In this section
Property Columnists
The comment stream
Recent comments
- 1 of 25924
- ››
Editors choice
- 1 of 365
- ››
Property news stream
Latest news
- How different is Auckland from the rest of NZ? 40
- ANZ's 'best ever' home loan offer 6
- Aucklanders urged to have their say
- Westpac grows mortgages with LVRs below 80%
- Women tops in Auckland real estate 76
- Auckland mayor lauds 'real options' 23
- 'Aucklanders should have right to choose' 4
- House price expectations ease 2
- Let's get rid of property CVs 20
- Auckland's Unitary Plan will make housing less affordable 40
Most commented
- Is Vancouver a good housing example for Auckland? 132
- Thousands more Auckland houses promised 102
- 'Let's plonk houses in paddocks' 83
- Women tops in Auckland real estate 76
- Auckland housing market 'hard to label a bubble' 61
- IRD to target property investors 57
- Policy is at the root of our housing problems 52
- Govt's pre-fab state house plan 50
- House price pressure builds 44
- How different is Auckland from the rest of NZ? 40
Most viewed
- How different is Auckland from the rest of NZ? 40
- ANZ's 'best ever' home loan offer 6
- Women tops in Auckland real estate 76
- Aucklanders urged to have their say
- Auckland's Unitary Plan will make housing less affordable 40
- Westpac grows mortgages with LVRs below 80%
- BNZ introduces lowest 1yr mortgage rate 9
- Auckland mayor lauds 'real options' 23
- Bernard's property buying tool kit 6
- Let's get rid of property CVs 20
Here's the RUB; How Auckland Council wants to make greenfields land available in a planned way over 30 years to avoid the sprawl of the 1970s
By Gareth Vaughan
Auckland's Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse says Aucklanders want planned and progressive development, not a smashing of the city's metropolitan urban limit as sought by the central government, to meet the SuperCity's housing and population growth demands.
Hulse spoke to interest.co.nz at the launch of the council's draft Unitary Plan, which as Hulse puts it is the rule book explaining to Aucklanders what they can and can't do on their property. She said it also sets out how Auckland will accommodate the extra million people it's forecast to get over the next 30 years.
The launch of the plan comes as the difference of opinion between central government and local government on how to tackle housing affordability in Auckland grows. Housing Minister Nick Smith said this week Auckland needs double the supply of land for housing to meet the council’s own targets.
Hulse said the council had taken a deep breath and reminded Smith the work in the Unitary Plan was exactly what he's asking for.
"To look at how much we can plan to build outside what were the old metropolitan urban limits and that's why we've developed the rural-urban boundary, the RUB," said Hulse. "And this carefully sets out land that's going to be released in a planned way over the next 30 years."
"We're looking at really ramping up the amount of green field land that's available, but we're not doing it in a random, scatter gun approach. We're looking at the kind of infrastructure that needs to be developed, we're making sure that we protect our really vibrant agricultural industries that are out there in our green fields areas," she said.
'The Minister might not have understood'
Related Topics
Smith also recently said Auckland's metropolitan urban limit is a stranglehold that needs to be "smashed" if houses are to be made affordable for families in the city. But Hulse argues this wouldn't achieve what he wants to achieve.
"The Minister might not quite have understood clearly the planning that's needed to do this and by smashing the metropolitan urban limit, that's not the way you actually achieve what he's desiring. Planned and progressive development within that rural-urban boundary is what our community has asked for."
Hulse said Auckland Council's plan is to make green fields land available in a planned way over the next 30 years.
"We're certainly looking at a satellite town down in Pukekohe, so that extends the size of Pukekohe, we're looking up in Warkworth. It'll grow a little bit. Silverdale, out in Kumeu/Huapai, there'll be some development out there and down in the Franklin area. But these are really delicate discussions to have with our community," said Hulse.
"But we're certainly looking at making sure that land is available in a planned way over the next 30 years in these areas."
The council wants 60% of development within the current urban area and 40% outside in the RUB. Hulse said the council was opposed to the "random release of land" without proper planning.
"It's just as complex planning on the fringes as it is with intensification. We also need schools and community facilities otherwise we repeat the old mistakes of the past in the 70s where Auckland was allowed to sprawl, no libraries were built, no community facilities, no schools were planned and these communities were left stranded and we're now picking up the cost."
Although the Unitary Plan isn't specifically directed at Auckland housing affordability issues, the council's housing affordability strategy is, it will clearly have a major impact on housing in and around Auckland.
"We've got a housing shortage in Auckland at the moment and to accommodate the extra million people that will be coming into Auckland in the next 30 years we need 400,000 new dwellings. So roughly do the maths, we need about 10,000 new dwellings a year," said Hulse. "Currently we're certainly not providing that amount of dwellings and that's for a range of reasons. But we're looking at addressing that imbalance and buildings being built within the metropolitan urban limit and outside in the rural-urban boundary."
Last year Auckland Council consented just 4,581 residential dwellings. Of these 3,930 were houses and 651 apartments.
'Only 10% of the Auckland region is going to be allowed to have apartments'
The Unitary Plan also proposes allowing 18 storey apartment blocks in what are considered to be metropolitan centres such as Albany, Henderson, Manukau, and New Lynn. It also proposes eight, six or four story apartments in town centres such as Avondale, Milford, Onehunga, Glen Eden, Papatoetoe, Devonport, Mt Albert, and Warkworth. There has been much kerfuffle about the prospect of Auckland becoming dominated by high rises, something that clearly irks Hulse.
"The last thing we want to do is turn Auckland into a suburban jungle," she said. "Only 10% of the whole Auckland region is actually going to be even allowed to have apartments."
"At the moment places like Takapuna, New Lynn actually have no height limits so we're actually imposing height limits in these areas," Hulse added. "And what's more you won't have apartment buildings being built right next to stand alone houses. The Unitary Plan simply won't let that happen."
And the so-called metropolitan centres, where it's proposed to allow 18 story apartments, are either on railways or good transportation corridors and already have some high density, she said.
Asked which other cities the Auckland Council had turned to for tips on urban planning, Pulse said Vancouver was one, and Cape Town's waterfront was another. They'd also looked at what has worked in Britain in terms of the regeneration of older areas. The council wasn't however, simply looking to mimic other cities as it was keen not to lose Auckland's "own vibe."
127 Comments
I think she's giving Nick
I think she's giving Nick Smith her one finger salute!
Which makes sense....ie force
Which makes sense....ie force the Govn to act / override and take responsibility in doing so.
regards
I wonder how much property
I wonder how much property she owns.
Aucklanders, we need to vote these muppets out...
That's a very good idea, but
That's a very good idea, but there is a good chance that they will only be replaced by another set of muppets. Once people get the power to spend other people's money their brains seem to turn to mush. How many people in Akld think that this problem could be avoided by simply not increasing the Akld population. However with this solution many staff at ACC would not have anything to do.
I'm genuinely interested in
I'm genuinely interested in your policy ideas for limiting Auckland's population, given 69% of recent growth is attributable to natural increase, and that we don't have an 'internal passport' policy like China for restricting where people (both external and internal migrants) can live.
My feeling is this. If we did
My feeling is this.
If we did not have em, would we miss em.
And the simple answer is NO.
Why we kneed more AWKLANDERS and their "DEAR LEADERS".... to dip in our pockets, waste time, effort, money, resources, I have yet to understand.
If people cannot live within their own means, in my considerable lifetime.....What the hell are they gonna do in the future.?????,,,with more drop-outs.
We have way too many POLLY-TICKERS, SNIVEL SERPENTS, HANGERS_ ON, CON_SULTANTS, IN_VESTORS, IMMI_GIMME_GRANTS, COPS, ROBBERS, NO_JUSTICE SYSTEMS, PRISONS, DRUG-UNITS, SOCIAL_NOT_WORKERS, BLUDGERS of all other ilks.....INDIGINOUS, IMPORTED and MANUAFACTURED by AUNTY HELL-ENS... WFF..........all wasting the TAXPAYERS ....MONEY.
This is a country of 4 million, we have enough people, we just do not have any GAIN-FULLY....employed.
If we did, we would not need any of the ABOVE.
It's not even funny, you are
It's not even funny, you are a real loser.
Actually I love his/her
Actually I love his/her posts, very insightful....
regards
Agreed; I second that
Agreed; I second that opinion!
The biggest Bludgers, the people in power! Nothing easier than spending OPM!
HGW
I have been trying to point
I have been trying to point out the true meaning of beneficiary for some time now, but SL nails it effectively and elloquently :-)
I usually only humour people
I usually only humour people on Fridays.....Hence why I will glaze over your comments....briefly..
Double or nuffin.
OH ....the hurt I have to endure.
But I will humour your wittiscisms, as they deserve.
I see you have been blackballed for one comment....
Here is another kick in the gonads.
I am a real loser. I freely admit it, I chose it as my MONIKER....DUH.
No debts,
No problems,
No need to rant and rave.
No real need for CAPITALS to make a point, no need to abuse those of a lower case disposition.
I use simple words to try to wake up this very strange world to the fact that idiots are running this country and most others, the banks etc and creating the biggest problems mankind and most countries have ever endured....and handing em on to our children and our childrens ....children.
And collectively are the biggest beneficiaries and crooks we have ever known....and have created even more.
They steal without compunction and create more problems, socially, ethically and internationally than those that led to the last world war.
They will almost certainly create further mayhem, than they will ever fix.
For they broke the World...I did not. They counterfeited money...I did not.
I could explain further, but you would have to understand what is going on WORLDWIDE.......hence why I did not use any long words or CAPITALS more than warranted...... ...this time.
It was not worth the EFFORT.
Afectionally yours.
A Very Sore Loser.
PS...sheesh.....even got the Vote of the DAY...and put this in the wrong place......how will I ever live it down.
Absolutely brilliant, SL. And
Absolutely brilliant, SL. And funny as well.
Boycott taxes collectively. Deposit the money into an account managed by rates-payers associations. Disburse cash only for approved (by referendum!) purposes. Stuff the POLLY- TICKERS, and their cronnies.
We do not need to be treated like teenagers by the people we elect into power, and we certainly don't have to put up with it. Why do we...?
It's time to yell: WE"RE NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!! Everyone, in unison. The internet provides a perfect medium for it, and NZ will lead the way for the world to see.
Sincerely,
HGW
Aucklanders want to be able
Aucklanders want to be able to live in the city without being jammed together. I'm still unsure why I should have a shoebox house/section/apartment because planners 30 years ago couldn't get their shit together. You know, the same people who just happen to think this is best for all of us now. These guys had their chance.
--------- edited
--------- edited ------------
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making these comments. Ed
Not needed...
Not needed...
Thanks for your stunning
Thanks for your stunning critique of my comment, but my point still stands. Surely it would be in everyone's best interest for the council to come up with a blueprint for greenfields suburbs with decent levels of council services, rather than just jamming everyone together in a bid to overcome their own shortcomings. They can't get service delivery and budgeting right for 1.3 million, how is jamming in an extra million going to make them any better at it?
Go and live in LA if you are
Go and live in LA if you are not happy with it. You have NO IDEA what has gone into developing this plan and we are still in consultation phase so stop moaning and be sensible. ---- edited ---- Happy for robust critique of ideas; personal abuse not welcome. Ed
This may upset you, but the
This may upset you, but the idea of a plan being open for submission is because they want feedback on it. The process isn't called "sod off if you don't like it", they want feedback and discussing it on an internet discussion board is very much in line with the whole process.
What isn't is dishing out insults and refusing to actually discuss the merits of the ideas within, and I've taken the liberty (and a small amount of joy) of reporting your continued stream of abuse and lack of contribution to the attention of the moderators. Christ be with you.
From what I've seen of the
From what I've seen of the majority of these kinds of planning systems, they don't want feedback on how to develop the plan - they want feedback on which option they think they can stick to people, and how the best way to market it is. The selectable "options" will have already been laid out by "experts" behind close doors well before they bring it to public notice. (and most of their experts couldn't plan or market their way out of a brown paper bag, which is why they're parasiting off council and bureaucrats)
The real difficulty is not
The real difficulty is not the council level (although they have expert levels of ineptitude).
It's that people are not going to be willing to pay full price for development, and that falls back on councils.... just look at the people already blaming the town planners of 30yrs ago. But if you said to Auckland ratepayers 30yrs ago that they have to pay for infrastructure capable of handling 5million people, you would have had a riot!!
Just look how much they bitch and demand of government to pay for infrastructure to handle their current needs!!
Why do the journalists pander
Why do the journalists pander to them so much? Where are the questions like "Do you live in a shoebox apartment or in a proper house? Why do they let them tell us what is good is for us? Long live the Auckland 10 year plan comrades!
Your translation matrix is a
Your translation matrix is a bit broken Roger, let me correct that for you:
"shoebox appartment": Fully serviced central living space, with low maintenance requirements within a few minutes access of the cities best ammenities and cultural spots, low rates and insurance, no need to fork out for expensive cars or petrol. Never worry about getting 'Key'ed' again.
"proper house": aging asset in need of constant maintenance and upgrades, a moderate to long traffic filled journey to anywhere, hang out in your 'garage' playing with tools to make things you don't need to fill up said 'garage'. You can do this in your spare time...when you're not communting everywhere or maintaining your house. Or trying to get extra work hours to pay for the car, rates, insurance, or that lawn/deck that you kinda remember having purchased.
Do yo uhave idea what a decent sized city appartment is worth in a real city (as opposed to oversized towns/suburbia) (Addendum: to get things really hopping you not only have to get over the 'farm fence', but you also have to cross the wastelands of the 'suburban desert' (and it's associated constant financal and psychological drain)
Well put mist42nz!!
Well put mist42nz!! "Jamming" and "shoebox" are examples of negative words people use without logical thinking.
Ah Mist, there you have it.
Ah Mist, there you have it. The utilitarian ideal. A small space is required because you don't need stuff. All is provided by the central planners.
Call me awkward, but I like having space and having stuff and doing things with my stuff. Yes, I don't need it; but, you see, I am not a cog in a machine.
http://thoughtmaybe.com/pandoras-box/
Yes that is nice if it's your
Yes that is nice if it's your cup of tea.
Lots of time wasted, lots of equity and cashflow tied up.
With full metro style living there are a lot less overheads. Leaving time to pursue cultural and real city style activities. The lack of car payments/insurance/fuel, and the lack of section rates and house/deck do-ups leaves more disposable for the income that is received.
That's highly fluid liquidity - add in moderate rental cost vs mortgage interest payments on a highly leveraged asset..... All that cash has to go somewhere. Investment portfolio, career tuning, retirement, they choose. Eating out most nights isn't so bad when the travel factor, cooking time, washup time, ingredients are discounted out of the purchase price. The difference in cost small considering the other savings. And such disposable income in large numbers in tight spaces.... that's a new economic space (well new for NZ)....
Again not my cup of tea either. But then neither is my current scenairo....
My dog got a lot of enjoyment
My dog got a lot of enjoyment out of chasing its tail when it was young.
Your scenario is all nice in theory, but you can end up chasing your tail; living in an expensive inner city apartment and eating out at expensive inner city restaurants and fighting the resulting fat at an expensive inner city gym whilst working long hours at a well paid but high pressure job to pay for it. Taking expensive overseas holidays where you wear yourself down getting to see as many sights as you can in your limited time off. Round and round, until either you burn out or you get fired at the next recession when your job ceases to exist.
Be a good cog now comrade.
Quick question mist42nz How
Quick question mist42nz
How do you bring up a family in a high rise apartment? Room for the kids to muck around in the back yard? To wander down the road toa sports field or school or mate's house?
High rise apartments may work for empty nesters, Friends-style childless workers and students, but I have my doubts about wanting to bring up a family in one of them.
I think this is at the heart of the political pain that Len Brown and Penny Hulse face. They have lost middle NZ's family dream.
I also wonder where they brought up their families.
cheers
Bernard
Absolutely spot on Bernard.
Absolutely spot on Bernard.
That's not how I interpret
That's not how I interpret the Plan, though unfortunately it may be the most prominent message in the political rhetoric. To me, it looks like an attempt to increase zoning capacity nearer centres, corridors and amenities (beaches etc) - the most in-demand places with the highest prices - at the same time as opening up land on the periphery for more standalone houses. Seems a pretty balanced attempt at accomodating growth and all types of housing choices. No plan can force anyone to build anything - this one doesn't. That's the market's job.
It's not how I see the plan
It's not how I see the plan either. Have neither read it nor care about. I'm talking about how cities and metropolitian areas grow. From farmland, to one pub villages, up to marketburghs and cathedrals; what are the incomes and markets required to make them work, what are the fundamentals which govern their survival. The specialisation of farm tasks might allow for a blacksmith or builder/thatcher to be freed from subsistance labour long enough to train and develop higher level income (manufactured product spread across a wider customer base, consuming small amounts while providing higher return tools. And enough blacksmiths might allow time for a engineer to emerge and study the workflow....and a sales and market team to make sure the product reaches those who can use it (and fight off competition). But how does that get you 2 million people into the size of lake Taupo (and keep them happy!) or NewYork/Manhattan (and keep them mostly sane).
The "Plan" sounds like more 'options' from bumpkin New Zealanders with their heads stuck in the past and their own industry interest/focus. Not that they're corrupt, just not skilled to the multidisplinary level that our fellow countries are. So they'll do more of the same because that's what their job descriptions say.
Such experts are probably lucky that all these Chinese (and other foreign) buyers don't know anything about population growth, or large cities. Or how to spot a city on the edge of a growth spurt, where certain areas and services will be in demand 10-30 yrs forwards. (imagine if you'd brought a dozen buildings in CBD HongKong/Singapore 30 years ago....
But it's got that these foreigners aren't allowed to buy critical infrastructure, you know local expert information property, food supplies (farms, market gardens), factories (machinery and manufactured goods), power (energy is key), communications, transport facilities (all prices contain a transportation factor). Because it's not like those people know anything about large populations or how to get strangleholds on the economy.... because we have all those chairwarmers in council and OIO to watch out for that kind of progressive holding.
Bernard, for housing
Bernard, for housing affordability you need to build high rise pidgeon holes on low cost land. But to propose highrise in a neighbourhood of traditonal villas where prices are already skyhigh will not result in affordable accomodation. Developers having paid a high price for the land will have to build expensive large apartments with all the trimmings. Basically million dollar apartments as we have seen in Parnell. This is starting to look like a Auckland Council cash grab, with higher rates for plush apartments rather than a push for affordable housing.
Can you please identify area
Can you please identify area where the plan actually proposes "highrise in a neighbourhood of traditonal villas where prices are already skyhigh"?
That's not hard. For example
That's not hard. For example along Remuera Road and Ascot Ave, also Clonbern Road and St Vincent Ave. There are a lot of traditional villas around.
These are areas that are
These are areas that are already zoned Res7 and in the past zoned for bigger apartments - there's already apartments there, some 15 floors high - then down zoned. Zoning areas that already have apartments for apartments is not the same as plonking new apartment zones in the middle of traditional areas.
Freaking out about an area that has large apartment buildings getting zoned for... apartment buildings?
I am not freaking out duh~
I am not freaking out duh~
Some people are. They think
Some people are. They think they're gonna be forced to live in high rises as soon as it's operative.
Any apartment/terrace or mixed house zoning in a traditional neighbourhood also must comply with the pre 1944 demolition control being an RC activity. So even if they have zoned higher density in a traditional neighbourhood they have also got a rule to stop any development happening.
Bernard. The point is that
Bernard. The point is that we need both 'proper houses' and 'shoeboxes'. it's not that one is correct and the other just wrong. Different times of our lives we need different things. And someitmes we just want to live one way - or the other.
Mist was making a very good point about language. And suggesting we look behind the current words and think what these options really are
Quick Answer Bernard. You
Quick Answer Bernard. You need to watch that episode of "Friends" - The one about Rosses House. If you want to move into the 1950's you're welcome to try.
These things you mention are all being accomplished all around the world. Sports fields become sports centers, many more activities and the higher disposable income in the area, coupled with access to increased population density makes cover sports grounds viable...if they're planned early even better! A mates house or school is only a few blocks away, although the former is likely to be an ingame chat session away most of the time. But if you want to hang, it's no different to today.
And while my kids occasionally used their backyard swing set for a few months, and the trampoline once in a while... the main thing the back and front yards are used for are to grow grass that needs mowing!! I doubt there will be too much complaint about not having to do that chore!
The point I'm making is that these are the forces coming into plan, and the resources that will be needed. Far better to plan out those services well in advance - before people try to put up elcheapo project high rise buildings. Develop towards low crime systems, and easy to access amenities before we end up like Britomart trying to rip out half of the most expensive real estate in NZ for basic services....
Here is one that Hugh should
Here is one that Hugh should read, was part of the reading list for my urban design paper.
http://www.amazon.com/On-Streets-Stanford-Anderson/dp/0262510391
Where in the Plan does it
Where in the Plan does it stipulate that families must live in high rise apartments? Why is such a small area zoned for apartments if everyone has to live in one? Why won't people be able to live in the majority of the city that's zoned for traditional houses?
Where do you get the idea that everyone is in a nuclear 50's family and wants what you want?
Roger, you don't understand
Roger, you don't understand what utilitarian means. But no worries, carry on not being a cog (hillarious)
Really? You like stuff and
Really? You like stuff and costs and maintenance?
Well, actually I used to love
Well, actually I used to love it. The pride of ownership, being a proper fully paid up home owning citizen with a mortgage and lawns to mow and hedges to trim and children to look after. Now I just rent a new 220 sq metre house for $495 a week, the wife is happy, but it ain't the same.
They're doing both is how I
They're doing both is how I interpret it. Read the addendum on the RUB boundary - they're allowing for several hundred thousand people to live in new structure-planned greenfield areas.
You dont have to have a
You dont have to have a shoebox...just move out of auckland.
As long as you're willing to "pay what it takes" at full open market prices (including resulting transport and parking fees) then I agree you should be able to pay $500k for a "near to Auckland" section. Just think how the capital gain will make it worth more in the future!
Exactly. The problem is
Exactly. The problem is everyone wants to live in Auckland. I have a property outside. Big mistake. Nice property though. 2 bedrooms with massive decks, lakefront, 5000sqm, 50 minutes from Auckland central off peak renting at $230 a week. No takers at $350k.
Here's the thing I don't get
Here's the thing I don't get with this view: the Council isn't forcing higher density, just enabling it through more flexible zoning and rules. They're actually reducing regulation, which is an approach I like. If someone doesn't want to sell or develop their land to a higher density, they don't have to - just continue living on your land as you are. It'll probably go up in value because the allowable development potential is that much greater - suits me. It's called the market, and it's called choice. That is something I would have thought most commentators here would embrace.
Could you please point out
Could you please point out where in the Unitary Plan it specifies that you'll have to live in a "shoebox house/section/apartment" and not be allowed to live in the Single House zone?
Penny is going to fix the
Penny is going to fix the problems that people like her in the past caused, and in 30 years time someone else like her will fix the problems that she is causing today. Unless............
I am not an Aucklander and i
I am not an Aucklander and i have not read the plan.
It strikes me that a council can designate a site as suitable for an 18 story building. But what if the developer only builds a 10 story building. What then? Another housing shortance later?
Deal with it when it happens,
Deal with it when it happens, lets focus on the plan, NO IF's NO BUTT's!
Exactly, and the longer that
Exactly, and the longer that landowners designated for development hold off developing the more valuable their land becomes. So this is not a plan for action.
Exactly what I am planning to
Exactly what I am planning to do - good idea :)
Indeed, I have a 2300sqm site
Indeed, I have a 2300sqm site which I had hoped to develop. But is zoned Living 2. Anyone can tell me what Living 2 is?
Also please explain Living 1? Got a 807sqm site there as well
These are not Unitary Plan
These are not Unitary Plan zones. Sound like existing zonings in Waitakere City or Manukau.
Type the address in here to get the Unitary Plan zonings:
http://acmaps.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/unitaryplan/FlexViewer/index.html
That’s why it is important to
That’s why it is important to open the boundaries up and out. This gives those that do not want to develop the choice not to, but at the same time helps negate land bankers being able to restrict supply to force prices up, and yet allows plenty of supply so those that do develop have plenty of competition and prices are more affordable.
Interesting that while we are
Interesting that while we are talking about expanding, in the US they are experiencing contraction, well in the rate of growth at least.
Exurbs, the far-flung suburbs on the edge of metropolitan areas, continue to see their growth fizzle after their heady days during the housing boom. Growth dipped last year to 0.35 percent, the lowest in more than a decade. In 2006, exurban growth was as high as 2.1 percent.
Census: Record 1 In 3 Counties Now Dying Off, Hit By Aging Population, Weakened Local Economies
cost of travel is starting to
cost of travel is starting to hit home over there. Lifestyles are changing, and more metro yuppy-descendants don't see the need for lawns, when a decent apartment and school is more important
Really? Isn't that just a
Really?
Isn't that just a reflection that these young apartment-lovers have actually given up o n having kids and families.
A painfully low birth rate isn't good for anyone.
chers
Bernard
When was the last time your
When was the last time your family played on the lawn....
Go to the park, the beach, swimming pool, library, an arcade, a movie, streetevent, or play a video game.
Some don't have families, some do. Many who want to have families move out to the suburban area, and put their kids in daycare/school/aftercare for almost their entire waking hours (not covered by above suggestions.)
My point is two-fold. NOW is the time for REAL planning of future Auckland, including transport designed without private cars. Do it now so the future city can grow into it, unlike the growing pains of playing catchup. There are examples of what modern cities look like and need all around the globe.... do you really think NZ will somehow be the exception? If so I'd love to hear why!
The second, is have you wondered why and where the money for those residental condo's and highrises come from, why so many people live and work in CBD type areas? Basically, the lack of overheads creates the extra disposable cash for that expensive metro style culture to spring up.
So we have population, disposable capital, and demand for time and fancy lifestyles. Confidence in contract is the only thing missing to make it a functioning market......
You tell me why it won't happen. Moss grows towards resources, it's a natural phenomena, and nothing is resisting it.....
Exactly Bermard, Hong Kong
Exactly Bermard, Hong Kong has a birth rate of 1.1% half the replacement rate. When I had a stop over there for a few days last year. The only place I could take my kids, one who was in a pram was shopping malls. The streets were impossible, no ramps, just stairs, no parks, no play grounds and a population who were unfamiliar with what kids need.
A crashing birth rate is another social wide cost of unaffordable housing.
With all that peripheral
With all that peripheral development, I hope they plan to double the amount of car parking in the existing Auckland area....
No carparking. Thats what the
No carparking. Thats what the billion dollar railway loop is for.
This is supposed to be a
This is supposed to be a Unitary Plan? You have to be joking. What is Living 1 and Living 2??? Does not look any different from the Waitakere council plans of old. I was hoping they would all be on one plan, preferably all on the old Auckland city. This is one bull shit Unitary that does not unite to one plan.
I find these plans difficult
I find these plans difficult reading. Maybe I am a bit slow. Can anyone tell me what the zoning on Pukeiti Road, Otahuhu allows?
Also Roseman Avenue, Mt Roskill
Also Boyce Avenue, Lynfield North
Some help please?
Pukeiti Rd - east side -
Pukeiti Rd - east side - terrace/apartment zone (no minimum section size for developments up to 14m high)
Pukeiti Rd - west side - light industrial
Roseman Ave - volcano side - single house residential - 500m2 minimum
Roseman Ave - other side - some of the north end of the street is terrace/apartment zone, south end is part mixed residential zone allowing 300m2 minimum unless over 1200m2 and then no minimum to 8m height.
Boyce Ave is all single house residential - 500m2 min.
In any zone you can convert an existing dwelling into 2 units now as well provided they are attached (not subdivable though).
I think that's right from what I've read.
I wouldn't be too excited about the high density zoning increasing values, unless you had a large block of land which wasn't previously developable, because they've simply created so much land of that zoning.
For instance, in reality houses in the Res 7 zone say in Kingsland on New North Rd, houses sell for absolutely no more than houses that couldn't be subdivided, even though some sites could take 4 units. This is in part because the sites are so expensive to develop because of the slope.
My thought is that even if this does come through, only certain areas will see a rush and get developed quickly and that will be the bigger flat sites in double grammar zones around Mt Eden and Great South Road and in Remuera which were previously res 6a, 5 or 1.
Mixed Housing maximum
Mixed Housing maximum building coverage = 50% woohoo~
What part of " ASIA is
What part of " ASIA is taking over New Zealand " do we not understand ?
viable alternative
viable alternative actions.....
Check how Switzerland and
Check how Switzerland and China do it !
Ok finally worked it all out.
Ok finally worked it all out. Nothing in the Unitary plans are allowing anything different from the current plans for me. My Res 6a properties are still Res 6a, my living 1 and living 2 properties are still the same Waitakere zoning and my Res 5 properties are still Res 5. What a big disappointment. Nothing much really has changed for me...All talk so far. I reckon the government needs to take over from this Super City Councillors. What a waste of effort, money and confusion, this so called Unitary plan does not even unify.
That's weird, because those
That's weird, because those zones don't exist in the draft Unitary Plan.
Not sure you were looking at
Not sure you were looking at the Unitary plan?
Most res 6a becomes mixed residential with a 300m2 minimum and NO minimum if the site is over 1200m2 and involves 5 or more units!!!
Then huge chunks of the central areas are becoming terrace/apartment zones, which allow super high density 14.5m high apartments!! This even includes streets that were previously res 1 and res 5!!
Obviously we can understand res 7 becoming high density, but look at the other streets now included:
Acorn St Royal Oak
All the Greenwoods triangle up to Beckenham Ave.
Most of the area from Trafalgar St north between Onehunga Mall and Sanitarium all the way to One Tree Hill.
Most of the east side of Onehunga.
Most of the area between Great South and the Motorway up to Ellerslie.
Most of Remuera Road, and Ascot Ave.
Half of Clonbern Road and one side of Ormande Road Remuera.
All the streets one block east of Mt Eden Village.
Most of the blocks around Balmoral/Dominion corner including all of Tenderden, Dunbar and Brixton, most of Rocklands, half of Queens, Kensington, part of Marsden, Dexter and St Albans.
Most of the streets around Sandringham/Balmoral corner, including most of Sandringham Rd, all of Watson, Begbie, Patterson, half of Jason, Mars, Oxton, Aroha etc
Around Morningside. Half of Morningside drive current res 7 becomes commercial! Rest becomes terrace/apartment along with one side of Taylors.
At Kingsland, the top of School, Finch, Mountain view and Wolseley.
At Grey Lynn, part of Surrey Cres, all of Fisherton, Edwards, part of Baildon and Allen all go high density.
Why rezone these good streets, where the houses don't really need redeveloped, when there are grotty streets further out where it is not economic to redevelop because of the "single home" zoning??
This is the mistake that ChCh made in 1995 with the "L3" zoning and has spent 15 years trying to unwind with tighter rules being introduce several times restricting bulk size, continuous building lengths, and now restriction on buildings without rooms on the ground floor and strict design panels adjudicating design aesthetics.
This is a "dense" plan. It is plain stupidity to allow a free for all with a severe lack of regulation.
Many beautiful streets will be irrevocably ruined.
Let developers build in streets that need renewed. Not ones where buyers fight to pay $1.2m for a do-up bungalow!
Sending these streets into slumdom will only send owners into the remaining "single home" streets while developers pay inflated land prices for sites in these dense zones, building apartments that dare I say it, only immigrants from similarly dense locations would be happy to buy.
Densification needs to be Ponsonby style, with rooms on the ground floor, gardens and lawns. Reduced side boundary setbacks and low profile "residential style" buildings is what the market is calling out for.
These planning rules allow too much of the big block mentality.
They are just plain dense.
I'd suggest they've been
I'd suggest they've been rezoned precisely because they are in demand. Land in sought after streets and suburbs near the centre is a scarce resource. Scarce resources have high prices, and high prices send a signal to the market to use the land more efficiently. That's why buildings generally get taller and denser the closer you get to the centre of a city. Regulation, such as density limits etc distort those market signals and result in inefficient and costly outcomes for the economy and society. That's why its important to remove unnecessary regulation by increasing zoning capacity. By the way, 14m isn't that high, and developments over 5 dwellings will still need a consent subject to design assessment - they're just removing the silly arbitrary density limits that have no bearing on quality. Not perfect, but better I reckon.
14m isn't that high?? Maybe
14m isn't that high?? Maybe not if you're from Hong Kong...
But it is if you live next door in a single storey bungalow...
They should aim at incentives to push development into scungey areas, not into areas that are already nice and fairly densely developed.
Consider some of that high density zoning is in areas where there are 150m2 plus 20m2 a garage on 400m2 sections. Now in the plan, site coverage is only allowed up to 40%, hence 160m2 per floor maximum. Now with the recession planes and setbacks for multilevel buildings, you could potentially get 2 floors at that floor coverage and one at say 90m2. Then consider you need 2 car parks per unit, and you want one of those as a garage, hence 60m2 of the ground floor will be garages. Adding in 20m2 of the ground floor for entry and stairs and 10m2 of the second floor, then you can fit on that site 3 units: one of 80m2 on the ground floor, one of 150m2 on the first floor and one of 90m2 on the top floor.
All that to replace one already operational house that people actually want??
Like in much of the res 7 zones, nothing much will get developed, because it's not the type of property people want and it's not economic.
All this plan will do is potentially wreck nice streets with giant white elephant blocks of flats that become rental slums.
All those suburban streets mentioned above shouldn't be subjected to the risk of that kind of development happening.
It probably would have been a better plan to densify the state housing streets with harbour views such as in Orakei with apartment buildings more like Sydney's eastern suburbs, rather than doing it to suburbs where there are already nice houses that are really too good to develop.
Top 15 hardest hit areas (by
Top 15 hardest hit areas (by apartments):
1. Onehunga (most town area)
2. Milford (most town area)
3. Takapuna (most town area)
4. Point England (most town area)
5. New Lynn (most town area)
6. Parnell (St Stephens Ave - both ends)
7. Sandringham Rd / Balmoral Rd
8. Cnr Mt Albert to Mt Smart Rd including Greenwoods Cnr / Campbell Rd
9. Otahuhu (Princes St)
10. Pt Chev Rd / Tui St
11. Remuera (Remuera Rd / Ascot Ave)
12. Western Spring Rd
13. Grey Lynn (around Surrey Cres / Baildon)
14. Pakuranga Rd (both ends)
15. Papatoetoe (Station Rd / St George St)
they are probably high value
they are probably high value good streets because of access. Exactly the kind of thing worth developing.
Those who want to play house and do up, can re-spend all their sale profits out in your "single home"/bad streets.
If you push high density housing into low income areas you don't get condo/apartments, you get "projects". That never goes well, the low income and non-existant hope destroys the people and their morals.
Chris J raises some
Chris J raises some interesting points. I asked Penny how they decided which areas could have 18 story apartments, which could have 8 and 6 etc. Apparently the areas zoned for 8 storeys such as around Royal Oak and Three Kings (which aren't far from where I live) are zoned that way because they're transport hubs or in good transport corridors. Really? Then an area such as Mt Albert, which actually has a train station, is zoned for just 4 storeys. Some of it seems a bit random...
Am I reading this wrongly? I
Am I reading this wrongly? I am looking up the Unitary plan and then the district plans and then the maps. Are these the old maps that will change? Very confusing.
This is the map viewer here:
This is the map viewer here: http://acmaps.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/unitaryplan/FlexViewer/index.html
Attention Bernard Hickey Now
Attention Bernard Hickey
Now you are at a loose end, make 2013 the year of your patriotism
Take some time out and go and visit some elders and some tohungas and discover your roots, what new zealand is and was. And listen. Do a Marcus Lush. "North" and "South"
Once upon a time NZ was at the bottom of the world. Being a long way from anywhere else, it had to innovate, which would become known as the "number 8 fencing wire solution"
Now, as the struggle of coping with a tidal wave of inbound migrants fleeing from their own messed up countries New Zealand is losing its identity, its uniqueness, it's capacity for originality.
Anyone who has never seen the movie "The Worlds Fastest Indian" should see it
If they have never seen it they are missing out on a distinct kiwi characteristic that is fast disappearing
It should be compulsory viewing for every new migrant arriving in the country
Here is a new one for those who have never heard of Bill Phillips
This should dedicated to Powerdownkiwi, and scarfie, and equally for steven
It is a podcast by Tim Harford who is a behavioural economist at the BBC
His latest podcast called "The Indiana Jones of Economics" 06 Feb 2013. Duration: 14 mins
It's about a boy from Heretaunga
Episode 4. Tim Harford tells the story of Bill Phillips - war hero, engineer, toheroa-hunter, and one of the fathers of macroeconomics.
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/thpop/thpop_20130206-2100a.mp3
Take the time to listen to it
Now, as the struggle of
Now, as the struggle of coping with a tidal wave of inbound migrants fleeing from their own messed up countries New Zealand is losing its identity, its uniqueness, it's capacity for originality.
Greenland government falls as voters send warning to mining companies
Siumut party, led by Aleqa Hammond, to form coalition government in place of Kuupik Kleist's administration
The race for resources in the frozen wastes of the Arctic has brought down its first national government, leaving foreign oil and mining companies shivering about the future. Voters in Greenland feared that ministers were surrendering their country's interests to China and foreign multinationals and called an end this week to the government of prime minister Kuupik Kleist.
London Mining, which has a former British foreign minister, Sir Nicholas Bonsor, on the board, has been at the centre of a row in the country after speculation it could bring in 2,000 Chinese workers to build one of the world's biggest iron ore mines expressly to serve steel mills in Beijing.
Here is another reason for
Here is another reason for stemming the tidal flow of immigration
Enthic based racial tensions and inter-necine assassinations .. read the numbers at the bottom
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/man-shot-dead-in-greenacre-street/story-e6freuy9-1226598567842
It will come
That is a ripper story
That is a ripper story Iconoclast, thank you for that great link.
Colin Murdoch is another unsung kiwi I admire. What is understated there is that the government turned him down in backing the disposable syringe. If they had done so image the ongoing earnings from that.
I have voiced my concern in a tongue in cheek manner about ethnic violence in Auckland, but do believe it is a matter of when not if. What are all these immigrants doing to do once the virtual work runs out? Start killing each other is the answer.
The destiny of
The destiny of Auckland
Anyone ever been to the Sandwich Islands?
The place the 7 Maori Canoes migrated from, journeying south to discover New Zealand
Sandwich Islands was the name given to the Hawaiian Islands by James Cook in the 1770s.
I have never been to Hawaii
Had a picture in my mind of an island paradise.
Turquoise seas, white beaches, white sands
Paradise
Last night I listened to a friend who has just returned from a 3 week trip to Hawaii
The most noticeable comment was
It is a place that has been spoiled
It has a cancer that is spreading ever outward from Honolulu
The demarkation between the pristine and the cancerous is distinct
Rather interesting that
Rather interesting that Gareth failed to ask the Deputy Mayor any structural questions with respect to housing affordability.
Talking in New Zealand terms, I have coveredd some of these within an article just posted up on Cantabrians Unite facebook ... FINALLY GETTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUILT IN NEW ZEALAND . I will post the Intro to it below.
It is quite infuriating when journalists just ask patsy questions, letting people such as Aucklands Deputy Mayor completely off the hook.
Hugh Pavletich
Sorry Hugh but we don't exist
Sorry Hugh but we don't exist to simply peddle your agenda. You're pretty good at peddling it yourself anyway...
"It is quite infuriating when
"It is quite infuriating when journalists just ask patsy questions"
Got to agree. I saw you on TV3 saying the "the Government cares more about cows than people" while another person says: " you can't stop people coming here" and not a hint that this is primarily an immigration issue. Journalists have self-censored the findigs of the Savings Working Group (other than the Herald and this site).
Posted on … Cantabrians
Posted on … Cantabrians UNITE facebook
FINALLY GETTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUILT IN NEW ZEALAND
Back late 2004, I was winding down my commercial property development career, when I happened to have a phone chat with a good friend of mine, Brian Stewart, the then CEO of the Urban Development Institute of Australia’s Queensland Division.
Brian mentioned that the UDIA was having great difficulty, getting the message across of the consequences of strangling land supply in the Brisbane and Gold Coast areas. He asked if I happened to have any ideas in how the message could be better communicated.
About all I knew at that stage was, that if you really want to bore the public to tears, just talk about Local Government and urban planning. Indeed, if one wishes to shut a party down for the night and clear the room, broaching these subjects works every time!
About all I realized then, was that people were always interested in houses – and particularly, where the “best deals” were..........read more via above link ...
Hugh Pavletich
Cantabrians Unite for what?
Cantabrians Unite for what? You said "Christchurch should (by now) be a thriving city of 500,000". Phill Best said NZ should and could have 40 million people......
You're just a shill for the development industry.
Hahah, ok thanks for the link
Hahah, ok thanks for the link Coro, and the write up Chrs_J, Looks like I was looking at the old zoning maps
Pukeiti Road has 675sqm and they mentioned 300sqm a dwelling? So looks like a two level unit? Push existing house upwards for a 3 bedroom unit down stairs. No height to boundary restriction?
Darn, can't do anything with Boyce Road property.
Oh oh I am trouble with Roseman Avenue. It is currently Res 6a but under the Unitary plan it will become a single dwelling. I am going to have to rush to get the Resource Consent to subdivide underway asap. Hopefully once I have started they are not going to stop me mid stream. I wonder what the transition rules would be???? I have already spent $6k. $300k already approved by bank to complete a subdivison and building.
The Waitakere properties are both zoned Mixed. 807sqm looks like two sites
2300sqm property looks interesting also Mixed zone
good luck and wishing you
good luck and wishing you clear sailing :)
Do you see negative value
Do you see negative value impact due to higher density - or just positive of subdivisible site?
Definitely an interesting
Definitely an interesting phase, moving from investor to being able to develop those sites. It would certainly help boost the income to buffer future interest rate increases. Pushing up would keep costs minimised and make it a much cheaper option than a new build and keep the land available for kids play and carparks. Hopefully this height to boundary would not constrain the ability to push upwards as it has done with Res 6A which allows for 8m height but severely constrained by the height to boundary issue requiring sometimes extensive earthworks just to keep within that restriction.
Can see why you are for a
Can see why you are for a larger population and opposed to a land tax.
Jaffa towers
Jaffa towers everywhere...""You won't just have walls of skyscrapers like people are talking about. You will have graduated buildings and it allows for green spaces,"Len......
Len's council mafia will harvest the rates loot...and that is the only thing that really matters....all opposition will be rubbished...all complaints lost in the bureaucracy...
'In theory' I think the draft
'In theory' I think the draft Unitary Plan is quite good.
I say "in theory' because notwithstanding the freeing up of controls, there will still be a lot of non-planning matters (economics, landowner intentions, existing development constraints etc) that are going to limit development.
One early comment. I think the 300 sq m net site area control for mixed housing areas is too restrictive. I think it should be 250 sq m.
As it stands the 300 sq m control will restrict many circa 700 sq m sites from retaining existing front dwelling and building a new dwelling to the rear.
Council could limit impact by having a plot ratio control like they do in Brisbane eg. 0.5 (ie. if you have a 250 sq m site you can only build a 125 sq m house). This limits bulk and dominance, but still allows flexibility around development. This means you could have a 250 sq m rear site, with a single storey 125 sq m home (possible under proposed 50% site coverage), or you could go up to double storey if you wanted / needed to free up more ground level space. The plot ratio control would prevent the situation under the 50% site coverage of someone building a house too big relative to the site size eg. a large 250 sq m double storey house (footprint 125 sq m)
In theory it is a good idea having no density limit and a 8m height control on sites over 1200 sq m. Again I say in theory, because apart from the odd existing larger sites, this will rely on developers buying two adjacent residential sites. Existing capital investment or one or both of landowners being unwilling to sell makes this proposition difficult. But hey that is a minor gripe, that's just something that will have to be dealt with.
As I've said before, the problem with this plan is that it won't be operative for another 3-4 years, unless the govt changes its mind and allows it to be operative under public notification in about a year's time.
It seems like there are a lot
It seems like there are a lot of non-Aucklanders commenting on this - not sure why, surely it is up to Aucklanders to decide what their city should look like?
and your definition of an
and your definition of an aucklander is .. ?
do you mean a 60+ yo born in
do you mean
a 60+ yo born in AKL and lived there all their life
a 40+ yo born in AKL and lived there all their life
a 20+ yo born in AKL and lived there all their life
or
someone born overseas now an nz citizen, and
60+ yo and lived in AKL 10+ years
40+ yo and lived in AKL 10+ years
20+ yo and lived in AKL 10+ years
or
someone born overseas and NOT an nz citizen, and
60+ yo and lived in auckland < 10 years
40+ yo and lived in auckland < 10 years
20+ yo and lived in auckland < 10 years
or
someone born overseas now an nz citizen, and
who has lived in AKL less than 10 years
or
Someone born overseas and has just arrived
NZ citizen, pays Auckland
NZ citizen, pays Auckland rates/rents, works in auckland, resident in auckland.
Or someone born in Auckland
Or someone born in Auckland and now resides overseas. Don't forget we do have 1million New Zealanders that are living overseas.They need to be factored as well. What happens when they return to Auckland.
when they return they will be
when they return they will be Aucklanders.
If they hold proeprty in Auckland, they are investers not aucklanders. Eg if a new busstop goes up...It should be Aucklanders who are consulted....
Should Aucklanders have a say
Should Aucklanders have a say on immigration policy?
What I don't understand is
What I don't understand is why the council has to beg the government for permission to change zoning? Surely zoning is the councils responsibility, nothing to do with the government? Why should anyone in Wellington be able to determine the density of some suburbs of Auckland?
I will answer this so you
I will answer this so you will UNDERSTAND.
I will say this only Woncccceee.
Please do not Zone Out before the end.
Councils answer to no one.
Parliament answers to no one.
The density is totally commenurate with the thickness of the skulls involved.
Taking a thick end of the wedge and bailing out over borrowers has reduced the rates of Savers, but increased the rates of Developers, the Council Rates, the Rates of pay for all concerned.....and the TAXES of the unwary.
This is called inflating away yer problems, with other people munny.
(Mainly from overseas....all doing the same)
Therefore on paper they are better orf, so will spend more.
The more they spend, the more they borrow....to stay within the ZONE.
The more they borrow, the more the Bwankers and Land Bwankers rub their hands with glee.
Glee is a substrate produced from Porking the Barrel...and inflating old properties.
This is spread evenly between Councils and Parliament.
(It causes sticky finger syndrome)
When questioned about all this, they know NOTHING.
Ergo..Though .the thickness of the skulls is commensurate with FRAUD and they have been found not guilty due to NOT KNOWING WHAT THEY WERE DOING, and that they will deny it until the COWS COME HOME.
All in this land of MILK and HONE.
Now do you comprende.
Or...did ye Zone out.
Land Tax is like Council
Land Tax is like Council rates. It is a burden to my cost structure which means rents need to go up. The land I am sitting on has always had a house on it which means it is covered by rental income. However any cost increase needs to be covered by rent increases. eg loss in building depreciation meant that I had to put up my rents by $60 to $90 on each property. Never raised my rent previously because I did not need to. I have always wanted to build. I am not landbanking because I want to landbank. The problem is the risk of building has outweighed the rental returns I will get after the development costs. The councils height to boundary restrictions meant that the cheapest option which is to push the existing building up, even though Res 6a, currently 8m already allows for a comfortable two level building. The numbers are not going to work with a 14m restriction if the height to boundary ratio is not discarded.
Fiscal, Distributional and
Fiscal, Distributional and Efficiency Impacts of Land and Property Taxes
http://motu-www.motu.org.nz/wpapers/09_14.pdf
Wow some graduate got paid a
Wow some graduate got paid a lot of cash to produce a complete load of apologist bollocks (although to be fair they probably read (and believed) financial and taxation histories, and never bothed to cross reference historical (and political) archives.
Land tax was done (1) because land owners had transferable wealth, and (2) is was easy to track with primative accounting methods. This lined up with the methods of Fealty practiced historically which were the first steps out of pure family/tribalism. ie A "made man" was promised jurisdiction in return for his support ("confidence and supply" would be the modern terms). This was either through direct fealty, eg the "rings" of a free man in Scandanavian or through hereditary office Eorl-doms ("France"/England). In previous times it was more Third World, the Head of the Family (eg The Bruce, The Inceni, The Don, The Soke) "owned" all the families property and had final say on what was done, smaller family units were answerable to their clan head. In such cases "taxation" is irrelevant because all labour and tasks are heirarchally allocated. And like the pure tribal "Council of Elders" system that predates that one, tasks and roles are assigned as the Alpha herd member sees fit (something the government is trying to revert to). Thus with no personal property, not even their own lives or children, taxation was not possible.
It has been well studied by REAL historians (not ecnomics and tax apologists) that the entirety of modern improvement (economic, intellectual and moral) is down to the single fact of the recognition of the Right of Private Property.
Government is frequently made up of those who get by, not by trade and market of their wares, but the violation of that Right .... and correspondingly the damage it caused.
Land tax is triple! taxation, as the land is purchased with tax paid funds, any profits are taxed, and the property is already taxed by "rates" sent to the local government (and again to the regional government - quadruple taxed).
What happens if any form of Land Tax is introduced it quickly becomes "the rich can afford to pay more than the poor" and converts to a Capital Tax. The extra cost comes straight out of the economy, it is NOT replaced. And it is put into the dead hole that is governmental spending (or government debt repayment for their earlier poor spending habits.)
The rot will continue until the root cause is fixed.
So rent seekers are against
So rent seekers are against it eh? what does that tell ya?
Neville Bennett: "Mill
Neville Bennett:
"Mill insisted on a land tax because "the land of every country belongs to the people of that country."
Ideally the state would own all land and lease it out, getting the unearned component of price rises. Hong Kong adopted Mill's recommendation.
Henry George also advocated a land tax in "Progress and Poverty"(1879). George noticed in California that poverty increased as land prices increased. He advocated a tax on land value but not on improvements, as that would destroy the natural right to the fruit of labour, and, "act as the spoliation of industry and thrift."
The tax suggested is a land value tax (LVT). It taxes all land, urban and rural (except parks and reserves). It does not tax improvements."
Teh state owns the land?
Teh state owns the land? Like f@^#
Ideally "The State" would serve the needs of it's community. Thus it is the tool, not the craftsman. It is the servant, not the master. "The State" has no natural Rights, and gets it's power by threat of force against the people of it's community.
"does not tax improvements". Are you deliberately being thick? Do you remember that quote recently by Churchill? Do you think that a hectare of land for a dairy farm (40k/hectare!) is the same as a backblock sheep unit - or that a hectare in CBD Auckland is the same purchase price of one on the Desert Rd. Do you understand what makes the difference in value? Do you remember that Council rates _were_ Land Valued?!!!
As for Henry George, how were his data mining skills? Did he understand the causal nature of the poverty? Were the people in the area free to relocate, and what choices were those people educated to make, and what efforts did George make to educate them?
So what kind of business did Mill start? What was his property portfolio that he built up? What are his hands on credentials? Land, or more importantly Location is a tradeable asset, it is bought at market are fair price; for some party such as a State to then claim funds back for that purchase is a renege on that contract. For as our third world cousins have show us repeatedly, for the State to own and manage Land or lives is the path to stagnation and failure for all except the politicians, warlords and their salaried servants. So again what were the businesses that Mill and George founded?
The Unitary Plan draft looks
The Unitary Plan draft looks great - improved on the draft drafts.
Should make it easier to provide affordable accomodation.
As expected all the nutters are out moaning about how they will be forced to live in shoebox apartments and have 18 level apartment buildings built next to their bungalow next week - comments that show they haven't even looked at it.
The Unitary Plan draft looks
The Unitary Plan draft looks great - improved on the draft drafts.
Should make it easier to provide affordable accomodation.
As expected all the nutters are out moaning about how they will be forced to live in shoebox apartments and have 18 level apartment buildings built next to their bungalow next week - comments that show they haven't even looked at it.
Yes, my parent home in
Yes, my parent home in central Auckland, the block of flat next door (2 storey high) will be snapped up for 4 storey block. That'd be interesting if it goes ahead.
The apartments/terrace house
The apartments/terrace house zone has a whole lot of new rules that would prevent nasties. Minimum bedroom and living room widths, 2.7 minimum stud heights. Often the bigger heights are associated with maximum number of floors so will never be reached. HIRTB controls between zones and of course anything is Restricted Discretionary so developing these sites will be harder than it is now.
If your parents house in also in the Terrace/Apartment zone it will theoretically be worth more. If it's in a housing zone it'll still have a HIRTB control so neighbours probably couldn't get 4 in spite of zoning.
Cheers bob. I haven't managed
Cheers bob.
I haven't managed to down load the whole report but I saw soeone mentioned that council wants to bring fence level down to 1.2m.. WTF????
People seem to like making
People seem to like making comments on the plan without reading it. The rule is actually not that it's:
1. Fences in a front yard must not exceed a height of 1.2m or 1.8m where the area between 1.2m and 1.8m is at least 75 per cent transparent.
Actually quite a good one if you spend time walking with your kids on the footpath and almost get hit by cars backing out of driveways from behind fortress walls.
Thanks bob. I am not looking
Thanks bob. I am not looking forward to the day when we have to return and live in Auckland. might have to buy a few lotto tickets to raise the 7 digits amount to buy a decent house there. Or I need to talk nicely to the oldman/old lady about their Auckland's bungalow..!
Like MIA said, Auckland
Like MIA said, Auckland should really lower their min section down to 250sqm with 50% coverage like they have in Brisbane. I am living in a small block inner city Brisbane, eventhough we are couple of meters way from our side neighbours, the planning rules stipulated stuffs privacy screens, not having large side opening and oaqued side windows. It can work with smaller block when they put their minds into thinking mode.
And I wish the goverment should look at the fees structure our council are charging.
The new mixed housing zone
The new mixed housing zone pretty much does this. It has 50% site cover. The problem with 250sqm sites is they need good design which would require iResource Consent to ensure it's good. They wanted to avoid making everything require a Resource Consent (to allow for affordabily) so they have a 300sqm minimum for a small number of additional dwellings Permitted - NO RC required. Then there's no minimum size if you get a RC to ensure some standard of quality.
It's just plain sensible. Reigns in the developers who'd do nasty stuff, but doesn't kill all development.
Hey Bob you sound like you
Hey Bob you sound like you are one of the planners for the Unitary Plan as you know the new rules inside out. Do you know if the 50% site coverage for Mixed Housing is new? My existing residential 6A zoned property has been zoned for Mixed Housing in the new draft. I have 1300 sqm of land - does that mean I can extend the footprint of my house to 650 sqm without consent? I don't think I can do that currently. Thank you.
.
.
Viva! is an exciting project
Viva! is an exciting project initiated by a group of Christchurch people who are committed to actively promoting sustainable developments for the central Christchurch rebuild. The team is presently initiating the plans for the development of a sustainable urban village on an inner city block.
The vision is:
“to create a vibrant urban village, an innovative and inspiring example of sustainable design and connected community”
http://thevivaproject.org.nz/?page_id=317
better than the slack old developers and their cookie cutter developments?
For those that squirm at the
For those that squirm at the idea of apartments. Check this out <shudder!>
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=621477237867363
Creative - but certainly not
Creative - but certainly not for me. The whole concept makes me want to head to the farm and space.
!!! Free the Battery Humans
!!! Free the Battery Humans !!!