From 15,000 to 2,000
March 12th, 2013 at 3:00 pm by David FarrarBernard Orsman at NZ Herald reports:
Brown claimed space for 15,000 homes but now concedes just 2000 sites ready.
Auckland has 2000 new sections ready to build houses on, says Mayor Len Brown, who last month claimed there was enough land for 15,000 homes.
As debate grows about housing and land supply in Auckland, Mr Brown is no longer claiming the city has enough new land to build 15,000 houses “right now”.
Instead, he is saying there is capacity for 15,000 homes on ready-to-go greenfield land in areas such as Flat Bush, Takanini and Hobsonville, but only 2000 sections have reached the building stage.
That’s a big reduction, in fact an 87% reduction.
Councillor Dick Quax said Mr Brown had proclaimed to all who would listen that Auckland had 15,000 sections ready for houses to be built on “right now”.
“The mayor is now having a big helping of humble pie as he acknowledges that there are just 2000 sections ready for construction to begin.
“What this means is Auckland runs out of land to build on in May,” Mr Quax said.
The latest admission, he said, showed just how dire the land supply was and an acknowledgement the council had got it seriously wrong.
They have.
Auckland has a higher urban density than every major city in Australia. Moving the urban limit outwards is just common sense. Town planners don’t like it, because they want everyone to comply with their views on where people must live to make their job easier. But frankly I think the rights of home owners trump the rights of town planners.
Related posts:
- Land in Auckland
- Smith targets Auckland metropolitan urban limit
- Labour’s housing policy falling apart
- Housing affordability
March 12th, 2013 at 3:43 pm
Absolute bullshit that auckland central would be more dense than sydney or melbourne. That comes completely down to where one draws the bounding box. There is just no way that Auckland is anywhere near as dense as those two if you actually compared the inner cities. Not that we shouldn’t have suburban development, but we shouldn’t have to subsidise people’s desire to get stuck in traffic everyday just so they can play grand designs by providing services to the middle of nowhere for 20 houses to be built.
[DPF: If people choose to live further out, they should pay for the costs of living further out. But they should not be banned from doing so]
Vote:March 12th, 2013 at 3:45 pm
Len Clown shows the true colours of an accomplished liar.
Vote:March 12th, 2013 at 3:48 pm
I find the density measures to be dubious. Yes, Auckland is a bit more dense in that it’s on an isthmus, but I also suspect that the tightly drawn urban limit, and therefore every bit of space within that urban limit being built on, factors into the calculation. I bet Sydney and Melbourne have substantial areas that are still farmland or similar within the urban limit, which they intend to build on sometime in the future. Of course, that might be an argument that Auckland should do the same, but that’s the same argument – that we should move the urban limit. You shouldn’t make a self referential argument…
Vote:March 12th, 2013 at 3:52 pm
Aucklands property costs are caused by a lack of houses where people want to live – not a lack of houses.
Vote:March 12th, 2013 at 4:18 pm
“…Moving the urban limit outwards is just common sense…”
Wow, not only do the property developers own the National government, but it also appears they’ve got the government pollster thrown in for free.
Vote:March 12th, 2013 at 5:08 pm
If Auckland has a higher population density than Sydney or Melbourne, can we have Sydney or Melbourne grade public transport? Even a dramatic expansion of the heavy rail network like Perth has recently achieved would be fine.
Vote:March 12th, 2013 at 5:59 pm
The circumference of Auckland is sufficient to allow for a large increase in population without the urban area expanding more than a few kilometres. And there is plenty of underutilized land – in the Hunuas in the South and around Silverdale in the North. Land in Karaka and Pukekohe can and should be protected for agricultural use.
Vote:It is always interesting to listen to planners and politicians telling people that they should live in high density suburbs when they themselves live in Titirangi or by the sea. The major problem is one of perception; the planner sees urban sprawl where the landowner sees his own little castle surrounded by defined private land.
March 12th, 2013 at 6:28 pm
Absolutely you have to move the urban limit out. If you restrain the size of a city then you’re kissing goodbye to economic opportunities. IE: More shopping commercial and manufacturing zones and all the jobs they support. But this doesn’t mean you can’t increase the density of the metro area. It’s pretty goddamn sizeable, compared to say, San Fransisco which has almost double the density. Once you’ve doubled the population you could supply another couple of tertiary institutions to school Asia, hospitals, airports and that’s when you start pulling in private enterprise to headquarter NYLONKONG companies because of the kudos of doing so.
Vote:New Zealand is Asia’s idea of middle class luxury and our low wage economy will never compete with the Chinese buying power.
We need to start viewing Auckland as the city that stretches from the North Shore down to say Tamarunui and give free rein to developers to build apartments in the metro area or well designed communites in the adjacent land.
Fuck Len’s loopy rail loop. You need to pull in commuters from outside the metro area though. I live in a beautiful low density city only 45 minutes away from San Francisco either by car or by BART:
http://www.bart.gov/about/history/facts.aspx
374,000 travellers A DAY.
But I’m never too troubled if I hop in the car and drive over the Bay Bridge into SF. Because the traffic is never as shit as in Auckland.
Congestion has grown but measures to assuage this are about to mature. IE A fourth bore of the Caldicott tunnel linking the “bedroom communities (urban sprawl) with Oakland and SF.
You’ve got no visionaries in either of the main parties and greeny twats as mayors of the two main cities and until this changes New Zealand is unable to take advantage of the enormous opportunities proffered by our very proximity and attractiveness to the Asian nations.
March 12th, 2013 at 6:32 pm
OK so lets say we open up all that land…..and a developer build 900 houses in (say) Ararimu. Who will fund the infrastructure out there? How will public transport be used and what. If you are saying that this won’t be subsidised then they will become communities that only the wealthy could afford anyway and would do nothing for the low cost housing issue that everyone seems to bang on about.
The real solution is to intensify within Auckland city limits and also to begin investing in places outside Auckland to live and work.
Vote:March 12th, 2013 at 6:35 pm
Oh and your call that the population is more dense than major cities is Aussie would be hilarious if it wasn’t so stupidly untrue. Do you actually believe this to be true or do you just think your readers are so stupid/partisan that they won’t call you out on it.
Vote:March 12th, 2013 at 6:38 pm
@Mike4:
Vote:End user pays it.
Was recently chatting to a builder. Costs 1000,000 USD for a new water connection to the local utilities board where I live. This inevitably means the capital cost of building reservoirs and other water infrastructure is funded up front.
And if you’re a wealthy cunt you might not begrduge another hundy thou to build your urban castle.
March 12th, 2013 at 8:03 pm
And now the greedy bastards are trying to create 2000 more sections in the rural paradise of Wainui!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/local-papers/hutt-news/8411707/Affordable-housing/
Vote:March 12th, 2013 at 8:26 pm
Agreed the council have got it wrong on the MUL. They are at least planning on liberalizing on the other important front – intensification within the city. Arguably this is more important than the MUL (although both must be addressed). Unfortunate that local MPs in my area J Coleman and M Barry appear to be anti-liberalization. I thought the National party supported addressing supply side issues, but these guys are not supporting the party line. Lets hope N Smith and B English come out to support the council on this issue at least.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 2:22 am
I really can’t believe some of the arguments that people put up to defend precious blades of grass from struggling working New Zealanders looking to buy their first home.
we shouldn’t have to subsidise people’s desire to get stuck in traffic everyday just so they can play grand designs by providing services to the middle of nowhere for 20 houses to be built.
There’s this thing called “rates”, you may have heard of them? Every new house represents a new source of income for the council. Anything else is paid for by the developer.
Aucklands property costs are caused by a lack of houses where people want to live – not a lack of houses
Sure. And Marmageddon was caused by a lack of Marmite in supermarkets, not a lack of Marmite. Moron.
The real solution is to intensify within Auckland city limits and also to begin investing in places outside Auckland to live and work.
Invest what? Love and tenderness? Just last paragraph you were complaining about infrastructure for these houses built by private sector interests with private sector money. Now you want to spend PUBLIC money on local versions of Nowa Hutta?!! Nice one. As for intensification, why not have both? Why not let people build what they want, where they want, subject only to common law rights of neighbours?
Why are people so afraid of what might happen to a few green meadows? Are we going to run out of them?!
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 5:05 am
Funny the Auckland’s growth issue reminds me of the how did she get pregnant? issue:
In a statement to the Sunday Star-Times, Coleman said: “Department of Labour research shows there is no strong link between immigration and house prices and migrants provide a net gain to the New Zealand economy of around $1.9 billion a year. If migration stopped today, the economy would contract by 10% over 10 years.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/4622459/Government-policies-blamed-for-house-prices
apparently (according to the Governments cornerstone research) immigrants don’t buy houses. So who does…? Ans: why it’s returning New Zealanders.
“The report added that there was little evidence that immigration boosted local incomes. In fact, the need to build roads and schools meant that net migration contributed to the national deficit. ”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/4622459/Government-policies-blamed-for-house-prices
yet developers don’t think those who buy in new subdivisions should have to pay for additional infrastructure.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 6:24 am
I still do not understand why we are comparing to Australian cities which all have unlimited expansion room whereas Auckland does not.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 6:30 am
Unklefesta. Are you serious? I don’t think the physical size of NZ vs Australia is going to be an issue in the forseeable future.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 6:30 am
Radio NZ reports a new Government report supports the Auckland Council…. (news @ 5:30)
meanwhile
What would you like New Zealand’s population to be by 2060?
Vote:13450–13500 votes
5 million 24%
10 million 24%
15 million 9%
As many as possible. 7%
No more – we’ve got enough. 36%
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10847678
March 13th, 2013 at 6:39 am
swan (490) Says:
March 13th, 2013 at 6:30 am
Unklefesta. Are you serious? I don’t think the physical size of NZ vs Australia is going to be an issue in the forseeable future.
…………………….
Physical size isn’t the issue but the per capita income is as this has to pay for the infrastructure the development juggernaut requires.
Geography is relevant to house prices as Saiz shows
http://real.wharton.upenn.edu/~saiz/GEOGRAPHIC%20DETERMINANTS.pdf
Gradual development better for communities (why the break neck immigration program?)
Vote:http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/03/jane-jacobs-was-right-gradual-redevelopment-does-promote-community/4917/
March 13th, 2013 at 6:45 am
Nickers:
A Government report largely supports the Auckland Council in the debate over how much land is available for housing in the city.
Vote:http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/130289/govt-report-backs-auckland-council%27s-housing-position
March 13th, 2013 at 6:57 am
I still do not understand why we are comparing to Australian cities which all have unlimited expansion room whereas Auckland does not.
Bullshit. Auckland has plenty of room to expand. There’s nothing but lush undulating meadows from Albany to Wellsford, and from Papakura to Mercer. What are you talking about?!!
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 7:53 am
Why expand Auckland any more?
Vote:It’s overfull now, overrated and overtaxed.
It’s run by a bunch of loonies with barely a solid planning brain between the lot.
Rates at $70-100 a week are merely a tax on property ownership. There is no return for this obscene form of tax.
Any new immigrants should be told Auckland is full.
What should be done is repopulate the ghost towns and get growth throughout all of New Zealand.
March 13th, 2013 at 8:22 am
Why not stop concentrating on growth but look towards a sustainable quality of life. Growth just needs more growth.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 8:24 am
A Government report largely supports the Auckland Council in the debate over how much land is available for housing in the city.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/130289/govt-report-backs-auckland-council%27s-housing-position
Radionz “Nick Smith fails to appear (on the program)”
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 8:29 am
As I said the problem is per capita income (of the existing population): not enough to cover all the new infrastructure without incuring more overseas debt (all so foreigners
Vote:can dilute our lifestyle).
March 13th, 2013 at 9:43 am
“[DPF: If people choose to live further out, they should pay for the costs of living further out. But they should not be banned from doing so]”
Ah yes, the great Auckland Lifestyle Block ban, why I remember the riots like they were yesterday….
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 9:51 am
Why expand Auckland any more?
Because you have no right to stop people from living where they want to live.
It’s overfull now, overrated and overtaxed.
Stopping expansion will not help that situation. It will only make it worse. Or are you expecting everyone in the city to get sterilised and stop breeding?
It’s run by a bunch of loonies with barely a solid planning brain between the lot.
So fire the lot of them and stop planning the city. Let people do their own planning on their own land.
Rates at $70-100 a week are merely a tax on property ownership. There is no return for this obscene form of tax.
I thought you were worried about how infrastructure will be paid for? If you don’t tax the ownership of new development, how are you going to get the extra money for it?
Any new immigrants should be told Auckland is full.
But it’s not full. There is plenty more land available in surrounding areas.
What should be done is repopulate the ghost towns and get growth throughout all of New Zealand.
And what jobs will these people do, since all the jobs, and the market for products and services, are in Auckland?
Dumb as two planks, honestly…
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 10:37 am
The saying dumbarse, is ‘dumb as two short planks’.
The market for products and services is throughout NZ and the world. The jobs can be done anywhere.
You have one good idea – tax the ownership of new development, in say North Harbour. But don’t impose that cost on homeowners in say Mangere.
Yes, fire the loonies that are not doing proper planning.
Like the Auckland City Council now say they want zero waste by 2040.
Zero waste means change.
Zero waste means recycling everything.
What are their marvellous ideas? Zilch! Business as usual.
Plenty more free land about huh? Let’s carve up a few farms, maybe a few reserves, maybe some places where people like to ride a bike or go for hikes.
Intelligent planners should be telling new immigrants where they can live.
Auckland is full. The motorways are choc-a-block 24/7. Wow, we better build more or widen what’s already there, demolish some housing in doing so, now there’s a great idea for a city lacking in housing.
‘Let people do their own planning on their own land.’ Now there’s another good idea.
I have a very smart friend recently settled on several acres in rural El Paso. He can build what he likes with no rules or interference from City Hall.
Engage brain BlairM, before diving in deep water.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 10:56 am
“tedbear (67) Says:
March 13th, 2013 at 10:37 am
The saying dumbarse, is ‘dumb as two short planks’.”
Actually tedbear the saying is “As THICK as two short planks”
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 11:08 am
I stand corrected, thank you voice of reason.
I got a bit carried away trying to defend my input on the debate and the dumbness of BlairM’s response.
My online dictionary also has ‘thick as a short plank’
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 11:21 am
Cheers tedbear – should you need an analogy with the word dumb – you can use:
Vote:“As dumb as a sack of hammers”
;->
March 13th, 2013 at 11:30 am
Cheers to you too VOR.
I do relish some lightheartedness in the daily drudge.
I always get a laugh whenever someone says ‘he’s daft as a brush’ too.
On the subject of laughs, did you hear that seven UK wheelchair athletes have been banned from the Paralympics after they
Vote:tested positive for WD40?
March 13th, 2013 at 12:46 pm
So you quite happily see a direct comparison between for example Melbourne which is surrounded by hundreds of square kilometres of virtual desert which is good for bugger all except property development and the lush rolling pastures around Auckland.
Vote:If you follow your plan of unabated urban sprawl you will end up with little to no farm land and ridiculous infrastruture issues … which is short term gain, long term idiocy.
March 13th, 2013 at 5:50 pm
Melbourne a vampire squid that grows on growth
”Melbourne now requires increased financial assistance . . . to pay for its city building to keep up with all this population growth,” Birrell says. ”Victoria’s biggest export industry, by far, is education. But the boom in the overseas student industry is not going to last for long because of the federal government’s crackdown on the vocational training industry.”
Vocational training had become a large-scale rort, a backdoor immigration program. ”We [Victoria] were growing by 40,000 people a year a few years ago, but by 90,000 a year during the Rudd government years because of its huge increase in the overseas migration program,” Birrell says. ”The education industry alone drove nearly half this population growth. Because Victoria has virtually no minerals industry, its situation is parlous.”
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/the-yarra-monster-is-killing-us-20100822-13apt.html#ixzz22GnjXjDy
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 8:37 pm
“In fact the infrastructure in all our major cities is failing to keep pace with the growing population and this is causing a decline in material living standards. A perceptive US economist actually predicted and quantified this problem 25 years ago, while a local academic has refined the calculation for the current situation in south east Queensland. Lester Thurow argued that the average life of built infrastructure like roads, water supply, sewers and transport systems is about 50 years, so the annual bill for replacement would normally be about 2% of the total capital invested. If the population is growing by 2% the infrastructure bill is the normal 2% replacement plus an extra 2% for the new people, or 4% of the total capital. So as Dr Jane O’Sullivan has pointed out, quite a modest rate of growth, about the average in recent years in south east Queensland actually doubles the infrastructure bill. But the revenue base will only have grown by 2%.
Faced with this problem Thurow predicted, governments would find themselves forced to sell public assets and put together improbable public/private partnerships to try to meet the impossible task of funding the infrastructure needs of the growing population. Of course that’s exactly what we have seen in Australia in recent years.
Vote:http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/australia27s-population-debate/4197352#transcript
March 14th, 2013 at 3:14 am
If you follow your plan of unabated urban sprawl you will end up with little to no farm land and ridiculous infrastruture issues … which is short term gain, long term idiocy.
Plenty more free land about huh? Let’s carve up a few farms, maybe a few reserves, maybe some places where people like to ride a bike or go for hikes.
I try not to personally insult people, but it’s so hard with this sort of low hanging fruit. Really? New Zealand is going to run out of farmland? A country the size of Britain, or Japan but with only four and a half million people is going to run out of farmland?!
And if you think it’s worth other people paying half a million dollars for a home just so you can go hiking on some unremarkable green pastures, then I honestly don’t know what to say to you.
Vote:March 14th, 2013 at 7:58 am
Ok so what happens when …
1) There is plenty of cheap land available
2) Lots of money to be made developing that land
3) Large numbers of pretty wealthy foreigners who want to live here
4) A fantastic country to live in if you have money
That combination equals strong population growth , under current projections we will reach 4.75 by 2020 … 5.00 by 2026 … 5.5 by 2040 … Thats an extra 1,000,000 people in only 37 years if you shift the bar to make it cheaper and easier to expand those equations will get worse, significantly worse. And you can almost guarantee 1/2 those people will end up in Auckland. How much urban sprawl do you need for 500,000 people … hmmm about 1/3 the size of Auckland … thats not a couple of pastures.
BTW I didnt make the comment about reserves and hiking
Vote:March 14th, 2013 at 10:09 am
@unklefesta – don’t look now but citing all that just strengthened my argument. It’s still a small drop in a very big bucket.
Vote:March 14th, 2013 at 10:27 am
@BlairM, yes it does but it also strengthens mine. This really comes down to do you want much bigger cities or not … when is enough people enough or too many?
Vote:March 14th, 2013 at 5:00 pm
A response to BlairM on Auckland Urban Sprawl.
“I try not to personally insult people, but..you write ‘Dumb as two planks, honestly…’”
I really don’t know what planet you’re on BlairM, but I’m on the planet that believes in user pays.
Should you or Mr and Mrs Average Overseas choose to buy a property in North Harbour where the current average property value is say $600,000 or Dannevirke at say $300, 000, then that is your choice.
If I was retired and had lived in Mangere for many years, I’d be more than a bit pissed off to see my property tax (rates) suddenly double or triple just because a whole bunch of Mr and Mrs Average Overseas decided they preferred living in North Harbour to Dannevirke.
I may be a bit thick, but I do take exception to be called dumb. I’ve been around a while. When I bought my first house, rates were for services for the property, i.e, running water to the property, rubbish removal and sewerage disposal. There were no rates for roading as they were managed by Central Goverernment’s Ministry of Works. There were no rates for Police or Fire Service, but I can guess these changes are not too far away. There were no rates for fancy stadiums owned by Private Businesses.
Yes, I agree there is plenty more land available in surrounding areas, but how far out are you prepared to extend?
Whangarei or Hamilton maybe? If not, why not? And then after Whangarei and Hamilton are gobbled up by the Hungry No Limits Auckland Machine, what next? For your argument, there’s no limit.
Then I must comment on some of the things that form part of New Infrastructure?
Maybe another 1000 police, their training, uniforms, offices, motor vehicles, etc, etc.
Maybe another 500 firemen/women, their training, uniforms, offices, motor vehicles, etc, etc.
Maybe another hospital.
Maybe another ten schools.
Maybe another fancy stadium,
You BlairM, seem totally in favour for your taxes/rates to increase three or fourfold and beyond just so Mr and Mrs Average Overseas decide to settle in North Harbour and not pay for their own infrastructure.
So, BlairM, when is not full, full?
Vote: