By Mike Blackburn*
Christchurch has been given the green light to manage its own growth — and the data shows it’s more than capable.
Under the Government’s 30-year housing target, the city needs to deliver 68,200 new homes by 2055, or around 2,274 a year. In the year to September 2025, Christchurch consented 3,964 new dwellings — that’s 175% of the long-term requirement.
So the question isn’t whether the city can build enough. The question is whether it can deliver the right mix of homes in the right places.
The 30-year plan only works if it adapts to how people actually live
We don’t build houses to meet a spreadsheet target — we build them because people need somewhere to live.
That demand comes from three shifting forces: population growth, the replacement of older housing stock, and changing household types and lifestyles.
Those drivers are constantly moving. Migration can surge, families can shrink, and older homes can reach the end of their life all at once — and none of that happens on a neat 30-year timeline. That’s why the long-term housing plan needs to function as a dynamic framework, not a one-off forecast.
The market ultimately decides where and when new housing happens, and plans need to keep pace with that reality.
While long-term planning is essential, assumptions about what the future might look like aren’t always based on what actually drives demand.
The invisible boundaries — and why they don’t matter
One critical thing for everyone to understand — from councils and government to developers and buyers — is that the boundary lines between Christchurch, Selwyn, and Waimakariri are really just lines on a map. Other than a change in who collects your rubbish or sets your rates, there’s little difference between Halswell and Prebbleton, or between Belfast and Kaiapoi — just five or ten minutes further down the road. If a buyer can’t get what they want in St Albans or Spreydon, then maybe Lincoln or Rangiora becomes the natural alternative.
And for anyone moving down from Auckland, a 45-minute commute for a 1,000 m² lifestyle section at a 30% discount feels less like compromise and more like winning Lotto.
The affordability illusion
Christchurch property prices are significantly cheaper than Auckland, and that price gap is a major driver of migration into Canterbury. But “cheaper” doesn’t always mean “affordable.” Developers are working hard to contain prices — smaller homes, smaller sections, denser layouts — yet affordability depends on household incomes, not just smaller land parcels.
Across Canterbury, 50 m² studios and 250 m² sections are now common in new developments, a sign of how the market is adapting. But for many families, the dream of a backyard hasn’t gone away — it’s simply moving further out.
The regional ripple - and the transport test
As Christchurch grows up, Selwyn and Waimakariri will keep growing out. That isn’t failure - it’s balance. But it only works if transport and infrastructure keep pace.
According to Stats NZ projections, Greater Christchurch’s population is expected to reach around 700,000 by 2050 and close to 1 million by 2070, and I believe this is an underestimation. That kind of growth demands forward planning that integrates both urban intensification and greenfield expansion.
The Greater Christchurch Partnership’s spatial plan once aimed to guide that future, but it focused almost entirely on intensification, effectively sidelining greenfield development. That narrow approach simply doesn’t reflect how Canterbury is growing.
To stay livable and connected, the region needs both: compact, well-located housing and new communities on the fringe supported by modern transport and infrastructure.
The opportunity ahead
Christchurch has shown it can deliver volume. The next step is delivering coherence — a region where intensification, lifestyle growth, and infrastructure planning all move in step.
Selwyn and Waimakariri aren’t the fringe anymore; they’re essential to Canterbury’s housing future.
If we get this balance right, Christchurch won’t just be building homes, it will be shaping the model for sustainable regional growth for New Zealand.
Mike Blackburn is the principal of Blackburn Management. You can contact him here.
9 Comments
From all accounts Minister Bishop, has listened, understood and been receptive to the submissions from all the relative local authorities. That in itself is refreshing and encouraging likely should lead to a workable and productive outcome for the city and surrounds.
No, it isn't.
Because they're ignorant (whether prima facie or chosen) of what all cities face.
Christchurch, as formatted EVEN NOW, is unmaintainable ex fossil energy (ex low-entropy energy, in other words).
But men in suits, needing to grow...
If only they put in a proper train network post EQ, the city would have been bustling with shops around the transport hubs, less cars on the roads and a vibrant city centre. Alas, people cannot change their ways from the enshrined driving mentality there.
I think their construction sector was a bit overburdened trying to replace all the houses and other buildings that the quake took out.
Not entirely related, as I believe the council voted against it as there were proposals by some to have a network running out to kaiapoi, rolleston, halswell etc but they decided to go with more motorways instead. Imagine the possibility of living in Rolly and being able to train into the CBD with your spouse for dinner, drinks and a movie then train home without the worry of driving or risk of other motorists.
All the decisions around passenger trains and mass transit are made in Wellington. They have been since 1876. There is no local budget anywhere in NZ to build mass transit. These are decisions made by Cabinet. Car dependence has been forced upon Canterbury - it wasn't a choice. For some driving dependency may have become a driving mentality that they prefer. But it is probably a process of liking the status quo and fearing change in a context where there is little capacity to deliver good quality change.
Yes, it is the competition between the three councils for ratepayers that has helps temper their natural bureaucracy monopolistic tendencies.
Remembering that they still operate under the same rules that make Auckland the cluster&$#* it is.
All NZ cities and towns are a potential Auckland disaster just awaiting to happen.
The three councils are already showing the tendency for this to happen with talk of amalgamation.
New Govt policies show the way to allow Canterbury to show how regional nodal growth could work, and not to just double down on growth as per an Auckland outcome.
Good article Mike.
There are a few other demand growth factors worth mentioning, in addition to the ones you have covered.
Incomes and ultimately jobs and business opportunities are another factor. The unemployment rate is lower in Christchurch/Canterbury. So, the regional labour market can absorb people moving south to the city and region. This is an important factor because as Urban theorists like Alain Bertaud say - 'cities are labour markets'. Housing affordability is important - but so is being close to where the jobs are - which then gets to your worthy comments about transport Mike.
Financing costs also affects the housing market. Lower interest rates during Covid had a dramatic demand effect that overwhelmed supply - especially in Auckland and Wellington, causing a house price spike that is only now unwinding.
There is no such thing as sustainable growth.
Period.
Come on Interest.co -
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.