|
|
By Matt L, on May 29th, 2013 We’ve all heard about the housing problems that exist in Auckland (and other parts of NZ). While everyone might have different views on how to do it, at least everyone at least agrees that it is important we build a lot more homes. If there is one upside to the housing problems it is that is starting to kick some developers back into action after the hibernation period brought about by the GFC.
We have previously talked about a number of apartment developments that have been popping up including:
City Fringe: Urba – Apartment building replacing a low rise office
New Lynn: Merchant Quarter Condominiums - 10 levels of apartments being proposed above a new car parking building and medical clinic development right next to the train station
Manukau: M Central - The conversion of an existing office building (ex IRD) to apartments and retail
City: Sugartree - A series of apartment buildings being developed around Cook and Nelson St.
City: 132 Vincent St - Another office conversion
Grey Lynn: The Isaac - A lower rise development (four stories) that is already well under construction.
In the last few days we have been hearing about a couple more developments getting closer to construction and both of them have been through some fairly lengthy battles to get this far.
The first one is perhaps one of the most well-known developments, Orakei Point. This has surely got to be one of the smartest options we have for development in the city. It is a sizeable chunk of land in a fairly desirable location and what’s more it even has a train station on site. Even with the crappy old trains we have at the moment, rail is the fastest way to get to town even in the off peak which is something that not many locations can boast. The company behind the development is obviously confident that they will be able to get through the last of the issues before the environment court as they are now expecting the first town houses to start construction early next year.
Seven years after the process began, controversial plans to create an urban village in Orakei are going ahead despite continued opposition from residents.
Auckland Council approved the rezoning of Orakei Pt peninsula to a mixture of site-specific, mixed use and open space in 2011.
Extensive delays occurred when Ports of Auckland, Kings Plant Barn, KiwiRail and the developers appealed parts of the ruling (East & Bays Courier, April 27, 2012).
There is still a case before the Environment Court.
So while there could still be changes to some aspects of the development plan, the first 40 townhouses are now for sale and will be built in the first quarter of next year.
But just how much development is planned?
The 4.6-hectare development which covers 228-246 Orakei Rd is divided into two projects, the higher-end apartments in the gated community known as Orakei Point and the rebranded Orakei Bay Village below.
It will consist of 100 townhouses and 400 apartments, along with car parking facilities and retail and office space.
The Orakei Train Station sits in the middle of the proposed village but noise will be minimised by building over the top of the railway.
Mr Knight says the project picks up on the need for intensification in Auckland and should appeal to a mix of people.
The price of apartments will range from around $750,000 to $3 million and the mid-range townhouses will be between $1.3 and $1.9m.
Average densities in the surrounding area are about 2.5 people per household. Assuming the same kind of occupancy happens with these dwellings, it equates to over 1000 people that would be living right next to the train station. Of course the prices mentioned certainly aren’t cheap but if that is what the developers can sell these places for then I don’t think we can object too much. It will be interesting to see what happens with the Park n Ride that exists on site, personally I’m not a fan of having it so I won’t be sad to see it go. I also hope that the developers work with Auckland Transport to really make the station interesting and unique – Munich does this very well.
Of course not everyone is happy
Warren Tuohey was the chairman of the former Orakei residents society which opposed aspects of the development.
“That has always been a nice drive with views of the sea and we were very keen to ensure that it didn’t become obscured by high-rise buildings.”
May I suggest that when driving the best option would be to watch the road rather than the scenery, it’s much safer for everyone involved. But seriously, did they really object to the development partly on the grounds that they wanted things to look nicer while they were driving?
Orakei Local Board chairwoman Desley Simpson shares his concern.
“The good news is the development is of a reasonable standard and priced well so it will fit in with the existing Orakei ward.
“The developer is working within his brief but it concerns me that this will create more delays for commuters who are moving through that section of Orakei Rd.”
I wonder if Desley has let slip the real reason that the majority of the objections to the Unitary Plan are coming from areas with higher valued property. Many of the people in these suburbs see their neighbourhood as status symbols. They believe that higher densities will reduce the exclusivity of their area and in turn make them feel less special. I also note she doesn’t seem to show any concern for the commuters who use the train and who will likely be subject to a lengthy period of disruptions from the construction work.
The second development is way out west in Swanson. I have long thought it was odd that there was not much development on the southern side of the train station however as I now found out, that is because the local community have been fighting against it for 13 years.
A rural village in West Auckland is set for a boost of 330 new homes which were first planned 13 years ago but became caught in a battle between the developer, a residents’ environmental group and local authorities.
Auckland Council has approved a change to the Waitakere District Plan to allow intensified residential development around the Swanson Railway Station.
This follows a successful Environment Court mediation of appeals on a council commissioners’ decision last June on the so-called Penihana North plan change.
The area is fairly well defined in the current Google maps image being the orchard area with the rows of trees in the map below.
And here is some more information about what is happening.
“It’s a nice little village and it will essentially have a doubling of the population,” said a resident of 40 years, Paul Robinson, who has been concerned for a decade on how the land is developed.
Swanson’s role in Auckland’s growth was sealed in 2009, when the former Waitakere District Council accepted an area of 22.5ha for urban development. In 2010, the former Auckland Regional Council moved the metropolitan urban limit to include farm land in Penihana North.
The developer of 90 per cent of the land is Neil Construction. Its chief executive, Grant Brebner, said work could start this year on a mixture of medium- and lower-density lots spread over five years.
The area nearest to the station and railway line was zoned for medium density where the minimum requirement was one dwelling per 350sq m.
He said the lower-density zoning to the south of a through-road between Christian Rd and O’Neills Rd required lots of at least 600sq m, apart from a small area next to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area which required 1200sq m sites.
“The whole plan change area will produce about 320 to 330 dwellings but this could rise with the addition of more town houses close to the railway station.
“We will ensure a reasonable quality of development going in there.”
Mr Brebner said it had taken 13 years to get the land zoned for residential, despite it having rail and road transport and water and sewerage services.
“It’s illustrative of how things have got to change or Auckland’s housing crisis will get a lot worse.”
Out this way, the house occupancies tend to be a little higher with the surrounding areas averaging about 3 people per dwelling. That means that once again it looks like we will be adding more than 1000 people right next to an existing train station. Mr Robinsons views in this article also seem much more moderate than his previous complaints about it. Back in 2010 he suggested that such a development would become and urban getto.
“[A high amount of houses] will turn the area into an urban ghetto. Swanson is a rural area, and the infrastructure can’t handle that many houses.”
Over 28 years, Mr Robinson has watched development creep across the village. He’s in the Preserve the Swanson Foothills Society – locals arguing the land should be divided into sections triple the proposed size, with an outer buffer zone.
Lastly, I first picked up that this development was happening late last week by reading through the Auckland Transport board report. It contained one other good bit of information about the development.
Neil Construction Limited has undertaken an agreement with Auckland Transport to cost share the construction of a proposed 700m off road cycleway adjacent to the western rail corridor. The cycleway will connect Swanson Rail Station to the new Penihana North residential development. Construction of the cycleway is planned for 2014.
I firmly believe that adding cycleways alongside our rail corridors is a very good thing. Assuming that the development provides good connections to it, it should make it very easy for residents to access the station. It should also benefit some of the existing locals who live along O’Neills Rd by making it easier for them to access the station as it would cut over 1km off the current route.
I’m looking forward to seeing both of these developments get underway.
By Matt L, on May 27th, 2013 With the submission period for the Unitary Plan drawing to a close, there seems to be one last push by opponents going on. Tomorrow we should have our submission guidelines up along with some easy things you can do to submit but before then I thought it would be worthwhile looking at a couple of the developments over the last few days.
TVNZ have done a two part series on the plan but as usual with our media, seem to skip some crucial details. Here is the first part.
Let’s be clear, the only way the old ladies vege patch will be killed off is if she decides to do it herself. No one is going develop her land unless she does it or unless she sells it. This is also featured as one of the key myths that the council set out to bust in this blog post.
Myth 1: Your house could be taken off you and be demolished to make way for terraced housing and apartments.
Fact: Nobody will be forced to change their way of living. Auckland Council does not have the power to take your property from you. Nothing will ever change on your property unless you as the property owner decide to renovate, build or sell.
There are a couple of other points that seem to need constant reminding in this debate:
- Just because there is a height limit, it doesn’t mean that buildings will actually be built that high, remember that many places have no height limits now and we don’t see skyscrapers popping up.
- Development will only happen if there is demand for it.
It was pleasing however to see that the local business association seeing the benefits. They obviously realise that more people mean more businesses and services can be supported in the town centre which can help improve the liveability of an area. Panmure is also going to be fairly important transport wise with the AMETI busway and new train station going through.
There is a typical bit of scaremongering though, most of the city could already end up with three storey buildings under the current plans by developers getting resource consent, this is exactly the same as what is proposed in the unitary plan. The one thing I do agree with though is that it will be imperative that we have good design.
Following that first segment, yesterday was part two.
So Phil McDermott thinks intensification will put pressure on aging infrastructure but sprawling north and south won’t? Is he suggesting that these new developments won’t hook into the existing transport, water and waste water systems? I love how he also claims that people like us, who just want people to have more choices in how they live, are somehow limiting peoples opportunities.
Next up we have David Thornton from the group No More Rates. He claims to be pushing for sprawl based developing towns along a High Speed Rail network from Whangarei to Hamilton. But it might sound nice, it is really just a brain eating zombie idea, a bit like the ones Stu highlighted a few weeks back. First such a network would be astronomically expensive and based on international experience could easily top $30 billion. That is way beyond the affordability of the nation and odd that a group campaigning against rates would propose such an idea. It also just seems like a way of pushing all development out of Auckland and into Northland or the Waikato. To take that much load, cities like Hamilton and Whangarei would probably need more than quadruple their populations bringing with it much more massive change to those communities than what is proposed in Auckland.
More than just a zombie idea, it is also a complete red herring. The No More Rates group have frequently campaigned against rail projects, especially the CRL like this example from March where they push for sprawl based on expanding the motorways.
Gridlock should not be used to justify Central Rail Link.
Yesterday’s traffic gridlock should be a catalyst for a wider debate on how Auckland plans to cope with population growth.
Mayor Len Brown’s total preoccupation with the Central Rail Link is blinding him to the real alternative of expanding land supply to cater for both population increases and the provision of affordable housing.
The draft Auckland Unitary Plan, due to be released on 16th March, clearly shows that removing the current metropolitan urban limits will provide development land for up to 40% of the estimated population growth over the next 20 years.
However this expansion is delayed for many years, presumably to allow concentration on building medium and high rise apartment blocks all around the region.
The Auckland Council should make expansion beyond the present Metropolitan urban limits its first priority, rather than plunging ratepayers into the danger zone of huge debt and horrendous rate increases in the years ahead to pay for a rail link that many believe is unnecessary and financially unsustainable.
A move away from ‘intensification’ in favour of greenfields development, and expansion of satellite towns, would support the already planned extension of the northern motorway and the early completion of the western by-pass.
Add in a mostly government funded additional harbour crossing, and a much less costly solution is there for the taking.
Ratepayers in particular would be wise to consider this plan as an alternative to the rail dominated proposals in the draft Unitary Plan.
The assertions in this press release are astounding. So the City Rail Link at $1.8 billion is too expensive but a $5 billion additional harbour crossing is cost effective. They previously objected to the Unitary plan based on what they claim are rail dominated proposals but now object to it because it sprawl using an even more expensive rail proposal?
As mentioned previously we will get our submission guide up tomorrow but if you don’t want to wait, make sure you get your feedback in as from what I’m hearing, the groups completely opposing it are submitting a lot of feedback.
By Matt L, on May 21st, 2013 A couple of articles in the herald caught my attention this morning that I thought needed some extra comment.
The first was this piece about people clogging up city fringe suburbs for parking.
Inner-city residents appeal to council to stop selfish park-and-ride behaviour.
Residents of central Auckland fringe suburbs such as Mt Eden, Parnell and Orakei are getting riled at their streets becoming free parking lots for commuters skimping on bus or rail fares.
Mt Eden resident Diane Morton says her previously quiet cul-de-sac near a busy bus route has become a mecca for students parking there for long hours each weekday, leaving little room for her and her neighbours to squeeze back in if they return home before late in the afternoon.
Commuters are increasingly driving cars to streets within a $1.90, one-stage bus or rail trip to the CBD, and clogging up suburbs from Freemans Bay to Orakei, from where trains take just eight minutes to reach Britomart.
People driving to the inner city suburbs just so they can get cheaper PT fares is certainly an issue and it creates two key by products. First it obviously clogs up local streets with cars making things difficult for residents but it also generates more traffic as people battle to get to these free parking spaces. However these by products are really just the symptoms of the real problem which is that the parking on these areas isn’t being managed properly. This isn’t the first time we have heard about issues with parking in a city fringe suburb and the first thing that sprung to mind as I read this was that these areas to have a version of the parking scheme currently being trialled in St Marys Bay which has seen area wide time limits imposed but for which residents are able to purchase permits that are exempt. The article continues:
Mrs Morton said she was often forced to park across her own Bourne St driveway when bringing grandchildren to her home. Her garage was too rundown to store her car and she did not want to turn her front-yard vegetable garden into a parking lot.
She believed Auckland Council planners were failing to taking parking demand into account in their urban intensification plans.
She had distributed leaflets to her neighbours asking what they thought could be done. She wanted some form of parking priority, although she disagreed with a $70 charge imposed on St Marys Bay householders in a trial scheme which Auckland Transport hopes may become a model for other fringe suburbs.
Right, so unlike some she actually has off street parking but doesn’t want to pay to fix it up so parks on the street instead. She also doesn’t think she should have to pay for on street parking but wants to be given priority to this publicly owned and paid for piece of infrastructure. The reason there is so much parking demand in her area is because it is currently free to park there. The trial at St Marys Bay finishes in July so it will be good to see the official results of that however like many things that involve pricing something that is currently free, I suspect that most residents didn’t really see the benefits of it until it actually happened. It is likely that the same thing would happen if implemented in other suburbs, people will initially complain but once they see the results won’t want to change back.
Of course local body politicians love to get involved in these types of issues. Christine Fletcher makes the point that Auckland Transport need to be given a chance to assess the impacts on St Marys Bay first. I feel that Mike Lee on the other hand has missed the mark slightly.
Council transport chairman Mike Lee said parking schemes were just treating symptoms of a wider problem, which he suspected was caused by excessive bus and rail fares.
“Rather than suburb-by-suburb and street-by-street I think we need to take a comprehensive overview of the problem and it seems to me that recent fare increases are acting as market signals,” said Mr Lee, who is also an Auckland Transport board member. “Not only do we have a decline in public transport use overall, but we also have behaviour which seems to be influenced by getting a cheap fare.”
Yes the level of PT fares is an issue but reducing them isn’t going to magically get people to stop parking in these suburbs. As mentioned above the real problem is that it is free to park in these suburbs currently. Only by actually managing the parking will we solve the problem.
The second article talks about people moving to Hamilton for cheaper houses.
Aucklanders are looking as far away as Hamilton to buy homes as more people find themselves squeezed out of their local real estate market.
Hamilton real estate agents say there has been a surge in inquiries about properties in their market where the average house price is $347,406.
Other real estate commentators say some are even choosing to make the 90-minute commute over the Bombay Hills while maintaining their lifestyle in the Waikato.
In Auckland, the average house price is $628,205 but that will not buy much for those wanting more than an apartment or a unit in the inner city suburbs.
The big problem I have with this is that people seem to completely underestimate how much they actually pay for transport. Yes you can buy a cheaper house but that can more than be made up for by considerably more expensive transport costs, especially if you are commuting back to Auckland for work like one of the couples mentioned.
Carl Hooker, 37, and his wife, 32, decided to hunt slightly further afield than Auckland while looking for a bigger home for themselves and their three boys .
For a similar price, they were able to swap their 100-year-old villa on a small section for a three-year-old mansion on 5.786 hectares.
The couple both still work in Auckland, splitting the weekly commute.
Now that sounds like they commute together to Auckland and it is roughly 120km from Hamilton. As an indication the IRD suggest that a mileage rate of 77c per km which could cover costs for fuel, maintenance and other costs like insurance . At that level a round trip from Hamilton to Auckland is likely to cost around $180 a day or around $900 per week. Even if you only came up to Auckland a three days a week you are already looking at over $500. A quick calculation using the loan calculator from one of our major banks shows that repayments of $500 a week could equate pay for a mortgage of over $370,000.
Perhaps this shows that our banks should really start linking in transport costs to their lending credit assessments. If they did those wanting to get lending to live in far away suburbs would certainly get a bit of a shock.
By Matt L, on May 16th, 2013 Last week the Government announced it had reached a housing accord with the Auckland Council in a bid to get more houses built and ease issues over housing affordability.
The legislation, to be introduced to Parliament as part of Budget 2013, will enable Special Housing Areas to be created by the Auckland Council with approval of Government. In these areas it will be possible to override restrictions on housing put in place by Auckland’s eight predecessor Councils, like the Metropolitan Urban Limit.
Qualifying developments in these Special Housing Areas will be able to be streamlined, providing they are consistent with Auckland’s Unitary Plan, once it is notified, expected in September this year. New greenfield developments of more than 50 dwellings will be able to be approved in six months as compared to the current average of three years and brownfield developments in three months as compared to the current average of one year. The streamlined process will not be available for high rise developments that will need to be considered under existing rules until the Unitary Plan has been finalised in 2016.
“This is a three year agreement to address these housing supply issues in the interim until Auckland Council’s Unitary Plan becomes fully operative and the Government’s Resource Management Act reforms for planning processes take effect.
“The Government respects in this Accord that it is for Auckland to decide where and how it wishes to grow. The Government is giving new powers for council to get some pace around new housing development and is agreeing on aspirational targets to ensure Auckland’s housing supply and affordability issues are addressed.
Overall the accord seemed straight forward enough and fairly sensible. At a high level the council would decide on a number of Special Housing Areas. Qualifying developments within these areas are able to use a fast tracked process to get consent and would have to comply with the rules in the Unitary Plan when it is formally notified later this year.
To me the accord seemed fairly positive as it would make it quite easy for medium density developments – the kind that will likely be the majority of intensification that occurs – to happen in any brownfield areas selected. This was especially the case as a site only needs capacity for 5 dwellings to qualify. There was one issue though, while the council would be able to select the special housing areas, the government had to approve them. That leaves the question of what happened if the council and government couldn’t agree on where the special housing areas should be.
Today it seems we have our answer. Along with the budget, the government has introduced the legislation to enable the special housing areas to be designated. Nick Smith has also issued a press release about it which includes this.
“If an accord cannot be reached in an area of severe housing unaffordability, the Government can intervene by establishing special housing areas and issuing consents for developments.”
Budget 2013 includes $7.2 million over four years to help the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment fund the initiative.
The legislation will go through its first reading as part of Budget 2013 before being sent to a select committee for a shortened six-week timetable for urgent consideration and progress.
“This legislation is an immediate and short-term response to housing pressures in areas facing severe housing affordability problems,” Dr Smith says.
“This provides time for the Government’s substantive changes to resource management reforms and the subsequent council planning processes to bear fruit and address these land and housing supply issues in the longer term.”
In other words, if the council and government can’t come to an agreement on the locations for the special housing areas, the government will simply override the council and do what they want. It makes a complete mockery of the announcement that the government and council made last week. It turns out that this is not a case of both sides compromising but one of the government twisting the councils arm behind its back to get their way while also forcing the council to smile at the camera and pretend everything is good.
Len Brown has obviously also been surprised by this as he has already come out with the statement below.
Auckland Mayor Len Brown has welcomed the introduction of legislation for housing accords, but says he will be seeking clarification on a number of points to ensure the final legislation is consistent with the draft Auckland Housing Accord.
“There are clauses in the bill introduced today that appear to be inconsistent with the Auckland Housing Accord,” says Len Brown.
“My expectation is that the Select Committee process will provide an opportunity to clear up these inconsistencies.
“Clearly, in relation to the accord, the point of the legislation is to give effect to the agreements we reached.
“The accord still needs to be considered and agreed by the Auckland Council’s Governing Body. Before we can do this we need to be certain that the legislation is consistent with the agreements in the accord.
Len Brown said he would be writing to Housing Minister Nick Smith to raise questions about the consistency of the accord and the current bill.
The Housing Accord is an agreement between Auckland Mayor Len Brown and the Minister of Housing aimed at tackling issues of housing affordability and supply in Auckland.
It is subject to agreement by Auckland Council.
The streamlined consenting process outlined in the accord can only take effect once the council’s draft Unitary Plan is adopted for notification – expected to be September this year.
It would also be interesting to see how the government determine housing unaffordability, my guess would be the flawed Demographia study as it is something that the government have pointed to in the past.
By Matt L, on May 10th, 2013 Back in March and just before the council released the Unitary Plan, Nick Smith hit headlines by saying that he was going to smash Aucklands Metropolitan Urban Limit in a bid to make housing more affordable but it appeared he was primarily focused on enabling the city to sprawl faster. Over the ensuring weeks a lot of claims and counter claims flying between the council and the government over the best solution. The government seemed to just want the current urban limits removed and for the development process to start. The council suggested that the fastest way for that to happen was actually through implementing the Unitary Plan sooner as that is intended to open up new land and that elements within it would result in better overall developments.
Eventually both parties decided to take the arguing behind closed doors to try and work things out. Today both parties have announced that they have come to an agreement over the issue in the form of the Auckland Housing Accord. Here is the governments take on it.
An Auckland Housing Accord has been agreed today by Housing Minister Dr Nick Smith and Auckland Mayor Len Brown to urgently increase the supply and affordability of housing in Auckland.
“This Accord will help deliver thousands of new homes for Auckland by streamlining the planning and consenting process and getting Government and Council working more closely together on housing development,” Dr Smith said.
“This balanced and pragmatic agreement addresses the economic risks to New Zealand’s economy of an over-heated and supply constrained Auckland housing market. It is good news for Auckland families wanting access to more affordable houses to buy and rent.”
The legislation, to be introduced to Parliament as part of Budget 2013, will enable Special Housing Areas to be created by the Auckland Council with approval of Government. In these areas it will be possible to override restrictions on housing put in place by Auckland’s eight predecessor Councils, like the Metropolitan Urban Limit.
Qualifying developments in these Special Housing Areas will be able to be streamlined, providing they are consistent with Auckland’s Unitary Plan, once it is notified, expected in September this year. New greenfield developments of more than 50 dwellings will be able to be approved in six months as compared to the current average of three years and brownfield developments in three months as compared to the current average of one year. The streamlined process will not be available for high rise developments that will need to be considered under existing rules until the Unitary Plan has been finalised in 2016.
“This is a three year agreement to address these housing supply issues in the interim until Auckland Council’s Unitary Plan becomes fully operative and the Government’s Resource Management Act reforms for planning processes take effect.
“The Government respects in this Accord that it is for Auckland to decide where and how it wishes to grow. The Government is giving new powers for council to get some pace around new housing development and is agreeing on aspirational targets to ensure Auckland’s housing supply and affordability issues are addressed.
“The Accord sets a target of 9,000 additional residential houses being consented for in Year 1, 13,000 in Year 2, and 17,000 in Year 3. This is a huge boost on the average 3,600 homes that have been consented each year over the past four years and the 7,400 a year over the past 20 years.
“The Accord is a sensible solution to the problem of ensuring a robust process for submissions and hearings on Auckland’s 30 year Unitary Plan, while ensuring progress is made now on Auckland’s housing supply and affordability issues. It is about getting on and building the least contentious 39,000 houses of the 400,000 identified in the draft Unitary Plan.
“This agreement will also enable the Government and Council to make progress on other housing issues. There is a commitment to an inquiry into building material and construction costs, a better coordination on delivering core infrastructure to support new housing and a feasibility study on the development of New Zealand’s first online building consent process in Auckland. There are also significant developments at Tāmaki, Hobsonville, Papakura and Weymouth and across Housing New Zealand’s Auckland housing stock to improve the quality and quantity of Auckland homes.
“This Accord is the product of six weeks of intense discussions with Auckland Mayor Len Brown, his deputy Penny Hulse, and many council and government officials. I wish to publicly thank them for their willingness to engage and to help find this constructive way forward.”
The Auckland Housing Accord is subject to agreement by the Auckland Council and legislation being passed by Parliament. The Accord and legislation will expire when the new Auckland Unitary Plan becomes fully operative, expected in 2016.
At first glance it seems like a fairly decent comprise solution however as always, the devil is in the detail. The way I read things, the council will nominate a series of greenfield and brownfield special housing areas in which the less controversial elements of the unitary plan will take effect straight away. That means that for the rest of Auckland, the unitary plan won’t come into effect until it has been through the Board of Inquiry process set out by Amy Adams earlier this year (or late last year). Allowing the council to decide on the areas that will be subject to this seems like a good idea.
The area of the announcement that most caught my attention was the comments that the streamlined processes will not apply to high rise developments, after all, just what is deemed high rise? The factsheet provided goes someway to answering that.
Overall the accord seems like a decent compromise between the government and council, it will however be interesting to see what areas get selected as special housing zones. Here is the accord itself, the factsheet and the Q&As that go with it.
Also here is Len Browns take on it with the most interesting part being that he suggests that in return for faster consenting in these special housing areas, including affordable housing components in them will likely be a council requirement.
By Guest Post, on May 8th, 2013 This is a guest post from John P
I really enjoyed Matt’s post on why he wants intensification in his neighbourhood. I thought I’d write one on why I love it in mine. First off I should explain that I live in a CBD fringe apartment.
1. Work is a ten minute walk away. This is hard to beat, and you can believe me when I say that I don’t miss long commutes. This means more time to do the things I want, and less money spent on petrol. It was also great to be close to the university when I was doing postgrad (again, pretty much a ten minute walk).
2. A slightly longer walk takes me to Britomart, Wynyard Quarter, Queen St, the movies, you name it. There are 650 cafes, restaurants, takeaways and bars in the CBD, there for the taking (subject to budgetary constraints).
 A short walk from the finest eating destinations  A slightly longer walk may lead to spontaneous singing of The Lonely Island songs 3. I’m a five minute walk from the supermarket. Sure, it’s a Countdown and pretty expensive, but it’s good for top-up shopping. We try to do bigger shops out at Pak N’ Save, and this is one of those situations where the car comes in handy.
4. In summary, we are very well set up to do a lot of walking to places, rather than driving. This is presumably good for my fitness level.
5. This all means that my partner and I get by very well with one car between us. We’re thankful we’ve got the car, it gives us a lot of options and we wouldn’t want to be without it, but we don’t need two. This is probably saving us at least $1,000 a year.
6. There’s always something happening in the city. Lantern Festivals can break out at a moment’s notice.
 World Cups also just come out of nowhere 7. My apartment complex has a tennis court, a gym, a lap pool and a sauna. I don’t use these facilities as much as I should, but it’s nice to know they’re there! If I go for a run, I can take in Princes Wharf, Victoria Park and other enjoyable locales. Or I could head the other way out to Tamaki Drive.
 Tennis court provided. BYO coordination. 8. There’s better security. You need a swiper to get in the front door of the complex, and then again for each floor, and you’ve only got access to your own floor. Plus there are surveillance cameras at the main entrances. It’d be pretty hard for people to get robbed here.
9. Higher density living is low maintenance. There’s no worry about mowing the lawn, less outside area to clean up and so on. I actually enjoy the small amount of cleaning up I do get to do outside, but looking after a whole house would stop being fun pretty quickly.
10. This apartment is the warmest place I’ve ever lived, including my parents’ houses and any number of flats. The best insulation you can have is another dwelling attached to yours. In my case, the only surface exposed to the elements is a single wall. I’ve got a little fan heater which I put on now and again in winter, but I can’t even tell the difference between my power usage in summer and winter (I’m the kind of person who records this). On average, we pay $90 a month for power, water and water heating combined. Which includes my share of the water used in common areas and the pool.
11. I’ve got friends living in the same building as me, and I can go and annoy them any time I want!
Sure, there are down sides. If other friends come round, it can be tricky for them to find a park, and of course this is even tougher in the centre of town. But you’re always going to get that in the CBD, and if friends want to take public transport – perhaps it’s a Friday or a Saturday evening and driving home doesn’t seem like a good idea – then it couldn’t be any easier.
Soot and black dust builds up in the courtyard and, to a lesser extent, inside. I’m not too sure what the air quality is like but it’s probably a bit worse than, say, a lifestyle block in Karaka. Our neighbours tried to grow some lettuces in those ready-made potting mix bags that you get from Mitre 10, and that stuff actually built up inside the lettuces as they grew. So growing stuff you’re going to eat is a no-no here. This situation probably has a bit to do with cars and a lot to do with the trucks from the port, but hopefully cleaner vehicles will make it better over time.
At this level of density, it’s not practical (or allowed, in the case of my building) to have pets like cats and dogs. But renters struggle with this everywhere in New Zealand. For medium density, side-by-side townhouses and so on, I can’t see there being any problem with cats and dogs.
I’m also lucky to live in a fairly large one-bedroom apartment (60 m2 plus a sizeable courtyard). It’s not a shoebox and I wouldn’t want to live in one, but some people do and I’ve got no problem with that.
On the whole, high-density living isn’t for everyone, but it doesn’t have to be. This is a point which has been brought up on this blog time and again. People aren’t going to be forced to live in apartments, or even townhouses. But there should be choices available. For me, right now, high-density living is great. I’ve been here three years so far and I could be here another 3-5 years easily.
After that, maybe I’d want to start thinking medium-density, somewhere with a little more space where my hypothetical kids can run around and be closer to schools (which the CBD is not well endowed with). If there were more good 2-3 bedroom apartments available in town, and if there were better facilities for kids, maybe I’d stay in the CBD instead. But low density? Big house, big backyard, long commutes? Not for me.
By Matt L, on April 3rd, 2013 NIMBYs make me so mad sometimes with the latest example comes from Onehunga. In a bid to get better use out of the extensive amount of land that they own, Housing NZ entered into a partnership with Saltburn Ltd to redevelop a handful of sites they have in Onehunga.
The land is owned by Housing New Zealand and comprises three large sections with houses which will be demolished.
The original plan was to replace them with 26 units of varying sizes, a third of which would be privately sold and the rest used as state and social housing.
The plan is the first of its kind for the country and Housing New Zealand spokeswoman Marie Winfield says it is a model for how the 69,000 properties the corporation owns throughout New Zealand – 32,000 of which are in Auckland – could be redeveloped to provide better state housing and help ease the housing crisis.
 The sites in question are to the right of the image, I’m not sure which of the three houses are the ones going though. I quite like the idea, removing three houses but replacing them with 26 apartments clearly provides a lot more dwellings which is exactly what we need. The idea of selling 1/3rd of them is also good as having private owners can be useful in helping to keep the place well maintained as well as helping to pay for the development. We also get more social/state housing out of the deal so it seems great all round. That is until the NIMBY neighbours step in.
Their complaints included inadequate provision of car parking, out of character construction materials and concerns over a three storey apartment block.
They were not opposed to the principle of mixed tenure housing but wanted the development to be “lower, lesser, safe for children and in harmony with the architecture here”.
Following a series of meetings plans have now been redrawn.
Saltburn has reduced the number of units from 26 to 21, and increased parking spaces from 17 to 29.
The three storey apartment is also off the table, replaced by terraced housing.
Saltburn is run by husband and wife James and Johanna Klein who say they have taken those concerns on board.
“The original plan wasn’t that well received by neighbours,” Mr Klein says.
“As a result we have had three meetings and come up with a revised plan.
“There will now be 13 terraced houses and eight community housing units, down from 10.”
Residents had also opposed the use of brick cladding, saying it was out of character with the two streets’ 1860s cottages.
To address that the new properties closest to the streets will instead be clad with weatherboards.
So less dwellings get built, 5 might not seem like much but if the same thing over dozens of similar developments will quickly add up. Of course it is never enough for the existing locals though.
“It’s a marked improvement,” he says. “But we still think it’s an over-development of the site.
“We’ve suggested they take two more units out to create more car parks . . . we’re saying they need 35 car parks straight away.
“We’re hoping we can continue working with them to achieve a solution,” Mr Dorn says.
One result of the change of plans is that the houses to be sold to the public will now be more expensive.
So the locals are trying to force the developers to build almost 2 carparks for every single dwelling, further encouraging residents to drive, yet they also talk about wanting it to be safer for their kids. Removing even more dwellings and increasing carparking is something that would only serve to further push up the cost of the remaining units that are sold to the general public.
By Matt L, on March 7th, 2013 The governments new housing minister, Nick Smith has hit headlines this morning saying that he is going to smash Auckland’s Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL) in a bid to make housing more affordable. But the more you look into his statements, the more it appears that he has arrived at his position purely based on ideology rather than facts.
New Housing Minister Nick Smith is vowing to break the “stranglehold” of Auckland Council’s policy of containing urban sprawl – a policy he says is “killing the dreams of Aucklanders” by driving up house prices.
In his first major interview on how he plans to tackle the housing affordability issue handed to him in January’s Cabinet reshuffle, he said his focus would be on opening up land supply because land prices were the biggest factor putting home ownership out of reach of many Aucklanders.
“There’s no question in my mind that we have to break through the stranglehold that the existing legal metropolitan urban limit has on land supply,” he said.
But Auckland Mayor Len Brown hit back last night, saying Dr Smith was advocating a flawed Los Angeles model of “suburban sprawl and unbridled land availability”.
“I’m pretty disappointed in the minister’s positioning, and I am disappointed because it reflects a philosophy or view of city development, and particularly development of our city, that goes back to the forties and fifties,” he said.
Nick is using some fairly emotive language here and what’s more, it seems to ignore the work that has been going on about this issue. For starters by being so focused on only one aspect of the issue, land supply, he seems to be ignoring all of the other factors that go into the price of housing. He also seems to ignore another key factor in mix, demand. The reality is that Auckland’s population is growing, and growing faster than the rest of the country combined, more people flooding into the city is always going to put more pressure on house prices.
 Projected Population Growth And on that subject, these days more and more people are wanting to live in the suburbs closer to the city, the very places where we can’t create more land, not flung out to the outskirts of town. This is especially the case for young people who don’t share the utopian vision of the house in the suburbs that our parents, or even grandparents were sold on in the post war years. The article continues:
“When we are looking at growth in Auckland of 2 per cent a year, we are going to need sections at the rate of 12,000 a year,” he said. “The metropolitan urban limit is a stranglehold on land that is killing the dreams of Aucklanders wanting to own their home and we have to work with the council to find the tools to increase that land supply and bring section prices back.”
He said the council’s plan to contain 60 to 70 per cent of new housing within the current built-up area would fail due to “community angst over intensification” and economic reality that squeezing two houses on to one existing quarter-acre section could knock $200,000 off the value of the existing house.
First of all, we don’t need 12,000 sections a year, we need need 12,000 dwellings, the two are not the same thing. He is also kidding himself if he thinks that we are building quarter acre sections. In fact it would be interesting to find out when the last subdivision was built that contained quarter acre sections. A quarter acre is ~1000 sq meters yet most recent housing developments tend to have sections less than half that size. In fact many of the houses going in at Hobsonville are on sections of less than 300 sq meters. So If you look at the current development patterns, we have already moved away from the quarter acre paradise that people claim when opposing intensification. Speaking of which, any GIS wizards out there able to work out just what the average section size is in Auckland?
Further his comments about infill housing miss some key details. Yes the value of the existing section will drop but overall both pieces of land will have a higher value. Also he seems to be suggesting that someone who owns a quarter acre of land isn’t capable of making a decision on whether they want to subdivide their land and along with the trade off’s that entails. After all no one is proposing that the council is going to go in and force people to split their land up. I also don’t agree with the suggestion that there will be a lot of community angst, yes there will be some in specific cases but by in large, most of the intensification that will occur over the next 30 years will be medium density developments, that is town houses, terraced houses and low rise apartments.
But Mr Brown said Aucklanders had already agreed on the city’s “compact footprint” through developing the first Auckland Plan, and Dr Smith should stop debating it.
He said the plan was based on “a model that is developing truly internationally competitive cities with strong economic bases to them and that give rise to outstanding transport operations within a more compact framework”.
“Have a look at Melbourne,” he said. “Have a look at Hong Kong. Have a look at London. All of those cities, by and large, are operating off what is regarded as best practice.”
As Len says in this bit, there has already been plenty of debate around housing and by in large, I think that most of the community do agree that Auckland should get denser. When I attended a discussion group about the Unitary Plan late last year, I was quite surprised by the discussion around this topic and how much everyone, of all ages and backgrounds agreed with the direction we are heading. This leads me to believe that the majority of those complaining about increased density are very much a vocal minority.
I do have to disagree with Len’s example cities though, Melbourne is more sprawling, with a lower population density than we have. Hong Kong is the complete opposite and not exactly the example we are planning to follow either. What we need is somewhere in between. I also think we need to be talking more about the advantages of having higher densities in Auckland, particularly the additional amenities that it enables, like having more local shops, cafes, dairies or better parks etc.
Both Nick Smith a Len Brown were also on Radio New Zealand this morning talking about this topic.
or Listen here.
Nick brings up another issue that needs to be addressed. The Unitary Plan which gets released for discussion next week proposes to remove the MUL and open up more land. Yet recent announcements from the government will likely prevent those changes from coming into effect for a number of years. Something also picked up by reporter Todd Niall in this report:
Or listen here.
Overall it seems to me that that Nick Smith has come into this debate with a massive agenda focused solely on removing the urban limit rather than looking at the whole picture. He appears to be planning on using his powers of government to get enact his ideological agenda. As Steve C said this morning “it’s interesting how the democratic process imposed on local government, i.e. consult, consult, consult, differs from the deomocratic process for central government, i.e. we’re elected and we’ll do what we want”
By Matt L, on February 7th, 2013 It’s not often that we almost completely agree with a Herald editorial, in fact just last week I rubbished the editorial on another harbour crossing. This one however is different. The first few paragraphs talks about Labour’s recently announced housing policy, along with some of the political reaction to it. However it is the second half of the editorial that made me almost fall off my chair.
Mr Shearer, while making the most of the party’s “KiwiBuild” scheme, wisely reduced its aims somewhat. The only homes it could provide in Auckland for under $300,000 would be two-bedroom apartments or terraced houses, he said. Labour’s standalone family homes were more likely to be up to $550,000.
It sounds like Labour has more of the latter in mind than the apartments and terraces. If so, the party should think again. The standalone family home with its lawn, driveway, garage, rotary clothesline and garden shed is still regarded as a New Zealand birthright but it exists these days more in fond imagination than in fact.
Many, perhaps most, home-owners are dispensing with the lawns and gardens, concreting them over for parking space for the two or three cars family members might own. Double garages are the norm, and families find more use for decks, patios and pools than grass and soil.
Growing children do not seem to miss the backyards of yesteryear, their preferred activities are on computer screens, digital devices, television or scooters and skateboards on the concrete outside.
Children in families that cannot afford today’s big houses and pools and home entertainment, nevertheless share the modern preferences. They are unlikely to play games on a lawn, and their parents are unlikely to garden, if they had the space. They can afford scooters for the children, and some digital equipment, and supermarkets made gardens superfluous long ago.
So why not two-bedroom apartments and terraced housing? If Labour can provide these in Auckland for no more than $300,000, they could provide struggling young families with a perfectly ample first home.
Apartments and terraced housing for the less well-off might sound like the “projects” that for all their sensitive planning, rapidly became urban ghettos in big cities overseas. But those were rental accommodation, Labour is proposing only homes for sale. If all units in its proposed developments were owner-occupied there is every reason to expect the homes would be well maintained, retain their value and let the young mortgagors build equity.
Their Kiwi dream is the same as it has always been: a home of their own, a stake in a community, a place to raise children. Low-cost units can give them it all.
“Wow” was the first word that popped into my head, and I actually had to double check that it was the herald that I was reading. For too long the debate about housing seems to have been framed as either forcing people to live in shoeboxes in the CBD or living in mansions on the edge of town. It’s nice to see some more in depth thinking going on in the herald that the issue is more nuanced than that. What we are starting to see is a generational shift occurring as young people increasingly want to live in locations that have good amenities and that are closer to the city. People are generally quite good at making compromises, like the size of their backyard (or if they need one at all), if it means they can get benefits in other ways. As an example, people might be much more willing to give up on having a larger home and backyard if it means that their local shops/bar/park/transport stop are within a short walk compared to having to drive everywhere.
Perhaps if I had to give any criticism at all, the editorial doesn’t mention anything about location. If we build these apartments or terraced houses in the right locations, the increase in density can also benefit existing communities. More people in an area can help to justify new business (increasing local amenities), it can justify more or better quality local parks, and can help justify better provision of public transport. However, considering where the Herald has come from in the past I’m inclined to let it slide for now though as at least they are showing some progress. Let’s just hope we don’t have to wait for years for another quality Herald housing editorial.
By Mr Anderson, on January 23rd, 2013 The annual Demographia Housing Affordability report is out – this time with its forward written by Bill English – and just like every other Demographia study it suggests that more land needs to be opened up for urban sprawl in order to bring down housing prices. There are a number of different flaws in Demographia’s analysis (for example it’s based on pre-tax income, it ignores the infrastructure costs of servicing sprawl and it ignores the additional transport costs of living on the urban edge) but I’ll ignore those for now, instead focusing on a pretty simple question – does Auckland really have a land supply shortage?
I think it’s fairly widely agreed that an important factor in Auckland’s rising house prices is a lack of housing supply: simply not enough dwellings are being built. The Auckland Plan talks about the need to build around 13,000 houses a year, every year, over the next 30 years and the fact that we’ve only been building around 3,000 dwellings a year in recent times: What you can also see in the graph above is that Auckland was able to build its required amount of housing during the middle of last decade (the very years when housing prices increased the fastest from memory) and that the number of detached dwellings as well as the number of apartments built per year has fallen dramatically since about 2004. As large greenfield areas such as Silverdale North, Flat Bush, Hingaia, Hobsonville and parts of Takanini have become available for development over the past six or seven years, it’s interesting that we have actually seen a decline in detached structures built rather than a further increase.
Furthermore, Auckland has a lot of areas for future greenfield development working their way through the planning process at the moment or already operative. This is shown in the Auckland Plan’s development strategy map – with yellow indicating “pipeline” (which I assume means that it’s in the process of becoming operative) and “operative” (ready to go I assume) greenfield land. Operative is shown in red and pipeline land in yellow:  In fact, the Auckland Plan states that the biggest chunk of growth in the first 10 years of the Plan will take place in these areas:
Personally I think it’s likely that Auckland won’t see anywhere near that amount of greenfield development over the next 10 years – not because there won’t be enough land available (as I said the process for opening up that land is underway already) but rather because there’s unlikely to be the market demand for houses in these peripheral locations.
But in any case, I don’t think that supply new houses in these areas is likely to do much about housing affordability because there’s actually not a housing affordability problem in peripheral parts of Auckland. For example searching Papakura area properties under $400,000 returns not far off half the houses for sale (224 out of 569) in that area:
Auckland’s average house prices are dragged up by the extraordinary prices paid for places in the inner suburbs because that’s seemingly where people really want to live. If there’s heaps of available greenfield land on the urban edge, a significant number of relatively affordable houses already available on the urban edge and the planning in place for a huge amount more greenfield land on the urban edge, I just can’t buy into the hypothesis of Auckland having a land supply shortage.
What we have is a housing supply shortage, particularly in the inner suburbs where people want to live. And the way to fix that is by making intensification easier through getting rid of minimum parking requirements and getting rid of density controls. It’ll be interesting to see whether the Unitary Plan tackles this real issue rather than the non-existent land supply shortage spun by property developers who want to make a pile of money by bringing their land inside the urban limits.
|
Recent Comments