Smells very much like Auckland is heading for slum tower developments to me.

ANZ excellent as always

What is stopping Auckland from building more houses? Seems like common sense that when there is demand, builders would build more.

William / Jimmy - very good points and logical conclusions.
If there was really such an undersupply we would have seen rents go up too - rents have essentially been static the last 2 years

Don't poop in ya daks, Auckland, your housing problems.........gosh darn it, all your problems, will soon be solved ! The Godfather of politics is on his magnificant way to run your little super-city for you : All hail Lord Mayor Sir Winston Peters !!!!!!!!!!

Sorry the ANZ link should be http://www.anz.co.nz/commercial-institutional/economic-markets-research/...

In an economy that is contracting the issue of a housing shortage is a joke. People struggling to pay rent or mortgages will make use of an extra room to house boarders, relatives, or their returning students. p.s. maybe the new google real estate site will end this debate once and for all- http://maps.google.co.nz/help/maps/realestate/

Trev : there's a knighthood coming, wait and see ; Sir Winston. The golden oldies still love him. And who votes in local government elections......aha !

And do you really believe that this nation's media will ignore the man ? They slobber like hungry dogs at his feet, and he plays to it to the max !

Okay, so there's no national under supply. Just an under supply in NZ's main citys. Or to put it another way an under supply where everyone wants to live.

"Of course, we know that some of those houses are vacant for a reason (holiday homes, etc). But nonetheless, they can be occupied if need be."

I've read some absurd deductions but this is still right up there. No worries that you can't find a home in Auckland, just head on down to Ohakune where you will find 500 unoccupied dwellings.

excellent to see NZ getting bad press in the UK- we can only hope this puts a dent in the government's insidious plans to up immigration levels. But bad press or not, it is really just a simple supply and demand equation - there is not enough jobs to meet the demand of lots of immigrants. So stay away until we need you (and deflate the property market please while you are at it).

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10583027

Jimmy, like you I think immigration needs to be reduced markedly. Although within reason immigration is important and necessary, if it runs rampant I believe it generates more negatives than positives.
Rather than Auckland's planners asking how are we going to accommodate 2 million people by 2030, I think they should be asking the question "how do we limit Auckland's growth to 1.6 million by 2030?"
I'm adamant that a lot of the "business immigrants" we have brought here over the last 10 years have added little to the economy
Sure, brinng in the doctors and other skilled immigrants we need as necessary.
You know, loath as I am to admit it, Winston had some pretty sound views in my opinion.

Matt,

I am wary of anyone who resembles Billy Bowden, even if he is an economist who works for the BNZ.

Winston did have some sounds ideas - although unlike Winston I am more in favour of "ethnic" immigrants as they tend to be poorer and dont come in with a financial advantage over the NZ populace. Aside from the required "doctors" as you say, better to have a population who come in at a lower level and are therefore required to work their way up so their kids can have more opportunities. At the end of the day, wealth is a relative concept, and too many wealthy immigrants make the rest of us poorer in our own country, regardless of the perceived economic boosts. Its interesting to note how countries like Fiji wisened up to this a long time ago and have severe restrictions on many parts of the country. We in NZ need to wisen up before we start resembling the south of Spain or parts of Mexico.

I have to laugh at Mike Bayley's thoughts mentioned above - they're the same as Ross Brader has set out on here before.

The basic premise is that there's a whole lot of pent up demand, and no-one wants to sell, so when they do as prices recover (? - not clear from what he writes) there will be a glut of houses for sale ... so you should sell NOW.

I can't tell if he thinks values are going to fall once volumes return, or if he's simply hoping to drum up business asap. Methinks the latter.

I also had to grin at the comment about tens of millions of $$$ earning only 4.5% in the bank and the renewed interest in commercial property, etc. Bank = close to zero risk, low return. Commercial property syndicates are high risk, medium/low return.