Census shows most of Auckland's housing growth occurred in wealthier areas despite stronger population growth in poorer suburbs

Property

Census suggests most housing development has occurred in the wealthier parts of Auckland, while high growth poorer districts have been neglected

25th Sep 19, 10:02am by Greg Ninness

The latest census data suggests that not only has the number of new homes being built failed to keep up with population growth, but much of the new building activity hasn't happened where it is most needed, as developers concentrate their activities on wealthier suburbs where their margins will be greater, rather than poorer suburbs where the need is greatest.

The census data released this week by Statistics NZ shows that between the 2013 and 2018 censuses, the country's usually resident population increased by 10.8% while the total number of dwellings increased by just 6.2%.

That suggests a significant shortfall in housing compared to population growth. The table below gives those figures for all territorial authorities throughout the country and for the local board areas of Auckland Council.

They show there were wide variations in build rates versus population growth throughout the country but also that places where significant under building occurred were not confined to the main centres.

The shortfall between population growth and dwelling growth was greatest in Ruapehu District which was the only place in the country to record a small decline in the total number of dwellings.

After that, the area with the biggest shortfall was Opotiki on the east coast of the North Island, where the population grew by 10% over the five years between the 2013 and 2018 censuses but the number of dwellings grew by just 0.3%.

Or looking at it another way, only one new dwelling was built in Opotiki for every 70 people added to its population (the figure on the far right of the table below).

That was followed by Waitomo where just one new dwelling was added for every 22 new residents in the district, and Rangitikei where one new dwelling was added for every 17.7 new residents.

So it's not just the cities that are facing a housing shortfall, many country areas could also be feeling the squeeze.

In Auckland, where housing shortages have been most noticeable because of the sheer scale of migration-driven population growth, the region's population increased by 156,168 (11%) between the 2013 and 2018 censuses, but housing stock increased by just 6.5% over the same period.

And a look at the figures by Auckland's local board areas (at the bottom of the table below), shows that there was a much greater rate of housing growth in the wealthier parts of the city than in less wealthier parts where population growth was greater.

In the leafy streets of the Waitemata Board area, which includes the CBD and many of the city's wealthiest suburbs such as Ponsonby, Grey Lynn and Herne Bay (a map below the table shows the boundaries of all Auckland board areas), one new home was built for every 1.8 residents added to the area's population between censuses.

Other areas with high numbers of new homes compared to population growth were Waiheke (one new home for every 2.4 new residents), Upper Harbour (1:2.9) and Hibiscus and Bays (1:3).

But in the Otara-Paptoetoe board area, just one new dwelling was added for every 12.9 new residents and in Manurewa it was 1:12.6 and in Mangere-Otahuhu it was 1:11.8.

In fact more homes were added in the Devonport-Takapuna board area (660) between the censuses than were built in Mangere-Otahuhu (633), even though Mangere-Otahuhu's population increased by 7491 over that period and Devonport-Takapuna's increased by just 2505.

The comment stream on this story is now closed.

Changes in Usually Resident Population Numbers and Total Dwelling Numbers Between 2013 and 2018 Censuses for all Territorial Authority and Auckland Local Board Areas							Number of people per dwelling 2018 census	Number of additional people per new dwelling 2013-2018
Territorial Authority area	Population 2018 Census	Increase or decrease 2013–18		Dwellings 2018 census	Increase or decrease 2013–18
Territorial Authority area	Population 2018 Census	Number	%	Dwellings 2018 census	Number	%
Far North District	65,250	9,516	17.1	29,472	2,037	7.4	2.2	4.7
Whangarei District	90,960	13,965	18.1	37,887	2,712	7.7	2.4	5.1
Kaipara District	22,869	3,906	20.6	12,030	1,203	11.1	1.9	3.2
Auckland Region	1,571,718	156,168	11.0	538,182	32,778	6.5	2.9	4.8
Thames-Coromandel	29,895	3,717	14.2	25,524	1,575	6.6	1.2	2.4
Hauraki District	20,022	2,214	12.4	9,228	504	5.8	2.2	4.4
Waikato District	75,618	12,240	19.3	27,675	3,117	12.7	2.7	3.9
Matamata-Piako District	34,404	2,868	9.1	13,845	654	5.0	2.5	4.4
Hamilton City	160,911	19,299	13.6	58,161	4,641	8.7	2.8	4.2
Waipa District	53,241	6,573	14.1	20,835	2,079	11.1	2.6	3.2
Otorohanga District	10,104	963	10.5	4,242	180	4.4	2.4	5.4
South Waikato District	24,042	1,971	8.9	9,675	216	2.3	2.5	9.1
Waitomo District	9,303	396	4.4	4,239	18	0.4	2.2	22.0
Taupo District	37,203	4,296	13.1	20,682	1,272	6.6	1.8	3.4
Western Bay of Plenty	51,321	7,629	17.5	22,041	2,007	10.0	2.3	3.8
Tauranga City	136,713	21,924	19.1	55,626	5,967	12.0	2.5	3.7
Rotorua District	71,877	6,597	10.1	28,464	1,017	3.7	2.5	6.5
Whakatane District	35,700	3,009	9.2	14,190	456	3.3	2.5	6.6
Kawerau District	7,146	783	12.3	2,733	45	1.7	2.6	17.4
Opotiki District	9,276	840	10.0	4,230	12	0.3	2.2	70.0
Gisborne District	47,517	3,864	8.9	18,435	510	2.8	2.6	7.6
Wairoa District	8,367	477	6.0	4,113	162	4.1	2.0	2.9
Hastings District	81,537	8,292	11.3	30,444	1,263	4.3	2.7	6.6
Napier City	62,241	5,001	8.7	25,215	591	2.4	2.5	8.5
Central Hawke's Bay	14,142	1,425	11.2	6,297	189	3.1	2.2	7.5
New Plymouth District	80,679	6,495	8.8	33,579	1,998	6.3	2.4	3.3
Stratford District	9,474	486	5.4	4,059	159	4.1	2.3	3.1
South Taranaki	27,534	954	3.6	11,958	273	2.3	2.3	3.5
Ruapehu District	12,309	465	3.9	7,011	-57	-0.8	1.8	n/a
Whanganui District	45,309	3,156	7.5	19,710	480	2.5	2.3	6.6
Rangitikei District	15,027	1,008	7.2	6,675	57	0.9	2.3	17.7
Manawatu District	30,165	2,706	9.9	12,282	705	6.1	2.5	3.8
Palmerston North	84,639	4,560	5.7	32,631	1,017	3.2	2.6	4.5
Tararua District	17,943	1,089	6.5	7,893	135	1.7	2.3	8.1
Horowhenua District	33,261	3,165	10.5	15,693	711	4.7	2.1	4.5
Kapiti Coast District	53,673	4,569	9.3	24,798	1,248	5.3	2.2	3.7
Porirua City	56,559	4,842	9.4	18,765	846	4.7	3.0	5.7
Upper Hutt City	43,980	3,801	9.5	16,710	771	4.8	2.6	4.9
Lower Hutt City	104,532	6,294	6.4	39,456	1,203	3.1	2.6	5.2
Wellington City	202,737	11,781	6.2	80,109	3,369	4.4	2.5	3.5
Masterton District	25,557	2,205	9.4	11,355	429	3.9	2.3	5.1
Carterton District	9,198	963	11.7	4,119	432	11.7	2.2	2.2
South Wairarapa	10,575	1,047	11.0	5,664	435	8.3	1.9	2.4
Tasman District	52,389	5,232	11.1	23,001	1,704	8.0	2.3	3.1
Nelson City	50,880	4,443	9.6	21,213	1,200	6.0	2.4	3.7
Marlborough District	47,340	3,924	9.0	22,149	249	1.1	2.1	15.8
Kaikoura District	3,912	360	10.1	2,220	138	6.6	1.8	2.6
Buller District	9,591	-882	-8.4	5,571	102	1.9	1.7	-8.6
Grey District	13,344	-27	-0.2	6,537	168	2.6	2.0	-0.2
Westland District	8,640	336	4.0	4,734	249	5.6	1.8	1.3
Hurunui District	12,558	1,029	8.9	6,720	489	7.8	1.9	2.1
Waimakariri District	59,502	9,513	19.0	23,454	3,150	15.5	2.5	3.0
Christchurch City	369,006	27,537	8.1	151,968	3,753	2.5	2.4	7.3
Selwyn District	60,561	15,966	35.8	22,677	6,015	36.1	2.7	2.7
Ashburton District	33,423	2,382	7.7	14,640	1,065	7.8	2.3	2.2
Timaru District	46,296	2,364	5.4	20,883	1,044	5.3	2.2	2.3
Mackenzie District	4,866	708	17.0	3,519	345	10.9	1.4	2.1
Waimate District	7,815	279	3.7	3,882	195	5.3	2.0	1.4
Chatham Islands	663	63	10.5	333	12	3.7	2.0	5.3
Waitaki District	22,308	1,479	7.1	11,400	597	5.5	2.0	2.5
Central Otago District	21,558	3,663	20.5	10,974	1,164	11.9	2.0	3.1
Queenstown-Lakes	39,153	10,929	38.7	19,140	3,483	22.2	2.0	3.1
Dunedin City	126,255	6,006	5.0	52,533	2,400	4.8	2.4	2.5
Clutha District	17,667	777	4.6	8,619	291	3.5	2.0	2.7
Southland District	30,864	1,251	4.2	15,210	627	4.3	2.0	2.0
Gore District	12,396	363	3.0	5,562	147	2.7	2.2	2.5
Invercargill City	54,204	2,508	4.9	23,055	600	2.7	2.4	4.2
Total all TA areas	4,699,719	457,719	10.8	1,855,929	108,603	6.2	2.5	4.2

Auckland Local Board Areas
Rodney	66,417	11,535	21.0	27,357	2,973	12.2	2.4	3.9
Hibiscus and Bays	104,010	14,181	15.8	39,909	4,728	13.4	2.6	3.0
Upper Harbour	62,841	9,171	17.1	21,261	3,174	17.5	3.0	2.9
Kaipatiki	88,269	5,775	7.0	30,633	930	3.1	2.9	6.2
Devonport-Takapuna	57,975	2,505	4.5	22,485	660	3.0	2.6	3.8
Henderson-Massey	118,422	10,737	10.0	37,569	1,461	4.0	3.2	7.3
Waitakere Ranges	52,095	3,696	7.6	18,639	645	3.6	2.8	5.7
Great Barrier	936	-3	-0.3	1,125	174	18.3	0.8	0.0
Waiheke	9,063	723	8.7	5,862	303	5.5	1.5	2.4
Waitemata	82,866	5,730	7.4	39,162	3,192	8.9	2.1	1.8
Whau	79,356	6,762	9.3	26,031	921	3.7	3.0	7.3
Albert-Eden	98,622	3,927	4.1	34,278	480	1.4	2.9	8.2
Puketapapa	57,555	4,617	8.7	18,150	516	2.9	3.2	8.9
Orakei	84,318	4,779	6.0	32,445	1,323	4.3	2.6	3.6
Maungakiekie-Tamaki	76,284	6,279	9.0	25,881	525	2.1	2.9	12.0
Howick	140,970	13,845	10.9	45,921	3,015	7.0	3.1	4.6
Mangere-Otahuhu	78,450	7,491	10.6	18,900	633	3.5	4.2	11.8
Otara-Papatoetoe	85,122	9,459	12.5	21,606	732	3.5	3.9	12.9
Manurewa	95,670	13,428	16.3	24,819	1,062	4.5	3.9	12.6
Papakura	57,636	12,000	26.3	18,243	2,526	16.1	3.2	4.8
Franklin	74,838	9,519	14.6	27,897	2,817	11.2	2.7	3.4

Auckland Local Board Areas Map

*This article was first published in our email for paying subscribers. See here for more details and how to subscribe.

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.

32 Comments

by Hamish | 25th Sep 19, 10:27am 1569364057

Ruapehu district lost 57 dwellings between censuses? Bush fires or something else?

by youngdumbandbroke | 25th Sep 19, 11:16am 1569366965

Probably old farm houses that arent liveable?. But with the amount of new ski houses being built in Ohakune and Horopito, I would have still thought there to be an increase

by Good Samaritian | 26th Sep 19, 7:00am 1569438024

Probably homes that were built with quality materials and real tradepeople, that stood the test of time.

They previously housed workers who were paid a decent wage, in a local industry that was shut down became its now cheaper to import goods maunfactured by cheap (child) labour in Asian countries.

If we continue to do this, your grand children will be the slave labour. As it is, your children are probably on a less than living wage with an hour or more commute to work, and possibly living in substandard accommodation.

Its the attitudes of people like you who care not for the future, and probably living off easy capital gains at the expense of the next generation, that has and is ruining the fabric of this country.

Capital gains have been kind to me also, however I have seen the social costs of this short term neoliberal economic theory that has only benefitted the few. This article is more evidence of this, and dear I say it Trump has realised how exporting manufacturing to Asia has hollowed out the middle class in the US also; which it has done here. The executives of these public companies that have created this destruction (and got these short term bonuses) are the ones who are buying up Ponsonby and Grey Lynn. Ironically, houses on small sites that were built for the average work; the same houses you are condemning.

Roger Douglas & Jonkey didnt represent the people that voted for these traitors. Globalisation sounds good in theory, but only if you want to enslave your grandchildren. The only growth that should be encouraged is that which is good for everyone and sustainable over the long term.

by youngdumbandbroke | 26th Sep 19, 11:12am 1569453129

i agree. Used to live in Ohakune. Very hard to find a rental and if you do, $300 per week is the starting price for a 2 bedroom shack thats freezing cold in winter

by Hamish | 25th Sep 19, 10:27am 1569364077

by Market Interest | 25th Sep 19, 10:34am 1569364443

Ohakune river overflow. Major flooding in 2013, and a few incidents since then.

by K.W. | 25th Sep 19, 10:50am 1569365458

So if Canterbury increased its population by 11.2% but only grew dwellings by 6.9% according to your logic, its grossly undersupplied with housing? Because I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who claims that there is a housing shortage in Christchurch and surrounding areas.

by tothepoint - d… | 25th Sep 19, 11:00am 1569366027

Hi K.W.,

That shows exactly why we should be very weary of anecdotal "evidence".

The actual facts (i.e. objective evidence) can be very different!

TTP

by maninavan | 25th Sep 19, 11:12am 1569366734

What is people per dwelling?

by kiwi_overseas | 25th Sep 19, 3:15pm 1569381310

Chch has Selwyn & Waimak as relief valves.

by Brendon | 26th Sep 19, 2:43am 1569422606

Selwyn's population growth and house building numbers are amazing.

In percentage terms it was the district with the fastest population growth between 2013 and 2018. It grew from 45,000 to 60,000 people. It is very quickly becoming Christchurch's equivalent to Lower Hutt in size and proximity to the main city.

In absolute number terms Selwyn is the fifth fastest population growth district after the Auckland supercity and the city jurisdictions of Hamilton, Tauranga and Christchurch.

Selwyn's most amazing numbers though relate to its ability to respond to population growth. It built over 6000 houses. That is second only to Auckland. Selwyn actually built more houses than Hamilton, Tauranga and Christchurch between 2013 and 2018.

That means the small district of Selwyn that contains less than 1.5% of New Zealand's population built 6% of New Zealand's new housing stock between 2013 and 2018!

Selwyn was one of only a few districts able to build enough houses to keep up population growth. In 2018 the number of people per dwelling was 2.7. Which equals the number of new people to the district divided by the number houses built in the district for the 5 years between 2013 and 2018.

by Zack Brando | 25th Sep 19, 3:28pm 1569382120

I'm in Christchurch. There are lots of homeless around, lots !!

Christchurch has 2,000+ people on the Start Housing Register.

There is definitely a shortage of 1 and 2 bedroom townhouses and basic 'starter homes'. Also, ChCh wages are lower than Auckland.

Here in Canterbury we are pushing forward, slowly.

by Noncents | 25th Sep 19, 11:12am 1569366776

Anecdotally I find these results quite interesting.

Based in New Plymouth, our population has clearly increased - you can tell by the traffic alone.
However employment opportunities are decreasing, so I am seeing many working age people leaving town (often with families in tow).

It would be good to see this analysis factoring in age of the population as well.

In my opinion a dwelling made up of 2 Adults and 4 children, paints a completely different picture to a dwelling made up of 6 working age Adults, which again is completely different to a dwelling with 6 retirees.

I raise this as I wonder how "dwellings" is measured given the proliferation of retirement/lifestyle villages. i.e. an assisted living/hospital type care facility with 30-40 people in a building v the small independent units for 1-2 residents, or is the entire village just counted as 1 dwelling.

by scarfie | 25th Sep 19, 11:32am 1569367933

Your increase in traffic is just the dodgy bastards moving from Auckland and Wellington. There are not many of them, they just move around a lot.

by CJ099 | 25th Sep 19, 12:04pm 1569369846

Yes I think you right to want to factor in age with the data. Certainly over the last few years Auckland has been turning in to an huge old age peoples home, that's going to weigh heavily on our economy in the near future. Stuff article: Elderly migrant parents abandoned to isolation. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/63925002/

by sharetrader | 25th Sep 19, 11:39am 1569368376

so we increased the population by 10.8% in five years and wonder why we have capacity and infrastructure problems.
as homer would say DUH

by Advisor | 25th Sep 19, 12:15pm 1569370524

Since we are good at importing people from overpopulated parts of the world, why not get slum developers from those places to come along and provide some relief to our poor regions' housing woes.

Successive governments' failure to address housing, low productivity and their implicit endorsement towards the "door wide open" immigration policy might eventually end in shanty towns sprouting up across the country.

by CJ099 | 25th Sep 19, 12:04pm 1569369899

I'm surprised there's no mention of Auckland's 40,000 unoccupied homes most of which are likely to be in the center of our city. Looking at the latest census data we really, really need an Empty Homes Tax.
Auckland is a good example for why we need it, since wage earners can't afford a home. Having at least 40,000 unoccupied private dwellings is just insane. Vancouver only had officially 8,500 unoccupied private dwellings and yet they brought in an Empty Homes tax which so far is collecting huge amounts of revenue for them, up to $38 million in their first year! Which is used to build new affordable homes. NZ Census link: http://statsnz.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=97e2e97c…

by youngdumbandbroke | 25th Sep 19, 12:06pm 1569370012

I agree. Withholding properties from a market for speculation while the local population suffer is beyond unethical

by CJ099 | 25th Sep 19, 1:03pm 1569373394

Yes I very much agree that leaving so many empty homes in our major cities is unethical and very bad for our economy. The most absurd this is how much potential tax revenue NZ is missing out on that could be used for new homes. Considering we have five times more empty homes in comparison to what Vancouver had before the brought in their Empty Homes Tax. Looking at the census data (Unoccupied by TALB & SA2) most of the Auckland unoccupied homes appear to be near the CBD wealthy suburbs and North Shore. http://statsnz.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=97e2e97c…

by waymad | 25th Sep 19, 12:33pm 1569371623

Quelle surprise:

developers concentrate their activities on wealthier suburbs where their margins will be greater

ECON101 in action, perhaps?

by Voiceofreason | 25th Sep 19, 12:59pm 1569373159

The invisible hand of the market appears to favour the wealthy.

by unaha-closp | 26th Sep 19, 10:49am 1569451795

Auckland Councillors, lead by Penny Hulse, blocking of the affordable housing provision was hardly invisible.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/310710/auckland-councillors-reject-…

by Averageman | 25th Sep 19, 1:05pm 1569373550

Of course. This is where the overseas cash went large for school zones. No tax paying local would pay $4m for a house that historically struggled to push $2m.

by mikekirk29 | 25th Sep 19, 2:05pm 1569377157

Quite an achievement:

1. Auckland stock up 6.5% since 2013 and residential sales down 26.47% (29,645 v 21,796)
2. Rodney stock up 12.2% since 2013 and sales down 20 (1724 v 1704)

Not because people cannot afford stuff though, eh....

by Wrong John | 25th Sep 19, 4:49pm 1569386987

The wealthy get new homes because they can afford them. The poor don't get new homes because they can't afford them. When a taxpayer sponsored breeding programme creates too many poor people & not enough wealthy people, this outcome was assured 50 years ago. Discourage the people with no means of support themselves to not have babies is the only answer. Everything else is noise. Welfare is not only destroying those people it locks into welfare by continuing the poverty cycle into generations, but will eventually sink the Good Ship NZ Inc at some point if it continues. As it will all welfare states around the planet. The best way to get kids out of poverty Jacinda is to not encourage them with welfare.

by RickStrauss | 26th Sep 19, 12:03pm 1569456194

Indeed, the better welfare seems to have been earlier government efforts to increase housing supply to make housing affordable for more Kiwis. Helped generations achieve access to home ownership.

by b21 | 25th Sep 19, 9:06pm 1569402407

One more reason to not to leave urban development in solely private hands, private developers will develop where they'd expect higher returns, which is not necessarily where it is needed the most and as the data shows it hasn't been where there's been higher demand.

by kiwiana02 | 25th Sep 19, 11:24pm 1569410643

Greg- a very interesting article. But surely in Auckland, with one new house having been added for every 1.8 additional people, surely that is more than keeping up with population growth, given approx 2 people per household, and more in Auckland. Or have I got this wrong somehow?

by Brendon | 26th Sep 19, 9:09am 1569445783

Yes you somehow misinterpreted the numbers Greg compiled. Auckland only built one house for every 4.8 newcomers to the city/region.

by Boatman | 26th Sep 19, 8:53am 1569444803

Well of course this was going to happen .

Would a developer build a house in Mangere or Greenhithe , given than the cost of construction per m2 is identical , but the sale prices are circa $750k in Mangere and circa $1,5 to $2,0 million in Greenhithe .

Not to mention how hard it is to sell in lower income areas to people with no money , and the theft and other such nonsense from the site during construction .

by Brendon | 26th Sep 19, 9:17am 1569446221

The problem is that Auckland cannot build houses that ordinary workers can afford. Both $750k and $2m is too much for workers whose households incomes are near the median.