BusinessDesk: Building work volume sinks to decade low in June quarter

And wait you will Hugh..fancy expecting the hidden costs rorts scams charges and thefts to be swept away at a moments notice..tisk tisk.

"wE" Hugh?

Not all of us. Some of us are aware of mathematical and physical realities.

There's hope though:

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/06/312811/hell-and-high-water-fires-extreme-conditions/

Maybe you can pick up a bargain at the firesale.

Unfortunately to get anything done, Hugh, it looks like we'll have to do it ourselves.

I recently looked at some of the shonky little excuses for afforable housing that have appeared out at Delamain in western Christchurch.  If that is what planners and central government think the solution to affordable housing is we are all in trouble.

I am horrified that poorly designed houses on the most constrained sites on the verge of endless countryside, are destined to become the slum housing ghettos of the not distant future.

I genuinely believe that if you have the knowledge of how to achieve a good standard compact home for a low price then build a demostration house and promote it to central government to show it can be done.

Even if the land cost $100,000, and if the completed building could be finished for $130,000 you would still be demonstrating the point as a finished product costing $230,000 is still substantially less than any comparables in the market.  (Reducing land prices to anything below $70k per site would be hard work anyway).

Now this doesn't need much capital outlay perhaps you and Bernard could get together to build the "Interest.co.nz affordable house" maybe get some more corporate sponsorship too.

Show the Government that it can be done for a lot less than it cost to build their "starter home" competition winner.

The fact is that it wouldn't require a large capital outlay to do this - and given that the property is going to be cheaper than market value there would be a profit too.  In fact I could just do it myself, why don't you Hugh?

Sounds like someone's living in the past! 

Largest city?  $15 billion in damage?

Try 2nd largest.  $30 billion.

[Although I think technically it was the biggest city until Auckland supercitied itself.   However Dunedin is actually the biggest in geographical land area of any city council (it goes all the way to Middlemarch and Hyde)].

I've read the 1950 Time article you referenced Hugh.

After reading it I think you need to be a little careful with those multipliers.

First, the median annual income for an employed male across the US was $2,570PA in 1950 according to their Census figures.  The houses they were buying in Levittown were 25 foot by 32 foot with 2 bedrooms (ie 800sq ft about 75m2), they had a 4.8m x 3.6m living room and they cost $8,000, there was the option to expand another 2 bedrooms into the attic.

So considering these were very, very modest houses, and that a house of just 1200sqft (with the attic) cost about $10,000 and the median income for all households is about $2,500 at the time, then the median multiplier is actually 4 not 2.1.

And here's an example 60 years on (and priced at US$269,000) or 6.5 times the median male income.  Not exactly enduring architecture or a quality living environment.

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/4-Pond-Ln_Levittown_NY…

Production line housing can only reduce costs by certain amounts.  Large scale builders in NZ today who build hundreds of houses a year actually can't provide housing at much less cost than a private builder.  Fletcher's proved unable to do it, look at the Jack's Point fiasco of $800k houses:

http://www.flq.co.nz/category.php

Speaking of fiasco's this line from the Time article seems pertinent: "Near Norfolk, Va. they laid long, roadlike strips of concrete for foundations, then erected walls and roofs over them to form 1,600 squat houses that were little more than shacks. The development was a flop and about 230 of the units are now empty."

The Time article notes that the cost savings of the production line mass model is probably $1000 per house (12.5%) which is about the same as the developer's profit on each house.

So we are only talking small reductions in cost for having tract housing (which even in the 1950 article they discussed about being the future slums).

Now I'm of the view that it is impossible to develop sections below around $70,000.  Right now in Christchurch you can purchase sites where houses have been written off for what would be around the $70-90k market for a 300m2 section if subdivided.

So I don't see any need for tract housing which makes a large part of NZs failed suburbs (take a look at Otara and South Auckland, Heidelberg in Invercargill, Aranui in Christchurch or any state housing area). 

My view is that the pre 1930s developments worked better, where a developer may buy an acre or two and build six or ten houses in one go, all on decent size sites, with complimentary designs but with an attention to detail and quality.  Many probably don't even realise that their villa or bungalow is actually built by the same builder and very similar to their neighbours.

But back to my challenge, if you are so convinced you can build affordable houses, why not go out and build a demonstration, sections can't be created much cheaper and there's good demand for the end product.

It's intersting that in places like Amberley and Rolleston where there is substantial land already zoned residential that new sections are not being created because the cost of developing was too high and the pre Sept sales prices at around $100k were insufficient to turn a profit.

Having large tracts of land available simply isn't a possibility in cities like Auckland.  The land doesn't exist, and where it does it's not going to have an impact on sky high central prices, because people simply don't want to live an hour from the CBD.  Sensible land development is needed not a Texas free for all.

Right there, MCNZ, in your statment "Kiwis are leaving in their droves" is just one of the reasons why there is not, and will not be, a shortage of properties on New Zealand. We do not need any more houses, as everyone went to bed in one last night. As the velocity of movement slows, and people stay-put ( either in their houses or the young stay home with M&D before they go overseas or pair -off or multi-share) the need for additional houses falls, and a surplus emerges. Immigration is not needed ( a primary driver of past 'need') as we have a too high, and increasing, unemployment problem that isn't going to be solved with just an increase in housing. That will make it worse, and your 'kiwis leaving' will turn from a trickle, into a flood. More houses, or an increase in the price of same, is just going to increase the amount of debt that New Zealand has; a debt it can ill afford. The future must be more efficient use of what we have ( get all the empty bedroom filled!) and as HP advocates, a cheaper supply of houses - ie: the land.

 Scarfie – interesting concept - can you please, send me more photos/ information by email – thanks.

Well done scarfie...of course you had some help didn't you...like you were not without equipement, skills and contacts...and these days with the extra gst and the amount of red tape and taking into account the debasement of the currency since 99...ie about 35%...and looking at it from the average family perspective...it would run to oh about the same cost at a cheapy box from one of the big franchise building firms...

Great work scarfie.  Would love to see some clearer pictures.

But, as you say, it was designed/built in '99.  Input costs have practically tripled sense then depending on region.  Only if land costs, local govt costs etc come down does it become fiscally affordable.

In addition housing has become part of materialistic consumption where it is no longer a basic need of shelter and self sustainability.  It has become a "keeping up with the Joneses", a show of "wealth" and image.

I've always fancied designing a house based on the old log style cabin and keeping it as simple as possible.  Like you say for cheap and pleasant housing it would be hard to beat.  Unfortunately it also requires a certain mindset, mentality and attitude which I fear no longer exists in the general population.

I already have the producer statement from these guys. Although it would probably want updated.

House is still standing and withstood the gale back in 2007? or was it 2008. Anywas there was 200km/h measured locally, and a peak of 205 at Tiritiri Matangi. Being an Easterly I was very exposed, almost sucked a window out. Lol.

Shed got flattened though, but that could be easily remedied.