Auckland mayor lauds 'real options'

Property

Mayor Len Brown cites two new Auckland developments 'exemplifying approach needed' on city's housing challenges

22nd May 13, 3:41pm by David Hargreaves

Artist's impression of M Central development in Manukau

Auckland Mayor Len Brown has been talking up two new Auckland housing projects that he says "exemplify the approach needed" to meet Auckland’s housing challenges.

The projects are a new mixed use development in Manukau and a new community housing development in Henderson.

“Auckland faces a major growth challenge over the next 30 years. We need to respond to this in a way that delivers real housing choices for Aucklanders. These projects are two examples of how we are providing real options for Aucklanders as our city grows," Brown said.

The mayor's comments come nearly two weeks after the Auckland council agreed a housing accord with the Government to target Auckland's housing shortage and aimed at producing 39,000 new houses in Auckland during the next three years. The agreement of the accord appeared to signal a truce after some much-publicised public differences of opinion between Housing Minister Nick Smith and the council earlier this year.

However, after the Government rushed the enacting legislation for the accord into Parliament last week divisions reappeared, with Brown saying the legislation had clauses in it that appeared "to be inconsistent with the Auckland Housing Accord” while Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse said that without a re-working of legislation the housing accord was "definitely in danger". See our housing accord stories here.

The Manukau development being lauded by Brown today is to be called M Central and features conversion of an eight-story 1980s commercial office space into 114 apartments, 34 retail units, supermarket and cafe.

"The residents of these apartments will have the MIT Manukau campus, the Manukau Train Station and transport hub, and the redeveloped Hayman Park just minutes away so it’s not surprising that 90 per cent of the apartments have been sold off the plan,”

The developer, the Pacific Equities Group, worked closely with the Auckland Council urban design team to produce a contemporary design which would complement the new MIT development, Brown said.

"And then in Henderson, we have a great partnership between the VisionWest Community Trust, the third-year UNITEC architecture students and Strachan Group Architects to produce comfortable, affordable and energy efficient new rental homes for low-income families,” Brown said

Two compact, affordable rental homes had been completed, with five more on the way, and the quality of their design and construction was a real tribute to everyone involved, Brown said

“I have repeatedly said that the solutions to Auckland’s housing challenges lie in collaborations like these which will provide more housing options for Aucklanders. And positioning new housing close to local transport hubs and amenities is vital for the liveability of Auckland," he said.

“New ways of doing things to produce quality housing options is also critically important. VisionWest has forged an exciting partnership which takes input from existing tenants, and encourages greater social awareness in our future architects, while giving them valuable concept to construction experience.

“And most importantly, it gives more Auckland families the chance to live in warm, healthy and sustainable housing.”

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.

23 Comments

by Chris-M | 22nd May 13, 4:11pm 1369195915

It would be interesting to know what size these are. Are they just like all the other 40-60m2 shoddy little shoe boxes like just about everything else in the city, or something that you could reasonably live in, say 180m2. This would give us a clear idea of what our mayor considers is reasonable for our people.

by bob | 22nd May 13, 5:21pm 1369200109

Obviously these are not large and expensive. There is plenty of large and expensive available. The problem is lack of small and affordable. These will be a small and affordable CHOICE. Note - NOT compulsary for anyone. For the same money you can buy a cheap sprawl freestander in Manukau (if you would rather) right now.

The advantage for the rest of us is these 100 plus households in sprawl housing will add 200 plus cars to our roads. In this apartment building the same 100 plus households will probably do a lot more walking and catching the train due to it's location. The more people that chose to live like this the easier it is for me to drive around.

by bob | 22nd May 13, 5:22pm 1369200154

Besides - why do you care so much how other people chose to live? are you their mum?

by Brendon | 22nd May 13, 5:22pm 1369200124

I lived in a good apartment that was 2 bedrooms and 69m2. It was good for a couple, ok for 2 adults and one child and too small when the second child came. Important to note is we had a big balconey say 8m2, that was like a conservatory because it had a stacking window system. A basement storage unit another 4m2 and communal inside bike, pram and kids outside toy rooms.

I think if apartments are well designed something like 25m2 per person is ok. But apartment life is always difficult for kids. It makes it difficult for them to do typical outside kiwi kid stuff.

by bob | 22nd May 13, 7:46pm 1369208791

I really don't understand the irrational dislike of apartment buildings. When I quiz people it comes down to things like:

They wouldn't want to live in one - so what? no one is forced to live anywhere in NZ. The only possible scenario where you might feel 'forced' to live in an apartment is if that's all you can afford.... except Hugh's sprawl dream fringe houses are cheaper to rent??? so if you're forced to live anywhere it's more likely to be in a sprawl fringe Hugh slum.

They don't like how some of them look - so what? Just because some apartments are ugly doesn't mean all apartments should be banned. Plenty of houses are ugly, but that doesn't mean houses should be banned.

Hobson Street is ugly - so what? It's always been ugly. I've never met anyone who used to sit round in Hobson St before there were apartments going "this is the most awesome scenic place in Auckland"

They might attract people who want affordable housing. Fair enough - if you don't like poor people just move to a more expensive suburb.

At the end of the day if you want to live the suburban dream the more people who live in apartments the better off you are - they cause less traffic congestion when they don't rely on cars. They make for more vibrant urban centres. They aren't competing for suburban lots. You pay less for infrastructure build and maintenance (50m of roading and services for a 150 unit building IS cheaper than 3km's of roading and services for 150 Hugh houses)

by Wayno | 22nd May 13, 8:16pm 1369210607

Chris - M, my partner and I live in an Auckland CBD 2 bedroom one study apartment of 109m sqr and find this ample space to live well in so I think your comment of 180m sqr apartments to be rather unrealistic. If you are thinking a family with two kiddies then maybe but they are probably not the kind of folks wanting to live in an apartment anyway.

by Chris-M | 23rd May 13, 9:02am 1369256579

Agree for a couple that is fine if you can bear living with no space arround you. Even with one child ok. But the demand goes across the spectrum, Brown and co are suggesting that dense cramped living is the answer. I would guesse that most of the state familly houses are larger than 100m2 with not infrequent instances of 2-4 kids sharing a bedroom. These are not adequate according to most commentators and even the authorities, who are planing to make some of them larger. Most of the new houses that I see being built are over 200 m2. This is what people want. From what I can see on the net, the Manakau units that he is praising are in the order of 40-45 m2. How is this going to help the young families desperate for their first home in which to raise 2-3 kids; or is he wanting to squash them into this sort of housing and create worse cramped housing conditions than we see in South Auckland. Does he want vertical slums as we see in the worst of the English public housing tower blocks. Does he really care and is all the trendy left image just a cynical act.

by bob | 23rd May 13, 9:12am 1369257171

" Brown and co are suggesting that dense cramped living is the answer"

That is abolute rubbish. Look at the Unitary Plan maps. Look at Trademe. No one has to live there unless they want to. They can get the suburban house in Manukau cheaper if they want. If they want a small more conviniently located apartment who are you to say they mustn't have that choice?

by steven | 23rd May 13, 9:54am 1369259679

Chris-M, I think we will see some changes in the next few years....for instance "to raise 2-3 kids" I think will change rapidly to 0~2. I also think the welfare state support for WFF ie having more will be withdrawn as un-affordable. These changes will be driven by a final awarness that their chidren will have a very difficult time and hence simply we have to reduce population.

NB Take China, small apartments for families at 40m2 is very normal.

regards

by Chris-M | 23rd May 13, 10:30am 1369261826

Now we are starting to get close to the truth. So the plan is to reduce our standard of living and way of life to that of China!

I agree with you that our one or two trick ecconomy will not support a large population and would go further to say that it cannot adequatley house (plus transport, power, healthcare etc) or productively employ it's current population. Why then are we encouraging immigrants. The best way to fix a lot of the problems that confront us now would be to stop or severly curtail immigration and put a lot more effort into raising the productivity of our present work force.

by glennb | 23rd May 13, 12:43pm 1369269829

I live in a free standing suburban home, 3 bedrooms, open plan kitchen-dining-lounge - 90sqm. Perfectly adequate for 2 adults and 2 kids.

Chris M you're displaying an ignorance of house layout and capacity and by referencing "most commentators" you're just making sh*t up quite frankly.

You're saying 200sqm is what most people want ? Pfft! You need to step out of your middle-class bubble and get realistic.

by Chris-M | 23rd May 13, 2:28pm 1369276087

Well I know what I see from our home in the middle of a new subdivison and close to a number of other subdivisions and what I see is new houses mostly arround 240 m2 and rarely less than 200 m2. But to give some numerical support to my assertion here is a link to a QV paper which shows that the largest average house size in NZ are in the most recent suburbs and the average sizes range from 243 m2 to 304 m2.

http://www.qv.co.nz/propertyinformation/KnowledgeCentre/Averagehousesiz…

Note that the small house sizes are in the older suburbs. Personally I think that this trend is a sad reflection of an ecconomy that is making it very difficult for people to build and own a more "normal' size house. We have a very skewed ecconomy. I have just been talking to our builder who is a large corporate house builder of average houses (not one of top end builders). I asked him what the average house size was that they were building. His answers- the average sort of house was 195-210 m2, some investment properties were 170m2 and there were a few grander houses over 300 m2

by bob | 23rd May 13, 3:45pm 1369280720

You probably don't live in an affordable area. As you note houses are getting bigger and more expensive -and we know there isn't a shortage of unaffordable housing.

The problem is affordable housing. Zoning for more unaffordable housing does not provide affordable housing.

by glennb | 24th May 13, 10:35am 1369348511

exactly., Chris M has a skewed impression of average house size because he's assessing an "average" house based on new builds.

As a result of the housing supply shortage, developers are putting their resources into the medium-large end because that's where the better margins are Why should they put effort into building medium-small homes when they can make their millions building over-sized housing for which there's a ready market for the Chris M's of this world.

bob, I totally agree with your comments about unafforbable housing - I think you might've coined a new term :-)

by Kate | 23rd May 13, 4:16pm 1369282604

That's because most of the new subdivisions have title covenants that require certain specific building sizes amongst other design elements. It does most certainly lock out the 120-140m2 and less type builds. Nuts really given our changing demographics.

by glennb | 24th May 13, 10:44am 1369349056

those convenants are all about attracting the high dollar home buyers and giving them some assurance of future house values by preventing smaller low-end housing from being built next door.

There's no incentive for developers to build commmunities of mixed-value housing and the social advantages they bring.

The first home buyer is being squeezed out of the market in more ways that one.

by Kate | 24th May 13, 2:52pm 1369363964

Exactly right , glenn, and even worse - some first home buyers become compelled to buy into these covenanted areas and end up mortgaging themselves to a greater degree than they would have, had the choice to build smaller been available to them.

by Chris-M | 24th May 13, 3:49pm 1369367379

I agree with both of you on this. The problem arises because we have a skewed ecconomy and an artificially rigged supply of residential land. Faced with this the developers will naturally market their land in a manner that gives the largest return. Make it expensive and eliminate low value houses. It is unrealistic to expect otherwise. In a free market there would be no restrictions on land supply and all demands would be satisfied. Whats more the land would be far less expensive because it's only other value is about $14,000/Ha as farm land (and expensive at that) The development cost are certainly not high enough to explain the market values that prevail in Auckland. Faced with more reasonably priced land, you would be able to build larger houses for the people in the sector affected. As per my comments re Houses in Papamoa.

by Brendon | 23rd May 13, 9:23am 1369257826

Bob you are comparing existing homes (badly built in an undesirable location) with new apartments not existing a fair example. What we want is the chance to build/buy cheaper apartments or larger family homes. The key to this is to get rid of the artificially high land prices. Get rid of scarcity value of land then let apartments compete against other housing options.

by bob | 23rd May 13, 3:11pm 1369278690

If Hugh's cheap built sprawl housing in undesirable locations have no effect on property values exactly how many thousand more cheap build sprawl Hugh houses in undesirable locations do you think will be required to have a major effect on property prices?

by bob | 23rd May 13, 3:54pm 1369281272

I suspect that sprawlers see property values like a paddling pool where the edges are forcing the water (price) higher and if you just remove the edges the water will spread out and find a lower level.

I reckon this is a rubbish ananlogy that's way too simplistic. Prices don't work like that - even in beloved Houston they won't be flat across the whole urban area.

I reckon it's the opposite - some areas/locations are attractors and suck higher prices towards them (and these may change over time - like Ponsonby). You can rip the edges of the paddling pool apart, but that doesn't change the attraction of better locations.

by Chris-M | 23rd May 13, 4:06pm 1369281970

That is sort of true Bob. But it is not Remuera, Stonefields or the like. The average and investment houses that our builder was refering to were well down the beach in Papamoa, which is about as average NZ as you can get.

by waymad | 23rd May 13, 4:55pm 1369284933

Bob's mantra re a flood of 'sprawl housing in undesirable locations' is Interesting.

What makes a location Undesirable?

Lack of amenities?
Nature of neighbours?
Employment opportunities?
Distance from the CBD?

I'd argue for a far more nuanced view of 'attractors' and 'repellers'.

Because a greenfields (say, Pegasus, north of Christchurch, sections from $129,000) starts off with zero reputation either way.

Gentrification of a former working-class suburb (working example: the bit of Fendalton, near Ilam, formerly a State House area) can have a Positive effect.

Gangification of a suburb generally has a Negative effect. Working example: Maraenui

Looks awfully like Humans, not Buildings or Amenities, do the pushing one way or t'other.

Although one major exception must be allowed: Le Corbusier, who singlehandedly foobarred urban design for the better part of a century: a sample:

"Modern town planning comes to birth with a new architecture," he wrote in a book titled simply Urbanisme. "By this immense step in evolution, so brutal and so overwhelming, we burn our bridges and break with the past."

Tower Hamlets denizens would no doubt agree....