Pulling up the ladder after you.
Economist Brad Olsen says a fight against an apartment development on Auckland’s North Shore is a perfect example of why young generations feel they are being “screwed over”.
A proposed development in Beach Haven in Auckland is being opposed by some residents who argue “bedroom commuters” would not connect with, or be a part of, the community.
The development would include 81 apartments in four three-storey buildings across a 7000 square metre site.
Some Beach Haven residents say the area already has too many cars, and there is not sufficient infrastructure in place to cope with the development. One complained they didn’t want to see different houses on her daily commute, while another was concerned there was no supermarket.
Infometrics chief executive Olsen says the conversations he is hearing about housing development in Auckland “are some of the most selfish I have ever heard”.
“The lack of empathy, the lack of compassion, the lack of understanding is maddening. I don't know where these people get off. I think it really shows a huge lack of giving a damn about fellow Kiwis. There is no other way around it.”
Olsen says it shows there are some people who do not care about the next generation.
“And that’s the long and the short of it.”
Auckland has long been the face of New Zealand’s housing crisis and the North Shore is one of the least affordable parts of the city to buy homes in.
The house-price-to-income multiple of the North Shore, defined as the ratio between median house price and median annual household income or median multiple, was calculated at 11.48 in December 2022 and 11.91 in December 2020. A median multiple of 3.0 or less is considered affordable.
It is also one of the more expensive Auckland places to rent. The average rent for residential properties on the North Shore managed by the region's largest real estate agency, Barfoot & Thompson, was $671.61 per week in December of last year. This was an increase of 2.56% on the prior year, the agency said.
Documents submitted in support of the Beach Haven apartment plan by architect Kevin Brewer said the site was 700 metres east of the Beach Haven wharf and “an easy walk to ferry services”. He said the site was an easy walk to shops and a bus route which connects directly to the Auckland central business district.
Olsen says a lot of Auckland's challenges and concerns come back to housing and increasingly, "the way that housing pans out will shape how the economic future of an area goes as well".
The Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment says transforming New Zealand's housing market would unlock productivity growth and improve housing affordability. It says this economic shift away from housing would overcome the shortage of housing, and focus capital investment towards more productive areas.
Kaipātiki local board chair John Gillon campaigned in the 2022 local body elections on his record of halting development in the area and says he “fought the unsuitable Zion Rd and Tizard Rd developments that were in breach of the Unitary Plan”. He was the top-ranked candidate in the local board with more than 9500 votes.
There were ten apartments planned for a site in Tizard Rd in 2019. The Zion Rd site would have seen 85 units built.
Gillon reportedly told Beach Haven residents in those cases locals had pooled together funds and hired a lawyer.
Writing on the Greater Auckland blog, Steve Cauldwell wrote that fighting new housing “can’t and won’t fix our infrastructure woes”.
“Neighbourhoods are already overrun by cars to the detriment of other options, and snarled with traffic at least twice a day. Ageing or failing infrastructure needs to be upgraded regardless of how many people are using it."
170 Comments
You simply cannot build high rise buildings right next to existing single and two storey buildings. Stop trying to screw over existing home owners and go build these in new subdivisions where you can all compete with each other to try and block out each others sunlight, put up with the traffic caused by high density and the fact there is never enough parking provided.
You realise most longer lived cities with tall buildings were once areas with single storey dwellings, right?
If people want unobstructed views and sun in perpetuity then living in a city isn't really for them.
Auckland is faced with going up or out and out hasn't been working for a few decades now.
Suburbia has been shown to be an inferior city model. Ballooning commute times, expensive housing, an inability to support public transport, massive infrastructure underfunding.
Whether liked or not, Auckland is the countries foremost destination for migrants both domestic and international. It needs to get sensible about what's a more sane footprint for the city.
My friend who lived as a child in poverty in a Hong Kong high rise apartment says she will never move out of her Auckland suburban house to live in an apartment however palatial.
Suburbia may be an inferior city model but it is what people like and especially immigrant families. Presumably Suburbia is inferior in terms of travel times and costs, lost heat through wall and ceilings, longer connections to utilities. If people were like battery hens then yes suburbia would be inferior. Take your argument to the limit - the most economic way to live with least impact on the environment would be dormitories with shared toilets and communal living for children. Humans to become Termites.
In Beach Haven? You are off your rocket. Beach Haven has extremely poor PT connections, poor roading, near non existent drainage, highly prone to landslips (especially with multiple story development earthworks), you have to drive to even get near a supermarket, a long drive to get near a commercial or CBD area and the area in question is entirely inappropriate and unsuitable even for many 2-3 single houses... the land and infrastructure issues aside the only "views" to speak of are the neighbours and sun with reduced shading is needed for supplying solar panels with power. Even worse the lack of suitable stormwater and water capacity means even single level properties require huge tanks whereas these apartments don't even have enough water tank space for a single dwelling. Even recent townhouses built there do not have enough space for the vehicles so the roads are completely crowded often and at peak times due to the limited roadways and small road connections no one is getting anywhere fast... WFH will be the only option but for kids in the area with disabilities they often have to miss school because the bus cannot come to their area.
Most US Cities in the middle of the country were built in the 19th Century with a combination of SFH and Built to Rent Apartments. As the Baby Boom generation left home in the 60's Developers went to the suburbs-away from Single Family Homes (along side Motorways for instance) and built tens of thousands of Rental Apartments that people under 35 populated and Underground garages (due to harsh winters are derigor accompanyments along with in ground pools and garden areas for the summer living. When there last NZ winter nothing much has changed and that same combination of development continues today, albeit loads of Town House Developments as well. Difference now is LIght Rail Lines are being built out from CBD's on old retired heavy rail lines that ran from CBD's in every direction. As an Example Minneapolis & St Paul -known as the Twin Cities Metro is now 3.4 million and my son can drive 45k in rush hour to the CBD in 40 minutes. Suburban living accounts for 2.4 million and the core 19th Century Cities only 1 million of the total.
Isn't it what the article is about: the older generation screwing younger folks with nimby. Of course, it works for you! ;)
As for "high-rise apartments that can't be built next to single-story housing", the world is full of places where it works great. Rotterdam, Tokyo and Viena - to name a few that I had the privilege to visit.
Tauranga has revised the medium and high density zones due for a final decision by council this year. You can go 3 levels up, 1m away from your boundary in 75% of the city now (yellow areas in link below).
Orange areas you can go up 4 levels at least.
Hopefully it passes.
https://gisapps.tauranga.govt.nz/plan_change/
Entitled.
Existing homeowners only bought the land their home is on. They don't have some fundamental right to dictate what happens with other people's land. They have a morally legitimate avenue though: they can go in with other homeowners and buy the land to prevent it from being developed.
If they are unwilling to do that, then their qualms are clearly worth less than the value to society of the new houses.
Extract from Helen Clark submission against the boarding house property at 169 Dominion / 1 Onslow. What a massive NIMBY she is, these people from lower socio economic standard are the people she purports to represent in parliament. But doesn't want near her
(i) The application to council states that "the purpose of the development is to provide quality short-to-medium-term accommodation for people, many of whom are elderly, and are awaiting more appropriate long-term accommodation."
In the first place this advertisement purports to offer long-term accommodation, not the short-to-medium-term accommodation referred to in the application to council. In the second place, the accommodation is offered for professionals, tradespeople and students. Yet neighbouring residents report that the existing clientele at the boarding house in general do not resemble that description. If the advertisement is any guide, transient elderly are not currently targeted as tenants by the lodge.
What seems inevitable is that the new 61 bedrooms will indeed be occupied largely by people who are transient dwellers. They may be transient for a range of reasons. This neighbourhood is home to a number of group facilities for people with special needs for support and has no complaints where such group accommodation is properly supervised.
You simply cannot build high rise buildings right next to existing single and two storey buildings
Of course you can, not only can you, but it's been done the world over. As long as there is population increase, its the best way to provide new accommodation. Also 3 storey buildings aren't high rise.
Well said . Fudge the home owners ( of whatever status and age) who bought a home somewhere for particular reasons to be “ screwed” over on the values of their properties via rabid ad-hoc planning rules ,applied without consultation and any mandate, by councils pandering to their political masters.
All good grist for a lightweight self-promoting economist to make commercial mileage.
4 x 3 storey buildings on nearly 2 acres is hardly high rise.
The visionary two apartment towers at top of Shelly Beach Rd in Herne Bay built in the 1970s and before the RMA was dreamed up. No way they would have been resource consented. That act is responsible for putting the kibosh on progress
In Beach Haven? You are off your rocket. Beach Haven has extremely poor PT connections, poor roading, near non existent drainage, highly prone to landslips (especially with multiple story development earthworks), you have to drive to even get near a supermarket, a long drive to get near a commercial or CBD area and the area in question is entirely inappropriate and unsuitable even for many 2-3 single houses... the land and infrastructure issues aside the only "views" to speak of are the neighbours and sun with reduced shading is needed for supplying solar panels with power. Even worse the lack of suitable stormwater and water connections means even single level properties require huge tanks whereas these apartments don't even have enough water tank space for a single dwelling. Even recent townhouses built there do not have enough space for the vehicles so the roads are completely crowded often and at peak times due to the limited roadways and small road connections no one is getting anywhere fast... WFH is the main option but for kids in the area with disabilities they often have to miss school because the bus cannot come to their area
(a) how about an assessment as to whether the infrastructure is deficient or not - and if it is how the shortfall is going to be addressed
(b) the irony of an economist deploring selfishness
(c) this story confirms the need for good urban design - I suggest that much of the concern is because of the numerous bad examples of urban development that are around.
The problem is the infrastructure is a decades long project, and Auckland is already an expensive place to live because there's too fewer properties and too many buyers - and that'll only get worse even in the short-medium turn.
But yes there also needs to be an overall infrastructure plan.
Right now there are, very clearly, too _many_ houses and too _few_ buyers.
It may change in the future if net migration explodes and the building industry implodes. But that will take time and is an unknown.
The denial of the enormous amount of house building in Auckland over the last several years baffles me.
Yes it is hard to know what the next 5 years looks like. Either of big growth or big brain drain seem possible. Same for house building.
My feeling is brain drain and housing crash to continue causing many building companies to fold. Housing surplus to be entrenched until the next cycle.
Longer term I agree there should be growth.
Yes, leasehold apartments.
Owners of leasehold homes around the cornwall park are also rueing that they bought in
Recent Herald article:
Around 100 families lease land on which they have either built family homes or lovingly restored bungalows. They have cared for their properties and paid their monthly ground rent for 20 years or, in some cases, 30-plus years.
Many homeowners are planning to walk away, something Sir John Logan Campbell would never have imagined. Some have already walked.
The next round of leases is coming up and the trustees of Cornwall Park are refusing to explore reasonable lease rentals. Lessees will soon be offered new rents which no one would sensibly pay.
The formula in the Glasgow leases (now banned in the UK) is 5 per cent of the land value. A typical house in the area with land valued at $3 million will face a lease of $150,000 per annum. This far exceeds the market rent of $65,000 on a comparable house, so the ground leases are now hopelessly uneconomic.
I understand that this development breaches the rules as well.
The sound bites quoted will be from a few outspoken A holes. The bulk of the opposition will be from those who are completely reasonable people.
There are some places where there just isn't sufficient services.
eg Devonport. Where the single road out is gridlocked at times.
That area has terrible road links. There is a ferry to the cbd, but good luck to ya if you want to go anywhere else.
On any of the proposed rapid transit plans there is no provision for that area in the future Just a blank white space in the Beachaven, Birkdale, Glenfield area.
There is already a huge amount of development going on in Northcote, which is a reasonable location, close to PT, much closer to the motorway, and beside a supermarket. So no need for this either, we are over-building already
Clearly Beachaven needs to be low density, as is reflected in urban planning to date. So not sure Brad has his finger on the pulse here.
We don’t live in a communist state. If developers want to take the chance on their own land, let them. They’re the ones with skin in the game here. If we don’t “need” it, they lose money. But we do need it. We haven’t come close to “over-building” when prices are 11x income.
He thinks the Government creating laws and rules is Communist. Well I've got news for him, we're already a Communist State if that's the definition.
Bloody communist Government won't let me drive 150kmh in a residential street. I cannot pour raw sewerage into an estuary. I cannot build a 3 bedroom house on 100x50 H1.2 Piles. Who the hell does this communist Government think they are, telling me what I can and cannot do? It's my car, my sewerage, my house.
No I don’t. Far from it.
I’m referring to planners/special interests deciding how much supply we “need” in a given area, as opposed to market mechanisms; this mentality of people thinking they know what other people “need” and trying to impose that on them (I.e. people shouldn’t be allowed to buy a small apartment, even if they want one).
You don’t know what other people need. You don’t know what society needs. NIMBYs are parasites.
I do not think anyone is against apartments in particular if they are of good size, quality and the buildings are equipped with facilities to support those living in them. Also the infrastructure around them needs to be build first so it can handle the increase in population.
Just building shanties to cram in more people and make money is stupidity.
People get confused re: depreciating. While the physical components of a house wear (and therefore depreciate), the existing use value of the dwelling has only appreciated, as compliance and build costs have only increased over time, and will likely continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
I agree that in the standard SFD there is wear and tear but as for the building depreciating that seems to have stopped in the past 20 years as the cost of timber, etc is now 10 times what is was in the 90's. Therefore in Auckland the building itself is an appreciating asset along with the land. A bit of refurbishment every 20 years is a fraction of the cost of a full replacement in this inflationary era.
There are two types of depreciation/appreciation.
A building can physically depreciate(wear and tear) which is a value-added depreciation and is worth less in this case, and at the same time due to monopoly restrictions have a non-value-added appreciation.
A value-added increase or decrease is where the amenity value is more or less as the case may be. EG you build another room on, the house is worth extra at least the cost of adding it
A non-value-added increase or decrease is where the amenity value does not change regardless of the increase or decrease. A boom economy allows you to sale your house for more without having to do anything to it.
These types can be weighted against each to come up with a net increase or decrease.
For example, a building deteriorates so needs $100,000 spent on it to be livable, but due to monopoly restrictions (location, Govt. policy causing shortage etc.) that extra is worth an extra $300,000. The net price increase is $200,000.
A large KO development on a big site next to shops in Hamilton attracted the nimbys in their droves. Those same nimbys didn't make a fuss about the gigantic retirement village planned for the same suburb. In other words, the debate from halfwit nimbys was about other labelled halfwits (mostly decent people) they did not like.
There is not a single residential neighbourhood in Auckland where the residents would agree 'Yeah, our infrastructure is great, plenty of parking space for all, bring on the apartments!' Not one. Yet, they have to go somewhere. Plenty going up in my neighbourhood, even though no one is happy about it. C'est la vie, it's better than having families living in garages and vans.
Actually there are quite a few but that AT and Watercare had dropped the ball on regular maintenance and upgrades cannot be understated. They put in drainage only suitable for the population of 30 years ago which should be criminal but isn't. They create bottlenecks by closing and reducing road access around these large scale developments (even from their own PT) and have in a large way reduced the access to train services across much of the new West Auckland development areas, they even cut bus services and then are left dumb and blind as to why 10000 new houses with one road in and out to the CBD 20km away cause gridlock... hmmm can you help them.
Protip for those homeless in garages better to be in the garage then to lose your house and possessions that could take decades to replace (like medical equipment) in flood conditions. Been in both conditions over many years and it was better being homeless then being in poorly designed flood prone locations with severe risk to health. Some areas are not suitable for higher density for very obvious reasons. That you cannot see them is a failing but perhaps you can take recent events and the failure of adequate drainage and planning as a learning experience.
This is basically the definition of NIMBYism.
You shouldn’t try and impose you preferences on others. Nobody is making you move there. If someone is happy with the size and quality of an apartment, too the point they’re willing to pay for it; that’s a net social benefit.
The infrastructure will never get built first (not in NZ). This is a standard NIMBY cop-out.
Some of the attitudes being expressed are disgusting, frankly. But…. The site is zoned ‘Single House Zone’, this sets a community expectation for low density development.
I definitely understand and indeed respect the opposition, but as I say some of the views being expressed in the opposition to it are disgusting.
And it should be noted that close proximity to public transport in no way guarantees that car use will be low.
where I live is 5 minutes walk to a train station, I would estimate that not more than 5 of the circa 130 residents who live here regularly take the train. I am one of them, so I have a good sense of who takes the train here
I came around to the government’s requirements under the National Policy Statement - Urban Development. Councils enable up to 6 storey medium and high density development within walking distance of train stations and medium to large scale centres. That’s a focussed approach to density, and will in its own right enable more than enough housing. And it allows councils to plan for infrastructure and public amenities with at least a bit of certainty. Even if the extent to which it promotes public transport use rather than car use may be exaggerated.
The Medium Density Residential Standards by comparison are a total joke. Enabling 3 storey medium density development almost everywhere.
Another economist that does not understand land economics or contracts, especially social contracts.
For the record, there is nothing wrong with density of any type. What is wrong is how the people that you elect, go about increasing density.
What Brad Olsen is basically saying, it does not matter what you had agreed with your neighbour/neighbourhood as part of the social contract you agreed with each other, and had given to the council to manage on your behalf, the council can override that at short notice.
When the homeowners built these homes they had agreed to build no more than two storeys etc. This right was protected in most cases by the zoning that the council was to administrate on their behalf.
What the owners failed to see, and cover in other rules like modern covenants try to do, is that 1) things change, and 2) You cannot trust the council to look after your best interests.
If the zoning/covenants had said something like, 'Maximum two storey etc. protected for, say, a minimum of 20 years, but can be changed thereafter with a minimum 75% agreement (like Body Corporates do) by the resident's owners that are covered by that zoning.'
Then this could have given a generation or two of guaranteed little change as they agreed to, then for the possibility of increasing change (still agreed by the majority) as they sell and move on over time.
But for Council/Central Govt. to at short notice change the rules, is a breach of their social contract, just because they can't plan ahead and give people plenty of notice of changes.
It also sets a bad future trend for Command and Control Govts. to take more and more from you.
In Brad Olsen's world, the next step of encroachment eg, if you are an empty nester, then any spare rooms needed to be rented out (increasing density) or you will get hit with an empty bed tax, would be fine.
And finally, it does not solve the affordability issue, as density is not a proxy for affordability. If it did, places like Hong Kong would have the most affordable housing in the world, not the most expensive as they do.
Two storey development and neighbours opposed. Following in the footsteps of Helengrad Clark, they don't want young renters in their neighbourhood
Neighbours lose litigation attempt to stop 13-unit $15m Remuera townhouses being finished - NZ Herald
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/neighbours-lose-litigation-attempt-…
That’s a totally different scenario to the Beachaven situation. Those neighbours in Remuera were being very unreasonable and disingenuous - that site is zoned for dense, two storey townhouses. So the development is pretty much in line with the zoning.
It most certainly isn’t in Beachaven.
Beachhaven is a perfectly average and ordinary suburb in the middle of Auckland, and three story apartments aren't particularly dense, nor are they tall enough to block views any more than a three story house would. Why not let people who own their own land build what they want on their own land instead of trying to interfere with other people's property rights?
As Dale has eloquently stated, zoning represents an agreed social contract. For that site, the agreed social contract is that it should be for low density, detached, two storey housing.
Huge areas of Auckland are zoned for medium and high density housing. That’s were three-storey-plus medium and high density housing should locate.
And by the way, the reason for these low density zonings is often at least partly about stormwater infrastructure issues. Given yesterday’s event, and the exacerbation of flooding coming with climate change, is it sensible to be enabling medium and high density housing, with high proportions of hard surfaces, almost everywhere?
Beach Haven is not in the middle of Auckland. There is no train access, there is no supermarket or commercial area within a short drive of it. There is no suitable public transport connections, there is incredibly slip prone land and poor drainage and water connections, there is no suitable road connections so the area is often gridlocked. Go to Glenfield, or better yet try anywhere within 15 min walk of a main bus transport hub.
And it was a rubbish decision.
3 dwellings are as of right, 4 or more dwellings needs consent which is simply a trigger for assessment. It is a good design that minimises impacts on neighbours, and is consistent with the height and type of density anticipated in that zone. The zoned contemplates quite dense two storey townhouses.
But there's more to the social contract than protecting land values.
The social contract didn't stop rapid immigration, didn't stop land-banking, didn't stop rampant property speculation, didn't stop renters being shunted unwillingly from house to house as playthings of a deranged market. So why does the social contract matter in this one specific case?
There are many different social contract types. The social contract type in relation to zoning to more clear-cut. You have to understand the history of zoning to understand how it has been broken.
If you go back far enough, two like-minded people agreed to live next door to each other over a handshake. It is this like-mindedness that attracts people together. But as more people come together then at some point these informal rules are written down, ie covenants.
And when a small town got large enough, then we employed people, like a Body Corp. Manager and then into councils, to manage this on our behalf. However as the towns grew (cities), and councils become more autonomous, they amalgamated services, and covenants into more homogenous zones (Zonings). In doing this, the zones and the rules that the council put on them, became more generic and not representative of the individual people or neighborhoods they are there to represent. This sudden increase in density is just a progression of this.
Modern developer covenants are just an attempted reversion (not always successful) to meet a more targeted demographic, just like they used to.
I get your point. It's a contract between neighbours that devolves through different entities as time goes on.
It implies no increase in density, ever, unless neighbours all agree - which will not happen.
You might say that's OK, but it's incompatible with a whole broader evolution of society that the same people benefit from. And it's breaking society. That might sound like hyperbole, but there's a connection between NIMBYISM and 12-year-old ram raiders. Gated communities and complete social dysfunction is the eventual outcome.
You don't know the meaning of the word. All it mean's to you is what is mine is yours.
Following Brads, and your logic, if you have a spare room/bed in your house, you are being selfish for not letting somebody else use it. So here is your choice, put someone into that room, or if you want it empty, Govt. will tax you hard enough so you can't afford to keep it empty, or will sell to downsize.
I bet you were also for the empty house tax that was being promoted.
Yvil I am a boomer and therefore I know how they think and act. We are a particularly greedy age bracket.When we smell an opportunity to invest we tend to go for it as we generally had bugger all when we were young and we didn’t want to live like our parents. One consolation for the generations after us is we are dying at an ever increasing rate.
This is the problem with our screwed up democracy.
The young < 18 & unborn get no say at vote time.
Boomers (I'm almost one) with their high population percentage screw the elections so there is no increase in the super age, no capital gains tax, & there is nimbyism.
It has been proven in courts that people <20 don't understand the consequences of their decisions, act selfishly and cannot be expected to have any responsibility for their actions. If they cannot be trusted to act in society at all and do not understand their own actions and choices have consequences why then should they be given the vote that adults with competency are expected to have. After all many disabled people are denied the vote and many are only blind or unable to read or unable to get access to support; not unethical, not selfish, not incompetent and not irresponsible to the point they cause extreme harm to others.
Your statements are not correct.
I note with respect to the voting age:
"In The Good Citizen: How a Younger Generation Is Reshaping American Politics, Russell J. Dalton argues that ‘contrary to conventional wisdom, younger generations are more politically engaged, more politically tolerant, and more supportive of social justice … creating new norms of citizenship that are leading to a renaissance of democratic participation.’ Research discussed later in this piece also highlights how many young Austrians have turned to non-electoral forms of participation in order to influence political outcomes."
The research in Austria and Scotland would suggest that in order to properly appraise earlier enfranchisement, we need to engage with evidence generated when younger people are actually allowed to vote, rather than making assumptions about their behaviour after observing older peers."
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/te-akomanga/contexts-activities/should-voting…
“Neighbourhoods are already overrun by cars to the detriment of other options, and snarled with traffic at least twice a day. Ageing or failing infrastructure needs to be upgraded regardless of how many people are using it."
What do you expect when parking is FREE, and peak period road use is FREE, and vehicle users also get many other direct and indirect subsidies and cross-subsidies.
Its these massive subsidies that support low density development and sprawl and NIMBYISM.
Great article, spot on.
1st we have to accept that we need more dwellings to accommodate increasing population.
Then we we must realise, that there are only two solutions being 1) expand further out, which means less arable land, more commute times, more pollution or 2) build denser within the current city limits, which means building up.
Lastly, building apartments is the most affordable way to allow FHB into home ownership.
So in conclusion, yes, opposing new apartment buildings is nimbyism at its worst and is very selfish.
They aren't satellite towns anymore than Auckland is a satellite of Sydney. They are regional towns where people can work from home, or more locally, in the same way, Hamilton is a city in its own right and not a satellite of Auckland.
You really need to do some reading on land economics and how land is priced. The present setup makes land so expensive that it forces people to the high density on the fringe and beyond looking for affordability.
You are actually promoting expensive sprawl.
1st we have to accept that we need more dwellings to accommodate increasing population.
Sorry, but it is not a "given" that population growth MUST occur. Births in NZ are at (or around) replacement level. So the primary reason we have a growing population is that successive governments have just turned on the low skill immigration tap to generate nominal GDP growth and drive down wages.
Until we actually have a debate about the infrastructure and housing required to support a growing population, and who will pay for the infrastructure deficit this has created, then assuming we MUST have population growth is starting at the wrong place.
How many young people buy apartments? I'm going to go out on a limb and say bugger all, but that's just my experience renting an apartment and figuring out who owned them. Surprise surprise, very few were owner occupied - mainly the top floor and they were middle aged or older, not young. The remainder/vast majority were owned by investors (ours was Singaporean) and rented. As a young person why would body corporate fees be attractive? And given new builds will compete with investors, including some foreign due to the relaxed LVR requirements do we really think they are going to be cheap?
How hard is it to ask for a place that the mortgage isn't more than 40% of your wage, and you get at least a 2 bedroom unit worth of space for you and your partner. The boomers who own their >$1million properties next door should find a quicker way to the grave.
For at least half of my ilk life is
Living with your parents till you are 30.
Spending >half your wage on rent if you don't want to spend it with flatmates.
The only ones who have made it into homeownership have had 'donations' of $200k plus from their boomer town asset hoarders.
It's no life. But the boomers don't see it as taking from the future. They're just holding on to what they 'earned'. Privelage perpetuated.
No, that generation did earn it. You are trying to be the voice of every one your age? You have no idea what they were going through or had to do. This moral grand standing or who had it worse is nonsense.
The amount of boomers that I know had nothing when they were growing up. They grew there own food, patched there clothes, didn't live in luxury at all.
If you had it easy doesn't mean that others around you did.
As for Generation X they came out to hardly and jobs (the crash was 87). I can remember over 100 people applying for dishwashing Job. At that time many New Zealanders also worked as labourers or at orchards.
This new generation have jobs to go to but have to deal with houses prices which are ridiculous high. Also you would remember house interest and unemployment was very high back in old days. Both are circumstances are pretty crap if your starting off.
This division is the bane of society going forward. It's not going to help young get houses. It's a more complex issues than the ideology that it's the boomers fault.
I agree house prices are ridiculously high. Us boomers bought at 3 times income so our loans were easy to service. I provided professional services for many boomers and GenerationX. A lot of them bought more rentals than they needed as they could as their loans were small relative to today. There is no doubt they contributed to the ridiculous house prices today . That disaster did not happen on its own accord. It evolved as more and more people saw the need to create their retirement fund.
People are conflating density with affordability.
Density is not a proxy for affordability.
Houston, with a low average density, compared to Auckland (but irony, far higher localized residential density than the densest part of Auckland) has housing in all types, which costs approx. 1/2 of Auckland.
Hong Kong, with the highest density in the world, also has the least affordable housing.
Our land use policies are distorting the shape of the market and prices.
Even the apartment types they are wanting to build are the wrong balance for what people would prefer if the price was cheaper.
The easiest book to read on this is Alain Bertaud's Order Without Design https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262038768/order-without-design/
Houston shows you can deregulate planning, and everything will basically be fine. A lot of nice places, and variety (including 6+ storey apartments in the inner suburbs). There’s no good reason our properties should cost double theirs. We’re basically paying for a planning premium equivalent to years in wages. We don’t need it. Abolish zoning.
See my comments on the presumptive right to develop zoning.
This seems counterintuitive to my criticism of the high-density developments in this article, but it allows for people's market expectations to be met, including the continuity of those rights and affordable housing.
I've been pointing this out on this site for over a decade now.
Some people get it, and see the benefit for them if it was to happen, others get it, but also see it would mean a loss of equity for them if this was reintroduced into NZ. And others are just so blinded by their failed ideology, that the logic goes right over their head.
Having lived and worked in NZ and Texas in development, I know exactly which system is better, especially for affordability, and getting more house for your money.
Either system basically doesn't change the universal shape of the city, which is a denser CBD and lessening density as you approach the fringe, but it makes a huge difference to the price people pay for housing.
Prior to 1993, all NZ housing was the same as the median multiple ratios to Texas. Since then the classic urban shape has not changed that much in NZ, but the price has tripled as a median multiple to income, for no other reason than the restrictive land use policies.
Also a slight correction about Texas zoning. It does have zoning, but the zoning is in its first stage is an open zoning, in that you have a presumptive right to build, excluding those areas designated for forever protection like environmentally sensitive lands, roading designations etc. Other than that you develop, at your risk, to what you think will sell.
If you think, you have a high-rise apartment market, then you can build for that, and you apply the zoning as developer covenants, in effect the zoning comes after the land purchase, not before.
'Zoning' this way, means there is always potentially more land available now to meet whatever the demand is, so this stops speculators from being able to corner the market and hold monopoly positions on any land they own. If it is too expensive, a developer can always go past them to the next willing seller.
Interestingly, if you are a developer whose development is beside land that could be compromised then the project has to be priced accordingly and/or the developer designs it so it is not effected. OR buys the land to control effect.
NZ examples of what some people might worry about are Westlake Girls High next to cement works and Highway.
And residential subdivisions built around Rosedale Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Of course, the irony is, that these new apartments will have a set of Body Corporate rules, stating many things they can't do, including some of the very things they will be inflicting on their surrounding neighborhood which don't have the luxury of those preventative rules.
I think there is a word for that.
The NIMBYs in rich suburbs often include Lawyers who will work for costs to litigate, you need very deep pockets as a developer to overcome this.
Nevertheless I personally think that the densification should be around train stations or the main bus NX1 route. I hate having to do a Trademe pickup from Birkenhead, its the middle of nowhere, and you have to drive for ages at 50km along crowded roads. That said there are examples of this style of build (or perhaps more 2bdrm) in and around the area as it was the cheapest North Shore land.
I'm a NIMBY and proud of it. It's just being honest and a bit active about your life. You wouldn't want a prison built next door or a drug rehabilitation house or state houses, or a massive block of apartments, would you? People here are saying they don't want these things next door but shrug their shoulders and then say c'est la vie. NIMBYs take action and that's to be admired.
I've heard cases of people demanding that native trees not be in their back yards or block their view.
People are being gas lit into believing NIMBYism is somehow bad. Demand high standards and be proud of it.
The word NIMBY has been highjacked and redefined by certain manipulating groups.
The rules of any game are always easier to play if everyone plays by the same rules, and the referee interprets and applies them fairly.
What we have here is bad faith refereeing by the council, with one team wanting to double their number of players on the field.
The true definition of Nimbyism is not allowing someone to play by the same rules you had all agreed to.
If someone started burning toxic waste that harmed the neighbours or someone used the site as an asbestos dump or manure compost farm that leeches sewage into your water I am pretty sure you would have a problem with that before the cancer kicks in and you in a matter of a few years stop making complaints.
Sure, complain about it. But there should be no obligation to act on the complaints. No one - no one - wants densification near them. But as a society we need to densify. It's like paying taxes. You don't want to do it, guess what, no one else does either, but it's necessary, so suck it up.
“The lack of empathy, the lack of compassion, the lack of understanding is maddening. I don't know where these people get off. I think it really shows a huge lack of giving a damn about fellow Kiwis." Oh well, I'd say economists from the exponential growth cult are a threat to most life on Earth Brad. Brad needs to get his head out of ....... and learn ecology.
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.