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

New Statistics NZ population projections suggest it is possible Auckland's population could virtually double in the next 25 years; NZ total population could hit 6 million in only about 10 years' time

Property
New Statistics NZ population projections suggest it is possible Auckland's population could virtually double in the next 25 years; NZ total population could hit 6 million in only about 10 years' time

By David Hargreaves

Auckland's population will virtually double to more than 3 million in the next 25 years, while around 18,000 new houses a year will need to be built in Auckland.

The New Zealand population (currently estimated at about 4.8 million) will hit 6 million in little more than 10 years' time.

These 'very high migration' scenarios are outlined by Statistics New Zealand in a paper titled 'Auckland's future population under alternative migration scenarios', which appeared on the Stats NZ website with no fanfare last week.

The release of the paper by Stats NZ comes little more than four months after its two-yearly 'Subnational Population Projections' were released.

Those projections, while indicating much stronger Auckland population growth than the projections of just two years earlier, were forecasting long-term net migration gains for the whole country of about 75,000 for every five years.

At the moment the ANNUAL rate of net migration gain nationally is about 72,000.

While not giving any specific reason for why it has produced an update just four months after the latest series of population projections, Stats NZ says its new article "explores what Auckland might look like demographically under some alternative higher migration scenarios, then considers the resulting demand for housing".

Stats NZ typically produces three scenarios for projections - 'high', 'medium' and 'low'. The 'medium' projection is therefore assumed as the most likely.

The reality is that recent migration figures have been blowing the Stats NZ projections out of the water.

So while it is sticking with its projections as released in February, Stats NZ in the new article, has outlined - in addition to the 'high', 'medium' and 'low' projections  - new 'higher' and 'very high' projections.

Stats NZ says that at a time of high sustained net migration gains, as experienced in 2014–17, it is reasonable to consider "whether a new migration regime may be unfolding".

"Beyond the short-term, will Auckland consistently gain 42,500 people every five years through net migration (medium assumption)? Or perhaps as many as 72,500 people every five years (high assumption)? Or possibly net migration gains similar to the current 2016–17 levels?"

And it is those 'very high' migration projections as now produced by Stats NZ that suggest a near doubling of Auckland's population to over 3 million by the early 2040s would be possible, along with a requirement for a much as 90,000 new houses every five years.

Specifically, Stats NZ says the ‘higher migration’ scenario for Auckland would be a net gain of 125,000 every five years, while the ‘very high migration’ scenario would be 175,000 every five years.

These 'very high' migration projections as outlined by Stats NZ in fact merely represent what HAS been happening in recent times, with current net inbound migration levels running at around 40,000 a year in Auckland.

Nationally, the new 'very high' projections give a national population of 6 million by 2028 and over 7.5 million by the early 2040s.

As far as Auckland is concerned, Stats NZ says a ‘higher migration’ or ‘very high migration’ scenario "implies a demand for new dwellings well above the building levels that have occurred in recent decades".

In 2016 consents for about 10,000 new dwelling units were approved for Auckland. That's the highest since the early 2000s but market commentators have been suggesting it's nowhere near enough for Auckland to start catching up to the current shortfall.

Stats NZ says Auckland had an average of about 2.9 people per household (private dwelling) in 2001, 2006, and 2013. Applying this simple ratio to the population projections indicates how many more dwellings need to be built to accommodate the population

"The projections indicate many more dwellings need to be built in Auckland than was done historically, to accommodate a ‘high’ population projection – an average of 60,000 more dwellings every five years between 2013 and 2043. Under the ‘higher migration scenario’, the average needs to be at least 70,000 new dwellings every five years. And under the ‘very high migration scenario’, the average is closer to 90,000 new dwellings every five years."

Stats NZ goes on to say that even "these simple illustrative dwelling figures" might under-estimate the demand for housing for any given population projection.

"...Stats NZ’s family and household projections have a more sophisticated methodology than simply assuming a constant average household size. They indicate average household size is likely to decrease slightly with an ageing population. This means more dwellings need to be built to accommodate the same population."

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.

104 Comments

Good for business and economy. 4% GDP can be achieved easily. NZ will be 1 trillion economy after 10 years.

Up
0

If only GDP growth was reflected in my wages and standard of living...unfortunately the reverse is probably closer to the truth.

Up
0

Yes, unless that 4% DDP better reflects the per capita GDP is not even something that is needed.

Up
0

Auckland is where the most jobs are and will continue to be the case.
Unless Auckland can substantially lower its cost of living I seriously doubt the optimism
The prime cost that must be dealt with is housing.

Up
0

Don't expect any government to significantly lower house prices (or the cost of building/land) in Auckland or Wellington (or elsewhere in NZ). It's possible - but unlikely.

And with demographic indicators pointing strongly northward, neither should anyone expect market forces to lower house prices (especially in Auckland).

Like it or not, house prices are set to increase across the medium/long term.

Up
0

GDP per capita has been negative for the last two quarters. That's why your wages and standard of living are going backwards.

Up
0

Today on Facebook, people not too happy at having to compete with Harcourts targeting (and celebrating) foreign purchasers: Source

Some of the comments were a wee bit angsty, for sure. Couple this with declining wages and living standards...

Up
0

Fresh off the plane from China and already buying up properties, awesome!
National will no doubt offer them citizenship if they stay in the country for 11 more days.

Up
0

Rickstrauss could I please have the facebook link?

Up
0

It was removed. Only the screen captures remain.

I see in the Herald coverage now the real estate agent essentially saying "I'm shocked at reactions...but NZers aren't able to pay the prices that foreign buyers will."

Up
0

Grabs popcorn for comments to follow. Looking forward to hearing all about how house prices are definitely going to crash despite the massive imbalance between new builds and even the most conservative population growth estimates.

Up
0

Don't forget the butter for your popcorn. A good lubricant, iam told.

Up
0

"been told"? Sure

Up
0

Not the salted kind

Up
0

As long as it's popcorn only lol

Up
0

Not the salted kind

Up
0

Immigration impacts rents and overcrowding, not house pricing.

Up
0

Genius

Up
0

Gotta love these projects made during a speculative mania.
For reference see Ireland: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DC5OEtMVwAAQgyL.png

Up
0

NO NO NO .

Enough now !

Up
0

Why?

You support our governments plan for mass-immigration by voting for them. The blame (if you want to attribute any) should be on people like yourself for supporting them in causing this mess.

Up
0

@ Plutocracy ........ National did not tell us they would open the immigration floodgates as part of their policies in the last election .

Nor did they warn us that the numbers would be wholly disproportionate to what we can cope with , and that it would totally screw up our housing market for future generations

Thats what I am annoyed about

I did vote for National in the last election simply because Labour had as its key policy to introduce Capital Gains Tax , and I am opposed to any more new taxes .

It will not happen again.

I am still undecided as to who to vote for

Up
0

There are too many empty ghost houses around why build more???

Up
0

Finally one of the FOUR near identical houses recently sold on our street, the new Asian owners were seen moving in. They were completed in December and its taken till June to sell one. There may be "Ghost Houses" but the real problem is the lack of buyers that can now afford them so they sit empty. Clearly many who are selling can simply wait until they get the asking price.

Up
0

It is a good thing that you have new neighbours moving in instead of an empty house. David Seymour was door knocking on our street last week and I told him don't bother with 1/3 of the houses here as they have been left empty. So sad...

Up
0

Remind me what was wrong with the old NZ? Relatively clean and green (due primarily to low population),was easy to get around, communicate,nice place to live etc - even if not the metropolis one apparently needs to be in order to be the worlds most liveable city. I liked it.

Up
0

Random speculation so that there is something to write about.

Up
0

How absolutely bloody ridiculous, but anyway cheers for an article that so clearly sets out why it is we need to put the skids under immigration.

Up
0

Taking bets on how many years till NZ's Trump / Le-Pen gets elected.

(Ok, excluding Winnie.)

Up
0

Rick it was Winston 1st who was NZs version of Trump albeit Winston has a law degree & 100X smarter

Up
0

Only 100X? Hey, even I know Winnie is smarter than the average amoeba

Up
0

Rick, I can't see it ever happening to be honest. I listen to BFM which was is ostensibly a "student" radio station and the ignorance and invective which is directed at Trump along with the adulation of anti-Trump organisations like CNN etc leads me to believe that NZ's youth is very much in thrall of the mainstream pop narrative. Those anticipating a "youthquake" are going to be sorely disappointed. You couldn't get a more bland bunch of brainwashed and current year trend following folk. I still find the odd gem of a song amongst the rubbish I have to listen to though.

Up
0

Yeah, I shouldn't think that anyone to appeal to NZ youth would resemble a 71-year-old fake-tanned American with a penchant for grabbing by the feline. But I don't think that necessarily means that - as NZ youth start to feel marginalised more and more - that they won't be ripe for the picking by any populist leader.

I don't think the time's yet ripe for a youthquake, agree. But if wages continue to be depressed via businesses importing an alternative workforce, and if lifetime opportunities continue to be reduced via National's inept management of housing outcomes and the council's imbecilic intransigence...

National has basically abandoned young Kiwis. It's up to someone else to come along and mobilise them.

Up
0

The Trump message is revolutionary though as evidenced by the resistance he has encountered from both sides of the house and the media and entertainment industry. Latest despatches from the front are indicating a revived level of confidence in Trump among the deplorables after a very patchy couple of months.

Up
0

That book I suggested you might be interested in (Strangers in Their Own Land) does (I think) a creditable job of sympathetically considering why and how Trump appeals to downtrodden blue-collar white Americans.

My point re a populist was more that as we continue to create a downtrodden blue collar class here (and half the white collar class, really), we'll see a demographic ripe for the plucking too.

Up
0

Sad fact is people that sad retread Bill English could be PM after election and that's just nuts!

Up
0

But then again, Bill English is a pretty safe pair of hands - nothing flamboyant but his feet are firmly on the ground.

In this day and age, "Better the devil you do know, than the devil you don't know."

Up
0

Bill English has many things going for him not least of which is his name. It's a great name for a Prime Minister. It would be even better if he used William instead of Bill though. Rolls off the tongue nicely and inspires confidence. William English. Would look nice with a Sir in front of it. Arise Sir William English.

Up
0

His real name is Simon English, and yes lets pick the next prime minister on who has the best name??!!..OMG Zachery ...please move to Trump Land you would love it there.

Up
0

Either Bill English or Simon Bridges will become our next PM.

Up
0

You have just confirmed how completely out of touch you are with reality.

Up
0

Simon Bridges is a fine name too.

Up
0

Have dealt with him. Not a fine character, in my book.

Up
0

Bridges can't even breathe and talk at the same time

Up
0

Don't be so rude to our Transport Minister. He is trying his best to deliver his speech and we can see that.

Up
0

No worse, probably less worse than LBJ saying of Gerry Ford that he could not walk and chew gum at the same time

Up
0

I think he takes his speech lessons from Jonathon Coleman

Up
0

The Waterview Tunnel - New Zealand's biggest and most complex roading project - is open. Thank you Simon Bridges for #Delivering4NZers
https://www.national.org.nz/what_people_are_saying_waterview_tunnel

Up
0

Dug it out with his own bare hands, now, did he?

Up
0

From what I can tell it was the Labour government who set the whole tunnel project in motion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterview_Connection#Planning_history

Bridges #BlockingOIArequests4NZers

But, have to say the tunnel is pretty awesome

Up
0

Yes it was so awesome that I got stuck in a big traffic jam inside the tunnel for 30 mins when driving there for a nosey yesterday afternoon.

Up
0

And to those id**ts who can't stop tooting their horn inside the tunnel PLEASE STOP IT!

Up
0

Haha, that's hilarious.

Up
0

.. Wild Bill is so deadly dull and droll that even Andrew Little almost appears to be a sparklingly energetic charismatic go-getter life-and-soul of the party animal , next to him ...

Up
0

We have an election this year. If you want high immigration, vote for National. If you want lower immigration, vote for Labor. Winston's immigration policies suggest he should side with Labor, but can you vote for someone who refuses to say which major party he supports?

Up
0

Depends if you can trust he'll do what he says. It you trust him, his party then you don;t need to know what major party they'll side with you just have to know when they'll bargain, they'll bargain for their policies.

Up
0

*Labour for God's sake!

Up
0

RickStrauss. Won't happen. Kiwi politicians are already sensitive to populist views and react accordingly - albeit too slowly in respect of immigration but they have finally got the message. Latest polls indicate most people think the govt has got things about right. Where is the broad support for Trump/LePen type positions? - I don't see much, apart from the chatterati on blog sites.

Up
0

Blame our media! they still fly the 'we need more people flag'.
Our working class come home from work and listen to our media say that population growth is a success story and then feed us the latest USA propaganda on their war on terror.

Up
0

Why bother with figures like this, so many things could happen here and overseas to change things likes this up or down, peters could change things for starters, Australia , English bloody hell syria could be great places to live, probably cheaper, don't get me wrong nz is great but at the moment there is heaps of bad things going on around the world and nice places pushing people to nz but that's not normally the case, things will get better, and had for people to turn away from there home lands

Up
0

18,000 new homes a year in a city the size of Auckland is not hard to achieve with reasonable planning.

Even today with it's truly awful planning Auckland is able to build 8-10,000 per year.

Up
0

As an immigrant of 14 years standing and a rather proud Kiwi citizen I've meet plenty of Pakeha who are looking forward to a more highly populated NZ but so far not a single immigrant.
Is it only immigrants who have a genuine love of New Zealand as it is and as it was?
Is it only natives who applaud each new motorway and each new high rise apartment block as signs of our future?

Up
0

My partner is an immigrant, and she does note some of the same things. There's an urge, I think, among some in the population to be "liberal" in shouting from the rooftops how great multiculturalism and immigration are, how there are no possible downsides, how it's always the more the better.

She thinks more as you do, having come from a crowded, overpopulated city. "Don't be so eager to give up what you have based on some silly ideal that's not going to work out like you thought. Sure, welcome immigrants (she's grateful to have been welcomed), but make sure you're doing it in a manageable way that creates time for them to and encourages them to integrate."

She once had a good rant at some tourists / immigrants for throwing their trash on the beach in St Heliers. The way she sees it, she's fully invested in being a Kiwi and damnit if she's going to let people destroy her adopted homeland.

Up
0

My position is immigration is great but only if planned, controlled, diverse and the numbers never exceed the Kiwis leaving. Visit Highbury for a great immigrant experience - nothing there to frighten the natives away.

A real estate agent says that a Chinese immigrant to nearby Northcote could live their live only speaking a Chinese language - that is at home at work and at the local shops.

It is multiculturalism that I'm afraid of. Where does it work given any reasonable period of time? The only way multiculturalism works is if there is a layer on top - either an emperor or dictator or a fabricated patriotism (USA saluting the flag). The second problem is a welfare state depends on trust - you put money in because you trust it will go to people you identify with - in a multi-cultural society you identify with your own culture first. [This idea taken from David Goodhart - he applies it to the USA and their popular revolt against tax leading to a rich country with dreadful poverty.]

Up
0

Funny you say that. I'm actually planning to take a good friend of mine to the Pakuranga Night Market this Saturday to experience some multiculturalism. Our commitment to the values of multiculturalism ;-)

Up
0

Never been to Pakuranga night market - rather too far from North Shore - we have a Glenfield night market which is OK for those who like that kind of thing - not really a tourist must. Pakuranga is a great place during the day - ease of access to lots of lovely places and good mix of people (rather like a down-market Birkenhead) if they put in a 20th century rail link to CBD it would be perfect. [Yes that was a deliberate 20th century - just needs what most cities had a 100 years ago - make it a Japanese style 21st century and wow - another great idea but bloody expensive].
Multi-Cultural Pakuranga: if they can either stop the flood of immigrants or at least restrict it to rare cultures (say Latvian, Nepalese, Bolivian) then it will integrate and become true Kiwi - just consolidating that restless energy common to all Kiwis since the arrival of the 1st canoe. On the other hand let the multi-culturalists with their globalist 'who cares about nation' allied with the ethnic identity politicians take control and you will end up with the kind of ghetto segregation that is now characteristic of England and France.

Up
0

>...and you will end up with the kind of ghetto segregation that is now characteristic of England and France.

Couple that with low wages and high costs of living and you'll likely end up with a high level of disaffection too...and that does not seem to have created great results there.

Up
0

Why do people on this site seem to think 1, high immigration numbers keep housing prices up and 2, national by keeping immigration up will keep housing prices up, Immigration numbers have been high for years and even higher now, housing has been getting worse right threw high immigration lately and it started with large overseas investment and stopped with the ending of overseas investors last September and January this year, national will say it was mainly the lvr, of course, If anything auckland would be better off turning the clock back to 2014 and rethinking its direction

Up
0

'be better off turning the clock back to 2014 and rethinking its direction'
Now there's a thought; if/when it all turns out to be total rubbish can we bundle up the immigrants and say 'see ya later, big mistake'
Well no but we're making these massive changes with barely a thought (in some quarters) and no consultation with the people - forever is a very long time - especially towards the end.

Up
0

Wow! They're all coming here! So this is how success looks, right here, close up. I suggest we enjoy every minute of it! Take photographs, furnish our memories with all this growth and excitement. Write down the numbers of people coming so we won't forget. Millions of them!

Our children and grandchildren won't, of course, won't be living here. But we'll be able to tell them about the growth we experienced, how marvellous it all was, with cars everywhere, bumper to bumper on every street, filling every lane of the motorways, the beaches closed through most of the summer, and the value of our houses going up and up and up.

What an exciting time to be an Aucklander! What an important city this must be!

Up
0

Really brings it home, just how tiny NZ is population wise. The entire population of NZ might reach 6 million in 10 years? That is still tiny. Most first world countries have several cities (not necessarily even the capital cities) who have 6 million and above population. Not the entire country!

CITIES in the world who currently have around 6 million;

Miami
Shenyang
Milan
Madrid
Santiago
Toronto

Auckland is absolutely huge geographically, but the SHOCK HORROR headline, is still only based on a projection of a fairly modest 3 million population.

Cities who have 3 million population currently;
Tel Aviv
Izmir
San Diego
Seattle

There is minimal if not non existent hysteria about the population sizes of the above cities. In fact I've been to more than half of both the 6 million and 3 million sized cities above and loved them all. I preferred them to Auckland many times over as cities.

Good cities are about good infrastructure, careful planning. It's not the number of population that is the issue, it's the havoc the additional strain this places on vastly underfunded and ill considered infrastructure that is the problem (or else every city over 2 million would be full of miserable people and unaffordable housing). It's appalling governance and leadership. If NZ could respond with increased capacity and infrastructure to the population increase, it might lead to a golden era of creativity and cultural expansion, but that is not what is happening. And instead you just have a fractured, congested mess, worsening levels of poverty and dissatisfaction.

Of course there is another conversation to be had, about world population and peak resources, so I would like to stress that my comments above are not speaking to that issue. But it is nonetheless, a very important issue also. One does not negate the other, resources could be more sustainable, population sizes could be more ecological with changes in behaviour. A city of 3 million is not inherently a problem.

Up
0

Hey, gingerninja, you're right. We've set our sights much too low. Who cares about Izmir, San Diego? This is the home of the Warriors. We're going to have the America's Cup right here. Let's look higher. Heck, what about the population of New York? That's a really exciting city, and it has lots of people. Believe me, lots, from all over.

Good infrastructure? Careful planning? What are you on about? Forget it. We're going to get that 'golden era of creativity and cultural expansion' you talk about without any of that stuff. We've never bothered with it before and we're not about to start. For one thing, it's expensive. For another, you have to think about it. No, that's not the New Zealand way. We go for growth. It's growth that delivers everything we want. Growth! Only the lefties don't get it. I'm with you, three million's chickenfeed. London - that's another really big city. Let's go for it!

Up
0

Politician, I'm not sure whether you're being sarcastic, cynical, sardonic, serious or facetious? All of the above?

Up
0

All of the above, gingerninja. And forward-looking, responsible, trustworthy. Selfless too. Just thinking about what's good for the country. It's how we get elected! And that's all that matters. Oh, and a safe pair of hands - that always gets them clapping. I nearly forgot that.

Up
0

I'm picking all of the above.

But on the topic at hand. Gingerninja, I completely agree with you. Been to most of those cities myself and it is how you do it, not the population that matters. We have more than enough space for 3 million, we just don't use it properly. When you consider the UK has +65m and is smaller by land mass, its crazy we have got ourselves in the state we have right now with less than 5m.

Up
0

Can you build a 3 million population city with marvelous infrastructure ? Yes. Is it going to happen in Auckland ? No.
Do some people assume everywhere has to fill up to maximum loading capacity ? Yes. Is maximum population the only way ? No.
Is it better to avoid population problems, or combat them once we have them ? Avoid.

Up
0

Can you build a 3 million population city with marvelous infrastructure ? Yes. Is it going to happen in Auckland ? No.
Do some people assume everywhere has to fill up to maximum loading capacity ? Yes. Is maximum population the only way ? No.
Is it better to avoid population problems, or combat them once we have them ? Avoid.

Up
0

Yes,well the issue of the human race overpopulating the planet does indeed have relation to NZ and whether or not it is under or over populated. I reckon it is fair enough to assume it is not really either but all those other countries with multi millions of people and cities alone with the population of NZ are, in fact, grossly overpopulated. I do not think you can separate them and I do think we should have a mind to that greater issue and perhaps rejoice that we do NOT have a large population and maybe keep it that way.

Up
0

I don't think we should make such casual assumptions about population sizes. There are huge populations who use comparatively little resources and smaller populations who use disproportionately huge resources. The size is not correlated in every way with ecological damage. And with a different focus and commitment from those developing technology, governmental and national value systems and infrastructure, resource use and ecological harm could be rapidly decreasing. Not to mention that every country in the world that has reached a certain level or "development" and subsequently seen its birth numbers spontaneously decline and that peak population is not some mythical notion, but a very real statistical proposition. It is entirely possible, that excluding economic and lifestyle migration, ultimately all nationalities will see population decline. Social changes and tech make huge differences on this front.

Up
0

Population stabilization/reduction is tied in very strongly with female emancipation, in cultures where there is none, birth rates remain high.

Up
0

^^100% concur with you Pocketaces^^

The higher the level of education women have, the lower the birth rate. The more agency and equality women have, the lower the birth rate. The lower the levels of inequality and poverty, the lower the birthrate.

And I hate to say something so contentious but the more secular a state is, the lower the birth rate. Religion is strongly correlated with higher birth rates.

Up
0

Much of the world is overpopulated already, but I see no reason for that problem to become a problem in New Zealand. The trouble is only just begun. In future decades what will happen in Africa, or in the Middle East when the money runs out.

Up
0

It is already happening with boatloads of desperate people trying to get out of Africa and into Europe, something is about to give there.

Up
0

As part of the small is beautiful movement or you could say King Canute tidal warning system I have to admit you have a point. You are right : the total population is not that significant to the quality of a city.

But there is an Irish saying where someone asks the direction to the city of Cork and the reply is "well I wouldn't start from here". Auckland could have been a perfect city with a little planning and a population never exceeding 1 million. If we are to stop its steady decline we need a short break in new population and some serious investment and most important of all some good planning.

Up
0

Local and National Governments in NZ have proven incompetent as Auckland city planning. It can't even cope with the population it currently has to continuing to cram in new migrants, is going to worsen the problem.

I totally agree that migration is currently a problem. I just don't believe that migration or population increase is inherently the problem.

With the current local and national government though, sustained rapid immigration could lead to further deteriorating quality of life for NZs existing population.

Up
0

Migration needn't have been 'the' problem but it has become 'the' problem.
Nz simply has insufficient economies of scale to build sufficient housing and infrastructure. So in light of that, demand has to be pulled back and one of the key ways to do that is to pull back on immigration

Up
0

You're right.
At the heart of it, it is a supply problem that masquerades as a demand problem.
The problem is that there is absolutely no motivation by either local or central government to address the issue.
At the core of it, the council is not motivated on the basis of it's incompetence and impending bankruptcy. Central government isn't interested on the basis of the effect it will have on some, albeit arbitrary, headline measures.
No one will address the blatant issues of anti competitive behaviour in the materials and construction sector.

It ultimately doesn't matter what happens with immigration; it will just speed up the process at which Auckland dies.
What would be a really interesting metric to see would be the rate and terms of renewal of commercial/industrial property in the Auckland region.

Up
0

Instead of building 18,000 houses a year that are capable of housing 2 or 3 people each, why don't we build houses capable of housing 5 or 6 people each? That way we'll need fewer of them!

Up
0

Great idea Sadr001!
But lets go really big and get one huge house then we can put all the extra 75,000 in it each year.
Then we'd only need to build ONE house a year!

Up
0

It's fine, National has a vision for affordable housing of the future.

Up
0

Otherwise known as a ghetto.

Up
0

All three bedroom homes can house 6 people and more with hot bedding.
Its been happening for years in South Auckland and its legal.
Relax, 10,000 homes will be fine.

Up
0

This sort of thing is also going on in the Zest apartments in Nelson Street. When you're a poor person from the Third World imported to depress hospitality wages (and in some cases asked to accept less than minimum wages), such a thing is what's required to live viably.

Up
0

Exactlly, and the example I was think of was Pacific Islands community.
Hopefully its only for a few years until they get established.
Limitation is the showers so the goverment should make large hot water tanks compulsory in Auckland.
Just kidding.

Up
0

Today's date is not April 1 is it???
This is a ridiculous notion. Auckland's inward migration and population growth will become self regulating
ie. population growth will start to subside as there were won't be enough houses, jobs, schools, teachers etc. to absorb the growth
I reckon Auckland's population will top out at around the 1.8 - 2 million mark

Up
0

Prosperity as per national. Open immigration and can fill not 70000 but 700000.

Up
0

Our door wide open for citizens of the world.

Up
0

The Auckland City Centre newsletter arrived 2 hours ago: ""Our city is changing daily and becoming more exciting, vibrant and is the economic engine room. But many people wonder why invest so much in such a small area ....
Highly skilled workers are seeking out dense, vibrant cities and workplaces that engage the public realm and connect people to community and consumption offerings. It is these educated, ambitious and energetic young people who will create and fill the jobs of the future.""
Not all vibrant cities are expanding - Chicago decline of 25%, Philadephia decline by 26%. Even Prague is declining and I defy any reader to list a better looking city.

Up
0

OMG Auckland real estate agent 'shocked at online backlash to sale to foreign buyer'!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=118…

Up
0

As the article says most countries regulate foreign purchase of property more strongly than NZ.
What a short sighted country we are

Up
0

But the Government has already tightened rules from October 1, 2015 where a New Zealand IRD number and New Zealand bank account is now needed by foreign buyers.

Up
0

That's a very lame regulation that is easily worked around.

Up
0

According to the agent herself Kiwis cannot compete with foreign buyers:

"I owe it to my vendors to get the best prices for their property, and it just so happens that these overseas buyers are the ones who are prepared to pay," she said.

Up
0

Here's an idea, why don't we start sending SAFE some info regarding Chinese nationals buying property in NZ?

Up
0