sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Auckland apartment dwellers generally view their living arrangement as little more than a transitory stage and dream of suburbia, study shows

Property
Auckland apartment dwellers generally view their living arrangement as little more than a transitory stage and dream of suburbia, study shows

A study of Auckland apartment living shows the aspiration of living in a detached suburban house is still strong both for people born in New Zealand and immigrants, with many apartment residents viewing their living arrangement as little more than a transitory life stage, a 314 page research report prepared for the Auckland Council says.

The report, entitled Future Intensive, Insights for Auckland housing, adds, however, that the "suburban dream" might simply be unrealistic and unaffordable for many with a "disjuncture" between the desire and aspiration to live in a standalone home and the reality of affordability.

The report looked at three case study areas and developments. These were New Lynn, where the Auckland Council this week consented the building of its "poster child" high rise apartment block within its vision of a compact future for Auckland, Albany and Onehunga.

The report says that to give full effect to these visions for a compact city, peoples' aspirations need to shift from living and investing in suburbia, towards better valuing higher density living.

"We need to better understand what the necessary ‘trade-offs’ are between the suburban lifestyle (whether affordable or not) and the urban lifestyle envisaged for a majority of future Aucklanders," it says.

Research for the report included 84 in-depth interviews with six of the report's seven researchers from the University of Auckland. The interviews showed that living in medium density housing can cater well for people at various stages of their life-cycles.

"For example, it met the needs of students, single people, working couples, small families, and families and individuals living with elderly parents seeking affordable housing close to amenities. The case study developments offered these groups more flexibility and options compared with detached suburban houses," the report says.

"(But) despite the positive responses to living at higher densities, for whatever reason, the aspiration of living in detached suburban housing remains strong for both New Zealand-born and ‘new’ New Zealanders. However, this aspiration needs to be understood in relation to the reasons given for living in their present accommodation: such as ‘proximity/location’ and ‘affordability.’ In this respect, the suburban ‘dream’ might simply be unrealistic and unaffordable."

Suburbia aspirations 'a barrier to compact city visions'

Keeping in mind the low national median income of New Zealanders and Auckland’s high house prices, there is a "disjuncture" between the desire and aspiration to live in a standalone home and affordability considerations, the report says.

"The aspiration for suburbia, no matter how unrealistic, is a barrier to the promotion of visions for a compact city that needs to be better understood. We need to better understand what the necessary ‘trade-offs’ are between the suburban lifestyle, whether affordable or not, and the urban lifestyle envisaged for a majority of future Aucklanders," the report adds.

In New Lynn the researchers specifically focused on 293 units in nine separate developments collectively referred to as Ambrico Place, with an average net density of 57 units per hectare, which are within walking distance of what is designated a "metropolitan centre" in the council's Auckland Plan.

In Albany they looked at two developments, known as the Ridge and Masons, totaling 169 units with an average net density of 67 units per hectare, within walking distance of what's designated an "emergent metropolitan centre" in the Auckland Plan.

And in Onehunga they looked at a single development known as the Atrium on Main, which has 112 units with an average net density of 64 units per hectare, and is within walking distance of what's designated a town centre in the Auckland Plan.

The researchers say overall there was a reasonable level of satisfaction with the experiences of medium density living across a range of household needs including bringing up children and caring for the elderly.

"In part, this positively supports proposals to increase the supply of higher density housing promoted by the Auckland Plan. However, we also recognise from our research that complex interactions between urban planners, developers and potential buyers (owner-occupiers and investors) profoundly influenced the physical characteristics of medium density developments," the report says.

"These interactions produced a specific built form that may, or may not, exhibit good design elements and may, or may not, promote long term ‘successful communities’. This poses a problem for planners, developers and the Auckland Council in terms of implementing the Auckland Plan through the council's Unitary Plan."

"Embedded within the Plan, is an implicit view that the built form influences the development of a ‘sense of community’. Yet if living in these newer developments is viewed by residents as little more than a transitory stage in their lives, then there are implications for developing the vibrant, liveable, community-oriented local environments promoted in the Plan."

All bar one of the researchers were from the University of Auckland. They were; Professor of Architecture Errol Haarhoff, Lee Beattie of the School of Architecture and Planning, Professor of Planning Jenny Dixon, Associate Professor of Sociology Ann Dupuis, Penny Lysnar from the National Institute of Creative Arts and Industries, Professor of Property Laurence Murphy, and Auckland Council advisor Regan Solomon.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

43 Comments

Whodathunk that Community is in fact an Epiphenomenon - it arises from the interactions of many individuals.

 

Well, it's clearly a surprise to Planners, Architects/Exterior Decorators, Sociologits (spelling intentional), Artists and Academics.

 

Preferences trump Planning.....

Up
0

So most people aspire to a freestanding suburban house. Then the Herald and Dick Quack conclude that this is the only thing that should be zoned for.

 

The report should also note that most people aspire to a late model european car, overseas travel and a large bank balance with no debt and wining lotto. So what? It's exactly the same anywhere. People don't live in affordable housing because it's the ultimate they aspire to.

Up
0

exactly. how is this news? i suppose the herald thinks it's news if it supports their boosting of the real estate market as they see it. it's embarassing how bad this newspaper can be.

Up
0

"Embedded within the Plan, is an implicit view that the built form influences the development of a ‘sense of community’. Yet if living in these newer developments is viewed by residents as little more than a transitory stage in their lives, then there are implications for developing the vibrant, liveable, community-oriented local environments promoted in the Plan."

 

Exactly. You can see it a bit in the affluent "villages" of Mt Eden, Titirangi, Howick, Ponsonby, Parnell, Remuera, Ellerslie, Herne Bay but not the lower income main streets or the retail/commercial/light industrial hubs like Manukau, New Lynn or Henderson. Call it trendiness or charm, they don't have it and I don't think it can be forced by the council.

Up
0

I think it's rubbish to suggest that successful long term communities can only occur in places with freestanding suburban houses with long term ownership. Firstly there is no evidence presented that once people get a freestanding suburban house they stay put forever - that's why there's houses for sale. Secondly there's plenty of freestanding house suburbia where there's no sense of community - the more affluent the less likely there will be as everyone lives behind walls and only goes out in a car. Cheaper areas often have far better sense of community. Thirdly there can be a much more vital community culture in even short term accomodation. There is a far stronger community sense in a uni halls of residence than there will ever be in some residential parts of suburban Parnell (where for example your neighbour might live behind a 2m high security wall and never be seen).

Up
0

The use of the word "community" is overused and often utopian. Having lived in Glen Eden, Mt Roskill, Freemans Bay and Botany I wouldn't say any of them had a community identification beyond a certain superficial confluence of interests and income on Ponsonby Rd. Yet Ponsonby Rd is a good night out. The others are not. Otara and Avondale might have their markets but does this make a community? I am definitely sceptical whether you can build "community" with buildings and landscaping. You can make attractive places where people want to congregate and socialise during the day and the evening, and there are many places in the inner city which do this, I just don't believe any amount of wishful thinking will force it in centres like New Lynn, Henderson or Manukau or turn them into the cosmopolitan oasis the planners long for.

Up
0

Interesting comparison between the likes of New Lynn and Ponsonby. Once upon a time Ponsonby wasn't necessarily a good night out, as you put it, either. In fact Ponsonby as a suburb has changed immensely in my lifetime, as has neighbouring Herne Bay. What's to say this won't happen to other suburbs too, with or without high rises?
That said, whilst I agree with those suggesting this report doesn't tell us anything we don't know, what it does do is emphasise that the council's compact city concept is an exercise in social engineering, even if it has merit.

Up
0

Why is it that zoning to allow the market to provide a wide variety of housing types (as per the Unitary Plan) is 'social engineering' whereas zoning almost everything for car dependant free standing traditional family suburbia (current plans/Hugh's dream) is not?

 

Up
0

Your not wrong there Gareth about Ponsonby....going right back to the 40's 50's 60's why, my wifes parents sold a grand old home on a large site to upgrade to Onehunga in the early 50's but it was a  change in people demographic that brought the most change to Ponsonby rather than a change necessessarily to architecture by the late 70's.

 The people low income to middle working class packed and moved  for a variety of reasons including cash in the pocket with a paid up home they moved on to..... displaced by the early Yuppie or afluent hippie( if you prefer )as a demographic.By the mid eighties to late ninetys to transformation was all but complete......people demographic wise.

 Now interestingly enough a lot of the upwardly mobile movers and shakers liked the idea of restoring the old world buildings and considered that that is what gave the community it's character.......small cafe's,  boutique shopping, arty type operations that were not a lot different to the old world retailers with their pokey shops dotted through the burbs...i.e.Bond n Bond ...Frank Casey's and so forth , but with a new face  perhaps with a tweak of wanna be elitism.

I do not see the poster child example offered yesterday as improving the landscape or  sense of community in any way.

 I think it fair to consider , investor interests in these style of projects and just where that will take them...to tenement dwellings beset with clashes of ideals  between one socio demographic and another. 

 So long as the rents being paid the investor has little care or sympathy for any misgivings the owner occupiers might have..........been there done that in just four stories.

Up
0

Interesting. The suburb I live in is an older suburb that is slowly changing as young people move in. Around in the next street is a corner section of 1200 sqm with dual street frontage. Had an old single level california bungalow on it. A council notice appeared on the fence one day announcing the erection of 12 units / apartments with underground car-parking. Huge excavation going on at the moment. Out on a bike ride a week ago stopped and had a dekko at the excavator at work. Big pit. Huge. A lady was standing in the driveway of the big old 2 storied house next door. Stopped for a chat. During the chat she said she had been there 2 years. They had moved out from a suburb nearer the city because of all the multi-level-units and flats being built around them. Bought it because they wanted a quiet dormitory suburb to live in. The council notice appeared the very week after they bought. Vendor must have known. Real-estate agent never mentioned it. Not a happy lady.

Up
0

IMHO people make communities.  I have experienced city living both in Wellington (Karori) and Auckland (Remuera) and now live in the Wairarapa.  In both cities we hardly knew our neighbours, in fact didn't see them very often.  Wairarapa - lovely, especially when you move to a new house and neighbours (who you have never met) come to the door with freshly caught whitebait, produce from their garden, home baked biscuits to welcome you to the neighbourhood.  Dreaming?  No personal experience.  Downside - (and I already can hear; no work etcetera) sneeze and the neighbour two doors down yells "God Bless You" - truly, and everyone knows what the other is up to, but I think I can live with that. 

 

Up
0

I lived in a 67m2 two bedroom apartment in Espoo 20-25km out from the centre of Helsinki. It was third floor with a good sized balcony. It was close to a train station so we only needed one car -my wifes work car. Initially the apartment wasn't cramped as it was well designed and there was a basement storage locker, communal laundry and bike room. In Finland their are many parks and everyone has acess to a family bach somewhere in the country. So you could easily get your nature fix.

 

But once boy one and two came the limitations of apartment life became more annoying. 67m2 is not enough for two active boys. You cannot just open the door and send them out to play in the back yard. Barbecues were not allowed on the balconey, so no family barbecues.

 

I think it is rational to want that extra space for your family.

Up
0

So when an apartment suited your lifestyle and wallet you could get one. Once it didn't suit you could get a house. That's exactly what the Unitary Plan zones for. Just because a 67sqm apartment doesn't suit you now doesn't mean none should be allowed anywhere, ever. 

 

If no one wants to live in apartments then the market will not produce them. The first developer that tries will go bust and that will be it. If apartments come to the market and sell then obviously the people who buy them want them.

Up
0

And why is suburban living so unaffordable?  Because the planners have imposed an urban limit that pushes up the price of housing.  Oh, but don't worry, they may have banned affordable free-standing homes from being built but you can always cram yourself into a ten-storey apartment!  The people who have done this to Auckland disgust me.  People have been jailed for crimes that did much less harm to far fewer people.

Up
0

Do you have the slightest evidence for these often repeated claims?

 

Even Houston, the poster city of unregulated sprawl supossedly providing affordable housing, are now increasing density in order to provide affordable housing - why would they bother to do that if unregulated sprawl was providing affordable housing?

 

Houston actually becomes one of the least affordable cities in the US once transport costs are added to raw housing cost.

Up
0

Absolute rubbish Bob. Adjusted for costs (including housing and transport costs), Houston has the highest average wage in the USA: http://www.newgeography.com/content/002950-the-cities-where-a-paycheck-….  

San Francisco came 35th and New York 41st.  Smart-growth worshipping Los Angeles, which is considering even greater restrictions on construction of detached dwellings, came in third-to-last at 47.  

With a median multiple of 3.0, "unregulated sprawl" seems to be working well for Houston.  Townhouses and apartments are being built because there is demand for them and Houston's low land prices make their construction more economical than expensive markets like LA and San Francisco.  How about you compare the prices of apartments in Houston to those in San Fran?

And with an urban density of 1200/sq km, half that of Los Angeles and Auckland, Houston has plenty of room for some extra density at high-demand locations.  Houston is by no means perfect but having an affordable supply of land enables changes to be made to improve the city's form at a much lower cost than elsewhere.  

I have provided plenty of evidence of the escalation of house prices caused by urban limits and you have ignored and/or ridiculed it because it doesn't suit your agenda, so I will not bother wasting my time finding it for you again.

Up
0

What evidence?

please don't just CTRLC/CTRLV, refer to a sprawl propoganda site,  just repeat yourself ad nauseum or mention Houston.

 

Just some clear bullet points explaining the arguements - I'd love to be convinced.

 

As I can right now buy a fringe 3 bed for $250K an arguement explaining why adding a whole lot more 3 bed fringe houses at $250K would greatly reduce the price of a Res1 villa in Grey Lynn would be very helpful.

 

Up
0

Bob show me where I can buy 3 bedroom houses in Christchurch or Auckland for $250,000. They must be many because it is not just me who wants one, there are thousands of us in rental accommadation who want affordable housing. And it must be livable, I can afford some repairs but not a major rebuild.  

Up
0

http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auction-533104239.htm

http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auction-584861116.htm

http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auction-567283410.htm

http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auction-584861326.htm

http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auction-580982717.htm

http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auction-580684532.htm

http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auction-566144945.htm

 

... and there's plenty more. Of course they a long way from where you want to be, and many are cheap Keith Hay type boxes. However this is exactly the type of development Hugh advocates being allowing to sprawl ad nauseum.

 

I'd be interested to know if, for the same money, you'd rather live in higher density in a much better location? according to the sprawlers you'd rather have one of these?

Up
0

Thanks, I do not think you could find these entry level homes in Christchurch. But still expensive when compared to Houston Texas where the medium price house is $202,000NZ on current exchange rates. http://www.har.com/mls/dispPressRelease.cfm

Up
0

...and Houston is staggeringly expensive compared with parts of rural India. Not neccessarily anything to do with zoning.

 

Interestingly when housing and transport are looked at relative to income Houston suddenly doesn't look so good:

http://www.nhc.org/media/files/LosingGround_10_2012.pdf

 

 

Up
0

.

Up
0

Hey there...Bob...it was Bob Dey in Houston ( no relation) you were quoting just yesterday wasn't it...?..I mean as opposed to the Bob Dey here with us now......http://www.propbd.co.nz/.

Now when it comes to having a vested interest in High rise, I'd say your vesting there to the eyeballs Bob..me ol chum.....

neither Bob nor Dey...eh...uh..? I checked out your website there ...Bob...high rise a go go..!

 Just think of it as free advertising  for the shoebox generation ....Bob...and take some pride man.......here you go......http://www.propbd.co.nz/.

Up
0

That's exactly why I pointed out that my user name 'Bob' has no relationship to my actual name. Commentators here immediately leap to Ad Hominem arguement if they think someone is an expert or has any knowledge of a subject matter.

 

The joy of an anonymous handle is that theoretically one can have arguement based on the arguement, rather than instantly sidetracking to "...you're an expert therefore your arguement is invalid due to vested interest - the only credible arguement comes from people that have no idea what they are talking about as they have no vested interest".

Up
0

But that's just not true is it ...Bob... shall I put up what you said again for you to read....your words....Bob...not mine. ah What the hey here it is for you ...Bob

Excellent. Looks fine. Who cares how big they are - no one is forced to buy them or live in them. It's a personal choice if you want to spend $250K here or $450K for a house on a suburban site in the same neighbourhood.

 

According to Bob Dey (no relation) even Houston itself is going for density in order  to get affordable housing (That's the same Houston that's not so affordable once transport costs are added to housing cost):

 

http://www.bdcentral.co.nz/afa.asp?idWebPage=8338&idBobDeyProperty_Articles=19106&SID=564042161

Up
0

What is your point? You think I'm Bob Dey? so what? 

Up
0

Oh BTW...Bob...I don't think your argument is invalidated by vested interests at all , just a little biased toward outcomes that suit your hypothesis.

 That shouldn't invalidate you.....and I most certainly never accused you of being an expert on the subject, ...Hugh P has a lot of expertise...still a well respected man round these parts ....Bob.

Up
0

So you have nothing to add on the actual subject? Just ad hominem style attack based on whom you think I might be?

Up
0

There was an Australian study of a few weeks ago that can help put these figures in perspective- to quote 'if people could have anything they wanted most would choose “a large house in the centre of the city, with butlers’ quarters.”'

http://www.thefifthestate.com.au/archives/46199/

Up
0

Nice - so how come they still have apartment zoning? Obviously they should just zone the whole country for houses with butlers quarters because that's what most people want.

Up
0

I think the cautionary phrase RTWA applies here.  Because when I do, this ending para leaps out:

"

Where is the innovation?

Yes, it’s more expensive to build medium-density but there’s a reason this might be so, she said. “We are really, really terrible at innovation in medium and higher density.”

We are really, really terrible at

innovation in medium and higher density

The main reason for that, Kelly said, is that developers have typically done less of it in the past, and there’s a dearth of knowledge about how to do it more effectively.

The culture of negative gearing of investment properties also calls for product that is “as standard as possible”."

 

And this is Oz, not small-scale, craft-builder-dominated, screwed over by materials cartels and revenue-hungry TLA's, and prone to wildly oscillating public policy (vide LabGreens on Power...)  Godzone.

 

A leetle less Reaction, a leetle more obvious Analysis, perhaps, is indicated.

Up
0

Bob, and others of the same ilk, miss the point (maybe deliberately). Land is three dimensional, length, width and height. Limit one of these dimensions and you limit the supply of all housing because of the resulting price increases. Forcing people into smaller than they would like housing because of unnecessarily high land and housing costs is not solving the issues behind why housing is the cost it is. No one, including Hugh P, is advocating lower density at the expense of higher density. Zoning should equally and freely allow for high and low density. Then any type of density housing will be cheaper, and those that want to live closer into the CBD will be able to live even closer in than they can afford to now, or stay at their present location but in a house more to their choice rather than just what they can afford.  The new proposed unitary plan is just the present MUL on steroids and will not result in more affordable housing and in fact will only make housing more expensive. At this rate even high density will become the new ‘unaffordable. Maybe they should also include a zoning for ‘paper bag in middle o’ road.’

Up
0

Exactly, Dale. The debate has never been "sprawl V densification"...but "Forced densification V Individual choice".

Too many people have been sucked into the false debate, wasting a lot of time with moot arguments.

Up
0

Read any District Plan -  we currently have "forced suburbia vs individual choice"

 

Read the Unitary Plan it allows for individual choice.

 

 

Up
0

If it allowed for individual choice then the city would develop like this:

~5% apartments.

~7% townhouses

~85% detached home amongst the leaves...or lower density still.

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10879448

 

....But according to Len brown this is not "balance" (btw: balance is a lovely albeit empty word that Len's PR company told him to use). Balance in Len's world is: Low-density for rich people (like Len...who enjoys a 2-acre section not marked for intemsification); and high-density for poor people.

The poor people are being FORCED with artificail price inflations. To create...."balance". 

Choice? Only for rich people.

Up
0

If we zoned for what peoples dream homes we would zone for 100% lotto winner mansions. The debate is about how to make affordable housing, not the housing people wish they could afford. 

 

As the DBH report clearly points out this is achived through higher densities. Not sprawl housing (with it's vast infrastructure costs funded through debt as HP advocates).

 

If you really belive that fringe sprawl housing provides affordable sites that people want then why don't you calculate what it costs to properly subdivide agricultural land (providing surveying, consents, all engineering, roads, water, power, gas, comms, footpaths, berms, earthworks, margins, funding costs etc. etc.) - not just raw land cost -  & cost to put a 3 bed house on it. Then compare that to what you can currently buy on Auckland fringes. If you do the calculation properly you'll find that it's not that different to what you can currently buy on the fringes. If you do a bit more research you'll find that a lot of people would rather spend their money on higher density living in a better location than sprawl housing in a dodgy fringe suburb. 

Up
0

How on earth did we ever afford the sprawl in the first place? Especially the country towns and lifestyle blocks....the ultimate expression of sprawl. If modern plumbing is deathly expensive then catch the water off the roof, and use a compost toilet. If roading is too expensive, then use a metal road for the last hundred meters or so, or look at new technologies like the ULTra PRT system. When density drops to a certain point then yes, rural-style investment can make sense for much of the market.

You say that a lot of people would prefer high-density to "dodgy" sprawl. Fine. Why the debate then? Why do we need to guess? Lose the MUL's, create a level economic playing field, and let people build to their own max-affordability preference how they (they = market) prefer.

The elephant in the room is the MUL. If we all want Len Brown's utopia, and we're just a little bit misguided and confused when we overwhelmingly vote for tradition, then why do we need to *artificially* supress the sprawl?

Up
0

Exactly if densification is what we want why do we need a metropolitan urban limit?

Up
0

This is a different arguement.

 

Until recently the sprawlers were argueing for ONLY sprawl and no intensification based on the arguement that 'individual choice' means that everyone wants a freestanding family house .

 

This has slowly been changing to the position above that is accepts intensification along with greenfields. A very different stance and one we are a long way from acheiving.

 

I don't care if there was no MUL if there was enough zoning for higher density development AND if sprawl pays it's own way rather than being subsidized by other ratepayers & utility customers.

Up
0

Bob, you are so wrong on so many levels. Having worked in property development in both Texas and NZ for nearly thirty years, I have done all the calculations to ‘properly’ (as you say) buy and develop, and sections at least ½ the present price are easily feasible. Of course your definition of ‘properly’ is different from mine. My definition does not include all the non-value waste costs (artificially inflated land costs, development levies, unnecessary development costs etc.), - unlike yours.

And no one has ever promoted lower density at the expense of higher density; in fact more affordable lower density helps provide more affordable higher density. It’s about more affordable housing for all.

Up
0

Welcome to Auckland .. to all visitors to the city of sails .. and all those living south of the Bombay Hills .. welcome .. enjoy the outdoor multi-lane carpark facilities .. twice in one week there has been total gridlock to the city and surrounds .. first one was a package that looked suspiciously like a bomb .. street closed .. chaos .. second one was a vehicle accident on the southern motorway .. closed from 4:00 pm till 10:00 pm .. total gridlock .. chaos .. entire city comes to a standstill .. can't even cope now .. and they want to densify .. get more people in ..

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8602624/Traffic-headaches-in-Auckland-gridlock

Up
0

It doesn't sound like those behind this meeting are too keen on the Unitary Plan - http://www.mtedenvillagecentre.co.nz/ai1ec_event/save-our-views-a-meeti…

Up
0

I like how they've done the North Korea style bad Photoshop scaremongering image.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/27/north-korea-photoshop-hovercraft

 

 

edit:  I looked at their Facebook page. How embarrasing - they clearly have no idea what the unitary plan is, they're almost all old and will be long gone by the time anything much happens under it. https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/559386_515638625165579_1144347955_n.jpg

Up
0