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

Average rents in Auckland range from $505 a week in Franklin to $675 in the eastern suburbs

Average rents in Auckland range from $505 a week in Franklin to $675 in the eastern suburbs

The average residential rent in Auckland is continuing to creep towards $600 a week, according to the region's largest real estate agency Barfoot & Thompson.

The agency manages more than 16,500 residential rental properties and says the average rent paid across the portfolio in December last year was $595 a week, up 2% (around $12 a week) compared to a year earlier.

That was a similar rate of increase to the previous 12 months (December 2018-December 2019) when the average increase was 2.1%.

The annual increase ranged from 0.5% on the North Shore to 3.5% in South Auckland.

Only one district recorded an annual decline in rents and that was Central Auckland, where the average rent declined by 1.9% in the 12 months to December.

Central Auckland includes the CBD which contains large numbers of small apartments that have traditionally been popular with overseas students, a segment of the market that has been particularly hard hit by the COVID pandemic and border lockdowns.

By property type, the lowest rate of increase was for properties with five or more bedrooms at 0.8%, while the biggest increase was for three bedroom properties at 2.6%.

Average rents for one bedroom properties ranged from $332 a week in south Auckland to $417 on the North Shore, while average rents for three bedroom homes ranged from $483 in Franklin to $992 in central Auckland.

See the table below for the full breakdown by district and property type.

The comment stream on this story is now closed.

Average weekly rents for properties managed by Barfoot & Thompson
December 2020

  • You can have articles like this delivered directly to your inbox via our free Property Newsletter. We send it out 3-5 times a week with all of our property-related news, including auction results, interest rate movements and market commentary and analysis. To start receiving them, go to our email sign up pagescroll down to option 6 to select the Property Newsletter, enter your email address and hit the Sign Me Up button.

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.


will pass 600 after April.

The market is rationing the scarce number of rental dwellings available - price mechanism working as expected.


The "market". If you love the "market" so much, let the "market" decide short term interest rates.

Indirect subsidies distortion into the market for the Banks.. by CB & govt - it's not quite a natural price mechanism, TTP it's artificial.

Better to stay put "with the devil you know"

I am not sure about the stat. but you simply cannot find any property less than 700 with livable condition.

We might see OCR hike earlier than we expected if rent continue to raise like this.

Historical rental yield growth for the last 10 years is 4.59% with short periods of stagnations throughout. Even if the time is aggrandised further, the results are similar. The increase in rent reflects the upward valuation of properties and is appropriate and no cause for alarm. No one is alarmed when an egg is cooked when heated- it's a natural thing.

Yeah and don't worry, the Govt is going to do something about it - perhaps in May? (sarc)

Except if you're the chicken inside the egg.

LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL - no cause for alarm.

Can always guarantee a bad take from CWBW.

This is a cause for alarm for many people if their incomes do not increase proportionately (which they don't). How is this difficult to grasp? Life is getting harder for a lot of people through no fault of their own.

I seem some issues here. Now that it's quite clear that NZ is moving to a 'neo-feudal' economic model, to make it work, you really want as many rent-paying serfs as possible. However, the serfs (which comprises lower income, young, disenfranchised) are not benefitting from the money printing (most NZers do not have access to the assets that are being pumped, except for housing). The numbers for rent rises don't really stack up without rising incomes and unfettered immigration. What's more, the higher the rents, less share of income is allocated to the consumer economy, which results in a negative feedback loop considering the NZ economy is primarily about consumer spending.

Do not discount the possibility that this will all go tits up if the money printing dial is not turned up to 11. Consider this a potential warning and take precautions accordingly.

Exactly, but it's part of a cunning plan, the higher the housing costs, the smaller house you will need to move into to make it affordable, can't afford a car, so no need for a garage. Then become reliant on PT so help pays for that, even though still need huge subsidies.

Can't afford the kids and don't have the space for them, which lowers the NZ-borne population, with top-ups from immigration to fill the gaps.

It's the new model.

Exactly, but it's part of a cunning plan.....

They will say people like you and me are just curmudgeons and not integrating into the collective thoughts, hopes and dreams of the 'team of 5 million.'

The cunning plan, of course, could be how a Jellyfish does not have a central nervous system (a central organizer of a cunning plan), but never the less all the bits (read 'vested interests') that make up a Jellyfish operate as one.

There is no plan any of them are aware of, but as Adam Smith might say (or Darwin) an invisible hand organizes them to all act that way. They just drift along, in ignorance.

Which is a very appropriate name for this Govt, The 'Jelly fish' Govt.

Fun fact: a Jelly fish's mouth is also its arse.

Excellent analogy. I'll be borrowing that one.

Sounds like the European model: small houses, less cars, more stuff to do. Much nicer than our current US model IMO but each to their own.
Hopefully we end up with a good mix: density and cafes and PT in some areas, sprawl and backyards and cars in others, allow people to choose.

The European model is great to visit and great for DINKs but absolutely sucks for families. I like your idea of a mix.

The European model is great to visit and great for DINKs but absolutely sucks for families

Did the Europeans tell you about how grim their family life is? If it's so dire, imagine what it's like for the Japanese.

Perhaps their dream is a suburban existence in NZ. The land of milk and honey.

Aren't the Japanese better at suicide than Kiwis?

Not sure. Our teen suicide record is up there in the rankings.

There are likely historical aspects to that too.

Do you mean like the UK European model where the average size of a new build is 73m2?

The point is to allow people the choice, as you say.

Is there anyone that would not like for their present housing costs to be cheaper?

Assuming that the answer is yes, then that gives you the option to trade up for the same old price, or stay where you are for the cheaper new price.

It's bizarre the justifications some are giving for paying very high prices for some of the poorest quality housing in the developed world. Some sort of self-flagellation.

But when there is enough doing it, it becomes the norm. Misery loves company, but only other miserable company.

Its the new model...The Great Reset apparently. Jacinda is right behind it.

Ouch its now gone past what my mortgage used to be and its just 100% money down the toilet with no return. Pretty scary when you have no control over the price increases either and can get booted out at short notice.

I came back from overseas in 2014 and rented a tiny, mouldy 2 bedroom place in Takapuna, Auckland for $500 p/w out of desperation as there wasn't anything else available. I lasted 3 months before I ended up getting my own place, paying $100 less per week for the mortgage!

I look back on now and thank myself for biting the bullet and getting out of there. It was a property handed down from a deceased mother, and the son had rented it out without doing anything to it. When I handed it back he tried to claim I caused the mould until I presented my own dated photos from the move-in date. It sold in September for $1.1m.

Pretty scary when you have no control over the price increases either and can get booted out at short notice.

At the end of the day, the rent cannot exceed the serfs' income.

+ govt topups


It's called Accommodation Supplement and costs taxpayers up to $305/week per qualifying household.

This landlord subsidy really needs to end. Both house prices and rents will fall accordingly.

The only way to achieve that is #rentcontrolnow.

Hashtag good luck with that


The moment rentcontrol, dti, brightline tweak & IRD reign in for the 'investors' - you'll see how house becoming a reasonable means of wealth creation, rather than the runaway stock commodity market share as currently is. But honestly, it is difficult task, knowing how deep NZ Banking systems jumped into the pond, and betting on it as a Ponzi mechanism (always up, up & away).

I think you have missed the critical part even if your being sarcastic. The rent can and will continually push the limits of what can be squeezed out of a tenant. Sure it cannot go past 100% of income but it can push much higher percentage figures than are considered "acceptable". You have no control over it, if all the landlords increase the rent, you pay it and make cuts in other areas of your life.

Ah, that point.. of acceptable.. yea, sure even pass 100% govt. can still subsidies further by so many other means to kick the can further. Wait until, point of no confidence reached, once this continuous support of the Banking systems crumbled, they'll call the shot. It's ain't pretty.

Makes me laugh when I hear "We keep putting all our eggs in the housing basket. It is a risk." Unfortunately, there is NO risk, that's why everyone is piling into it. When you econmy is the housing market, it will be protected at all costs. That's your problem right there. In my view, they need to let it fall (a little) to scare the sheep and to, of-course, bring prices back down to a common earthlings level.

You can't "let it fall" a little - you need to regulate it to fall - and the only way is to regulate rent prices (as you can't regulate house prices). And given around 2/3rds of all renting households are getting an Accommodation Supplement, the government has every right in the world to reduce rent prices via regulation, as they (we) are doing the subsidising of the rental market at the moment.

I’m interested where you got your information that 2/3 of all renting households are getting a AS from because that doesn’t make sense considering how hard it is to qualify for that and the fact you have to be a citizen or PR.

Also as you pointed out the maximum anyone can ever get is $305 and for that you need to be in area 1 with kids it’s not a limitless supplement as some people on here seem to think.

An OIA request/response.

All students qualify; all those on super (with less than $42,000 in savings if I recall correctly); all sole parent and/or two parent households with 2+ children (unless they have a household income of $80,000, if I recall correctly - it might have gone up recently); all those on the job seeker benefit qualify; basically, everyone on the average wage ($53,000) qualifies. All these add up to the tune of what was $1.9 billion in subsidies in the previous year. Have no idea what it will be this financial year.

And don't forget, that $1.9 billion is on top of the amount taxpayers fork out for temporary accommodation (i.e., motels, etc.), again due to rents being unaffordable for just about everyone renting.

Thing is, it is cheaper to purchase and pay a mortgage these days (provided you have a deposit and a good enough credit rating) than to rent.

When you econmy is the housing market, it will be protected at all costs.

I've heard this before. The 'unique' Greek economy was 'protected at all costs' until it fell flat on its face. Later came the argument that the Greeks don't have their sovereignty over their currency, which is why it became increasingly dire. In the case of NZ, apparently it's all hunky dory because we can print to our heart's content.

Off subject, but can sort out this "There was a problem with your form submission. Please wait 42 seconds and try again." occurs when editing a comment, this is the second most annoying thing on the site. First annoying thing, there is no filter on comments, would be great to be able to view comments by most liked, date - oldest / newest, most threads. etc etc. cheers (from a UX designer)

What's the average price to rent a Garage (as accommodation) up their in Auckland?

I've seen stories on the 'news' where people were paying 4 - 5 hundred for garages. How do you square that with the above statistics? Is there a large 'black market' for accommodation? Did government-funded-motels dry up such a market?

Is the government renting out garages up there now? What's going on in Auckland?

Yes, I understand there is a 'black market' for garages. Anchor tenant who qualifies for the Accommodation Supplement, takes that for their household and then sublets (unofficially) the garage to friends/whanau.

I’m not sure but I pay $550/week for a 2 bedroom tidy and dry semi attached flat (90m2 or so with yard and carport) in a very nice suburb. So if anyone is paying $500 for a garage I suggest they look at their options.

For some, there are no other options.

Well that was my point, if you are spending $500+ a week you do have options. Now, I am certain that a lot of couples can only afford a garage and that is a damn shame.

The average rent about the same as the average wage? Seems fair.

Average wage = $53,040. 30% of that = $15,912. Which means that the average rent ought to be $306/week.

When a news item suggested many people were spending 50-80% of their income on rent - I thought that impossible.

I was wrong - as I forgot that 50% of the population earns less than the average wage.


Seems slightly cheaper than wellington? Any comparisons available?

Yes, my research of the Wellington market over the last month suggests AKL rents are indeed lower. AKL market is subdued by the absence of int'l students more so than Welly.

Kate do you own your own home or just want rent control because you don’t?


Or maybe she's just a decent human being who wants some vague sense of justice in our society?

Homeowners since 1979!

I want rent control because:

a. Foodbank lines are an embarrassment
b. Absenteeism in schools is on the up and up because when children don't have a lunch, they often skip school (hence taxpayer lunch-in-schools programmes).
c. Obesity is an epidemic here and largely due to the consumption of the cheapest (and hence the highest in carbohydrate) foods. A cost-of-living problem - largely due to our high accommodation costs as a percentage of household income.
d. Due to c. above, diabetes is going to cost our health system so much going forward that user-pays in all areas of health care will have to go up.
e. We cannot build our way out of the Accommodation Supplement - not to mention the State Housing waitlist.
f. The growing 'black market' for garage rentals is enough of an embarrassment, and a 'black market' for caravan parking is on the horizon.
g. Next stop flavela and/or tent cities, depending on whether we follow the Brazilian or US accommodation trends.

Yes land lords are responsible for each and every Ill that the low classes suffer.
H. Rotten teeth from being forced to drink soda by the landlord
I. Obesity from excessive overeating when the landlord piled their plates full of fatty meats
J. Unwanted pregnancies of 15 yo... no reason given
K. High incidence of smoking ...landlord
L. Meth use... landlord again
M. Neglect of children that were taken away by OT ... landlord
N. Underage children watching porn ... landlord
O. Marriage bustups... landlord. Not getting married... landlord
P. Lonely singletons... landlord
Q. Corona virus case in northland ... landlord. Damn the whole Covid19 effing landlords
R. Lost my job because of CV19... that awful landlord
S. My neighbour partying and keeping me awake... landlord of course it makes perfect sense. The bastard (LL) let the bastard (neighbour) in in the first place and the bastard (LL) doesnt keep a watching eye 24/7 on the bastard (neighbour) so it stands to reason
T. Boss yelled at me for cocking up the project ... landlord. It was the landlords property where we smoked the dope which caused me to ruin the work project
U. Dog ate my shoes... landlord fault I should bloody sue him, on second thoughts no as he doesnt know about the dog so he might find out.
V. Tesla shares went up... landlord fault that I didnt buy some and get wildly rich
W. Bitcoin price went nuts and I missed out... I didnt listen to J.C. advice to get some so landlord fault
X. I like using this letter to cross out anything I hate so landlord is crossed out in permanent marker
Y. Landlord fault... Y is a crooked letter and Z is no better
Z. I have run out of excuses to blame the landlord so that's landlord fault, bastard. Labour didnt give me free house so I still have landlord,,, bastard.

Jesus, you need help buddy...

Its humour albert dont you get it, but I've read your posts and you genuinely need help

Humour is meant to be funny though?

You only dont like it if it strikes a nerve for you. My wife loved the dog one,, probably because so apt...

Your wife laughed because she loves you.

More likely, he needs to de-leverage the portfolio.

I might even have less leverage than your good self Kate at 11 percent... however I could easily pay it off if I wanted. That's not a boast, responding to your statement

The lack of empathy is concerning.

Have you seen the price of a cheeseburger lately? It was $2 when I bought a house so as of today the cheeseburger has beaten house prices. Surely that can’t be attributed to greedy landlords as much as you’re other far fetched accusations.

What year did you buy your house in?

Either you with us.. or against us, ay? ;-)




Just started looking at mortgage repayments in Perth. $490 per week. $595 in Auckland per week for rent, when the average wage is $67k (or $1200 per week)- half your wage to go onto rent??!! WTF. They pay you 20k to build... . Bye bye young professional NZers- welcome over here in Aussie! They love us!

It is only the Accommodation Supplement that is keeping a lid on the anger. That lid is about to blow.

Just need a mob of angry renting Redditers to collaborate and stop paying their landlords. If enough people do it, the Tenancy Tribunal won't be able to cope.

People always have advice for others to take but would never do it themself.

Back before the Lange/Douglas reforms, we used to subsidise agriculture. You could not then blame farmers for responding to the government incentives, just as now we can't blame landlords. When government policy changed back then it was (as I understand it) a rather brutal transition for the sector. Hopefully this time around we can be a bit more considered about reform.

Kate I'm just wondering if you were keen on the govt regulating healthy homes standards.. Did you also deny that it could have pricing effects

The state of much of our State Housing has long disgusted me. The government has been a slum landlord for far too long. So, yes, given they are the largest single landlord in the country, I was delighted to see the HH standard brought in. And yes, deferred maintenance and upgrade has always had a cost associated with it. But, if you are asking whether I think it an excuse for rent rises - no. Too often in the past rentals have been marketed with 'patch up' jobs, rather than proper repair and upgrade. The HH standard is just a minimum standard which should have been around for many years prior.

Yes, pricing down for those that do not comply, well that is the way it should be, just like it is for cars.

Having a WOF does not make your car more valuable as that is the minimum market entry point to be allowed on the road. It only makes it less valuable without one.

This is something Landlords need to understand, the fact that they can increase the rent more just because they feel justified with any extra increase in costs due to the Healthy Home standards has nothing to do with those standards per se. The only reason you can do it is for want of a competitive housing market.

". It only makes it less valuable without one."

And by deductiion... with one is more valuable... would someone pay more or less for adding more features ... heatpumps ventilation systems and rangehoods insulation ceiling and floor ground cover sheets double glazing and draught proofing. Add the associated reports and the private landlords who have switched to using professional ppty managers they are barely working for free

No that is not the logical deduction from what I said.

It all depends on what you set as your baseline, like my analogy with cars describes.

For rental properties, the baseline is the new Healthy Homes Standard, for owner-occupiers, it is still the building code. That is where the confusion is coming in, the irony being you can have a baseline legal home for an owner-occupier that would now be illegal as a rental.

Yield is only skinny at the time you purchase, but with capital gains the ROI annualized over time is OK, more than sufficient to cover the improvements, many of which you get good depreciation.

As I said the only reason landlords can get away with this cost-plus approach on the property that is still deficient by International standards is because of the lack of competition for something better. But that is changing.

Fully agreed BTP, in our professional works average straight increase of wages/salary is by minimum 20-30K/annum, 10-15K more for the straight graduates, we always welcome NZ displace graduates into OZ, try to avoid MelB & Syd for starters unless the offer is more than 100K. Remember most NZ banks is OZ, most of NZ groceries is OZ. Young doctor, nurse, pharmacist, teacher, engineer, police etc. - We can only smile when greet Kiwis that have to cross Tasman just for a standard medical procedure. Watch when border fully opened both ways then counts!
Vaccine already around, it's not much to live for if you're young Kiwis being squeezed more & more just to support the mammoth Ponzi.

The govt allows mass migration to suppress wages. We then have a housing crisis as there are too many people for the houses we have. House prices and rents then go up. The govt is then forced to to subsidise the rent at the cost of billions and acts as though the whole situation is akin to an unlucky natural disaster. The fact is the whole crisis has been a result of successive govts mass immigration policies.

I agree with what you say except saying the 'whole' crisis. I would say it's a contributing part to causing the crisis, as an accelerate.

That's why Texas can welcome as many Californians and Mexicans, both legal and illegal, as we do in numbers, but because they have a very elastic housing supply ability, then it does not cause house prices and rents to go up.

But agreed we still have a failed mass immigration policy, as that is more about what 'type' of NZ we want to be, especially if you are going to have restrictive housing policies.

What people seem to overlook is that these same policies would be still there with or without the mass immigration so the vested interests would still cause a relative lack of supply to extract as much rentier gain as they could regardless of the actual numbers.