The Auckland "urban fringes" are continuing to attract strong buyer interest, according to lifestyle block figures for the three months to July released by the Real Estate Institute.
REINZ rural spokesperson Brian Peacocke said Rising residential prices in the major cities were providing additional stimulus in the lifestyle sector with demand for lifestyle properties rising the most in rural Auckland and Canterbury. "Demand in Waikato is also rising in response to higher Auckland house prices."
“Highlights include; a surge in sales in Canterbury driven by a mix of delays in rebuilding and a shortage of listings; an active market in the Waikato in the $800,000 to $1 million range; and a consistently strong market on the Auckland urban area fringes,” Peacocke said.
The national median price for lifestyle blocks rose by $13,500 (+2.8%) from $475,000 for the three months to July 2012 to $488,500 for the three months to July 2013, although it was down on the $505,000 median reported for the three months to June 2013..
The median price for lifestyle blocks in Auckland rose by 16.5% in the year to July 2013 to $830,000, which is closing in on the all-time high in the Auckland area of $842,500 established in June 2007.
There were 409 blocks sold in the Auckland area during the three months to July, which compares with 308 sold for the same period a year ago.
Peacock said prices rose by 4.4% in Waikato, however, the median price fell by 14.2% in Canterbury.
The number of days to sell for lifestyle properties eased by three days, from 69 days for the three months to the end of June to 72 days for the three months to the end of July.
Compared to the three months ended July 2012 the number of days to sell improved by 13 days from 85 days to 72 days. Taranaki recorded the shortest number of days to sell in July at 28 days, followed by Southland at 46 days and Canterbury at 55 days. Gisborne recorded the longest number of days to sell at 124 days, followed by Northland and Bay of Plenty, both on 105 days.
15 Comments
Economically rational (if present-centric) response to dopey MUL's/squiggles on maps.
And if Rio Tinto is kind enough in 2017 to release another 20% of effective generation into our electricity market, then based on that and This (AEP being a Little Ray of Sunshine fer once), I can guess that the commute from and to these ranchettes will be Electronically Propelled.
Win/win/win.
37 pages of ultra low density housing. http://www.realestate.co.nz/residential/search/property_types/8/regions/35/page3
Why is it ok to have one house on 10,000s m2 sections, but not a small community of houses?
Why are we so anti rural villages?
Why is it ok to have one PDK but not 100 PDKs on 20 hectares.
Surely 100 PDKs would be more self sufficient, able to share skills, resources etc.
Because I saw it coming and got there first - hack off!
Actually, you probably need about 5 acres/couple, long-term and sans fossil fuels. Depends on the siol, topography, rainfall, sunshine, and your diet. 100 PDK's on 20 hectares is 5 to the hectare, so about 1/2 acre each? You'd need a 'commons' at that rate - allottments or similar.
PDK I am not suggesting we take your land and put another 99 houses on it. I was using you as an example of someone who has informed the interest.co.nz public of being a lifestyle blocker and asked the question why is it ok to subdivide land to lifestyle block sizes but not rural village 1/2 acre section sizes?
An elderly nurse friend of mine in Christchurch says her father grew all the food needed for the family on 1/2 an acre -1/4 for house/living, 1/4 for growing stuff.
ZZ if you knew your Dunedin geography and the history of discussions re PDKs kilmog block of land you would know that the chances of PDK being a landbanker or benefiting from landbanking is zero.
Brendon@7.52
Chuckle - no, I didn't think you were. I too was thinking village/hub. 1/2 acre might produce food, to a certain extent. It won't sustain a family by any means, and most folk of course don't factor in fossil-fuel-delivered compost/inputs, long-term degradation, in other words they see it from the current (supermarket backup-available) perspective.
For instance, we factor in firewood area. That could be 'commons', but it's part of the deal. I reckon 5 acres (it works for effluent recycling too) but is you wanted to do an acre for the house, 3-4 for the 'commons', I'd go with it. Waitati (my old stomping ground) is well down that track
There's a lot of eyes on them - local and central govt - as to where the future might go.
Here is your true blue Auckland lifestyle block:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/property/news/article.cfm?c_id=8&objectid=108…
Here is a better idea
Every rental property that WINZ is subsidising the rent on be inspected every 6 months. If it's not up to scratch, a minimal rent is compulsorily set until it is brought up to standard. If on the next inspection it is still not up to scratch it is pink stickered and accomodation assistance suspended, but tenancy continues. If on the third inspection it fails the test, the property is compulsorily commandeered and or confiscated.
With all your rental properties, you're not a slumlord by any chance are you Zeds?
Many of your tenants "likely live...".
So the majority is, thankfully, probably still alive, despite all odds?
Just kidding ZZ!
(Or, am I?)
And yeah, noticed you took off that "Many of..." intro. So, now, it's everyone among your surviving tenants that's probably still alive?
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.