Not everywhere is unaffordable

Property

Here's detail on house prices and incomes for 25 cities across New Zealand and why not everywhere is unaffordable

31st Jan 11, 7:38am by David Chaston

By David Chaston

Debates about housing affordability often include the statement that house prices should be available in a city for a price that does not exceed three times the household incomes of people wanting to buy their first homes.

How realistic is that in New Zealand in 2011?

The house-price-to-income multiple is a simplified, yet internationally recognised measure of housing affordability. It has the great advantage that it easily allows international comparison.

The recently released Demographia study uses this benchmark, and compares cities in seven countries and judges housing affordability against this 'three-times-household-income' benchmark.

In its data release at its Financial Stability Review in November 2010, the RBNZ included a long series tracking household incomes and house prices. That data is charted above.

It clearly confirms that before the start of the recent housing bubble in 2004, on average New Zealand houses were available for three times household incomes, or less.

But in the period since, prices have risen much faster than household incomes. Affordability has become unaffordability.

The RBNZ data only measures the overall national situation. It does not provide information for cities and towns, or any regions.

It also uses gross household incomes, and this is a flaw in this 'median-multiple' approach.

People buy houses with their take-home pay - sometimes referred to as their after-tax income. And there have been three tax-cuts in the past two years, which improved take-home pay significantly. Clearly, tax cuts improve affordability, but they are not captured in the 'median-multiple' measure.

In addition to our Roost Homeloan Affordability reports, interest.co.nz monitors median multiples of 25 towns and cities in New Zealand on a monthly basis.

At December 2010 there are four cities where you can still buy a median-priced house for about three times the local household income. They are:

- Rotorua, where median houses are currently priced at 3.1 times income,
- Wanganui, where they are 2.6 times,
- Timaru, where they are 3.1 times,
- Invercargill, where they are 2.6 times as well.

In addition, a number of other cities have scores just above these levels, such as

- Whangarei, at 3.8 times,
- Gisborne, at 3.4 times,
- Palmerston North, at 3.5 times,
- Upper Hutt, at 3.8 times, and
- Dunedin, at 3.8 times.

In most of these cases, this measure of affordability has improved over the past year.

However, relating pre-tax incomes to house prices is a fairly simplistic measure of affordability. Not only does it not take account of tax cuts, it does not take account of interest-rate changes. There will be very few first-home-buyers indeed who don't borrow to buy. Mortgage criteria and interest rates are significant factors in measuring affordability, but are not accounted for in the median-multiple measure.

(The Roost Homeloan Affordability reports do account for the impact of tax cuts, and other factors including changing mortgage interest rates.)

You can find the latest median-multiple tracking of all major New Zealand towns and cities here. It is updated monthly.

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.

46 Comments

by Wolly | 31st Jan 11, 8:32am 1296415930

That's all very well David but employment options in those places are poor to zero and they are not where you would take your business...which suggests they are still seriously unaffordable...

Whangarei, at 3.8 times,

- Gisborne, at 3.4 times,

- Palmerston North, at 3.5 times,

- Upper Hutt, at 3.8 times,

- Dunedin, at 3.8 times. (maybe the best of these for a job chance).

In such localities affordable would be 2 times!

Interest .co did not start up in one of the above!

by Ricardo | 31st Jan 11, 9:52am 1296420766

Yip, totally agree with you Wolly.

An example, I was recently in Napier and was skimming through the local paper...the house prices being advertised were very high for Napier incomes...following this I turned to the 'Situations Vacant' section and there were very few jobs...so how does the average punter service a super sized mortgage??? A caretaker job at the local school will be tough going when servicing a $300K mortgage in Napier.

by muzza | 31st Jan 11, 11:04am 1296425088

But there will be about 50 teachers there for every caretaker, and they will find it quite comfortable to buy a $300,000 house there that might cost 50% more in Auckland.

Mind you don't assume too much about school caretakers, I had an uncle years ago who was a school caretaker after he sold his dairy farm, and he would have been the wealthiest guy on the staff. The one where my kids went to school was a early retired (perfed) policeman and he haad a rather nice property

by Ricardo | 31st Jan 11, 11:49am 1296427775

Muzza, I disagree, the average income to average house is a high multiple in places like Napier...although more reasonable than Auckland...but referring to Wolly's point..the availability of jobs isn't so great in these smaller centres. An interest only mortgage may be OK, but the bank may want some principal paid at some stage right - $300K of it.

Also, Muzza I think you'll find the main reason why the teachers have been on strike is that their disposable income has deteriorated over the last 10 years...I wonder why that is??? How about housing being less affordable..so with politicians allowing a bubble to develop, it's hurting them in other areas like pay negotiations with teachers.

by Kunst | 31st Jan 11, 9:03am 1296417838

Yes, there are more crumbs under the table from people, who ate too greedily – pick them up. But in general boy - life is going to be expensive.

by muzza | 31st Jan 11, 9:11am 1296418280

Actually most places are reasonably affordable in NZ.

I'll take as an example Tauranga, a high growth area in NZ and the so-called least affordable.

Well you can get a detached 3 bedroom place with garage in a fairly good suburb like Greerton with all the amenities, supermarkets, bid Fraser Cove mall, schools, hospitals near- by. A household income of $70,000 would have a 'multiple' of around 3.5. The Demographia statistics in a city like Tauranga are distorted due to 'low' household income of the significant retired sector of the population there, [who have largely purchased mortgage free when moving to Tga], also a large solo parent group ( why not live in a nice place with a good accommodation allowance?) who have low household income and are generally not endeavouring to buy property.

But never let the facts get in the road of a sensational headline! 6.5 is more sensational than 3.5

by Nicholas Arrand | 31st Jan 11, 9:22am 1296418932

Do you live in any of those suburbs, muzza? If you think any of the better parts of Tauranga are 'affordable', now; just wait a bit...they're about to get a whole heap more affordable....

by muzza | 31st Jan 11, 9:32am 1296419554

No I don't Nicholas, but I've been doing a 'due diligence' and it's shaping up as a good buy there especially as Waikato University is about to commence a campus development for 6,000 students opening for 2014. A new secondary school opens tomorrow, it's looking like a place with great potential, now has NZ's biggest port and less than 3 hours from Auckland. Don't close your eyes for too long.

by Nicholas Arrand | 31st Jan 11, 9:35am 1296419743

Ah! Like Bond University was going to be good for the Gold Coast...

"I am not sure an (auction) 36% clearance rate ( last night) seems that positive, but the one house they did mention seems like it got a big price. That is until you bother to check the sales history of the house at 34 Admiralty Drive, Paradise Waters only to find that it last sold for $5.8 million in July 2005. A $1 million loss over 5 1/2 years. Is it possible to turn a corner in the downwards direction ? "

http://macrobusiness.com.au/2011/01/the-gold-coasts-other-casino/

by muzza | 31st Jan 11, 10:09am 1296421756

Not sure about Bond University in Australia, but I've heard it's a private outfit? Impact of government provided tertiary education expansion of 6,000 students in Tauranga will be substantial for a city of it's size (120,000). Even Wolly could see the potential for Blenheim if a 6,000 student tertiary facility was opened there! As for Paradise Waters, there are examples of top-line properties in Tauranga- Mount as well, but who cares?

NA, you can think what you like, I look for potential and I was genuinely surprised to see how an established middle-of-the road suburb in Tauranga still had inexpensive property, which leads me back to the main point. Anybody with only a household income of $70,000 can buy a fairly reasonable house there with a 'multiple' of around 3.5. By the way, I do take the point that some regional towns like Blenheim etc are struggling- but the old adage still is valid that if the farmers (not grape growers!) are doing well the provincial service centres will ultimately do well, and it looks now as if the wool growers might be about to enjoy their day in the sun also.

by Nicholas Arrand | 31st Jan 11, 11:31am 1296426683

@ Muzza: Why do you think '...established middle-of-the road suburb in Tauranga still had inexpensive property..'? Because people in general aren't buying it! The market sets the price at any given time, and if you assess it as 'affordable', then so does everyone else. Or rather, the sellers are setting the price. Are the buyers buying it? And if so, why aren't the prices higher? I know why the prices aren't lower, yet. It's the debt levied against them. People find it hard to 'take a loss' or less than they expect. It's easy on the way up; against nature on the way down. But it will happen....

by scarfie | 31st Jan 11, 12:24pm 1296429854

Muzza I can't help but wonder if you read wider economics.

For instance if you pull out an encyclopedia britannica you will find the example the scenario in Tunisia clearly outlined.

In an economic lull there is a tendency for people to return to education, but the downstream effects are that as unemployment deepens, and remember it was above 30% here in the 1930's, then you get a class of highly educated unemployed. A bunch of smart people lying around idle is a recipe for disaster, and our government has already made moves to reduce tertiary study to those under performing. The government is all to aware of this issue and will tighten further to avoid the Tunisia example.

I only ever hear you comment on real estate, but would love to see from you well thought out commentary on wider fiscal and monetary matters.

Sometimes is it useful to take the opposite position and try to prove it.

Or as I saw on one book on investment, you really have an advantage when you know something that nobody else knows. But sometimes to find that thing you have to challenge what you also know to be 'fact'. When you disprove your own facts, then that puts you in a powerful position.

by muzza | 31st Jan 11, 7:20pm 1296454819

Can't say I have studied economics, most of my experience is practical application and I've had a fairly broad experience from farming, involvement in small business currently limited to one company, and of course buying some residential and commercial property, sold one (commercial) just last December. I was involved in competitive sport for some time( rugby) and understand the approach needed to perform in any field, not just the sports field

As for any wider opinions I'm probably not in favour of asset sales, if only because practical experience of previous efforts proved to be a disaster. Also, human nature exaggerates how good things are in bouyant times and exaggerates how bad things are in not so bouyant times,so take the middle path as a practical approach.

by muzza | 31st Jan 11, 7:25pm 1296455131

by muzza | 31st Jan 11, 7:22pm 1296454973

by scarfie | 31st Jan 11, 7:35pm 1296455738

Hehe, my lady was just reading something to me this morning about how when people are stressed economically they sell assets. Fischer was who she was quoting.

But if you pull out an encyclopedia you will find this explained. The downward spiral that happens when everyone wants to sell their assets to get cash, because they have lost their source of income. Trouble is lots are in the same boat, and that results in a significant depreciation of those assets. Simple supply and demand really. And cycles.

I certainly have no formal education in economics, my talent is for design. But I am a thinker and a reader. Self taught in many areas.

I designed an built my own house well before undertaking my architecture schooling. Plumbing, wiring, stormwater, septic tank, the lot. I can, and have, swap or rebuild an engine amongst other things.

But I am motivated to understand systems. A house is just a system, so without understanding how can I be effective as a designer.

Money is just a system also, I hope my knowledge becomes greater.

by muzza | 31st Jan 11, 7:47pm 1296456420

PS Sorry about repeats, don't know what happened

by Ricardo | 31st Jan 11, 10:08am 1296421701

NA, nice link.

Classic real estate BS:

"BUYERS looking for new Gold Coast high-rise apartments should move now or risk being shut out of the market over the next five years, according to Gold Coast real estate agent Andrew Bell."

When he says shut out, I guess he means values will spiral to more unaffordable levels, as a result families won't be able to buy a home at a reasonable price and enjoy life - they will become mortgage slaves. Thanks Ray White.

by fmr ca | 31st Jan 11, 9:56am 1296420980

Exactly, career prospects very limited in most fields in these regional towns. As a resident of one, I know of lots of underemployment (which is not part of unemployment stats obviously) where one partner has a good job but the other struggles to finds work, or people would like to increase hours. It is often a career killer to live in a regional town and I can understand why families move to larger cities or Australia. The low house prices flow on from that.

by Kate | 31st Jan 11, 10:16am 1296422160

Surely though, many professions/jobs pay similar around the country: nurses, lawyers, accountants, teachers, bank tellers etc etc.

I'd agree that if you want a career say in central government - you need to be in Wellington - or in engineering - you need to be in Auckland, or if you want to be a business/management consultant, then a main centre is the place to go - but I do wonder why say teachers or nurses would choose to try and raise a family in Auckland or Wellington these days. From a housing perspective anyway, it just doesn't make sense? From a social perspective, well that's a different issue.

by muzza | 31st Jan 11, 10:33am 1296423216

You are right Kate, but there has been for some time an attitude of people that they want to be where the 'social action' is, especially Aucland and Wellington. My daughter's partner could have got a teaching job in Te Puke, but took one offered in Wellington instead. They could have done much better financially living in Te Puke, that didn't even remotely come into the considerations. Thinks he has more scope playing rugby in Wellington and it has a 'better' music scene

by Elley | 31st Jan 11, 10:41am 1296423670

Kate, I doubt you get the same salary independantly of where you live. Usually in the private sector at least, salaries are adjusted according to the COL in the particular city where you live. Eg, in Wellington one full-day of childcare costs my friend over $80, and according to her $100-$120 is not uncommon. In comparison, $35-$40 is more like it in Chch. I assume some of that extra cost is reflected in the teachers' pay package.

Thank goodness, you don't need to be in Auckland to have a great career in engineering. Lots of other places in NZ are good for that too. There are quite a few innovative companies focused on new technologies in Chch for example. Not to mention that the technologies we have now allow some people to work from home more and more easily. We "relocated" to a small village 45mn out of Chch and it hasn't had any negative impact on our career, just the opposite in fact (incomes have gone up, better lifestyle, only have to go to Chch for meetings once a week at most and we didn't pay anywhere as much for our section).

by muzza | 31st Jan 11, 10:51am 1296424287

I can answer that Elley, you get exactly the same salary, whether you teach in Te Puke or Wellington. The only difference is in a larger school the principal's rate reflects the size of the school, but that's true for any school anywhere. eg Otumoetai College in Tauranga has a roll of 2,000 so I'm told, and principal there probably gets more than a principal in any school in Wellington.

by Elley | 31st Jan 11, 10:56am 1296424563

I was talking about preschool teachers and other private sector jobs Muzza. I realize that jobs in the public sector probably don't work that way but in the private sector, you do get a different pay package depending on where you live in most cases.

by muzza | 31st Jan 11, 11:09am 1296425388

Think kindergarten teachers are on the State payroll and get the same as teachers in general, private pre-school will be different .

Sounds like you made a good move, Elley

by scarfie | 31st Jan 11, 12:09pm 1296428946

The case study I have posted here previously is Whangarei. If you go back three years you will find that Whangarei was just as unaffordable as anywhere else. The GFC extracted a heavy toll there in 2009, with 1000 professionals leaving town. That has caused a massive impact on real estate, with a basic new house that was once selling for $450K now lucky to get above $300K.

The other problem is finance, with the finance clause in the majority of cases now causing sales to fall over, even in cases of pre-approved finance.

I have friends at the sharp end of this business and feeling its effects.

Make of that what you will, but my bet is that it is coming to the main centres sooner rather than later.

All those teachers with big mortgages will default just like everyone else when the interest rates start to climb.

by Malarkey | 31st Jan 11, 12:29pm 1296430143

Job applicants in, say, Wanganui or Thames are not offered the same salary package as those in Auckland or other main centres, even when it's the same type of position.

It's why people leave the smaller towns and cities and move to the big smoke, not to return until retirement, if ever.

by muzza | 31st Jan 11, 12:28pm 1296430084

Agree about Whangarei, seems it's in decline rather like Blenheim in the South. But all I can say is that anyone who is a teacher ( and she/he is usually the partner of another teacher or professional of some sort) who couldn't service a mortgage if interest rates go up has taken out a ridiculous sum of money to buy an overly expensive property. That would not be typical, most teachers are by nature not wheelers and dealers, usually err on the conservative side.

by scarfie | 31st Jan 11, 12:48pm 1296431280

So you don't think the modern practice of palming your kids off to other people to be cared for is a problem? That there is no downstream social problems of children being cared for by those with no emotional attachment?

I didn't do, and having been a salaried professional on the government payroll for a significant portion of my working(and non-working.lol) life.

I can tell you that surviving on one income in Auckland would prohibit home ownership for the bulk of teachers, firemen, police or nurses.

For instance a $300,000 mortgage at 7.00% would be more than the take home pay for any of the average of those just mentioned.

$100,000 would be a more realistic limit.

It used to be that banks would not lend more than the ability to service the mortgage of 30% of your take home pay.

Ongoing twin family incomes is a dangerous assumption.

by Matt in Auck | 31st Jan 11, 1:31pm 1296433891

The regular practice of women returning to work after their baby is 3 months old really concerns me.

In my opinion, a baby needs the loving care of a parent (or "at worst" a close relative) for at least the first year of life. I mean a 3 month old baby is still just so young and helpless!

I'm not criticising people for doing it. The crazy cost of living and particulary housing costs enforces it on many. It seems to be a sad "reality" of modern life for many.

What I really struggle with are the women who can afford to stay at home but go back to work after 3 months for "career reasons". Seems such a selfish and ego-centric thing to do. In my opinion, those people should just not have children in the first place.

One thing I really can't understand is why Labour don't seem to give a damn about housing costs. IMHO, a fairly radical shift in policy for housing could help reduce many issues. If housing was much more affordable in Auckland, then less people would be forced to return to work when bubba is 3 months old. That can only be good for people at a personal level, also at societal level.

by Elley | 31st Jan 11, 1:51pm 1296435062

Matt, I couldn't agree with you more. Thankfully not every career woman does that. Our children didn't start daycare until 9-12 months old, and only for 2 days a week. We did want them to go a couple of days a week by that age if only to speak English with a better accent than ours (it worked, and they're still only doing 2 days a week). They were/are far more important than our careers and we didn't think twice about both switching to part-time (my employer at the time also let me work from home 1 day a week). We have quite a few friends who've done the same.

From my experience living here, NZ actually seems quite good in that respect, probably because of the pressure on women to breastfeed for quite a long period. In France it is common practice for "career women" to go back to work when their babies are 10 weeks old even though anyone can take a year off unpaid. Young babies are often left in daycare from 7am to 7pm, it's crazy. There's a bit of a stigma attached about being a stay-at-home mum, even a temporary one.

And I agree that cheaper housing would allow more people to have a choice of when to go back to work. At the same time, maybe higher house prices are in fact a consequence of the fact that it is normal for women to work these days and therefore for couples to have a double income.

by Matt in Auck | 31st Jan 11, 2:02pm 1296435749

good points - the "normality' of two full incomes probably is a factor in the higher house prices. The problem with that is so many people can't pay the mortage or rent without the two incomes, which leads ot these negative outcomes. We have become slaves to housing.

things might be a bit different in the cheaper centres (correct me if I am wrong you are in rural Canterbury?). Three of my female workmates here in auckland have come back to work after 3 months, all of them look miserable, one of them broke down into tears the other day when I said how beautiful her baby was (presumably she is missing the baby and / or feels guilty)

I think your approach is a good one - certainly at the 9-12 months age I think a couple of days in daycare can work and is beneficial rather than detrimental

Our daughter is nearly 3 and has been at home the whole time with my wife. My income is enough for us to do it. Having said that, we can only afford to do this by renting. Also my wife does 3 hrs of casual work in the weekend at a very good hourly rate - that helps out and I can look after our daughter.

Here's a radical thought. Get rid of WFF. Instead govt invests money into building and manufacturing high quality group housing (3 bed homes for circa $120K). Helps bring down housing costs, people then need less payouts. Also generates significant building work

by Elley | 31st Jan 11, 2:25pm 1296437128

Yes, rural Canterbury but we lived in Chch for 8 years and that's where I've had my children and worked until last year. We moved to NZ late 2002 and bought our first home in Chch in Jan 2003. In other words, our timing was very lucky (not that we knew it) as we only paid 175K for a nice 1970's 3-bed home on 800m2 in a nice enough area, that we renovated and extended, and paid off most of the mortgage in the first 18 months, and the rest of it a bit slower after going part-time. With the current house prices, it'd be a very different story.

We're personnally sorted (have built a family home in rural Canterbury in which we intend to stay, no mortgage) but I'd love to see house prices come down significantly. I don't want my kids to be slaves to a mortgage and despite what some people say, house prices are to me way out of proportion with salaries. I feel sorry for all the young couples starting out who can barely afford to buy with 2 incomes, let alone if they have children and have to make do on 1 income. Doesn't seem any more right to me than young graduates having the burden of huge student loans before they even start their career.

I can understand how your workmates feel btw. I felt absolutely terrible leaving my babies even though they were quite a bit older than many others in the nursery. I spent my whole first day crying at my desk, and I won't even mention expressing breastmilk in the loo at work, it was awful. We've made a lot of progress in many areas in the last 100 years or so, but funnily enough, one thing we haven't found a workaround for is the fact that women make babies (and ideally feed them and look after them).

by scarfie | 31st Jan 11, 5:03pm 1296446600

Well the results women in the workplace on housing can probably be explained by the theory of money.

More output = more money.

If you put more money into the economy then prices rise to adjust.

You have to wonder if two incomes is any advantage at all in the long run.

Someone more schooled in these matters might have a better idea though.

by Kate | 31st Jan 11, 5:25pm 1296447933

Elizabeth Warren covers that issue extremely well in this lecture;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

Very, very good - you need a bit of time, but it just gets better and better as she gets into the topic - the collapse of the middle class.

by scarfie | 31st Jan 11, 7:23pm 1296455019

Thank your for that link Kate, it is something I have always intuitively known. I hope Bernard watches it, because it is a significant issue.

I also hope Hugh watches, because it brings a complete new dynamic to his housing issues that I bet he hasn't considered. It undermines his theories in some areas, but supports in others.

What isn't touched by on Elizabeth is an area I am starting to develop some knowledge of, but again intuition plays a part, is how urban design affects these issues.

I remember my mother talking about suburban neurosis that was prevalent in the 60's, and yes I am an X, where valium was the drug of choice for housewives.

Careers were seen as a way out, but in reality the problem was poor urban design and a total lack of community that has accompanied this.

It may not by the total cause, I am sure it is more complex than that. But it is surely a significant contributing factor.

What is interesting is that the time factor for her analysis is the first 25 years of the USD being a fiat currency.

by Matt in Auck | 31st Jan 11, 1:17pm 1296433031

RE :professional jobs in smaller places

You will find in the smaller centres, the professional jobs exist, there is just not that many of them.

Another problem is that there often aren't many alternative options for employment in the smaller centres. So you work for one credible accounting ofice, there might only be one more in town. If something goes wrong with your job, there's not much alternative, and because things are often "clicky" in smaller towns you find yourself offside with one employer (for what ever reason) then you might find yourself offside with all in town.

Some of the smaller centres have a nice lifestyle to a degree, but if you have any interest whatsoever in arts and culture then you will struggle to stay sane in a smaller centre, unless you have ease of access to the main centres

Also, having lived in a small city myself, I must say that the quality and options for secondary schooling were seriously limited. Alright if you are a "she'll be right" kiwi, not alright if you are a bit more aspirational with regard to your childrens' education.

by FCM | 31st Jan 11, 1:20pm 1296433244

Most families I know are on twin incomes and have been for a long time, even my parents had twin incomes so it is nothing new. Chances are if one was going to be made redundant the other won't. But as previous people have mentioned. things like job opportunites, School zones, public services (Hospitals etc) all come into the price of property, so those places with more of these usually equal higher prices (same can be said for suburb by suburb in these areas)

by scarfie | 31st Jan 11, 2:33pm 1296437597

Well to mention twin incomes for a long time in the same post as school zones is quite interesting.

During the long time your specify, which in reality is quite a short time, the government has progressively centralised schools and other services. What happen if decentralisation starts to occur as a drift back to the country happens, because that is where the jobs and food are.

Put peak oil in the mix(read PDK's posts for more detail).

All of a sudden things aren't so certain.

Just keep that precedent of 30% unemployment in mind.

All gloves are off.

by powerdownkiwi | 31st Jan 11, 5:04pm 1296446674

I look forward to you expressing an original thought.

Perhaps you could ponder the fact that for every 1 calorie you ate today, 10 calories of oil were consumed to produce it.

You are essentially eating oil - a finite commodity which has been officially acknowledged (IEA) to have passed its peak flow rate.

So these folk you house are going to eat ? and the concrete is going to consume? and the services will be made of?

And it'll grow exponentially, Right?

Pigs backside.

by FCM | 31st Jan 11, 4:42pm 1296445320

Well Scarfie if the government decentralisation starts then they must of sold a lot of assets, as it will be quite a costly exercise to shift these services back to small country towns. We export food, our Ports are located in the major cities, not near small country towns, so even with PDK, the food and products still needs to shift to these ports, so processing plants (jobs) will be within a short distance to these ports.

by scarfie | 31st Jan 11, 4:55pm 1296446136

That is certainly not lost on me FCM, but you may well see a return to smaller coastal shipping(scows), as was the case 100 years ago. Infrastructure was built all around this form of transport in smaller centres all around NZ. Lots of smaller harbours are currently unused, but could return to their former glory. Places like Helensville and Dargaville. I was down on the East Coast about a year ago, and they have a massive wharf at Tolaga Bay, although it isn't currently serviceable.

Actually it is the other way around, the cities are located near the major ports, the natural infrastructure of NZ the way the Mississippi is for the US. Out other small towns are usually on the railway. It is the infrastructure that drives the population, not the other way around.

Everything works in cycles, but sometimes they are in the range of 100 years.

by powerdownkiwi | 31st Jan 11, 5:18pm 1296447539

Scarfie - the trick is to build the lifeboat before the ship sinks - it's much harder to organise when you're treading water.

Overshooting the peak at full noise as we have, means we have to put the majority of our effort into re-defining infrastructure, and certainly no more at expanding the existing

unless

the new can be demonstrated to be a model sustainable post fossil-fuels, the build energy of which is repaid by the operating energy requirement over a reasonable time-frame. And - Joint or separate vegie-growing areas (that 10 calorie expended for one delivered can't continue, the word is 'unsustainable') future-proofed water systems, attention paid to orientation (there should be a law penalising South-facing glass, for example) insulation, permanency of materials (all structures represent expended oil - burnt once, gone forever) And limits as to numbers of people in the family/house/suburb (or whatever it is).

I can't see that lot coming from the urban cowboys........

by scarfie | 31st Jan 11, 5:54pm 1296449684

I see those scows having sails again PDK:) Perhaps with bio fuel engines reserved to work the difficult harbour bars and for docking.

To be honest PDK I see calamity ahead of us in some form, as the people in control have got us to the brink of collapse, so what make you think they will change their behavioiur?

You are right in that work on your own lifeboat..... I haven't started yet, but could probably cope where I am. The plan is firmly in my head, it just requires a reasonably priced piece of land. I certainly won't, or can't, buy in current over inflated prices.

I probably won't go back to uni this year, because think keeping abreast of the disorder is paramount.

We did some interesting work at uni last year. One was a comparison between energy to build a house now compared to 100 years ago. Now is around 500,000 Kw/hrs in Auckland, it used to be almost nil. Just a small amount to power the mill and make the nails. You are right it can't continue.

Mass production is anathema to visually pleasing results also.

Urban design is interesting, and I believe the current set up we have will leave large parts of our main centres derelict. Good design requires higher density, but localised with green belts around them.

The industrial world has never really adjusted to accomodating the population satisfactorily, I imagine the post industrial world might face some problems also. But the precedents are there. I even posted a while back about the Roman Architect Vitruvius, he wrote books on how to choose a site and build a town.

You want to keep some windows on the south side, you want light into two sides of every room. But it is the ratios that are important. We did a case study on a new school that involved a complete thermal performance assessment. Pretty poor outcome in this day and age.

I must say that there is still potential to improve the appearance of thermally efficient housing.

I am not so certain about insulation, but I suspect you mean resistive insulation. They have their place, but I suspect that the same money spent on capacitive insulation/ thermal storage would have the better outcome. Over 40% of light is non direct, so even a south wall can work for you. Reflectors can increase the potential also.

by powerdownkiwi | 31st Jan 11, 8:06pm 1296457590

Shipping is very efficient, in litres/ton, and will be thae last to go. They'll slow down some, then slow down some more. I wouldn't put money on airlines being in bizzo in ten years though. They'll be first to go.

Interesting thoughts - I've used a natural reflector, our last house was south of a river, and it reflected up tothe ceiling. Not sure how usefl it was, but it was quite pretty.

I've got heaps of thermal storage, but a long cloud event can empty it. Sometimes I'd like a quicker recovery. Thermic diodes would be good - you'd just switch them in or out..

cheers

by muzza | 31st Jan 11, 6:50pm 1296453045

Hugh, you are trotting out the same line regardless. Fact is that even in so-called expensive Tauranga a household with $70,000 income can still buy a sound house for $250,000, and the maths suggests that's nothing like a multiple of 6.5. Sure if you factor in all the retiree household income that brings the city average household income down but they already largely have their mortgage free properties and living quite nicely as well. It is nowhere as difficult for a couple on, for example, $70k joint income to make a purchase as you are making out.