18,000 new houses for Auckland

May 8th, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Auckland mayor Len Brown and Minister Nick Smith have this afternoon announced a third tranche of “Special Areas” for 18,000 new residences under the Auckland Accord.

The announcement was made at a site at 11 Akepiro Street, Mt Eden, set to be developed into 18 units by Ockham Residential.

Big parts of Great North Rd, Otahu Coast, Flat Bush, New Lynn, Northcote, Albany East and Takanini are ear-marked as strategic areas, for big-scale redevelopment.

The Auckland Housing Accord, agreed to last year by Smith and Brown, provides for the creation of SHAs by with the approval of the Government. Qualifying developments in these areas are able to be streamlined and fast-tracked but the areas are raising alarm in areas from Takapuna to Newmarket, as people suddenly realise their streets will change dramatically.

Auckland needs more land and more houses (and more apartment buildings), it’s that simple.

Tags: ,

27 Responses to “18,000 new houses for Auckland”

  1. Viking2 (11,686 comments) says:

    Need to bring in a lot more Chinese immigrants to build them then.
    You can scoff but that’s what will happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Simon (786 comments) says:

    Tractor production is also up! Turnips for everyone. All hail our glorious leaders.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. mister nui (1,030 comments) says:

    Agree on the need for more apartment buildings, but the main point about apartment buildings is location and quality.

    Traditionally, the apartment buildings that have been built in Auckland are of crap quality, in equally crap locations. Look at those god-awful scene one, two and three buildings for example. Tony Gapes should be shot for that monumental blight on the landscape.

    Quality apartment buildings need to be built along the waterfront, where owners will pay a premium for high quality apartments in a fantastic location.

    Unfortunately, all the NIMBYs and fuckwits in Auckland Council will never let this happen, as they think they are the only ones entitled to this land, and would hate to see someone else enjoying the space.

    A good example is some of the great apartments that have been built in Brisbane, along the river.

    I wouldn’t mind renting a quality apartment in a great location such as this, and would pay $1200/week to do so. However, once again, the fools in the council would never let it proceed, as they on their $45,000 salaries could never afford to live there, so the envy would kick in and they would never let something like this proceed.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Steve (North Shore) (4,538 comments) says:

    “Auckland needs more land and more houses (and more apartment buildings), it’s that simple.”
    And more roads, bigger and wider

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Bob R (1,422 comments) says:

    You could also adjust immigration numbers to ease population growth :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. wreck1080 (4,001 comments) says:

    Ah yes, don’t mention the roads.

    Upon visiting Auckland the other week I observed non-peak hour congestion and it is not nice.

    It makes me wonder if they have planned for transport in relation to all the new housing being developed in South/Eastern Auckland.

    There does not seem to be a coordinated plan.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Viking2 (11,686 comments) says:

    Nick and Len will fix it all for ya’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    It has always amazed me how we continue to feed the monster that Auckland has become.

    We continue to allow industries to be based in the area, forcing more people to live in the area, forcing more industry to be based in the area and so on.

    Why don’t they just say ENOUGH!
    We have other good ports, and plenty of areas that money could be spent on to make them an active place to live – thus reducing the pressure on Auckland and sharing the load about.

    If we are going to pay people to move to Chch — why not pay them double to move away from Auckland?

    It just doesn’t make sense to me for them to keep doing what they are doing – perhaps someone can tell me what is sensible about it, because clearly I’ve missed the point of why the continued focused effort.
    *(Yes I know they think Auckland needs to extend by 22% to become a competitive international city – but is that what we want?)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. dime (10,222 comments) says:

    Cool. Dime likes development.

    Hopefully the council will behave itself and we get decent housing.

    36,000 new homes at say 2k rates a year? that should cover len browns hotel bill

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Bob R (1,422 comments) says:

    @ Viking2,

    That is what is anticipated as the new electric train advertisement suggests. Auckland is anticipated to become majority Asian. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7iyt7r-U5Q

    It’s interesting to review the origins of NZ’s change in approach to immigration in the mid 1980’s. This paper by Walker provides an interesting overview. A number of the issues Walker raised 20 years ago remain:

    “In this scenario, enriching the multicultural fabric of New Zealand society entailed turning away from traditional sources of immigrants from Europe and turning towards Asia by abolishing national origin as a factor in immigrant selection. This expansion of the sources of immigrants was founded more on economic motives than the liberal rejection of the former racial preference for European migrants. The Government felt that the inflow of capital is more likely to proceed in an environment which welcomes human as well as financial investment….

    If immigration is to be a means of breaking with a stagnant past, sizeable migrant numbers should be admitted. …With an annual intake of 20-40,000, and an annual population growth rate of 1.7 percent between now and the year 2021, the New Zealand population would then reach 6 million.

    The long-term down stream costs of immigration-driven economic growth are not considered by its protagonists. If Kasper’s suggestion is implemented, the population would be 2 million above the projected four million from natural increase. The doubling of New Zealand’s population in a mere thirty years by a ‘man-made’ intervention has serious implications for increased pollution, traffic congestion, environmental degradation, and maintenance of the quality of life which New Zealanders have hitherto taken for granted. In metropolitan Auckland for instance, in-fill housing has already increased traffic congestion. Commuting times are more than double what they were ten years ago…

    They have escaped from overcrowded, traffic-congested, pollution-plagued homelands – often with repressive governments – to a land which is idyllic by comparison. The good fortune is theirs to be allowed into New Zealand, the last ‘lifeboat’ on earth. But, should we continue the policy being followed now of doubling our popula-tion every thirty years, then it would be only a matter of time before the conditions from which the immigrants have escaped will be replicated in New Zealand.”

    http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0402/article_316.shtml

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Lance (2,719 comments) says:

    Hey Judith
    ‘Central planning’ by compulsion doesn’t work, never has, never will.
    The Soviets fantasized it could be done, but they were wrong

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (901 comments) says:

    Labour’s housing policy KiwiBuild will magically build one new house every hour….so this is nothing great…moving on bro…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Lance (2,314 comments) says:
    May 8th, 2014 at 12:24 pm

    Well it appears to me that our government has been pouring money into Auckland for decades, and therefore central planning is exactly what we have had in essence, if not on paper.

    And therefore you are right – it hasn’t worked.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Kimbo (1,265 comments) says:

    Labour’s housing policy KiwiBuild will magically build one new house every hour….so this is nothing great…moving on bro…

    Fair enough.

    Do they also have a plan to eliminate hunger in schools via 5 loaves and 2 fish named ‘KiwiBreakfast’?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Alan (1,087 comments) says:

    Auckland is great, people like living here.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. RRM (10,104 comments) says:

    but the areas are raising alarm in areas from Takapuna to Newmarket, as people suddenly realise their streets will change dramatically.

    :evil: We didn’t move to the biggest city in NZ to be surrounded by tall apartment buildings!!!

    There must be some way I can complain about this and stop other people from doing what they want.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ RRM (9,056 comments) says:
    May 8th, 2014 at 12:59 pm

    What part of Auckland do you live in?
    Do you know what the historical plan for that area was?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. RRM (10,104 comments) says:

    Judith –

    The historical plan for Auckland was to build a city in the wilderness. People would do well to get back to those basics IMHO.

    Before I traded Auckland for the rural South Wairarapa, I used to live in Mount Eden / Epsom and commute to East Tamaki every day.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. wreck1080 (4,001 comments) says:

    @bobr:

    Europeans and maoris will become minorities in NZ. On current projections.

    I used to visit the queen st spacies parlours back in the 80’s — back then, it was the maori kids playing the most.

    90’s — the maoris were replaced by the asian kids. It was a noticeable change.

    I’m against it, i like my european culture and don’t want my kids to become a targeted minority .

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Akaroa (615 comments) says:

    What is it about apartment living that so many Kiwis find so awful? Its a great solution to the where/how shall we live question.

    We’ve lived all over the World – in stand-alone houses, in terraced houses and in apartment blocks.

    Having experienced them all, give me a well-appointed apartment block with underground/on site parking any day. No garden, no outside to keep tidy, and – in most apartment complexes – no noisy/badly-behaved neighbours’ children to put up with.

    And, no, I’m not a miserable nimby. We’ve brought up three children of our own, but at this time of life – (60 plus) – we’d prefer a nice, clean, quiet, conveniently located apartment that we can turn the key on and not worry about vandalism or break-ins when we swan off on holiday.

    Vive apartment living!!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Yogibear (375 comments) says:

    The elephant in the room is the transport network. These are just the short term SHAs. The real action happens in 2020 -2030.

    The Southern Growth Area (the old Franklin District) alone will be bigger than 60% of the Wellington region, with all the employment to the North, yet its served by (at best) 4 lanes of motorway and 6 trains an hour.

    Wellington gets up to 5 lanes of motorway and 23 trains an hour for roughly the same type of travel (i.e. people travelling from the North to go the employment centers in the South).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. dog_eat_dog (788 comments) says:

    No garage, no deal. Need somewhere to work on cars and to store things.

    Also most of the CBD development will be on leasehold land, enjoy the value of your apartment plummeting because the local iwi need a few new Dodge Rams or whatever they drive these days.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. hj (7,186 comments) says:

    Akaroa (491 comments) says:
    we’d prefer a nice, clean, quiet, conveniently located apartment that we can turn the key on and not worry about vandalism or break-ins when we swan off on holiday.
    …….
    but that only happens at the top end of the market. The majority have to do with a squeeze. The problem is that whereas in Singapore the state owns most of the land and can re-develop a whole block at once doing it sympathetically. What is being propsed in Auckland and elsewhere is zone changing and encroachment.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. hj (7,186 comments) says:

    Driving population growth is government policy.
    A recent Treasry paper has this to say:

    3.4.2 Large population increase?

    In theory, a high rate of immigration over an extended period could greatly increase
    New Zealand’s population, allowing productivity gains from economies of scale, both from
    conventional sources and the particular effects identified by economic geographers.
    However, the 2025 Taskforce, set up to provide advice to the government on how to close
    the income gap with Australia, did not favour greatly expanding immigration and
    68
    considered this approach unrealistic and potentially “enormously disruptive”.

    If in New Zealand’s situation a much larger population would greatly improve viability,
    69
    growth and resilience, disruption may be worth the cost. A larger population is
    technically feasible; New Zealand has similar land area to countries with much larger
    populations (for example, the United Kingdom or Japan). The historical growth of Australia
    over the 19th century, or California during the 20th century provide precedents for large
    population increases.

    However, just because greatly increasing population is feasible does not mean it is a wise
    strategy. While there is clear evidence that within countries, large urban agglomerations
    70
    have higher incomes and productivity, there is no such evidence across countries
    (bigger, more densely-populated countries are not richer than smaller countries with more
    71
    scattered populations). The observation that the very highest productivity is found in
    large urban areas producing knowledge-based products does not mean all societies can
    or should attempt to recreate the San Francisco Bay Area or London. When what is now
    the United States rust belt was the global productivity leader, many other regions
    improved their wellbeing through industrial development on a less extensive and less
    productive scale. Today New Zealand or other productivity “followers” may be able to
    materially improve productivity and living standards from current levels without adopting a
    large scale agglomeration strategy. Silicon Valley also illustrates the limitations of such
    strategies; notwithstanding the presence of Silicon Valley, the State of California has
    serious economic and fiscal problems. Similarly, Israel has a thriving innovative hi-tech
    sector, similar population, and comparable overall productivity to New Zealand.

    To make a judgment on whether a large increase in population is necessary or wise more
    information would be required on both costs (including environmental, social, and cultural
    costs) and benefits. Two key questions are how large the increase would need to be to
    realise the benefits, and to what extent New Zealand’s level of geographic isolation would
    continue to act as a brake on performance even with a large population.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. hj (7,186 comments) says:

    Lance (2,314 comments) says:
    May 8th, 2014 at 12:24 pm

    Hey Judith
    ‘Central planning’ by compulsion doesn’t work, never has, never will.
    The Soviets fantasized it could be done, but they were wrong
    …….

    During my visit to Houston there was much fuss about a high-rise apartment being build next to a very plush community of single family homes. The pro-zoning elite were using this as an argument for a comprehensive city plan complete with zoning and the usual host of regulations and controls.
    However, people who buy into a neighbourhood controlled by a Homeowners’ Association know very well that the edge properties are vulnerable to such unexpected activities and hence sell at a considerable discount. Buyers pay their money and accept the risk.

    Houston – the well-planned City without a Plan
    Owen McShane

    May 1, 2014 | Updated: May 1, 2014 9:19pm

    Developers can move forward with the proposed Ashby high-rise after a much-anticipated ruling Thursday by a judge who agreed the tower is a nuisance for its immediate neighbors but concluded there was no way he could stop the project or determine a more appropriate alternative.

    “If an injunction is granted, there is no question but that it will have a chilling effect on other developments in Houston,” wrote state District Judge Randy Wilson, a stance that drew mostly positive comments from the development community for eliminating uncertainty for groups considering future projects.

    But Wilson also awarded $1.2 million in damages to 20 of those residents who had filed suit against the developer, Buckhead Investment Partners of Houston. While that is $438,000 less than a jury recommended in December, it still reflects a belief that those who live closest to the project, on a 1.6-acre site at 1717 Bissonnet, will see their property values suffer.

    In firmly denying the residents’ primary request, however, Wilson said a permanent injunction would be difficult to enforce and would invite an “endless series of lawsuits” testing various tweaks and revisions to the project’s scope.

    “A 21-story residential development is believed by the neighbors (and the jury) to be too big,” Wilson said in the ruling. “However, this court has zero evidence with which to find what size is just right.”

    http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/real-estate/article/Ashby-ruling-allows-high-rise-to-go-forward-
    V’s Singapore
    http://citiwire.net/columns/a-nation-of-public-housing/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Lance (2,719 comments) says:

    @Judith
    If you can’t tell the difference between a housing scheme vs the state forced placement for various private businesses outside of main centres….
    Then you cant tell shit from clay.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Steve (North Shore) (4,538 comments) says:

    Len won’t fix Jack Shit. He wants TRAINS, and that means heavy subsidies.
    The Council interest bill is now ONE MILLION DOLLARS per DAY

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote