and these buildings lay empty. So finally the ban was lifted and huge numbers of these office blocks were turned into apartments..
There were never designed to be lived and the acoustics were dreadful – and still are.
They set the “standard” however and there was a boom in apartment blocks as the suppressed demand was expressed.
Heavy handed regulation always brings high costs as markets are distorted. However, then the Smart Growth planners became obsessed with density and because high rise apartments are so expensive if they are large and properly designed they were happy to allow these paper cracker boxes to be built because otherwise their utopias would not eventuate. NZ is a high wind load high earthquake country and you cannot build high at low cost unless you build tiny and cheap.
Get used to it. Two storey is the optimum efficiency density over most of Auckland and that is why after the deregulation of the sixties town houses took off. And is why the Auckland Urban area is already one of the two or three densest in the New World.
Vote:Further intensification or compaction will only increase congestion. If you double medium density areas the number of vehicle trips increases by about 85%. Dotting a few railway stations around the urban area does not reduce this Congestion gain. Actually residential density has little effect on public transport market share – its concentration of employment that is needed. Think Manhattan at the core of New York’s surrounding urban area which is much less dense than Auckland.
Where do so many of you collect such false information? What makes you think people living on the urban periphery all drive to the CBD. They don’t. Well, they don’t if jobs are allowed to follow the people. And sadly we try to stop that happening with RUBs etc.
February 9th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
@alphakiwi
How?
If apartments cost more to build and the expansion of the city is restricted. Land becomes more expensive and building upon that land becomes more expensive. How exactly does making something less affordable encourage more people to buy it?
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 4:21 pm
That’s the idea Len.
Keep homes small, nasty, and the market horribly expensive to buy into.
Look after the finance/insurance industry, who don’t want to see existing properties lose value as cheap new build (in cheap new-build areas) comes available.
Look after yourself and your mates, who are of the generation that already own lots of property, and don’t want to see it lose value as cheap new build (in cheap new-build areas) comes available.
All you need to do is re-educate people that no, actually they don’t want a 4 bdrm house on an 800sq.m section for the kids to run around on; oh no, what they really want is a shoe-box apartment… and if they’re really really lucky, a concrete pad outside to park the car on…
Because where would all the dear horses go, if we had – gasp – urban sprawl?
I can see now, Len, that I’ve been very unkind to all the people calling you a socialist.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 4:45 pm
@Ed Snack
I specifically mentioned Switzerland because I used to live there.
It’s funny how so many people have said to me “Oh, it must have been expensive to live there”.
Actually, it wasn’t.
The cost of living in Switzerland is lower than in Auckland, and if you take into acccount the lower income-tax rates we were much more comfortable in Switzerland than in Auckland, even though my income was, dollar-for-dollar, about the same.
Staple items such as food and clothing are much cheaper in Switzerland, comparatively, while the quality and selection is much better.
Public transport in Switzerland is, of course, simply light-years ahead of Auckland, and while we lived there, we didn’t own a car, nor did we really need to.
Car-sharing services were incredibly convenient if we did need to use one, and again, this is sort of service can really only be viable with a higher-density population.
As you may imagine, the proportion of people renting in Switzerland is higher than in Auckland.
Having said that, house prices in Switzerland have been relatively static over the last wee while, and are much more affordable than they once were.
Since Switzerland was well established before the advent of the automobile, it has that whole village-fields-village-fields-village thing going on, with many small – but strongly established, and more densely populated – communities. Probably due in part to the geography, these communities are easily stitched together with rail, bus, and tram services.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 5:09 pm
Switzerland has stable pricing of its housing market largely because its constitution affirms the “right to build”
If the land is zoned and you comply with the few rules then you can build. The consenting process is short, low cost and the outcomes are guaranteed.
Hence supply responds rapidly to increased demand. A similar situation applies in Germany.
Vote:February 9th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
I think there needs to be an incentive (maybe favourable taxation of some description) afforded to ciities other than Auckland. Every new migrant that comes to NZ ends up there adding to the problem. If there was an incentive to settle in another town or city and set up a business there we wouldn’t have this lop-sided Auckland centric immigration.
Vote:February 10th, 2012 at 8:01 am
“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 the same here I would say
Growth isn’t what people want, (other than real estate and associated interest groups). What is the big plan? why do we (they) encourage more and more people and when does it stop?…or is it a never ending ponzi scheme?
One can see why Winston must be eliminated…
the ideology of the left leaves the field open:
“Both in New Zealand and globally, the best of the leftwing tradition has always rejected small-minded nationalism, xenophobia and racism. In fact, leftists of an internationalist tradition have always favoured globalization and getting rid of national borders and barriers to migration. Progressive advocates of globalization of course do not defend a handful of rich imperialist countries, including New Zealand, dominating the world’s economy, but instead advocate an integrated and radically egalitarian world economy where production is based on social need and not on private profit. ”
Vote:http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2012/02/guest-blog-post-john-moore-leftwing-xenophobia-in-new-zealand.html
February 10th, 2012 at 8:15 am
hj
So when the cats got the cream, everyone else can just piss off huh? Nice.
Vote:February 10th, 2012 at 12:41 pm
So when the cats got the cream, everyone else can just piss off huh? Nice.
………….
What we are seeing is diffusion from crowded places to less crowded. Some come for life style (the good ones) and others come to benefit from increasing population (capital gains- Bankies “great opportunity”).
80% of our population (and associated growing pains) comes from outside NZ. If you want to see who benefits, check out who can/can’t afford a house and the environment the average person lives in compared to earlier generations (cross leased flag houses etc).
Vote:February 10th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
The ‘lamestream media’ picks up the story of Tea Party activists railing against efforts to control sprawl and conserve energy.
Vote:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/us/activists-fight-green-projects-seeing-un-plot.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto
February 10th, 2012 at 2:32 pm
The anti smart growth people aren’t saying “whoooa , putting on weight, time to let the belt out” they are saying “we can keep growing forever: just make sure there isn’t any belt”.*
*note that the notion of “over population” is false, energy won’t become scarce, the environment only gets better (where the rich buggers live , anyway) AGW is a scam.
Vote: