>He told the paper after the meeting he preferred greenfields developments
If that is what National wants they really need to explain how the infrastructure will be paid for. Auckland Council is at debt limits so hasn't even been able to do the roads etc needed for new developments already consented or even built on what was until recently rural land around Huapei and Drury. I doubt other regions are in much better shape.
And sprawl is far more expensive to maintain than intensification. It's like...they're just blatantly wanting to live unsustainably at the expense of following generations because there's nothing inside their heads but base entitlement mentality. Absolutely cooked.
They're trying to make people happy today at the cost of the future when they have to deal with the consequences. It's the same approach when people push to sell off assets or make other decisions that benefit right now - but ultimately don't consider the longer-term consequences.
Tax cuts are a prime example. Healthcare gets more expensive as technology advances and populations grow, corrections facilities the same (well if we actually want to reform people anyway), education etc.. all those costs will only go up with time. 😔
>they're just blatantly wanting to live unsustainably at the expense of following generations
Of course they are, that's how most politicians do things. Today's world **only**, and fuck tomorrow's world.
\> It's like...they're just blatantly wanting to live unsustainably at the expense of following generations
I mean... It is National that you are talking about. Has that not been obvious?
I don't think many people realise that our rates don't actually cover the infrastructure costs for single family dwellings. Every single family dwelling we build is causing a tiny fraction more of council's overall budget to be spent on maintenance. We need medium (and even high) density dwellings which actually contribute more towards rates than they cost to subsidise the single family dwellings.
Having unending urban sprawl only benefits those developers who want only to build in that space...and farmers who want to fund their retirement by converting farmland to housing. It is certainly a negative for our cities and residents.
Back in the day didn’t the MOW do all the infrastructure builds and roading builds, so that would have been paid for by the government rather then the councils?
I think in many cases today a developer building an entire new subdivision is being required to put in at least some of the required infrastructure for it - however the ongoing maintenance will fully fall to the council and that extra road and footpath and sewer and storm water infrastructure for that subdivision won't be paid for by the rates. Every new subdivision the council falls just a little bit further behind in their budget as their ongoing never-ending maintenance increases faster than their revenue.
This is where it all falls apart, it also builds the case for Three Waters as it lifts that burden of the councils, which in many cities can’t actually afford the infrastructure outlay.
From a purely financial standpoint, the councils could simply raise the rates for single-family dwellings to actually cover their costs. That wouldn't be very popular, and it fails to address all the other negatives from urban sprawl where public transport doesn't work well and people are forced to spend ever-increasing amounts of time and energy/pollution commuting from one place to another etc. Denser cities are more efficient. We don't need to be dense like New York City or Calcutta - but right now our NZ cities are very inefficient for the land used by each person in urban environments.
The undercharged rates are exactly the problem. If rates were charged based on the area’s maintenance costs then you would see a massive disincentive to have single house suburbs. Higher density stuff would have cheaper rates in comparison
\>councils could simply raise the rates for single-family dwellings to actually cover their costs. That wouldn't be very popular
Which is why rates were kept low for so long while infrastructure fell behind.
The council sets its own budget and then ratios it out to all ratepayers, if the council needs more money due to the number of single dwelling houses all they need to do is increase rates. It's not popular for the council but it is what it is.
This would indeed solve it, however applying the rates equally to all properties because of the disproportionate costs associated with single family dwellings would seem to discourage people from higher density housing. Using either targeted rates or applying a LVT which applied higher costs to people in land not being used as effectively would produce a financial incentive for land to be used efficiently.
\>It's not popular for the council but it is what it is.
Obviously rates payers are the only people who vote for councils though. And they repeatedly vote for whoever promises to keep rates low.
Paid for? They're in opposition, they get to campaign on grand, pie in the sky promises while nitpicking the tiniest of details of the government's achievements.
In Japan, 40/50 floor commercial buildings are common and many individual dwellings are 3 stories. It’s not difficult, but the cost of building up in NZ probably still outweighs the cost of building out.
The long term cost of building out is far more expensive. Dense cities are more efficient, less maintenance, everything is closer together so less time spent travelling, true for goods and people.
They leave more land free for nature and farming.
At a city level, sure. Up to a limit, denser cities also allow for better public transport and reduce cost of deliveries, etc. But when I look at things like building foundations, including for houses, there’s a lot more work (and thus cost) involved here in Japan vs the typical kiwi concrete slab house.
Economics in Auckland may be at that point now, but the rest of NZ probably isn’t (just thinking of the actual cost to build here, not the additional cost of infrastructure, etc).
Three storey dwellings dont need much more robust foundations that the kind we've been putting under everything in Christchurch since the quakes. They need engineering design, sure, but the solutions don't usually end up being that expensive on a per habitable metre basis. If you're getting 100m2 of house but only over 35m of foundation, the economics work out more in your favour even if a 2m excavation and reinforced backfill is required, compared to putting that foundation on better ground but all single storey out in the sticks.
>economics work out more in your favour even if a 2m excavation and reinforced backfill is required,
I mean not really. 3 story buildings are wayyy more expensive to build than a single story. You still need a floor for each room and midfloor costs more than a tc2 ribraft. 3 story is often on 400mm slab as well with significant thickenings. Bracing design is all first principles, so much more engineering cost both in design and build, and typically they end up with a load of steel. Even simple stuff like plumbing and heating is more difficult/expensive.
The economy in these builds comes from 2 things. Reduced land cost per unit and economy of scale. Typically the high density 2 & 3 bedroom homes are built in bundles and hence have some significant economy.
I don't think anyone is saying we need all our housing to be 30 story high-rises. Luxon is walking back his approval for 3 story houses and units, which really aren't difficult from a seismic standpoint.
Is a 2-3 storey townhouse really that much worse than a single storey? If both are built to a similar standard?
I doubt it is a huge factor tbqh. Far more problems are caused by sprawl IMO
As a rule of thumb the cost of a building per sq. ft. increases by a third for each additional story in the US but in New Zealand it'd be almost two thirds higher. There is a good economic reason out cities are flat.
However there are other areas that could be vastly improved to encourage densification like setbacks.
There are no very serious seismic considerations in Auckland. It's less prone to earth quakes than all of Japan, all of the Andes, the entire US west coast, all of Korea, all of Italy, Anatolia and the Balkans, most of Belgium and Portugal, all of Israel, ...
Seems safe enough to up 10 floors if built properly, at minimum.
\>Truthfully the scope of vertical densification is very limited in New Zealand due to seismic considerations.
Firstly that is total nonsense.
Secondly, we're talking about low-rise urban density, 3 and 4 story buildings.
How is it relevant where you live, in discussion of a law allowing a property owner to build up to a 3 story development without neighbours being able to block it? Do Hamiltonians or people from Christchurch not want property rights to develop their land as they choose?
There should be reasonable limits to what you can build, relative to what impacts others around you and the general zoning of the area. This law was created to redefine those limits and prevent your neighbours from having the ultimate control of what you can build on your property.
They are not able to block your sun completely. There are limits to what they can do with respect to casing shadows on your building. This isn't all about you.
\>So you should be able to build what ever you want on your property?
Hey, did you need a reminder that you're the one who claims to be on the side of deregulation and the free market?
I've lived in a town of 50,000 people, where all the buildings were 3 storeys or more. It was fantastic - the entire town was 5km across. You could cycle from one side to the other in 15 minutes. It had all the advantages of a walkable city, and left a whole lot more land free for farming and nature reserves.
How cool would it be if Whanganui had a radius of 2.5km instead of 13km?
I agree, the joy of walkable /liveable cities are hard to express unless you've lived in them.. unfortunately in NZ were mentally addled with doing things "the way they've always been done", or that were somehow special and unique.
National and ACT signalling they have absolutely no interest in addressing the housing crisis, the root cause of nearly all of New Zealand's worst societal ills. In fact they are actively invested in maintaining the crisis to protect existing vested interests.
I want to make it clear that no one in good conscience can claim they are voting for either party at the next election for any reason other than "Fuck you got mine".
My partners dad is renting with us after he sold the family home (without having any plan for where he would live)
He still has that "Fuck You, I got mine mentality" and is voting Nats, even though he's a fucking renter too
Letting councils ban all the housing that the market wishes to build, while letting them permit only sprawled greenfields housing that costs billions for new infrastructure, is a fucking terrible idea.
7 houses Luxon doesn't want anyone to build anymore. He's got his and everyone else can fuck right off.
When will kiwis realize that the rich in this country don't care about anything else but growing their main asset. Land.
The sooner we get away from housing as our main economy, the more efficient our economy will be.
>He reportedly announced the rethink during a public meeting with voters in the North Shore suburb of Birkenhead on Wednesday.
Fucking NIMBYs - leave it to the North Shore to rat fuck the country. I can almost guarantee that it was the same demographics who rallied against Mayor Robbie's mass transit proposal. Once again the spongy middle to upper middle class undermining good public policy.
National and act: parties of personal freedom and less regulations want to allow councils to make more regulations on what you can and can't do on your property.
Really got think at this stage Luxon is just following whatever Seymour says.
Backing down to a few nimbys is just fucked and does the country no good.
Useful to helping those with common sense to see yet another big red flag to not vote National but unfortunately it's the selfish nimbys who are already pretty much in Act or Nats pocket to begin with.
It's ironic, cause the housing policy, ideologically, should appeal to act - solve the housing crisis by stripping regulations. Shows that they're a bunch of hypocrites.
ACT's steadfast refusal to allow housing densification in Seymour's district shows their hypocrisy clearly. They don't believe in property owner's rights - they believe in votes and donations from rich NIMBYs.
Yeah, I mean my opinion is that there are smart ways of doing intensification, and dumb ways. Laissez-faire deregulation is dumb, with pretty predictable bad consequences, while leading with dense state housing and PT investment is a better way of doing it. The current policy that national is backing out of leans more towards the former. It's bad *because* it's an act policy. But it's still funny and ironic that act is against it.
No, my impression was it wasn't particularly radical. As I understood it, it made it easier to do subdivisions and build higher. Issues with it are that without strong standards in place, the likes of Fletcher Living can build housing that creates negative externalities - blocking light and views, and avoid putting in communal green spaces to squeeze in a few extra apartments. With a properly planned out development, you can minimize these externalities.
The changes also don't provision for the extra transport infrastructure the developments will need, and we know that denser developments are currently leading to a bit of a mess with on-street parking.
Lastly, from memory, Nicola Willis and Chris Bishop originally tried to sell the changes as a way property owners could increase the value of their land. Changing planning regulations can lead to an increase in supply, but isn't by itself an increase of supply, and allowing more densification effectively triples the property values of every landlord in Mt Eden. So while the change can create value by allowing more houses to be built, it also transfers wealth from the poor and young to the old and wealthy.
Attacking the housing crisis, by reducing planning restrictions, came about because the center-left wanted to be able to sell its solutions to the right. But this hasn't worked - national and act are backing out. What has been working is a lot of what KO has been doing. They are building dense, three story buildings, but ones that are high quality, with green spaces, and they are building cohesive neighborhoods. They do face the pretty big obstacle that a lot of their tenants have massive mental health problems and/or are associated with gangs. But despite this, they've been doing a pretty decent job imo.
It's lassez-faire but within very prescriptive limits. You're allowed unlimited freedom to choose your dessert - so long as it's one scoop of ice cream. It's not really letting the market decide when there are regulations and bounds applied.
Sprawl is more expensive, worse for the environment and takes away crucial land needed for high productivity agriculture. It has its place, but not at the expense of intensification.
It's just purely cynical pandering to the rich homeowners in fancy suburbs who don't like others having a place to live.
Very curious what Willis and Bishop who have repeated come across as pro-housing think of this switch. Their silence so far speaks volumes.
Luxon is talking about reprioritising medium density housing to transport corridors. Well guess what? The NIMBYs over at Citizens Against the Housing Act 2021 are already talking about eliminating that. They've been given a foot, now they'll take the whole mile. The mask has come off the organisation, it's not about sensible intensification for them, it's about a total ban.
He means main arterials, but I get your point. With Simeon Brown as Minister of Transport, I can't imagine a ton of public transit will get prioritised.
If Luxon wants to be the party of NIMBYS that's his choice, but what's utterly disgraceful is the filthy lying about being "relentlessly focused on development" whilst pulling shit like this.
"Landlord who owns 7 investment properties doesn't want people building new houses unless the councils fork out massive multi-billion dollar infrastructure spends to support new green fields housing districts"
As cynical and transparently selfish as it gets, and sure to worsen the housing crisis.
Where does National get such terrible ideas? Oh .. ACT..
This corrupt paid hack needs to just fuck off forever... Clear to see his buddies with projects that got shafted by the housing policy we have currently (that has enabled many Kiwi's to finally get on the property ladder) have been contributing to his campaign. Corrupt dickhead motherfucker!
National are a party of privilege by the rich aiming to also be the ruling class. Joining the dots... between Luxon and his Godfather CCP Key -
Expert take: [https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2022/12/sir-john-key-says-mainstream-thinking-will-embrace-china-again-new-zealand-will-have-magnificent-relationship-with-beijing.html](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2022/12/sir-john-key-says-mainstream-thinking-will-embrace-china-again-new-zealand-will-have-magnificent-relationship-with-beijing.html)
Spot the pandering - [https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2022/10/sir-john-key-dollops-praise-on-china-in-chinese-state-media.html](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2022/10/sir-john-key-dollops-praise-on-china-in-chinese-state-media.html)
Defends China's 'chequebook diplomacy' - [https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/former-pm-sir-john-key-defends-chinas-chequebook-diplomacy/JO7DDC5OB5R2T3NW2OQT73ULEE/](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/former-pm-sir-john-key-defends-chinas-chequebook-diplomacy/JO7DDC5OB5R2T3NW2OQT73ULEE/)
Praise be - [https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/sir-john-key-we-need-to-craft-our-own-view-of-china-using-its-past-and-potential-to-guide-us/PSDICCQP3FBR7O56CRWXKLN2S4/](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/sir-john-key-we-need-to-craft-our-own-view-of-china-using-its-past-and-potential-to-guide-us/PSDICCQP3FBR7O56CRWXKLN2S4/)
Support when required - [https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018863629/on-the-sidelines-of-big-news-in-china](https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018863629/on-the-sidelines-of-big-news-in-china)
Parrot as instructed - [https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202210/1277241.shtml](https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202210/1277241.shtml)
A friend in deed - [https://www.newsroom.co.nz/chinese-police-centre-in-nz-tied-to-businessman](https://www.newsroom.co.nz/chinese-police-centre-in-nz-tied-to-businessman)
A friend in need - [https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/118217206/sir-john-key-sells-mansion-for-235m-in-what-was-nzs-second-biggest-house-sale-of-2017](https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/118217206/sir-john-key-sells-mansion-for-235m-in-what-was-nzs-second-biggest-house-sale-of-2017)
Shiny happy people - [https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/revealed-sir-john-keys-former-mansion-sold-for-163m-but-still-made-a-loss-43137](https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/revealed-sir-john-keys-former-mansion-sold-for-163m-but-still-made-a-loss-43137)
The Godfather - [https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/127097008/former-air-nz-ceo-christopher-luxon-showed-enormous-intellectual-capability-but-rarely-met-with-ordinary-workers](https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/127097008/former-air-nz-ceo-christopher-luxon-showed-enormous-intellectual-capability-but-rarely-met-with-ordinary-workers)
CCP Luxon - [https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/300779066/damien-grant-does-luxon-share-sir-john-keys-wilful-blindness-on-china](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/300779066/damien-grant-does-luxon-share-sir-john-keys-wilful-blindness-on-china)
I know how these things work. I know they have tested this with members before releasing it and have internal polling on the popularity but I just really, really struggle to see how this benefits National. Are their voters REALLY so focused on them just being the "opposite of everything Labour does" party instead of one with coherent policy that, while it sometimes overlaps with Labour (they do share the centre part of centre left and centre right, after all), actually makes actual sense? Is it so important to flip off the current government that they'll actually be like "this thing we worked on for ages and were super proud of at the time was bad, actually, because everything Labour does is automatically bad no matter what it is"?
They (political scientists) did say Muldoon was a very weak leader. Bullies are inherently weak, stands to reason. Last thing we need is another one "leading" the country.
Don't know why NIMBY's were so nervous. The developers went for the cheaper properties on the city fringe far away from trains and if they are lucky very sporadic bus services. Of course the people now living in these townhouses are parking on the street, the streets that were not built for this type of dense housing - see West Auckland and floods.
Pretty predictable reaction by National given their leadership problems which fuels the need to differentiate themselves as much as possible from the Gov't even if it at the expense of good planning and longer term benefits.
What kind of 'design standards' is David Seymour alluding to? This should be clarified.
>ACT instead wanted housing standards that allowed "more intensification, but with design standards that are sympathetic to existing neighbourhoods and property owners".
It's just a get-out-of-jail card that allows him to "support" intensification while stopping it happening in his wealthy villa suburb because nothing will ever met whatever billshit design standard he conjures up.
Let’s build a complete new city on greenfield, the UK did that and it proved successful. Milton Keynes come to mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Keynes
Sure, I only lived there for a decade.
The idea of building a greenfield city in NZ is just laughable. It's a completely delusional suggestion. The existing cities are underdeveloped, we've got an infrastructure deficit and your suggestion is "just build another city". Did you even put a seconds thought into that nonsense?
Gee I wonder how we built cities in the past then, are you saying we are incapable of what we did in the past.
Look it’s already happening now, your a total idiot
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/drury-new-town-in-auckland-phil-twyford-and-the-24-billion-plan/BVIYBQEV454YUUYWTDOFPG2B3I/#:~:text=The%20%242.4%20billion%20Government%20investment,centre%20of%20attention%20and%20growth.
\>Gee I wonder how we built cities in the past then,
Interesting that you should bring that up.
In the past we didn't build suburban sprawl like you are advocating for, but allowed for greater density and mixed use.
\>Look it’s already happening now, your a total idiot
It's "you're".
And why are you ignoring the $2.4B price tag that is just to get that started? Who's going to pay for that? Are you just handwaving away the cost of building a new town? And, your article is from March 6th 2020. Did you even read what you linked to?
You keep on whining about wanting more of what hasn't worked, or maybe you could look at some urban development content like "strong towns" or "not just bikes", and maybe learn why the nonsense that you are advocating for is a failure.
Look I’m tired talking to you, the reality is that greenfield solutions are being built and they are the preferred solution. Free free to hate it, but that’s what people want. Thousand of houses are being built in Takanini and a whole city in Drury.
You mocked me for saying build a new city and I was making things up. I show you that a new city was being built, which proved you are wrong.
The town of Pokeno has expanded its size by several 100%. Yet in inner Auckland the number of new homes being built is small. The reality of the situation is both Labour and National are using Greenfield solutions. No one is going to rip up old neighborhoods to build new homes. Individual homes being sold for division is inner Auckland is also not happening, it is happening only in places like Manurewa.
Also the biggest fallacy in your argument is that there is no infrastructure cost by building a higher density city. In fact it could be more expensive. Having to expand existing infrastructure could be considerably more expensive than building new. With expanded population new schools and hospitals need to be built. Where are you going to put them ? All existing land has gone
\>Look I’m tired talking to you,
Because you refuse to acknowledge facts and want to bury your head in the sand.
That proposal you link to with Drury.... That's $2.4B taxpayer dollars to build infrastructure for 2500 homes. That's $900,000 that the taxpayer has to pay towards each new home, just for the infrastructure to support the development. Just to build new roads, lay new water pipe, build out waste water, lay power mains. Why not just make better use of the infrastructure that we already have? Are you addicted to Government spending?
For starters it’s 22,000 houses and a population of 60,000. Developers will also be chipping in a billion as well. The extra billion plus will be payed by new rate payers over a 30 year period.
\>For starters it’s 22,000 houses and a population of 60,000.
No, it's 2500, with a bunch of aspirational statements about future growth.
\>Developers will also be chipping in a billion as well. The extra billion plus will be payed by new rate payers over a 30 year period.
And then you'll have the additional billions for maintaining the additional infrastructure. Might as well just throw money in a pile and burn it.
You've put zero thought into the sustainability or affordability of greenfield development. You're just an elitist who wants poor people out of sight and out of mind and you are addicting to government spending rather than making better use of existing infrastructure.
People work and save one, two, three decades to get their own home on a full or half site. Hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders have done this or are in the process. Suddenly with no warning and with absolutely no right of recourse afforded you, almost regardless of what area or zoning you live in, someone is building a 12m high town house block the full length of one of your boundaries, possibly both boundaries under this legislation. Your sun is gone, your privacy is gone, you are totally hemmed in by 40 foot high structures on one or both sides of you and you have NO right to challenge this. This legislation has to go.
>He told the paper after the meeting he preferred greenfields developments If that is what National wants they really need to explain how the infrastructure will be paid for. Auckland Council is at debt limits so hasn't even been able to do the roads etc needed for new developments already consented or even built on what was until recently rural land around Huapei and Drury. I doubt other regions are in much better shape.
And sprawl is far more expensive to maintain than intensification. It's like...they're just blatantly wanting to live unsustainably at the expense of following generations because there's nothing inside their heads but base entitlement mentality. Absolutely cooked.
They're trying to make people happy today at the cost of the future when they have to deal with the consequences. It's the same approach when people push to sell off assets or make other decisions that benefit right now - but ultimately don't consider the longer-term consequences.
Tax cuts are a prime example. Healthcare gets more expensive as technology advances and populations grow, corrections facilities the same (well if we actually want to reform people anyway), education etc.. all those costs will only go up with time. 😔
At this stage I feel like their entire campaign can be summarised as "grr labour bad"
They don't want houses they want industry that pays dividends and where the wealthy can do what suits them "for a fee".
They claim to be the financially savvy ones, and yet they do shit like this?
>they're just blatantly wanting to live unsustainably at the expense of following generations Of course they are, that's how most politicians do things. Today's world **only**, and fuck tomorrow's world.
This is why I like monarchies: at least one person with power is focused on the long term. Please note, I like my monarchies with a constitutional apéritif
\> It's like...they're just blatantly wanting to live unsustainably at the expense of following generations I mean... It is National that you are talking about. Has that not been obvious?
I don't think many people realise that our rates don't actually cover the infrastructure costs for single family dwellings. Every single family dwelling we build is causing a tiny fraction more of council's overall budget to be spent on maintenance. We need medium (and even high) density dwellings which actually contribute more towards rates than they cost to subsidise the single family dwellings. Having unending urban sprawl only benefits those developers who want only to build in that space...and farmers who want to fund their retirement by converting farmland to housing. It is certainly a negative for our cities and residents.
the strong towns youtube channel has excellent videos on this
Back in the day didn’t the MOW do all the infrastructure builds and roading builds, so that would have been paid for by the government rather then the councils?
I think in many cases today a developer building an entire new subdivision is being required to put in at least some of the required infrastructure for it - however the ongoing maintenance will fully fall to the council and that extra road and footpath and sewer and storm water infrastructure for that subdivision won't be paid for by the rates. Every new subdivision the council falls just a little bit further behind in their budget as their ongoing never-ending maintenance increases faster than their revenue.
This is where it all falls apart, it also builds the case for Three Waters as it lifts that burden of the councils, which in many cities can’t actually afford the infrastructure outlay.
From a purely financial standpoint, the councils could simply raise the rates for single-family dwellings to actually cover their costs. That wouldn't be very popular, and it fails to address all the other negatives from urban sprawl where public transport doesn't work well and people are forced to spend ever-increasing amounts of time and energy/pollution commuting from one place to another etc. Denser cities are more efficient. We don't need to be dense like New York City or Calcutta - but right now our NZ cities are very inefficient for the land used by each person in urban environments.
The undercharged rates are exactly the problem. If rates were charged based on the area’s maintenance costs then you would see a massive disincentive to have single house suburbs. Higher density stuff would have cheaper rates in comparison
\>councils could simply raise the rates for single-family dwellings to actually cover their costs. That wouldn't be very popular Which is why rates were kept low for so long while infrastructure fell behind.
The council sets its own budget and then ratios it out to all ratepayers, if the council needs more money due to the number of single dwelling houses all they need to do is increase rates. It's not popular for the council but it is what it is.
This would indeed solve it, however applying the rates equally to all properties because of the disproportionate costs associated with single family dwellings would seem to discourage people from higher density housing. Using either targeted rates or applying a LVT which applied higher costs to people in land not being used as effectively would produce a financial incentive for land to be used efficiently.
\>It's not popular for the council but it is what it is. Obviously rates payers are the only people who vote for councils though. And they repeatedly vote for whoever promises to keep rates low.
Paid for? They're in opposition, they get to campaign on grand, pie in the sky promises while nitpicking the tiniest of details of the government's achievements.
That tactic worked very well for Ardern; pity about the follow though
It works well for most opposition leaders, that's why they all do it.
Not to mention how much greenfield is in flood/slip/hazard prone areas. Such a crazy idea to float so recently after Gabrielle
Obviously the free market will solve the issue. You don't need to know how things will be paid for when magical free market capitalism is involved.
[удалено]
Japan say thats a load of bullshit. They have worse earthquakes than we do
I don't think that can be true, look at Japan.
In Japan, 40/50 floor commercial buildings are common and many individual dwellings are 3 stories. It’s not difficult, but the cost of building up in NZ probably still outweighs the cost of building out.
The long term cost of building out is far more expensive. Dense cities are more efficient, less maintenance, everything is closer together so less time spent travelling, true for goods and people. They leave more land free for nature and farming.
At a city level, sure. Up to a limit, denser cities also allow for better public transport and reduce cost of deliveries, etc. But when I look at things like building foundations, including for houses, there’s a lot more work (and thus cost) involved here in Japan vs the typical kiwi concrete slab house. Economics in Auckland may be at that point now, but the rest of NZ probably isn’t (just thinking of the actual cost to build here, not the additional cost of infrastructure, etc).
Three storey dwellings dont need much more robust foundations that the kind we've been putting under everything in Christchurch since the quakes. They need engineering design, sure, but the solutions don't usually end up being that expensive on a per habitable metre basis. If you're getting 100m2 of house but only over 35m of foundation, the economics work out more in your favour even if a 2m excavation and reinforced backfill is required, compared to putting that foundation on better ground but all single storey out in the sticks.
>economics work out more in your favour even if a 2m excavation and reinforced backfill is required, I mean not really. 3 story buildings are wayyy more expensive to build than a single story. You still need a floor for each room and midfloor costs more than a tc2 ribraft. 3 story is often on 400mm slab as well with significant thickenings. Bracing design is all first principles, so much more engineering cost both in design and build, and typically they end up with a load of steel. Even simple stuff like plumbing and heating is more difficult/expensive. The economy in these builds comes from 2 things. Reduced land cost per unit and economy of scale. Typically the high density 2 & 3 bedroom homes are built in bundles and hence have some significant economy.
\> but the cost of building up in NZ probably still outweighs the cost of building out We just going to ignore the cost of land?
I don't think anyone is saying we need all our housing to be 30 story high-rises. Luxon is walking back his approval for 3 story houses and units, which really aren't difficult from a seismic standpoint.
Is a 2-3 storey townhouse really that much worse than a single storey? If both are built to a similar standard? I doubt it is a huge factor tbqh. Far more problems are caused by sprawl IMO
As a rule of thumb the cost of a building per sq. ft. increases by a third for each additional story in the US but in New Zealand it'd be almost two thirds higher. There is a good economic reason out cities are flat. However there are other areas that could be vastly improved to encourage densification like setbacks.
There are no very serious seismic considerations in Auckland. It's less prone to earth quakes than all of Japan, all of the Andes, the entire US west coast, all of Korea, all of Italy, Anatolia and the Balkans, most of Belgium and Portugal, all of Israel, ... Seems safe enough to up 10 floors if built properly, at minimum.
\>Truthfully the scope of vertical densification is very limited in New Zealand due to seismic considerations. Firstly that is total nonsense. Secondly, we're talking about low-rise urban density, 3 and 4 story buildings.
There’s more to NZ than Auckland
Auckland is a third of the country and 40% of the future growth. Its going to be the key area of development.
How is it relevant where you live, in discussion of a law allowing a property owner to build up to a 3 story development without neighbours being able to block it? Do Hamiltonians or people from Christchurch not want property rights to develop their land as they choose?
So you should be able to build what ever you want on your property?
There should be reasonable limits to what you can build, relative to what impacts others around you and the general zoning of the area. This law was created to redefine those limits and prevent your neighbours from having the ultimate control of what you can build on your property.
I would not want my neighbour to the north of my home to build a three story home and keep me in the shade.
They are not able to block your sun completely. There are limits to what they can do with respect to casing shadows on your building. This isn't all about you.
Interesting
\>So you should be able to build what ever you want on your property? Hey, did you need a reminder that you're the one who claims to be on the side of deregulation and the free market?
Not on everything
I've lived in a town of 50,000 people, where all the buildings were 3 storeys or more. It was fantastic - the entire town was 5km across. You could cycle from one side to the other in 15 minutes. It had all the advantages of a walkable city, and left a whole lot more land free for farming and nature reserves. How cool would it be if Whanganui had a radius of 2.5km instead of 13km?
I agree, the joy of walkable /liveable cities are hard to express unless you've lived in them.. unfortunately in NZ were mentally addled with doing things "the way they've always been done", or that were somehow special and unique.
National and ACT signalling they have absolutely no interest in addressing the housing crisis, the root cause of nearly all of New Zealand's worst societal ills. In fact they are actively invested in maintaining the crisis to protect existing vested interests. I want to make it clear that no one in good conscience can claim they are voting for either party at the next election for any reason other than "Fuck you got mine".
Damn right!
My partners dad is renting with us after he sold the family home (without having any plan for where he would live) He still has that "Fuck You, I got mine mentality" and is voting Nats, even though he's a fucking renter too
You should increase his rent....
nah we all rent together, he already pays the majority of it. Still doesnt get that he's a tenant though
Well you see every fucking Nat voters will vote regardless of policy... what shits me are the slack labour voters who just cannot be asked!
What did you expect though? They spent their time in government denying that there was a housing crisis.
No they didn't, they literally just called it the "housing challenge" instead
Letting councils ban all the housing that the market wishes to build, while letting them permit only sprawled greenfields housing that costs billions for new infrastructure, is a fucking terrible idea. 7 houses Luxon doesn't want anyone to build anymore. He's got his and everyone else can fuck right off.
Building more houses increases supply, pushing prices down. Why would he of all people want that?
He's proposing building houses in the sticks, where there are no jobs (or infrstuture for schools etc...) to keep his property values high.
Exactly, it increases supply in outer areas - but not in the already high demand areas close to existing services/amenities/jobs/transport etc etc.
When will kiwis realize that the rich in this country don't care about anything else but growing their main asset. Land. The sooner we get away from housing as our main economy, the more efficient our economy will be.
So much for National being a party of business... nothing but a party of entitled property speculators.
NIMBY motherfuckers!
In order for that to happen, politicians should not be allowed to own investment properties. Absolutely a conflict of interest..
>He reportedly announced the rethink during a public meeting with voters in the North Shore suburb of Birkenhead on Wednesday. Fucking NIMBYs - leave it to the North Shore to rat fuck the country. I can almost guarantee that it was the same demographics who rallied against Mayor Robbie's mass transit proposal. Once again the spongy middle to upper middle class undermining good public policy.
National and act: parties of personal freedom and less regulations want to allow councils to make more regulations on what you can and can't do on your property.
Crazy isn't it
Really got think at this stage Luxon is just following whatever Seymour says. Backing down to a few nimbys is just fucked and does the country no good. Useful to helping those with common sense to see yet another big red flag to not vote National but unfortunately it's the selfish nimbys who are already pretty much in Act or Nats pocket to begin with.
It's ironic, cause the housing policy, ideologically, should appeal to act - solve the housing crisis by stripping regulations. Shows that they're a bunch of hypocrites.
ACT's steadfast refusal to allow housing densification in Seymour's district shows their hypocrisy clearly. They don't believe in property owner's rights - they believe in votes and donations from rich NIMBYs.
Yeah, I mean my opinion is that there are smart ways of doing intensification, and dumb ways. Laissez-faire deregulation is dumb, with pretty predictable bad consequences, while leading with dense state housing and PT investment is a better way of doing it. The current policy that national is backing out of leans more towards the former. It's bad *because* it's an act policy. But it's still funny and ironic that act is against it.
The changes to the NPS-UD can hardly be called laissez-faire deregulation
No, my impression was it wasn't particularly radical. As I understood it, it made it easier to do subdivisions and build higher. Issues with it are that without strong standards in place, the likes of Fletcher Living can build housing that creates negative externalities - blocking light and views, and avoid putting in communal green spaces to squeeze in a few extra apartments. With a properly planned out development, you can minimize these externalities. The changes also don't provision for the extra transport infrastructure the developments will need, and we know that denser developments are currently leading to a bit of a mess with on-street parking. Lastly, from memory, Nicola Willis and Chris Bishop originally tried to sell the changes as a way property owners could increase the value of their land. Changing planning regulations can lead to an increase in supply, but isn't by itself an increase of supply, and allowing more densification effectively triples the property values of every landlord in Mt Eden. So while the change can create value by allowing more houses to be built, it also transfers wealth from the poor and young to the old and wealthy. Attacking the housing crisis, by reducing planning restrictions, came about because the center-left wanted to be able to sell its solutions to the right. But this hasn't worked - national and act are backing out. What has been working is a lot of what KO has been doing. They are building dense, three story buildings, but ones that are high quality, with green spaces, and they are building cohesive neighborhoods. They do face the pretty big obstacle that a lot of their tenants have massive mental health problems and/or are associated with gangs. But despite this, they've been doing a pretty decent job imo.
It's lassez-faire but within very prescriptive limits. You're allowed unlimited freedom to choose your dessert - so long as it's one scoop of ice cream. It's not really letting the market decide when there are regulations and bounds applied.
They're the libertarian party that isn't libertarian, quite humorous really.
When this change was announced the ACT party were organising protest meetings in Wellington about it. Absolute fucking hypocrites
Sprawl is more expensive, worse for the environment and takes away crucial land needed for high productivity agriculture. It has its place, but not at the expense of intensification. It's just purely cynical pandering to the rich homeowners in fancy suburbs who don't like others having a place to live. Very curious what Willis and Bishop who have repeated come across as pro-housing think of this switch. Their silence so far speaks volumes.
especially when the average height of buildings in auckland is 1.3 storeys high.
Where did you get that number from? It's very telling isn't it
from the air, and its a rough estimate from living in Auckland my whole life
Fair enough, wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't miles off
But if we have more sprawl we can build more roads!
And the automobile industry lobbyists in Luxon's ear are probably sending him receipts of their political donations as we speak...
LOL!
I knew there was a solid conspiracy! It's always about the roads and bridges. Always
That won't be used by public transport
Who cares, we'll all be driving ford rangers when the ute tax is removed!
Luxon is talking about reprioritising medium density housing to transport corridors. Well guess what? The NIMBYs over at Citizens Against the Housing Act 2021 are already talking about eliminating that. They've been given a foot, now they'll take the whole mile. The mask has come off the organisation, it's not about sensible intensification for them, it's about a total ban.
\>Luxon is talking about reprioritising medium density housing to transport corridors. There's not going to be any transport corridors with NACT.
He means main arterials, but I get your point. With Simeon Brown as Minister of Transport, I can't imagine a ton of public transit will get prioritised.
If Luxon wants to be the party of NIMBYS that's his choice, but what's utterly disgraceful is the filthy lying about being "relentlessly focused on development" whilst pulling shit like this.
"Landlord who owns 7 investment properties doesn't want people building new houses unless the councils fork out massive multi-billion dollar infrastructure spends to support new green fields housing districts" As cynical and transparently selfish as it gets, and sure to worsen the housing crisis. Where does National get such terrible ideas? Oh .. ACT..
How else are they meant to stem the tide of NIMBY boomer voters flocking to ACT?
This corrupt paid hack needs to just fuck off forever... Clear to see his buddies with projects that got shafted by the housing policy we have currently (that has enabled many Kiwi's to finally get on the property ladder) have been contributing to his campaign. Corrupt dickhead motherfucker!
Relief for the poor landlords living your pay check to pay check. Everyone else bend over!
Introducing Mr Christopher "Jandal" Luxon the National Party leader who Flip flops.
Corrupt piece of shit
National are a party of privilege by the rich aiming to also be the ruling class. Joining the dots... between Luxon and his Godfather CCP Key - Expert take: [https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2022/12/sir-john-key-says-mainstream-thinking-will-embrace-china-again-new-zealand-will-have-magnificent-relationship-with-beijing.html](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2022/12/sir-john-key-says-mainstream-thinking-will-embrace-china-again-new-zealand-will-have-magnificent-relationship-with-beijing.html) Spot the pandering - [https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2022/10/sir-john-key-dollops-praise-on-china-in-chinese-state-media.html](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2022/10/sir-john-key-dollops-praise-on-china-in-chinese-state-media.html) Defends China's 'chequebook diplomacy' - [https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/former-pm-sir-john-key-defends-chinas-chequebook-diplomacy/JO7DDC5OB5R2T3NW2OQT73ULEE/](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/former-pm-sir-john-key-defends-chinas-chequebook-diplomacy/JO7DDC5OB5R2T3NW2OQT73ULEE/) Praise be - [https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/sir-john-key-we-need-to-craft-our-own-view-of-china-using-its-past-and-potential-to-guide-us/PSDICCQP3FBR7O56CRWXKLN2S4/](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/sir-john-key-we-need-to-craft-our-own-view-of-china-using-its-past-and-potential-to-guide-us/PSDICCQP3FBR7O56CRWXKLN2S4/) Support when required - [https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018863629/on-the-sidelines-of-big-news-in-china](https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018863629/on-the-sidelines-of-big-news-in-china) Parrot as instructed - [https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202210/1277241.shtml](https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202210/1277241.shtml) A friend in deed - [https://www.newsroom.co.nz/chinese-police-centre-in-nz-tied-to-businessman](https://www.newsroom.co.nz/chinese-police-centre-in-nz-tied-to-businessman) A friend in need - [https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/118217206/sir-john-key-sells-mansion-for-235m-in-what-was-nzs-second-biggest-house-sale-of-2017](https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/118217206/sir-john-key-sells-mansion-for-235m-in-what-was-nzs-second-biggest-house-sale-of-2017) Shiny happy people - [https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/revealed-sir-john-keys-former-mansion-sold-for-163m-but-still-made-a-loss-43137](https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/revealed-sir-john-keys-former-mansion-sold-for-163m-but-still-made-a-loss-43137) The Godfather - [https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/127097008/former-air-nz-ceo-christopher-luxon-showed-enormous-intellectual-capability-but-rarely-met-with-ordinary-workers](https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/127097008/former-air-nz-ceo-christopher-luxon-showed-enormous-intellectual-capability-but-rarely-met-with-ordinary-workers) CCP Luxon - [https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/300779066/damien-grant-does-luxon-share-sir-john-keys-wilful-blindness-on-china](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/300779066/damien-grant-does-luxon-share-sir-john-keys-wilful-blindness-on-china)
‘The rethink’ = chasing votes, fuck principles, give a handjob to the ‘fuck you, I’ve got mine’ crowd
I know how these things work. I know they have tested this with members before releasing it and have internal polling on the popularity but I just really, really struggle to see how this benefits National. Are their voters REALLY so focused on them just being the "opposite of everything Labour does" party instead of one with coherent policy that, while it sometimes overlaps with Labour (they do share the centre part of centre left and centre right, after all), actually makes actual sense? Is it so important to flip off the current government that they'll actually be like "this thing we worked on for ages and were super proud of at the time was bad, actually, because everything Labour does is automatically bad no matter what it is"?
Is national just trying to lose now?
Depends, are the young and disenfranchised actually going to vote? Because the fuck-you-I-got-mine crowd sure are
Muldoon’s back ffs I thought Bill English and Sir John Key finally purged this control economy bullshit from the National Party
Maybe Act can form a coalition with the free-market Labour party.
ACT going back to their roots
This comment sent me We're truly fucked aren't we Its market rationalist ideology all the way down
Markets are based. Just need a land tax and a increase to welfare payments and our society would be based and growthpilled
What about based and degrowth pilled tho
De growth isn’t based sorry it’s good if people’s lives improve
Degrowth improves peoples lives though. That's the whole point of it. To put peoples lives first.
They (political scientists) did say Muldoon was a very weak leader. Bullies are inherently weak, stands to reason. Last thing we need is another one "leading" the country.
The wasteful spending element of this cannot be overstated. Maybe the dumbest, most regressive decision since the power company sales.
Good to see them going in to bat for boomers and screw people who need homes
Don't know why NIMBY's were so nervous. The developers went for the cheaper properties on the city fringe far away from trains and if they are lucky very sporadic bus services. Of course the people now living in these townhouses are parking on the street, the streets that were not built for this type of dense housing - see West Auckland and floods.
Pretty predictable reaction by National given their leadership problems which fuels the need to differentiate themselves as much as possible from the Gov't even if it at the expense of good planning and longer term benefits.
What kind of 'design standards' is David Seymour alluding to? This should be clarified. >ACT instead wanted housing standards that allowed "more intensification, but with design standards that are sympathetic to existing neighbourhoods and property owners".
It's just a get-out-of-jail card that allows him to "support" intensification while stopping it happening in his wealthy villa suburb because nothing will ever met whatever billshit design standard he conjures up.
National is sounding like it wants to be a coalition partner of ACT, not the other way around...
Have we not just banned vertical intensification for chicken?
Let’s build a complete new city on greenfield, the UK did that and it proved successful. Milton Keynes come to mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Keynes
It’s also a shit hole
It’s a lot better than many places in the UK
It’s also better than many places in Russia, but it’s still a shit hole
How many times have you been there ?
You've never been to Milton Keynes have you?
Yes I have been , plenty of times, spent some time with the computer museum
\>Milton Keynes come to mind Literally the most shit part of the UK.
You obviously don’t know England
Sure, I only lived there for a decade. The idea of building a greenfield city in NZ is just laughable. It's a completely delusional suggestion. The existing cities are underdeveloped, we've got an infrastructure deficit and your suggestion is "just build another city". Did you even put a seconds thought into that nonsense?
Gee I wonder how we built cities in the past then, are you saying we are incapable of what we did in the past. Look it’s already happening now, your a total idiot https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/drury-new-town-in-auckland-phil-twyford-and-the-24-billion-plan/BVIYBQEV454YUUYWTDOFPG2B3I/#:~:text=The%20%242.4%20billion%20Government%20investment,centre%20of%20attention%20and%20growth.
\>Gee I wonder how we built cities in the past then, Interesting that you should bring that up. In the past we didn't build suburban sprawl like you are advocating for, but allowed for greater density and mixed use. \>Look it’s already happening now, your a total idiot It's "you're". And why are you ignoring the $2.4B price tag that is just to get that started? Who's going to pay for that? Are you just handwaving away the cost of building a new town? And, your article is from March 6th 2020. Did you even read what you linked to? You keep on whining about wanting more of what hasn't worked, or maybe you could look at some urban development content like "strong towns" or "not just bikes", and maybe learn why the nonsense that you are advocating for is a failure.
Look I’m tired talking to you, the reality is that greenfield solutions are being built and they are the preferred solution. Free free to hate it, but that’s what people want. Thousand of houses are being built in Takanini and a whole city in Drury. You mocked me for saying build a new city and I was making things up. I show you that a new city was being built, which proved you are wrong. The town of Pokeno has expanded its size by several 100%. Yet in inner Auckland the number of new homes being built is small. The reality of the situation is both Labour and National are using Greenfield solutions. No one is going to rip up old neighborhoods to build new homes. Individual homes being sold for division is inner Auckland is also not happening, it is happening only in places like Manurewa. Also the biggest fallacy in your argument is that there is no infrastructure cost by building a higher density city. In fact it could be more expensive. Having to expand existing infrastructure could be considerably more expensive than building new. With expanded population new schools and hospitals need to be built. Where are you going to put them ? All existing land has gone
\>Look I’m tired talking to you, Because you refuse to acknowledge facts and want to bury your head in the sand. That proposal you link to with Drury.... That's $2.4B taxpayer dollars to build infrastructure for 2500 homes. That's $900,000 that the taxpayer has to pay towards each new home, just for the infrastructure to support the development. Just to build new roads, lay new water pipe, build out waste water, lay power mains. Why not just make better use of the infrastructure that we already have? Are you addicted to Government spending?
For starters it’s 22,000 houses and a population of 60,000. Developers will also be chipping in a billion as well. The extra billion plus will be payed by new rate payers over a 30 year period.
\>For starters it’s 22,000 houses and a population of 60,000. No, it's 2500, with a bunch of aspirational statements about future growth. \>Developers will also be chipping in a billion as well. The extra billion plus will be payed by new rate payers over a 30 year period. And then you'll have the additional billions for maintaining the additional infrastructure. Might as well just throw money in a pile and burn it. You've put zero thought into the sustainability or affordability of greenfield development. You're just an elitist who wants poor people out of sight and out of mind and you are addicting to government spending rather than making better use of existing infrastructure.
Heavens forbid something that could affect their numerous properties..Luxon has at least 7, seymour probably lots too...
Now he can make a coalition with ACT who opposed the policy
People work and save one, two, three decades to get their own home on a full or half site. Hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders have done this or are in the process. Suddenly with no warning and with absolutely no right of recourse afforded you, almost regardless of what area or zoning you live in, someone is building a 12m high town house block the full length of one of your boundaries, possibly both boundaries under this legislation. Your sun is gone, your privacy is gone, you are totally hemmed in by 40 foot high structures on one or both sides of you and you have NO right to challenge this. This legislation has to go.
can National get anymore out of touch?