On top of that, coastal cities are an inherent people magnet. Would DPF & Co be prepared to shell out for land reclamation for housing?
Don’t get me wrong, expanding Auckland north and south should and will happen,
Drove from Port Albert in the North down to Hamilton yesterday....gobsmacked at the amount of building activity north and south of Auckland just in the past six months.
The traffic...whew! For those of us who would never choose to live in Auckland, (and to be perfectly honest have no idea why any sane person would) the journey through Auckland is a nightmare. There simply is no direct route for those who want to go through the hellhole as quickly as possible. We know folk who plan their Auckland transit for 2 am.
If intensification of the inner city will mean less traffic on the roads...bring it on I say!
There's plenty of 'unused' land in Epsom, Remuera, Paratai Drive...
Auckland is full, has been for 20 years. If the problem is housing, we should stop importing more people. It really is that simple.
Other things we could do include:
* Don't allow foreigners to buy land/housing here unless they are permanent residents, and then only buy land/housing if they are going to live in it
* Introduce a capital gains tax to stop the skewing of investing in housing
Trigger warning: Spokesman for Generation Rentier blames the victim.
Sadly it's not so simple when Generation Rentier acts like a House of (Land)Lords and has the nation by the balls. Just wait till the bubble burst sorts them out.
I am glad the growing urban sprawl and decrease in population density in the central core relative to the fringes has kept house prices in London affordable since the 1980s.
Which might prompt comments that London is different to the U.S. cities, my point is so is New Zealand.
Why did they choose 2010 as the finish point. If they chose 2007 or now the result would be vey different as the GFC had a big distorting influence.
Why is the focus always to build more houses in Auckland? Why not incentivise Aucklanders and new migrants to move to other centres where there is not such a crush on housing and other infrastructure? Obviously those people would need jobs, but it doesn't take much imagination to figure out ways of facilitating that. e.g. special economic zones with different tax regimes to encourage commerce & industry to set up in cities such as Whangarei, Wanganui, Masterton, Greymouth & Dunedin. All good places to live, with plenty of relatively affordable housing - just not enough jobs! Oh, that's right, that would require leadership with vision and courage.
DPF's point is, I think, very valid. We should find a big area of flat land and build a city in the centre to replace Auckland. That way the new city can expand out in all directions as required. For a city of 2M you probably want plains at least 100km across, which means building it.... in Australia :)
Or do what Australia, Japan and even Texas do, and put fast-ish trains in to link the outer "suburbs" to the CBD. If you could sit on the train from Hamilton for 30 minutes and be in Auckland it'd be quite reasonable to live there. As many Shinkasen commuters will testify, it's not the distance that matters, it's the travel time.
Why not incentivise Aucklanders and new migrants to move to other centres
In some places, where this is already happening, these ex-Aucklanders are trying to turn their new homes into mini-Aucklands.
Obviously those people would need jobs
Higher-value and therefore better-paid modern roles often benefit from aggregation effects that only larger cities offer. That's why we are unlikely to see a thriving design, software or niche engineering hub based in Twizel rather than Christchurch or Auckland or at a pinch, Wellington.
I recently drove Wellington to Auckland return. The main trunk railway runs alongside the road much of the way, some of it electrified and some of it not. Between Auckland and Cambridge there is major new roading with an underused non electrified railway line running beside it. It wouldn't take much to electrify and connect the rail systems to have some really efficient, regular and comfortable passenger rail. This would also suit the growing number of people who do not drive or have their own cars. This used to be the main way people travelled around the country and could be again.
Why not incentivise Aucklanders and new migrants to move to other centres.
That's already starting to happen. Marton, in Rangitikei (25 minutes south of Whanganui, 35 minutes north of Palmie North) is starting to attract people moving south. Lovely houses, all the amenities you would want in a town, cheap housing. Same story for Feilding. Even Taumarunui is experiencing a bit of Auckland-escape growth, according to a real estate agent I had a talk to last time I was up that way.
We just need it to happen faster, for the sake of Auckland, and for the sake of regional NZ.
All I can say is, if the powers that be in Auckland allow all that good growing land in the old Franklin area, then I think it would be fair enough to declare them certifiably crazy
Unfortunately our lovely government has signed away our ability to do anything about foreigners buying houses unless locals are included in such measures. Take a wee look at these two links, pay special attention to the video included in the tvnz from about 2.00 onwards and the last sentence in the article then compare it to the older Newshub article
Can anyone tell what all this big rush is to have our population growing at such a rate?
The idea that AKL is full is laughable, really
I’ve no doubt there is plenty of scope to increase density, and stats would reveal that density is much lower than many other cities … a key reason for increasing density as opposed to increasing sprawl goes to infrastructure. Specifically densification lets you utilise infrastructure already in place – sure some upgrades might be required but they would be many times cheaper than extending reticulated water and sewage networks, electricity and roads etc to new housing areas (not to mention public transport) … I suspect few have little idea about how expensive these things are, they’re more concerned re: NIMBY
Somewhat ironically, opponents of densitifcation perpetuate some of the problems which people experience daily re: traffic. More compact population centres enable more effective public transport and less traffic, providing people give up their cars. Sound radical? Go to Japan and see how Tokyo manages with a population over 13 million
The idea that AKL is full is laughable, really.
It's full because there aren't enough houses to go around, driving up property prices and rents and increasing poverty. Hardly a laughing matter.
I agree that intensification - in appropriate suburbs - is a good idea, and it is already in the district plan. But all you ever hear from the National party and their mouthpieces such as DPF is that it will all be solved if we "free up" more land for development. As if we have infinite land.
What we do have, however, is a functionally infinite number of people wanting to move to Auckland and we CAN change the policy settings to get them to either not come or move to the regions, which would benefit from increase populations.
A couple of quick thoughts …
All cities experience population growth (as in natural growth, not migrations) – on account of this alone Auckland needs more houses, and this trend will not go away. About 3% pa is normal.
On the migration side ‘economics’ or the ‘market’ should help disperse people around to other centres. Things like the UFB rollout should notionally help this, but ‘this’ can be dependent on some workplace flexibility …. As others have noted there is already some incidence of people moving to other centres, but due to various ‘connections’ – family, friends, work, cultural etc – and employment considerations the ability to relocate isn’t necessarily available to everyone
I’m not too sure what policy settings are impacting real estate investment in AKL, but personally I think things are getting out of control and the end point will not be pretty. I don’t live there now, but do recall the glumness of the place following the 87 crash (when I was 12). The issue with these policy settings – which will go to things like capital gains – is that clearly many benefit, and for that reason they don’t want any action taken. Such short sightedness characterises a number of policy settings in Australia, including negative gearing,superannuation and various tax concessions. Housing is not a productive use of money, so the fact it attracts so much capital should be a concern for all, especially as it is largely funded by debt.
This leaves Auckland in a situation of having to do better with its lot, in expectation of ever more people. By extension, current residents will have to accept change, and resisting it will only further heighten current inequalities
The financial policy settings driving global demand for NZ housing as an investment rather than a place to live will not respond to building more houses or managing which regions people can live in. Only changing the rules to direct investment into productive businesses instead of McMansions will do that.
However, too many people have a vested interest in the current ponzi scheme for wimpy politicians to risk challenging it. Will take generational change and significant organising from those of us who lose rather than win from the current system.
It makes sense, in my humble opinion, to build Upwards and Outwards, especially in a place like Auckland, an isthmus if you will.
If you want to go from south to north, you have to go through Auckland and vice versa.
If you imagine a towering specter of a city, shimmering with light and life like a destination from a fantasy novel, a city that inspires, a city that shocks, a city that satisfies your wildest desires.....
Well anyway, if we had a good national public transport system we could come and go as we please from this dream/nightmare city and live where we like.
Love Auckland, just wouldn't want to sell my soul, and space to do whatever I want (or or give up TV as some idiot suggested), to live there.
Also, as and added bonus, it would keep those Wild Waikatonians out of Northland. ;-)
The first image is someones image of a city in 2040.
The second is what we have.
these ex-Aucklanders are trying to turn their new homes into mini-Aucklands.
these ex-Aucklanders are trying to turn their new homes into mini-Aucklands.
Why that is where the term JAFA came about to be sur'. TBH we could do with a bit better customer service in K Town. I mean Kaitaia closes down on Saturday at noon. C'mon, that's too early for this ex JAFA. The money go 'round is vital for small town survival.
TBH we could do with a bit better customer service in K Town. I mean Kaitaia closes down on Saturday at noon.
C'mon...we were trying to take a leisurely stroll/wheel down the main drag in Kaitaia just the other afternoon and could barely move for folk just hangin'. And that was on a Sunday!
Seriously though...Kaitaia has gone ahead in leaps and bounds over the past few years and yet has lost little of it's rural charm. Still a shit load more beach bashers in the Pak 'n Save carpark than Remuera Tractors.
And even more seriouser...the number of Aucklanders who holiday in the Far North....why? What draws them to these quiet, unsophisticated burgs?
What is it about the remote wild provinces that make so many of them so damned miserable when they have to pack up and head back South?