By Alex Tarrant
The seasonally adjusted number of new house building consents fell for the third consecutive month in September, extending the downward trend over the second half of the year.
Seasonally adjusted dwelling consents, excluding apartments, fell 2.6% over the month to 1,104, the lowest monthly figure since July 2009 (1,091), figures released by Statistics New Zealand show.
The number of housing consents had reached as high as 1,481 in April 2010.
“The earthquake on 4 September 2010 has had some impact on building consents issued in Canterbury, due to factors such as territorial authority offices being closed temporarily,” Stats NZ said.
Seasonally adjusted consents, including the volatile apartment figures, rose 0.5% from August to 1,183 in September, Stats NZ said.
Unadjusted figures show 1,202 house building consents were issued in September, down slightly from 1,275 the same month a year ago.
There were 60 consents for apartment units over the month (Sept 09: 155), with 50 of those for retirement village units, Stats NZ said. The apartment category is volatile from month to month.
In the year to September 2010, there were 15,450 new housing consents issued, up 27.5% from the year to September 2009, which had the lowest annual total since the series began in 1991. Despite the jump, the latest year was still the second lowest for a September year, Stats NZ said.
Including apartment units, there were 16,292 dwelling consents during the year, up 19.7% from the previous year.
“In the September 2010 year, 842 new apartment units were authorised, which is the lowest total for a September year since 1994,” Stats NZ said.
JP Morgan economist Helen Kevans said the result signalled investment in residential housing was tracking lower than they had expected for the September quarter:
We had expected that permits would increase steadily in 2010 after an extended period of weak activity. While this has not been the case thus far, we suspect that permits will increase into year end, in the wake of the devastating earthquake in Canterbury in early September. This suggests that residential investment should continue to recover in 2011 from a long-running decline. Residential investment spiked 11%q/q in 2Q, having risen only modestly in the previous two quarters. Slower net migration and higher interest rates will, however, cap the upside.
Updates with chart, link, JP Morgan comments)
Building consents - growth
Select chart tabs
131 Comments
Absolutely, I thought it was disgraceful also, I just can't believe that home owners want their own people in their own country to be peasants, I really think there needs to be a law in place for that kind of thing, I just don't understand the mentality, I think its greed.
"Simply too much easy and cheap money, happily pumped up by banks and governments of all colours!"
Yes exactly, HP has a libertarian outlook and fits the world around that. House values should be 3 times earnings, which means house prices need to drop 50%, and then rent will also drop....its one huge rip off...
The ponzi schemers...ie buying for asset gain will and should be wiped out, we should have jingle mail as well so the banks take on some of the pain for being so stupid....and if the report in stuff is anything to go by house prices are being supported by restricting mortgagee sales....
regards
I think the point is that if you free up subdivision rules from the CBD right through to the edge of town then you'll see a marked drop in land values. You cant just do it on the edge of town because that will result in urban sprawl as you rightly suggest.
We need to allow higher density subidvision right from the centre of town out to the edges. That way section sizes can get smaller and smaller the closer and closer you get to the centre of town.. right to the point where you get to the CBD and build high density multi level apartment buildings.
Then you end up with more people living closer to the centre of town when the section sizes are smaller and less on the edges where the section sizes are larger, all of a sudden traffic problems are alleviated and you have a vibrant and busy city centre.. unlike what Christchurch and Auckland have.
If you allow free subdivision of land from the city centre to its fringe you'll implicitly limit urban sprawl because workplaces and meeting places would naturally be located towards the centre of the city where the highest density of people is, and it would become far more desireable to live centrally and not have to face the twice daily commute. Of course getting to this place would take a long long time as we'd have to work out of the current mess our city "planners" have put us in.
ctnz your argument about banks pumping in the money is right, but its a side issue to what Hugh is saying. The banks were going to pump the money in regardless, but it doesn't have to be as bad as it is.
Sprawl is the least of our problems.
New Zealand is only 1.5% urbanised and Auckland urban area is the densest urban area in Australasia. It is the second densest urban area in the US running second only to Los Angeles.
This high density is why Auckland has so little open space, extremely expensive industrial and commercial land and so much traffic congestion. the road network is not up to the density now built up around it.
Just about every urban economist around the world now acknowledges that the financial bubble was responding to the real estate bubble just as they did to the tulip bubble, the South Seas bubble and the Dot com bubble.
The states in the US that were lightly regulated and allowed their cities to grow did not have a bubble and hence have not suffered the bursting consequences. The same applies to Switzerland and Germany.
People prefer to live in suburbs and suburbs built on fringe land allow the industry to supply affordable housing. That is why you can go to Houston or Dallas Fort Worth or Atlanta (the fastest growing cities and urban economies in the US) and buy a new house for $140,000 or so.
These cities also have the highest employment growth.
So what do want. To lock up all the peripheral land for cattle and sheep or let people live in the new suburbanist settlements which do NOT have the falings of the suburbs we rushed to build after the war. Mind you, even these are now mature attractive high value areas.
Get real. If you want your children and grandchildren to have a job and live in a house they can afford then make sure there is affordable housing.
Furthermore if the mortgage only uses up 15% percent of your net take home pay instead of 50% you have some money left over to save and invest and even fund your own start up business.
Where is the benefit of current land use policies compared to the benefits of sensible policies like we used to have until the Smart Growth nutters took control with their dense thinking.
Yeah but which is the cooler city - New York or Houston? Big cities should be thriving high density places with public transport and things within walking distance. If you don't want to live in a high density place (and pay the extra mortgage payments), go live in a provincial town.
As an architect myself, 'green' buldings don't have too look feral. Not sure if I can see some straw bales in that shot. Perhaps the photo is showing the building at a bad angle, but those ugly solar heaters and cylinders should be hidden behind a parapet, not in plain sight.
Rob - You're right.
Straw bales I think of as dry-climate ware. I thing internal moisture migrating outwards, is likely to dew-point (precipitate) at the same distance through the bale, all the time. Says rot if you're not well internally sealed,
At least those opanels won't leak into a room......
I did a 'gloves-off' green build here - coolstore panel (new) as the skin, and a macrocarpa pole portal structure for snow-loading and to carry the mezzanine. I used 17mm ply as the downstairs walls, single-skin, great load-path bracing.
Pulled it off for $370 / sq.m five years ago, ex labour.
It's overcast today, and we've had no artificial heating for 3 days. Currently 10deg outside, 23 in the conservatory, 19 downstairs and 21 ustairs. Those will increase for a while yet.
Off-grid too. Not sure if you'd call it 'feral', though....
Drop by if you're even down Dunedin way.
Nice, it shows it can be done. If all houses were built to this standard we could probably run the same number of cars on the road on electricty and do it within the current generation capacity.
PDK have you done the calculations. .19Kwh/km say x 20K annual Km = 54km per day x 3milion cars = 1Kw for 10 hours charging average x 3mil cars = 3 Gwatts = about a 1/3rd of current capacity, use smart meters to control the load. Have I done the sums right?
Instead of building cycleways we should be fully insulating houses, installing solar and have a range of start up businesses building converting to electric cars. Carbon fibre framed with a design life of 30 years (with a couple of battery changes in that life). Now that would be real initiative instead of cycleways.
good thinking - my concern would be the oil-fired lead time left to build all those electric cars, the question of Peak Lithium and Peak Copper, and whether we could produce all the batteries.
I go with bikes. They only take the build energy, last 100 years, keep obesity and diabetes at bay, need narrowr tracks, and let you talk to folk en route.
Carbon is good, I use it myself vacuum-bagging centreboards etc, but don't write off stressed plywood. Weight-for-weight, it's hard to beat. Unidirectional fibreglass (I use gunstock, straight off the 'cheese' and resin-dipped) is pretty close in tensile terms, too.
Solar is the best, the most efficient, of all. Simple, really - wind and hydro are simply secondary solar, and all things being equal, primary beats secondary.
The grid will morph into an equaliser of mini-generators, rather than a main-trunk line from central Otago to Auckland. Better, less loss.
"The grid will morph into an equaliser of mini-generators, rather than a main-trunk line from central Otago to Auckland. Better, less loss."
Surely these are the national projects that we should aspire to - domestic generation of power, and feedback into the grid (winding the meters backwards at the same time!).
Solar roofing / inefficient - maybe too expensive still?
Start now before electric cars are commonplace and we have to dam more lakes.
I know nothing about this - but we don't even have the discussion.
Oops maybe not then.....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1324264/Too-solar-power-…
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-28/ge-plans-biggest-electric-v…
"GE, whose power-generation equipment provides a third of the world’s electricity, will order “tens of thousands” of the vehicles in about a week, Immelt said yesterday in a speech in London, without giving a total or identifying a manufacturer"
Which is interesting....if you ignore PDK's scenario for a moment.....
The biggest effect on your calculation is you assume no change in use, the reality is EVs are going to be outside the cost of what many NZers can afford....bear in mind the debt mountain is going to take 10 if not 20 years to clear as salaries will be tight and taxes and huge costs to move to alt fuels/energy all this impacting the ability to buy a car as disposable income is cut. Our economy is going to be devistated for 20 to 30 years...
So in terms of your calculation, you seem to be swapping like for like, so 3mil petrol vehs replaced with 3 mil EV...that I would suggest is an unrealistic upper end...
As the reality is EVs are well over twice the price and last about 1/2 as long.....Also I could only afford a 2nd hand car at about the ten year mark at which point its all but worthless without a new battery pack...and that financial situation is no better in the future.
So its likely that many of us will be using push bikes, electric bikes and public transport a lot more...so that 3mil EVs will probably be about 1 million.
Cost to run per km is apparantly about 3 cents, not sure what the average mileage is NZ I couldnt find it, for myself I do < 8000km per year...I dont commute and I dont think its going to be as common as it is now myself....
but lets go with 8000 x 0.03 = $240.....nice......very cheap to run....of course I expect the cost of power to be well past 30cents a KWH....unlike the 20cents now.
Cycleways are essential....lots of ppl will be using them, mind you the roads will be pretty empty.
We are probably one of the few countries in the world that in a pinch could could reduce to a net energy equation of zero and still have a reasonable chance of all of our personal essential and some recreational transport being met by local electricity generation.
In most other countries in the world the balance is between burning fossil fuel in an incredibly inefficient engine on the road vs burning that same fossil fuel in a somewhat more efficient large generator, then shipping that energy via a line to a charger and into the car batteries, so it's a 50/50 substitution, most of the time it's going to be better but sometimes it isn't.
We have 4 million cars on the road. One per person nearly. When they rust out in 10 to 15 years what are we going to do? as the price goes up and rationing of fuel kicks in? We bought them as crumbs off the table, the discards, not full price. So how can we expect to pay full price for the fist off the production line, a production line based on a slimmer cost justification than ours, but for us the benefit would be higher.
We are faced with a choice, make our own, less sophisticated, less integrated, just convert the odd car body in the backyard, as is happening now, and scale that up a bit in a bigger shop, or what?. In the end that will mean getting in with one of the big players.
1st para, Yes I agree, the problem comes with future replacement........
Rust out in 15 years.....peak oil is within this decade, almost certianly before 2015. Personally I dont see rusting out as an issue.....most ppl wont be putting petrol in within 10 I think, so thats a huge household financial loss....
In terms of battery power.........and what we will be doing, here is a sample....of what I think is most likely,
"Any shift from private to public transport (diesel bus, trolleybus or tram) makes a huge gain in efficiency in terms of individual miles per kWh.
Research shows people do prefer trams, because they are quieter and more comfortable and perceived as having higher status.
People appreciate the way traffic has to part when a tram comes, meaning they can move around cities much more swiftly than in diesel buses or trolley buses.
Therefore, it may be possible to cut liquid fossil fuel consumption in cities through the use of electric trams.
Trams may be the most energy-efficient form of public transportation, with rubber wheeled vehicles using 2/3 more energy than the equivalent tram, and run on electricity rather than fossil fuels.
In terms of net present value, they are also the cheapest—Blackpool trams are still running after 100-years, but combustion buses only last about 15-years."
We will be putting in tidal generators and wind....now some ppl say we wont accept the limitations these technologies will put on our lifestyles....they are dreaming its not optional....we simply wont be able to afford the energy cost as individuals....
Backyard engineering is too crude, Big players, NZ wont be getting too many EVs. I suspect globally they will be in short supply and a premium cost, that just isnt NZ...we are Pak'n'save not K&S...
But I suspect EVs or their rarity wont be the huge deal we think it will be....when I look at my lifestyle the car is a luxury, I can get by on public transport and due to the cost and impossibility to park frequently do use PT....its most difficult to replace job is transporting the weekly shop....
Our future economy will look nothing like the economy of today.....I really dont know what to expect, Im hoping it will be a civilised transition....For me my thougts are this will be like a war footing, ppl will just get on with it when it comes down to it..
regards
PDK
Yes the same inanities "New Zealand is only 1.5% urbanised" and "Auckland urban area is the densest urban area in Australasia"...so..its hardly saying much
I see HP has cut and paste the same drivel again below..NZ should just be like Texas except for the drug, guns, exploited Mexicans, the 2 hour commutes, soaring energy costs.
We should shout HP a trip to Texas this summer and dump him in the middle with a bicycle
Cheers Neven
"SK - go to my website www.PerformanceUrbanPlanning.org to the article 071111 "Lifestyle Block Mythology" and you will note that with our tiny population of 4.4 million and something north of 80% of our population urbanised - just 0.70% of our land area is urbanised. Our land area is roughly the same as the United Kingdom with 61 million people (9% urbanised) and Vietnam with 86 million people."
And the vast majority of the UK and Vietnam is flat. Suggest you look at NZ in three dimensions - most of it is very rugged hills and mountains and the bits in between the cities and the hills are our most productive rural land. Look at Wellington - how far out of the Wellington CBD do you have to go to find flat land worth developing? Pretty much as far as somewhere like Kapiti. Do you think that releasing land in Waikanae is doing to make any difference whatsoever to land and house prices in central Wellington. Nope.
Switzerland is flat?
And if Houston is so bad why are so many Californians migrating there.
And if you had been there you would know that Houston has probably one of the best cycling networks in the US.
And Auckland urban area is also denser than many cities in France and Italy such as Milan and Bordeaux.
If flatness makes life easy for affordability why does the UK have the least affordable housing in Europe and possible the Western World?
There is no such thing as productive land. Only people make it productive. If you mean to refer to fertile land then be aware we only use 3% of our most fertile land for horticulture.
And many of our productive farm uses such as wine, olive and truffles require less fertile land. Indeed, truffles, probably the most productive crop in the world require the least fertile land you can find.
Cycleways are useful part of the urban and rural infrastructure but for kids going to school and for recreation and fitness. Their contribution to commuting is miniscule and if cycle lanes start displacing vehicle lanes the resource equations don't stack up.
I have been to Houston. So has Hugh I believe.
How many of you rubbishing it have been there.?
Maybe some facts to back up your claims would be useful. Please disprove my claims on Auckland density to begin with and quote your sources.
Jimbo
I give up.
No one is saying Auckland should be like Houston.
So many have an obsession with how cities should look – mind you Houston is one of the Greenest cities I have ever seen.
I am saying we should take notice of how Houston works - because it does.
It has the world's largest medical centre.
It is now the most rapidly growing urban economy in the US and has the highest employment growth.
IT was able to house the 130000 households who were refugees from Katrina without any significant increase in house prices.
And its congestion index is one of the lowest in the US for cities of over 1,000,000.
(its over five million)
The thing is that a lot of people live in densly populated cities because they want the atmosphere of being able to walk down the road and have shops and restaurants and public transport, etc. NZ does not have a city like this, probably one of the reasons why so many young professionals go overseas. Auckland could become one of these cities - but it won't if we keep on letting it grow outwards instead of upwards.
The way I see it, if you don't want to live in a big city and pay big city prices, go and live somewhere else.
The question is: what is appropriate in the future. To answer that, you have to assimilate Peak Oil, population and overshoot, depletion models, and more.
You end up with a planet perhaps capable of supporting 2 billion people at subsistence level, one billion at our current level.
When you have achieved that, you may find there are a fair choice of existing housing, per person, already existing.
In other words, this is really a discussion about deckchairs on a sloping deck.
Things I am pondering,
To get to our level of technology we need this level of population so they postulate....so without enough ppl we cant sustain our technology..... ( however how many of these ppl actually contribute? I cant see a lot of sense in that immediately at least in terms of a ratio....mainly because of discovery/invention and retaining it)...but I agree with that idea I just dont know how much of a retrograde there will be as the populaton declines....certainly it will, it has to, too many ppl including me eat fossil calories, so there will be a lot less food.....so there will be a lot less population....
So.....that retrograde suggests say for sake of argument 1950s technological level, except we have removed the raw materials that 1950s tech could have got...what will have of course is lots of refined raw materials sitting around in things like cars that can be recycled....
The biggest thing though is just how chaotic its going to be....will it be a fairly orderly power down, or a violent collapse..........in NZ, an orderly powering down is a reasonable possibility, as our pop density is very low not so many other countries.....
Where there is an overshoot in a population there is later an undershoot....so 2 billion? hmmm could easily be half that......
"At our current level", no i dont think so, somewhere lower....the best two models I can see is Cuba and the Amish, and actually neither seem unhappy....lots of ppl will be unhappy to adjust....sure....
regards
The people saying that "preventing urban sprawl" is more important than preventing land price bubbles are sick in the head.
There is an increasing body of peer-reviewed academic evidence that urban growth limitation and rail-transport-oriented development does not achieve any of the objectives it is claimed to, while causing enormous harm to whole economies and to the young and low income groups.
Professor Peter Gordon of the University of Southern California, concluded one of his papers a few years ago with these words (and this was BEFORE the bubble burst and caused the GFC)
".......Denying the historic record seems to absolve footprinters and their confederates from explaining or understanding it. They substitute their own stories. This leads them to troubling suggestions that property rights be expropriated rather than expanded. This is the environmentalists' fatal analytical error. Footprinters and other alarmists are not only wrong about the facts of our condition but their ignorance of markets shelters them from any understanding of how all this was accomplished. They freely substitute homebrewed analyses and ad hoc accounting schemes. In the current climate, however, it matters little. Nelson (1997) has suggested that no less than a new religion is at stake. If so, then unexamined and lightly examined propositions will continue to flourish. These will be promoted by households, firms, institutions and local governments, all claiming and receiving public subsidies."
It is also deeply ironic that in this day and age when we can hop on "Google Earth" and see for ourselves, there is so much quasi-religious mantra about "paving over paradise". At least us Christians expect "faith" to relate to something that is not verifiable with our own eyes, not something that any fool can SEE is not true.
This brief argument from Australian homebuilder and
industry expert Bob Day is 100% accurate:
".....The case for urban consolidation has been advanced on the back of a
number of arguments – namely, that it is good for the environment; that it
stems the loss of agricultural land; that it encourages people on to public
transport; that it saves water and energy; that it leads to a reduction in
motor vehicle use, and that it saves on infrastructure costs for government.
All of these claims, I repeat, all of these claims are false. The facts and
evidence from around the world refute each and every one of them.
Urban consolidation is not good for the environment; it doesn’t stem the
loss of agricultural land; it doesn’t encourage people onto public
transport; it doesn’t save water or energy; it doesn’t lead to a reduction
in motor vehicle use, and it doesn’t save on infrastructure costs......"
Here is my short "remedial urban economics lesson" for those with the intelligence to handle it.
Fringe land prices are the "denominator" of land prices for the entire metro.
"Location efficient" properties carry a land price premium relative to the price of fringe land. "Ricardian Rent".
Households and businesses make their location decisions roughly based on benefit-cost, including "utility value" benefit relating to their own preferences, in so far as these are affordable at all.
"Land price" is one factor in these location decisions. "Land price" for location efficient property usually reflects a counter-balance to "travel savings". Location decisions will be determined by an equilibrium between people's utility value of lifestyle preferences, and the total amount that people can "afford".
"Land value" is a significant proportion of the sum total of "what people can afford". The higher the land values relative to the travel costs, the greater influence "land value" will have on location decisions.
Conclusion: higher land prices will result in increased densities at INCONVENIENT locations, relative to the free market. Easily verifiable fact. Remember how urban form used to "blend into the countryside", from densest at the middle, gradually becoming less and less dense towards the preiphery? Look at it now. Infill development, cross leasing, townhouses; NEAR THE FRINGE - the result of demand from thousands of young households desperate for the "least unaffordable" option.
Further conclusion: INCREASED "average travel distances", relative to the free market alternative.
D'OH....!
There are certain types who can't shoulder personal responsibility. Some turn to religion, some to drink or drugs, some quote 'industry experts'.
It's all immaturity - taking responsibility is the only mature way to go.
Those who offload that responsibility onto some mythical deity, then use that to justify infinity on a finite planet, have no place in any serious debate.
Once upon a time, there was a PM. Any time she accused someone of something, I learned to look for what she had just done - in my humble opinion, it was almost certainly the action she was castigating.
As that relates to the above, I don't worship anything, and I seek only truth.
I did a fair study of religions - all religions - before discarding them. The diggings at UR, the shisms and splits, the Martin Luthers, the morphing of 'kingdon of heaven' from a state of mind, into pie in the sky when you die. So the peasants could be kept in line, tithing generously.
No, PB, I'll go with science, and personal responsibility. Much the better way.
Your "science" is exactly the same as the Medieval Catholic church appealing to its own authority, and forbidding people to believe something contrary that they can see with their own eyes. This is where Galileo crossed them (but note that he quoted Augustine to them in his support).
I can see with my own eyes on "Google Earth" that you "footprinters" , as Peter Gordon calls you, are a bunch of charlatan witch doctor high priests of a wholly anti-reason new religion.
Humanity comes full circle again and again. The Commies did it, the Nazis did it, the Greens are no different.
With 'human rights' go 'human obligations'.
To each other, the planet, future generations, other species.
To understand the obligations bit, is to be mature, in a social sense. It doesn't take maturity to castigate, nor to justify desire.
You see, underlying that denial of limits, is almost always an integral arrogance, quite often covering a deep-hidden insecurity. There's a few parables on that kind of thing (maybe ask PB?)
Things like 'rich men /kingdoms of heaven / camels /eyes of needles, something about the meek, and plucking logs out of eyes, so as to pluck twigs from bro's. That kind of thing.
Hugh, I read my copy. Obviously the discussion document was directed at a number of specific definitional/procedural amendments to the RMA (the enabling legislation). It isn't really a strategic/policy discussion at all - so I can imagine your disappointment.
I'm guessing that that strategic/policy discussion you are looking for would occur with the development of a proposed NPS on the "built environment" - following through to the development of the [regional] spatial plans (which would need to give effect to matters covered in the NPS... one of which of course could be an affordability equation).
I find the emphasis on spatial planning interesting. They tell us a spatial plan is not prescriptive and not about land-use planning only .... but in reality the reason such plans are needed is to provide more certainty (i.e. forward growth/development prescriptiveness) around future land-use, given this certainty (i.e. prescriptiveness) via the RMA (i.e. District Plan) is poorly provided for.
And the idea of a City Architect is also very interesting - the alternate being urban design commissions ... both the type of planning governance used in far more prescriptive planning administrations.
So, to summarise ... what they seem to be saying is the purely "effects-based" environmental regulation was a crock! So, I would ask - why don't we just be bold and start over again?
"One of the most disturbing aspects of the crackpot Malthusians is their inhumanity and callous disregard for basic human rights."
You are forgetting nature is the one that does not care about basic human rights and its not inhumae its just neutral...
We live on a finite planet, we are with 6.5 billion without doubt damaging it...we can barely feed them.....so the UN says 12billion by 2050, so OK say we could do that the problem is what? well by 2100 24billion?
We wont get to 12billion, we might get to 7.5billion....if we have another decade or so of a plateau at peak oil....then as oil availability declines and prices rise our population will decline/collapse there simply is no method to produce the calories for that many ppl. You only go back to see oil at $147USD to have to see places like haiti were they were starving or Pakistan where they were only staying out of anarchy with oil at 2/3rds price to realise there is no more doubling....
So your statement rests on being able to expand infinately....all you are really is a throwback to say the 1950s where some very astute Pollies and engineers laid out there would be these issues in the future yet they were ignored by ppl like you that then because it didnt suit their profits and "I'll be dead in 50 years" mentality.
regards
Why would it be more moral to kill people "because VE KNOW zhere vill be too many of us von day", than it is to just wait and see if people eventually start dying BECAUSE humanity HAS reached that point?
Every murderous utopian movement started out somewhere back upstream with half-baked ideas like yours. It is not that much more of a leap to start devising the criteria by which people will be selected for survival - or not.
Further short remedial urban economics lesson for those with the intelligence to handle it.
We will now look at "Urban Form: Monocentric versus Mixed-use".
"Location efficient" land price premiums in monocentric metros are much more severe than in "mixed use" metros. The more "mixed use" a metro is, the more "democratised" land values are, and the more "democratised" location efficiencies are.
Average travel distances will be very much lower than in a monocentric metro. The claimed justification for imposed monocentricity, is to make rail based travel more viable. The problem with this, is that land price premiums, once again, concentrate on rail corridors and restrict people's choices. Furthermore, long distances travelled by train are stll less efficient than much shorter distances travelled by car. If this was not true, the USSR's urban planning would have been a rip-roaring success.
If you are too thick to understand this, your participation in policy formulation and advocacy is a destructive force for our social, economic, AND environmental well being. Refer the quote from Prof. Gordon above at 4.52PM.
NONE of these great, vibrant, flourishing high density urban centres like Manhattan, would EXIST without hundreds of square kms of surrounding AFFORDABLE housing and roading networks. Manhattan without the surrounds, is a utopian delusion. Urban economics at work. I won't waste my time explaining to people who cannot understand anyway.
The very people who accuse Hugh P and Owen McS of talking drivel, are themselves thrashing around desperately in their own drivel.
I was late to this thread; my response to Bernard's posting if I'd been the first commenter, would have been that NZ's bubble experience is still tracking California's, about 2 years behind. Market choked up with non-selling properties, rising mortgagee sales, collapsed building consent numbers, rising unemployment. The actual "30% in one year" price crash can't be far away now.
No attempts yet to actually engage with serious analysis, I see. I have not yet seen one single critic ever do so, after mounting similar analyses of simple urban economics again and again on this and other blogs. Just use ad hominen attacks like putting "industry expert" in inverted commas -an ad hominem attack by extension, on one of the most advanced urban economics academics in the world today. Peter Gordon's little finger has forgotten more about urban economics than you will ever know.
Looking really credible, yes.
"Peter Gordon is an Affiliated Senior Scholar at the Mercatus Center and a Professor in the University of California's School of Policy, Planning and Development. He is also attached to USC’s Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorist Events (CREATE).
Dr. Gordon and his colleagues have developed various economic impact models which they apply to the study of the effects of infrastructure investments or disruptions from natural events or terrorist attacks.
Recent work involves the modeling and study of economic impacts. Some of this is reproduced in "The Economics Impacts of Terrorist Attacks" (Edward Elgar 2005, co-edited with Harry W. Richardson and James E. Moore II) and "The Economic Costs and Consequences of Economic Terrorism" (Edward Elgar, 2007, co-edited with Harry W. Richardson and James E. Moore II).
Gordon's other research interests are in applied urban economics. He has recently written on the problems of the "sprawl" debate. Gordon is also interested in cities and institutions. He is co-editor (with David Beito and Alexander Tabarrok) of "The Voluntary City" (The University of Michigan Press, 2002).
Peter Gordon has published in most of the major urban planning, urban transportation and urban economics journals. His recent papers are at www-rcf.usc.edu/~pgordon. He has consulted for local, state and federal agencies, the World Bank, the United Nations and many private groups. Gordon received the Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania in 1971."
http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~pgordon/index.php
Take a look at the list of papers there. I could recommend several of them to you, as valuable learning in urban economics.
This guy is so advanced, he left the basic stuff I am talking about on this thread behind several years ago, and is researching really esoteric stuff like the impact of terrorist attacks on infrastructure investment. Like I said, his little finger has forgotten more about urban economics than you will (obviously) ever know.
Want me to list my "top dozen" urban economists? Would you bother to read anything that any single one of them has written? I only started with Peter Gordon because of the EXTREMELY apropos quote he furnished above. You could show a genuine interest in the subject by engaging with my simple thesis above.
Something else for the resource doomsayers to suck on: nice to see some intelligent life out there in the community;
http://hot-topic.co.nz/from-smoke-to-mirrors/
Wellington resident Kevin Cudby launched this book a few days ago.
I haven't heard one convincing argument on this website EVER for Smart growth urban intensification.
Its a really lovely theory. Everyone living in low rise Euro style apartments around vibrant town centres with lovely cafes etc.
the problem is, its just that - a theory. It doesn't work in reality.
how many town centres in Auckland have got even close to realising this vision? Most of the town centres in Auckland identified by the ARC years and years ago as "growth centres" have hardly seen any development
what Smart Growth fanatics don't understand is that the theory simply does not stack up:
1. The cost of building high density means small apartment units typically have to sell to the market at a cost similar or greater to larger detached houses in an area - no brainer then as to why they don't get built
2. Many town centres also have heritage qualities - a factor that limits the extent to which high density can be built
3. Doing high density effectively requires a reasonably large landholding. Landholdings in and around most town centres are highly fragmented in terms of ownership, making it very difficult for a potential developer to acquire the necessary land. Kiwis will simply not accept the Urban TAG's suggestion of compulsory acquisition and amalgamation - a big brother UK technique
Suburbia doesn't have to be ugly. There are plenty of recent international examples of new suburbia done well, with a mix of densities, house types and uses rather than the horrible mono-density mono-use sprawl that has dominated post war development
What most Smart growthers also don't get is if you free up land supply on the urban fringes that will also help to make higher density central living more feasible
Matt in Auckland, you're an assett to this forum. You engage brain, consider evidence, and conclude where the truth is.
The fact that most policy making is now in the hands of people quite different to you, is just a very, very bad sign of the times - as is the fact that virtually no policy makers in any first world nation today, are taking any notice of anyone with any real authority in urban economics. Quite a few developing countries are, though. Just another reason to believe that, as US uber-investor Jim Rogers said, "your grandchildren will be carrying coffee for Asian bosses".
Matt
You are absolutely right, it is impossible to increase urban density in a city built on the 20th century dream. The advantage that europe has is that the basis for development (your dense urban centres) was established before the automobile, hence they took the technology and adapted it to the existing way of life. Europeans have been restricted by the lack of natural resource in this and have kept the development sane.
The US on the other hand is a case in point of what goes wrong when development is unbridled by consumption contraints, they were the worlds largest oil producer in 1970 and they still act as they are. The 'markets' have dictated that develpement was done on this short term basis, hence the suburbs (not as we know them, but 100k+ from city centres)
What Hugh P et al can't comprehend is that this way of life simply ceases to function not with the 'end of oil' but simply with the hint of a shortage, the suggestion that they are any way comparable/directive to the NZ way of the future is laughable.
'Smart Growth' is a academec placebo, a token gesture to the angst of the informed, when you hit a limit any growth smart or not is unavailable. Unfortunately it would appear that we have to hit the limit before that limit is taken seriously.
if anything the recent credit boom as allowed everyone to ignore those limits for another summer.
Neven
Neven, you are touching on the point there, that cost of fuel will affect people's location decisions. The problem is, the price of efficient locations tends to reflect the "savings" possible from reduced travelling.
Do you understand my point about urban economics? "LAND" price is already far too significant a deciding factor, simply because all land has been forced up in price by the urban planners. Therefore, "fuel costs" as a location decision factor, are WEAKER than they would be otherwise, and LESS "location efficient" development is occurring than if we'd just LEFT IT ALONE.
If we don't get this right BEFORE the price of fuel really DOES escalate, it is "bye, bye, NZ economy". It really is this serious.
The real egg-heads out there should read THIS:
"Commuting, Ricardian Rent and House Price Appreciation in Cities with Dispersed Employment and Mixed Land Use"March 2002 http://web.mit.edu/14.573/www/decen91.pdf
William C. Wheaton
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) - Department of Economics
The answer to this "problem" is DISPERSED EMPLOYMENT AND MIXED LAND USE. NOT monocentric, rail-oriented urban planning and land prices that kill off the whole economy.
By the way, far too many people, Neven included, blame "unbridled consumption" and "love affairs with the automobile" for US cities sprawl, whereas the REAL reason was planners with too much power forcing urban renewal and forcing the families out of the inner city for perfectly valid health reasons. Europe's population resisted this sort of planning far more effectively, that is all. Planners are such an arrogant bunch, it never occurs to them that a future generation of planners will condemn them. The same goes for the current lot, with their destructive monocentric rail-oriented development utopias that are never going to work, unless by "working", they always MEANT economic collapse and tribal subsistence living.
Well informed, generally no, the well informed ppl are the ones studying the problem of too many ppl and not enough and in fact declining cheap energy. Reasonable? there is no reasoning on your part actually... Forget urban planning, its no longer of a concern...the energy problem will overtake it......converting useless surbubia back to farm land is where it will go.
People lifting themselves out of poverty is a misnomer, as fast as they become better off they re-produce at a greater rate, and end up back at square one. The energy problem will overtake this as well...we eat fossil fuels.....so many wont be eating to well in the future.
regards
"....People lifting themselves out of poverty is a misnomer, as fast as they become better off they re-produce at a greater rate, and end up back at square one ...."
Utterly wrong, contradicted by all the evidence from the last century. If you were right, women in the first world would all be having about 20 kids each, not 1.
You appear to be incapable of differentiating between those who warn, and those who advocate.
Racing towards the stern may appear to be lifting yourself, but if the drowning ie inevitable, it's pointless. Better look to constructing a liferaft.
I look ahead, and warn. Your approach is unsustainable. Period.
We had a chance to 'care', about 4 billion people back. I once marched against Apartheid, but I no longer give to World Vision. It's too late resource-wise for that now. Haiti and Pakistan (and the USA!) can't come back now. If we can't help them running at Peak, we haven't a hope on the way down.
The real question is at what point can the arrogant/ignorant no longer hide conveniently behind 'ignorance'?
Powerdownkiwi,
50 years ago, it was " we had a chance to care, about 1 billion people back"
100 years ago, it was "we had a chance to care, about 300 million people back"
200 years ago, it was, "we had a chance to care, about 60 million people back"
In Reverend Malthus' time.....?
At any stage in human history, any powerful figure who "reduced the numbers of humanity for its own good" is an evil bastard. It is still no different today. It is more moral to "let it happen if it will". Why is this so difficult to understand? If it is immoral to torture one terrorist to save a city?
DC - a simple solution: develop the 1000s of hectares of land between Albany and Silverdale. Tonnes of relatively good and developable land. Do mixed density suburbia, generous park areas, cycle trails, smallscale town centres, low impact design. NZTA are planning to extend the bus lanes north of Albany to SIlverdale, so the development can tie into that route to reduce the need for car commuting
Absolutely. Walkable communities with residences - jobs balance, interconnected to other zones with jobs and residences, and AFFORDABLE. This is the ONLY WAY to DO "walkable communities with residences - jobs balance". On cheap land out beyond the urban fringe.
These ideas are getting serious traction in academia. The kind of "course texts" being assigned for planning degrees, are unfortunately mostly full of completely unrealisable utopianisms that have carefully been shielded from serious analysis according to readily avaliable criteria from urban economists.
I am starting to suspect more and more that some people just never grew out of playing with train sets, and find that "clickety-clack" intoxicating and think it represents some kind of means of purification of mankind akin to Hare Krishna mantras. Everything else follows from trying to make trains "pay".
Well I will throw in here some Urban Sociology to support the Urban Economics
Next week I sit an Urban Design exam for this semesters paper.
Best solution for Auckland would be a bulldozer.
Wish list
- Higher density (about 4x), but not the way we currently do high density.
- Eliminate the impact of the motor car.
- Mixed use would be nice
- Ceiling cap of 4 stories
Bottom line is we don't have communities as the spaces for it to happen are absent.
Also doing a Tech paper centered on climate responsive design and ESD (environmental & sustainable design)
"you can kill a man with an apartment just as well as you can an axe".
Higher density or lower? With higher density there is probably not enough land area to grow enough food so it has to be transported in....with lower density or sprawl food is produced by yourself in your backyard.....so commuting? Which will be the best (least) net energy way?
How did Cuba do it ie powerdown after the collapse of the USSR?
Motor car impact, 10 years from now not an issue.....few cars.
Community spaces, good point these were wasted land in developers eyes....but they can be reversed....
ESD etc., Interesting sounding papers.....considering some courses just seem non-productive.
regards
Higher density or lower?
Remember I am talking sociology (or environmental psychology) not economics. There is obviously a complex relationship between the two though. It takes a certain density to create vibrancy and community. A former profession in law and order also teaches that lower densities increase crime. That is where the mixed use comes in, keeps the density up over the whole day.
Hi,
Well then sociology isnt going to get you far....
1) He cant have been to the high rises in the UK then.....those were so bad that they were no go areas almost for the police and certianly non-residents.....many have now been knocked down. What you are trying to do is create a working and by that I mean a long term working community model based on theory that may well be in-adeqaute ie not complex enough to survive in the real world.
2) Does the village structure strike you as high density? if not then crime ridden? these pretty much survived to WW2 as viable communities....these were developed over thousands of years so the had to be a viable layout....the low density was essential...you needed that much land area to produce enough energy ie food to be viable/stable for the population.
When you look at increasing densities London for instance got to 100,000 maybe 200,000, and stayed there for centuries until the industrial revolution. Cheap energy then allowed the density to rise and real job specialisation to occur. What they needed then of course was a sanitation system to dispose of waste and a supply system to bring in water and food.....all this requires more and more energy.
NB. Since you talk about the "whole day" it strikes me that the terminology is mixed up here....ie you get mugged because you are in a quiet area with no witnesses....
regards
oh dear oh dear oh dear.....
Is this the kind of drivel they are teaching you these days in the School of Architecture Scarfie?
"lower densities increase crime"
thats quite simply garbage. There may be a correlation between lower density and crime in certain areas, but it would be far from universal. Note I use the word "correlation" rather than "causation"
there will also be a correlation between high density and crime in some areas too, especially in areas of concentrated deprivation
Again, the idea of mixed use and denser communities is not without its merits....
But you tell me how its going to work...Before you give me the answer I want you consider this real life scenario (that I recently looked at as a professional in the development sector):
Client X looked into building a 30 unit low rise apartment complex in GIen Innes. After consulting with his team, he concluded that he would need to sell 70 square metre, 2 bed apartments to the market at $420K, and 3 bed 90 sq m apartments for $470K.
the development didn't proceed any further for a number of reasons including the following:
- there are plenty of 3 bedroom detached homes in Glen Innes on the market in the late 300K / early 400K range. He would not sell apartments in this market
- the schooling is very poor in GI, which is a big turnoff for small families who might live in apartments in GI. this is typcial of many of the lower income "centres for higher density" in Auckland
- GI is not vibrant enough to attract young professionals
We have also been looking at some apartment scenarios in Nemarket. Theoretically N'Mkt is a lot better for higher density than GI - you have vibrancy, shops, cafes, very good schools, central location etc. There is a better case there. But its very expensive. The 2 and 3 beddie apartments would have to sell for minimum mid to late 500K in Newmarket, and in order to achieve even that quality would need to be compromised
Higher density is going to work in certain locations and for certain markets, but it is not going to meet the big need for affordably priced housing (which in my view equates to a price range of 400-450K in the Auckland market). That is only ever going to be achieved in peri-uban locations where the land is much cheaper
You can stil achieve some of the things you believe in - mixed use, higher densities - in master planned communities on the urban fringe
Steven I think you have taken the wrong tangent here. I can't post a semesters worth of information, but urban design doesn't disagree with what you propose.
1) The requirement for the psychological well being of humans does not change. Ways of using humans to extort labour from them requires adaption as people cotton on to it(yes as problems arise from the industrial revolution). I am well aware of what you claim about no go areas, and they were seriously bad but based upon mistaken concepts arising from the modernist movement. Remember historical precedents were rejected as irrelevant in the modernist movement. Hmmm.
2) you may find that the densities are/were higher than you think. Good examples though.
No quite sure what you mean about terminology, but in the right urban setting there are no quiet areas. The street has a whole different meaning in a well designed urban area.
I have a entire A4 page of references but a couple are:
Anderson, Stanford "On Streets".
Broadbent, Geoffrey "Emerging Concepts in Urban Space Design".
The path New Zealand followed was by importing the middle class concept that was a rejection of terraced housing. Immigrants could build here what they perceived to be better than they had in England, but couldn't afford to do there. Maybe they were better off, but it still isn't good design.
The Kensington Park development in Orewa is an attempt to head in the right direction. Unfortunately it took a step backwards because I have been advised the designer is not such a good developer. But he is involved in some developments in the Mt Wellington area that will progress these ideas.
Scarfie, in a way I would like to see your entire A4 page, because the omissions would be telling. I doubt that any of the texts you have been assigned, have had their ideas vetted for their "realisability" under simple urban economics laws.
What is more, your tutors will almost certainly react to suggestions like these, with ad hominem arguments like "the urban economists are all stooges for big oil/big property developers/the banks/etc".
Tragically, I don't know of one NZ Uni that is even offering an urban economics unit; if any of them are, I would love to know what texts will be used. There are some subjects where educating yourself on the internet is actually far superior to getting a brainwashing at an institution.
Philbest - a good friend is a planner, he says there is bugger all if any urban economics taught at planning school
Its really hard to believe that is so - surely sound planning MUST be underpinned by sound urban economics, otherwise all you are simply planning is fantasy
I guess its not that hard to believe. University departments tend to be dominated by old hippy socialists who wouldn't care a damn about economics (because that deals with the evil, corrupt reality of $$$$$$$)
Hugh, what's the logic behind Palmerston north house prices being seriously unaffordable? I think they use minimum 10 years growth of land available, have a ton of flat land for newly zoned residential areas. They have just annonced 3 large blocks that will be rezoned next year around fringes. They are also expanding city council boundaries into manawatu district so will free up a lot more land that could potentially be rezoned also.
Does this mean land values in p.n will get debased in a similar way to how money loses value with more printing? Will we see significant land value declines in p.n over next few years because of this?
THIS paper advising governments on urban planning is the sort of stuff we need:
Ayse PAMUK: "Tools for a Land and Housing Market Diagnosis"
http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/115504/toronto99/assets/t-pamuk-mod06.pdf
Scarfie, thanks for your comments about the fact that you learn what you do without any attention at all being given to urban economics. This is where our problem lies. The councils are employing people in planning policy roles, who have learned everything BUT urban economics. This is the same in most cities in the first world today. Tragically, even central government here cannot find a handful of people who can produce a lucid report where urban economics NEEDS to be the front and centre consideration.
I suspect that the Germans and Swiss are among the notable exceptions. While they do have planning processes, their whole structure pays attention to the need to keep land prices affordable. It is all very well to be planning perfect buildings and city centres and mass transport schemes, but there actually IS such a thing as "the invisible hand of market forces" that might just bring serious unintended consequences following all your plans.
We have ignorant people all over the world today saying that the Wall Street Crash "proves that market theory is wrong". This is like saying that an epidemic of crashed airliners because of computerised flight path guidance programming errors; means that the scientific laws governing aerofoil lift are wrong.
Trying to discuss William Wheaton's "Commuting, Ricardian Rent and House Price Appreciation in Cities with Dispersed Employment and Mixed Land Use" with people who do not even believe in supply and demand, is like trying to discuss the need to get the airliners computerised flight path programming done right, with people who have their hands over their ears and are screaming "flight is impossible - we always knew it".
Interesting reference there, Hugh.
The Aussie report is HERE:
http://www.planning.org.au/documents/item/294
Interesting stuff in there, indeed. Young planners unable to cope with pressure from developers, on the one hand, and politics, on the other.
It's no different here in NZ.
Some of these disillusioned young planners need to transition from being part of the problem, to being part of the solution. I suppose there are "iron triangles" at work here, though - bureaucracies, unions, media, politicians. Somehow the message needs to be got through to the public.
There are actually some talk radio hosts in the USA now, getting "Smart Growth" on the agenda for bitter voters to concentrate their minds on. The "Tea Party" people are right onto this sort of thing. Hopefully we see a tectonic shift in the USA, on urban and transport policy very shortly. It's interesting that there is abundant academic urban econ analysis to back up the freedom-lovers ideology on this one. It is the pro-utopia planning types and green politicians who are the deniers of reality here.
Obama is in India now..Organising the upcoming fireworks with regards to Indias part in the invasion of Pakistan..and the War on Terror.Probably about four weeks? when the Republicans take over the house of Representatives..and the price of fuel starts its rise.I wonder if Pakistan gets annexed and administered by India?..but then again the best laid plans etc?...
Another belief I have heard trottled out religiously from Smart growthers recently is that you need to impose urban limits to increase the prices of existing houses to make apartments stack up more favourably in comparison...unbelievable but true
of course what these simpletons don't understand is the urban limits primarily increase the value of LAND. You increase the value of land and that rises the cost of delivering apartments to the market too, so what happens is existing house prices go up and the cost of delivering apartments to the market rises in parallel, so you never actually achieve the illogical goal they are setting...you are simply chasing your own tails
EXACTLY, but not only chasing your own tail regarding your objectives, imposing massive mortgage debt for "nothing".
If households buying their first home had all been levied $100,000 "to pay for infrastructure", we'd have LOTS of infrastructure now. But there would have been an electoral revolt. But all these thousands of people have meekly paid the $100,000 (and the rest) for NOTHING. An empty bubble, in fact.
Okay better correct a couple of things here.
Matt the density stuff is not from Architecture School, check my earlier reference to that. Forgive me if I don't want to make my identity obvious though, can't be too careful on the internet.
Scarfie is not so young and can think for himself, after all that is why I hang out here:)
Studying is towards the design side not planning. The urban design paper is just a broad overview for the design side.
Really good read for everyone if they have the inclination is "A Timeless Way of Building" by Christopher Alexander. Will give anyone a new perspective on housing.
And food for thought. What is more important, your psychological well being or financial well being?
Urban Planning/Architecture is about problem solving. Matching the requirements of the brief to the budget. But there are moral and ethical concerns also. Would you design or build something that you know is going to be harmful to people?
Structural as lead, must have changed in the last 10 years then....(I left the industry in 2000) Architects were always the lead....certianly up to that point it was the depth of the owners pockets that determined what the architect could do. Usually I found that the architect gutted the engineers budgets to make it look "nice"...I had problems even specifying 50mm insulation for the structures or adequate concrete to give time lag from the sun let alone dare to suggest their layout might well have been great for usage bit wouldnt work for passive cooling techniques....
What always got me was NZ has a very high solar gain yet a low air temperature which makes it as about perfect for low energy use buildings as you can get....the resut was very high quality buildings that ppl love to be in and that are cheap to operate....however they have a lareg foot plate and first cost....this was something developers and architects couldnt handle.......
Structural as the lead makes sense if you accept that earthquake and recovery from is the most important criteria....personally have seen the disasters that the architects thought looked nice its probably and improvement.
regards
Hugh - the worst thing is when some of our leading architects spout on about their visions for higher density living etc. without any apparent knowledge of how the real economy works. you would think some of these guys, who have upwards of 20-30 years in the industry, would have picked up at least something of the reality of development economics over their time.
But apparenty not.
Somehow they seem to think we all can live in lovely spacious apartments with our families, that cost upwards of 500-600K. Its always rich too when it comes from architects or planners who themselves live in the suburbs
Architects would generally do well to stick to what they do best - drawing and designing
I am going into this with my eyes open thanks Hugh.
Haha, the trouble is that most social engineering has failed dismally. If anything I won't be coming up with half baked theories, just sticking to tried and proven methods. Although I do have an inventive streak on the technological side. Can't see much wrong with improving peoples lot in life though.
The Architectural profession can only blame it's own arrogance for the situation you outline.
But I have been given a gift for it and find myself compelled to follow through with it. With the economic situation playing out I guess it isn't a bad time to be studying.
What is really want to know at the moment is is it too late to buy gold:)
Really enjoyed this entire thread.
Hugh, if you're still reading, I'd be interested in your comment to my comment 29 Oct 10, 10:07pm - on the "Cities" Discussion Paper.
Do you not think that some of these matters (of affordability, urban limits and land-use/zoning) are best handled in an NPS and/or a Structure Plan?
I'm just wondering whether you might be jumping the gun in terms of your criticism of the direction this new urban planning law/initiative might be able to head in?
To put it simply, what's wrong with addressing these matters in an NPS or a Structure Plan?
Hugh.... you must be watching the late movie as well!
I do respect your work on this subject, but I'm interested to understand your comment on my basic question about the Discussion Paper:
What's wrong with addressing these matters in an NPS ... which then must be implemented in a spatial plan?
I just can't get my head around how you would actually facilitate what you want by way of amendment to the present planning law?
Kate said: "I just can't get my head around how you would actually facilitate what you want by way of amendment to the present planning law? "
here's how Kate...rather than saying direction re: housing affordability and urban limits will be via a NPS (surely we would be waiting another 2 years minimum before that would see the light of day), the discussion document could have provided the followning options:
- Incorporate the need to consider housing affordablity as a matter for consideration in Part II of the RMA (the part of the RMA that is the cornerstone of the Act in terms of Council decision making)
- Amend the RMA so that urban limits are abolished as a planning tool, ala the last amendment to the RMA which banned councils from imposing general tree protection controls
problem solved
A version of the first suggestion is indeed one of the options put forward in the Discussion document.... but, it is mentioned that for example, the inclusion of the consideration to be given to alternate energy (intended to enable wind farms to be built) - has been of little benefit. They mention Part II, ss 6 and 7 are getting to be quite long lists, such that adding another one might have the effect of watering down all of them in their import/impact.
On your second suggestion - are "urban limits" actually mentioned in District Plans? I'm not that familiar with many of them. I'd have thought the way most plans constrain residential development would have been via activities definitions in the different zones? And the point is, presently if you are in a Rural Zone and you want to subdivide for residential development, you can apply for a private plan change. So effectively, we don't really have any urban limits in our "official" statutory/regulatory language - do we?
Most regional councils in NZ apply MULs, which the city councils must abide by.
Sometimes the city councils decide they should move the MUL, then they tend to get into all sorts of unholy rows with the regional councils. And yes, rural landowners can seek to have their land rezoned urban, but again they usually face an almighty battle with the regional council, if not the city council
One of the good things about the Super City is that there won't be any rows between councils - they are all one now! Although I'm sure there will be some internal conflicts!
To provide continuity to any others that want to follow my line of thinking/questioning - here is my earlier post:
Obviously the discussion document was directed at a number of specific definitional/procedural amendments to the RMA (the enabling legislation). It isn't really a strategic/policy discussion at all - so I can imagine your disappointment.
I'm guessing that that strategic/policy discussion you are looking for would occur with the development of a proposed NPS on the "built environment" - following through to the development of the [regional] spatial plans (which would need to give effect to matters covered in the NPS... one of which of course could be an affordability equation).
I find the emphasis on spatial planning interesting. They tell us a spatial plan is not prescriptive and not about land-use planning only .... but in reality the reason such plans are needed is to provide more certainty (i.e. forward growth/development prescriptiveness) around future land-use, given this certainty (i.e. prescriptiveness) via the RMA (i.e. District Plan) is poorly provided for.
And the idea of a City Architect is also very interesting - the alternate being urban design commissions ... both the type of planning governance used in far more prescriptive planning administrations.
So, to summarise ... what they seem to be saying is the purely "effects-based" environmental regulation was a crock! So, I would ask - why don't we just be bold and start over again?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/4291388/Banks-drip-feed-mortgagee-sales…
"Banks have been stockpiling properties earmarked for mortgagee sale and drip-feeding them onto the market, to try to prop up property values, a leading property expert says.
According to David Whitburn, a lawyer and property mentor, who is president of the Auckland Property Investors Association, the number of property owners who are in arrears on their loans, and face having their properties sold by the banks, is greater than the current level of mortgagee sales suggests."
I wonder how long this will continue....presumably with being in arrears there is limited opportunities to raise rents.
Now we know another reason why the Aussie public call the banks 'bastards'....Quite correct Magnum...this has to kept from the peasants...it will be buried...lost over the weekend....dam sure the useless tv stations will avoid going near it...talk about hot spuds...this is nuclear hot.
No business is gong to release this info and cut their own throat and of course some jobs would be lost here the idiots who lent so readily....however do bear in mind its this person's opinion....or appears that way....it may not be true or accurate or it might actually be worse....
The Q is just how long can this continue....there is a book loss somewhere? surely?....ie if the owner cant pay the monthly mortgage cost, then that loss of income has to be accounted for somewhere...the only way I can see is if the banks add the loss to the mortgage itself, which means every moneth you are further under water....which of course gives the banks an incentive to say 6% growth.....based on that they can say the owner will trade out as prices rise......
ASB guy resigned? "personal reasons? well "your incompetant" is a pretty good "personal reason"......I wonder if this could be the reason?
regards
Blimmin' heck!
"According to David Whitburn, a lawyer and property mentor, who is president of the Auckland Property Investors Association, the number of property owners who are in arrears on their loans, and face having their properties sold by the banks, is greater than the current level of mortgagee sales suggests."
What does it tell us when one of the country's head property spruikers is publicly claiming that the market is even more stuffed than it already seems?!
If he's right, the Kiwi property market may well be on the point of collapse.
And he's still putting a good face on the market!
Another article in the Star Times mentions that banks are again doing 90% LVR. That's if the borrower can handle 8% - 9% interest rates though. Still 80% for those that 6.25% is at the margin. Tells me that banks know that 30%+ rise in nominal interest rates appears to be headed our way, and they are trying to get as much out the mortgage door as possible before the demand dries up.
the banks are certainly doing their damn best to keep this bubble afloat, I can picture Tony Alexander mischievously locked away in a secret room devising ways to stop the rot:
"common, gotta find a way of proving that Bernard Hickey wrong....ah ha ha h ah a" (evil laugh)
All credit to the Sunday Star Times. Athough it does contain its element of popular trash, it is the only mainstream paper that has consistently challenged the whole property bubble and the spruiking that has gone with it
Sadly, our gutless govt is right behind the banking scam regardless of the damage the property ponzi bubble is doing to the families...in fact they dont' give a bloody dam about mortgagee sales now or in the future...the mantra is "save the banks".
This is a debt dependent economy designed to remain so by the banks for the benefit of the banks and fully supported by useless govt regardless of political colour.
Roll on the day the international bond market treats the USA as a bankrupt nation. Expect rates to explode toward 20%.... and for Noddy.....you just don't want to be in debt on that day.
Yep, ta.
PS I've been impressed with T&T consultancy work I've read in the past. Funny thing is - they make practical, engineering-based recommendations to LG authorities - who promptly don't take the big picture, do-it-once-do-it-right, approach as recommended .... instead they implement engineering recommendations in a patchwork manner, normally accompanied by the excuse they can't afford the whole/proper fix-it program.
Meantime, the LG bosses with the chequebooks set about hiring climate change advisors, walking school bus coordinators, stakeholder relationship management administrators, strategic partnership liaison officers and community well-being facilitators (all LG position titles I've come across in the past year or so). When you read the JDs for these positions, you come away with a very scary idea of the additional ratepayer dollars these good folks will want to spend as a means to legitimise the existence of their position on an on-going basis.
Somehow I don't think so, as we haven't had any major union/protest action from hoards of laid off LG employees in the media yet. I can only imagine that there look to be plenty of positions to go around?
But then I'm not from Auckland - so not sure what's happening on the ground locally.
How about this suggestion? I wonder if there's any truth in it....
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/4291388/Banks-drip-feed-mortgagee-sales-to-prop-security
Yep, but I think the Discussion Paper did address matters of infrastructure, as distinct from environmental standards. An NPS - National Policy Statement - is not an environmental standards document - that is an NES - National Environmental Standard. The Discussion Document talks about both, but the one of interest to your concerns would be the NPS, as you are interested in higher level policy, as opposed to environmental standards (for air quality, drinking water quality etc.).
On the infrastructure side, the document discusses ways to integrate the disparate planning regimes (i.e. between LG and NZTA strategy/planning documents) and it addresses issues surrounding compensation under the PWA and matters associated with designations under the RMA. All these matter relate to enabling large scale infrastructure projects.
I guess what I'm saying is - I think the ideas in the document are good news for developers - provided once the amendments are made, the NPS progresses quickly and collaboration begins with the development community on the next step - putting in place satisfactory spatial plans. Definitely, some landbanker/developers will be disappointed that the over-price they paid for farmland on the fringes may not make it into the first 20 year forecast "tag" for urban development, but pure laisse faire would make infrastructure planning by central/local government near impossible. That is the piecemeal approach we presently have.
It is definitely not a document written for the lay public - i.e. those presently 'locked out' of home affordability. One has to have a very good grounding in our current land use planning regulatory regimes. To me, it's a document targeted at regulators, developers (both urban and infrastructure/ultilities developers) and special interest groups (such as EDS).
I doubt citizen/low income advocacy groups, such as Greypower, Salvation Army etc. will respond to it. Clearly the country has a crisis of housing affordability - and perhaps MSD should be considering a Discussion Document forcused in this regard. We have to house a growing, nay, burgeoning, population of people who cannot afford the cost of housing themselves and their families and/or will need assisted living arrangements in the near future. If MSD could only engage developers in this matter - that would be great.
I agree with you it is vital, but I do not see the private sector market actually being able to build at the cost needed without some kind of government assistance (i.e waiving of development levies, design/build on government-owned land - where the government pays for the infrastucture costs etc...)
I served on an elected Council, both at local and regional levels, and on the planning committees of both. T&CPA era.
A community can ask for anything it wants, walking buses and all. Much seemed possible while the future could underwrite, and inflation softened the repayments.
Those paradigms are gone now.
Hugh talks of wanting cheap land, for subdivision forever. He fails to realise that all the peripherral land is doing something now. Yes, if it was NZ alone, there is enough arable land to feed those living in the built, but we are part of a global whole, and there isn't enough arable to feed the whole now. (It's more complicated than that, of course, oil is required for food).
I watched many 'developers' parading past the Planning Committee - most said or promised anything they had to to get their rubber stamp. Most short-changed the deal, and the ratepayers picked up.
I used to point out that the Taeiri Plains were the bread-basket for Dunedin, post peak oil (that was 1986, and Hugh obviously isn't there yet.....) and shouldn't be encroached on. It's just too hard to remove an existing dwelling, and I knew the timeframe and resources wouldn't be there when it was needed.
The developers won, of course. People feel more important (that's one of your commonly-used words, notice, Hugh?) if they're richer, and money was being made, for sure.
You need to regulate, absolutely because of open-slather developers, and if folk like that make the debate (and the regulations) expensive, then that's the social cost we have to bear. Speed of an army and all that.
Sad, if we're going to survive to 'limits to growth' scenario from here on, we have to be an averagely more mature society, one which doesn't put the word 'development' in front of the word 'sustainability'. We've a ways to go, then.
We don't have time for greenfields development now, and we squandered (if the Cant'y ticky-tacky sprawl is indicative) the last decade. Retro-fitting of solar, and insulation, are the best cards to play this round.
When there really ISN'T enough rural land to feed the populace, food will be so expensive and profitable to produce, that rural land will also be so expensive that no developer would consider turning it into LESS valuable urban land.
Simple economics lesson.
Like I was saying earlier, you can't talk to people who don't even understand basic supply and demand, about stuff like Ricardian rents, locational price premiums, land market "churn", and the effect on resource consumption if the market is simply allowed to work - rather than being messed up by idiots exactly like the ones who ruined the former USSR.
PB - anyone who associates folk like me, with what happened in Russia, is way out to lunch.
Food is too expensive for perhaps 3, and certainly 2, billion people on the planet.
Bit sanctimonious just thinking in terms of your own pocket. I've just come back from Tonga, and it's peanuts compared with Haiti, Pakistan, most of Africa, Bangladesh, etc.
And - I've pointed out before, that all economic activity requires energy. The ability to amass wealth has to be averagely lowered, then, beyond peak and allowing for efficiencies/discression.
Things will indeed be cheaper, including your dearly-beloved peripheral land - but the amount of real wealth available to do the purchasing with, will be relatively reduced .
What "Haiti, Pakistan, most of Africa, Bangladesh, etc." need, is trust, specialisation and exchange; property rights, and the rule of law. It is no accident that progress that is sometimes credited to "the free market", actually stemmed from culture and religion. This is why the Friedmanites have been baffled by the failure of their ideas when pasted onto cultures that ARE the reason for poverty and distress. Most of the world actually lived that way until the Reformation.
Sorry, I keep forgetting who are the Watermelons and who are the resource doomsayers who nevertheless are not closet Commies. Look, I respect your own approach to sustainable living. I think everyone should be able to do what you have done, and sticky-beak urban planners and regulators are actually the MAIN OBSTACLE to that. Efficiency makes sense regardless. What you are missing, and missing, and missing, about my arguments, is that the anti-sprawl regulations are NOT WORKING, they are having the OPPOSITE EFFECT to what is intended, and are resulting in LESS efficiency in our urban economies, and MORE resource wastage. You actually should be agreeing with a lot that I am saying; I think you just fail to understand it, that is all. That is you AND, unfortunately, thousands of others who actually hold most of the policy levers today.
Urban economics as a profession has NOT been taken over by big oil, or by the property development industry, or whatever. The PLANNING profession is the one that has been ideologically captured, and refuses to engage with the analysis from the economists. If you truly despise the planners of the former USSR, then why can you not see the EXACT PARALELLS today in our own society? The problem is shallow, facile ideas that seem plausible to the most, including, of course, the voters. "Of course" rail is more efficient. "Of course" high density living is more efficient. Look, they did ALL THAT in the former USSR, they could push everybody around and tell them how to live, down to the minutest detail. And was trains and high density living a massive economic advantage over the free Western world? Did it conserve resources and raise the quality of life?
In our own economies today, the planners do NOT have the power that the Soviet ones did, much as they might wish they did. What they have is a range of regulatory "tools". What I am saying is that the way markets react to regulatory distortion, involving price signals, means that strict urban boundaries and imposed monocentricity will not only NOT WORK, they will have the OPPOSITE EFFECT to that intended regarding resources and emissions, AND impose massive cost and debt burdens on people for NIL RETURN.
Surely you can agree on that without undermining your own position re resource limits to population - a separate issue on which we can agree to disagree. This thread is about house prices, not the earth's resources and population. You have claimed that the earth's resources running out are the reason to restrain urban sprawl. I have demonstrated that the effects of restraining urban sprawl by the regulatory tools used so far, do NOT result in resource efficiency. They certainly do NOT result in MORE people living like you do. You never actually engage with that argument, you just keep repeating your original one.
How many people might you be able to "sell" on your sustainable home idea, if they could build it on urban fringe sections costing $30,000? Good luck trying to get any built within current regulatory boundaries.
Building consents might be down but new real estate websites are growing ;check these out
www.mortgageeauctions.co.nz
www.bayleysmortgagee.co.nz
Obviously those in the know can see around the corner like many on this site.Reality is building consents will be low for five years or more?
Still very early days I think ?
food for thought:
Re: Building consents fall in September; Canterbury earthquake has some impact
My wife & I left New Zealand in May. We both left good jobs to give Aussie living a try. We have no regrets. The lifestyle available here in Melbourne is OK & I have more choice & opportunity on the job-front. My wife is a health professional so can get work wherever. The main problem with living in New Zealand for us was unaffordable housing. I just couldn't justify the debt levels we would have had to take-on to buy in one of the urban centres. We lived in two of NZ's major cities in our 7 years living together as a married couple and were basically priced out of the housing market. I don't have the answers but I never could understand why houses cost so much compared to salaries. In recent years I became interested in eco-building & considered building a modest, highly insulated solar powered home. The cost of building while high was not the main impediment to proceeding. It was the cost of a piece of land that eventually killed that idea. In disgust, we packed up our belongings & left. I have no regrets. Wages are higher here & we are saving heaps more for our first home than we could have done back in NZ. I would move back to New Zealand in a heartbeat given the right macro-economic environment but I think Aotearoa has got to go through a property price correction first. When housing becomes affordable for joe soap wage earners New Zealand will again become an attractive living proposition. For now, we will save our Aussie $’s & look forward to the World Cup next year.
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.