National have committed to keeping most of the density rules they agreed to with Labour, with the tweak of giving councils a little more flexibility around where people can build up to three storeys. Overall a great move, and one that will hopefully have a downwards pressure on house prices.
They have also indicated they plan to build more state houses, as well.
I have a few concerns here.
Firstly, leaving things up to the councils can lead to NIMBYs pushing any medium and high density development out of where it needs to be - close to the centre. Paying lip service to allowing higher density housing is all very well and good, but if they let local councils deny it it’s as good as saying they don’t want it at all, isn’t it?
Secondly, this is going take up more and more arable land, something which I think we need to be very careful of doing. There is plenty of space within most cities, if we build up, that we shouldn’t need to take good farmland to put 1000m2 sections on with a 2h commute.
Thirdly, expansion without infrastructure is a recipe for disaster. Our infrastructure is already bad enough, but it will only be stressed further as cities grow larger and larger. Not to mention transportation. If these things aren’t planned accordingly, then the whole exercise will fall apart.
Finally, with the relaxation of taxes on landlords, what is stopping landlords from borrowing and buying up all the new buildings? If they want more people into their own home, we should be building a lot very quickly, and limiting how much landlords can offset their incomes with repayments. Most high-density cities around the world are at best net-zero when it comes to rents to mortgage, and many are negative. Here in NZ I can rent a house out, pay off the mortgage and make a small profit from the rents on top of that.
So how exactly are they going to raise wages that much?
Cynical bunch around here, aren’t we?
They talk about supporting the building of more high density housing, such as townhouses and apartments.
I agree we have to start somewhere, I won’t hold my breath though.
40 years of government have managed to underinvest
As someone who is glass half full I’m looking forward to the influx of high-density Air BnBs in outer suburbs for me to stay in if I have a health appointment in the city.
I’d rather more people got to live in them though.
Where does this “the landlords will buy them all” attitude come from? If that happens, just build more. And repeat as necessary until there is enough housing stock to go around.
Not only is it a defeatist attitude, but it just doesn’t line up with how the world works.
As long as there is land to build on, and there is, we can just keep building them until demand is met.
As long as there is land to build on, and there is, we can just keep building them until demand is met.
This is one of my concerns: we shouldn’t be building on new land, we should be building up. But if left up to councils, do we really think this will happen? I took the central government stepping in to get many local councils to even consider medium density in the first place.
I’m also including under utilised land that can be cleared and redeveloped in the “available land” category.
Fair enough. There is definitely a lot of underutilized land which can be repurposed.
Where I live, there is limited land zoned for industrial, so it concentrates businesses to one or two areas. This isn’t a problem, but because of zoning it means this land can never be repurposed into housing. Not that we need it yet, when the CBD has plenty of buildings which could be turned into residential/retail dual use buildings, instead of half empty offices for things that could be done at home…
it just doesn’t line up with how the world works.
It really does though. We’ve seen it for years. New Zealand is wildly underinvested in productive assets and we have an eyewatering level of private household debt. This is because residential real estate is heavily used as a store of value and source of capital gain.
Expecting New Zealanders to stop hoarding housing stock is like expecting Indian housewives to stop buying up gold jewellery.
I’m writing this from a town where over a third of houses stand empty on census night while local families live in all kinds of shitty “gottages”. The demand and supply are both here.
We all know it’s not going to happen and we can safely presume all of his promises are hot air. As a right wing kook he should know better than anybody else that a government trying to determine prices in the markeplace is a doomed venture.
Aside from that apparently he doesn’t realise that the councils already have the flexibility to let people build whatever they want but they don’t do it because the public doesn’t want it. Nobody wants an apartment complex in their neighbourhood and very few people want to live in a tiny apartment in a three story building with no garden and no parking.
I honestly can’t decide whether they are morons or just evil but maybe they are both. David Seymour is at least a smart and evil person, these guys are just something else.
Government already determines prices in the housing market through policies that limit supply, like restrictive zoning, and demand through preferential tax treatment, first home buyer subsidies etc.
I’m not convinced no one wants density. Councils are ridiculously beholden to a small group of well-housed nimbys, and the density we do get is the worst of both worlds as a result. Small and far from amenities, worst of both worlds.
Government already determines prices in the housing market through policies that limit supply, like restrictive zoning, and demand through preferential tax treatment, first home buyer subsidies etc.
Zoning is done by the local councils. Taxes and subsidies etc do have an effect but they are not the kinds of direct interventions that the right wing government is pushing. Certainly they didn’t make concrete promised on house prices.
Zoning is done by local councils but central government sets the entire framework for how they go about that, and can set national direction and standards to shape it
Zoning is done by local councils but central government sets the entire framework for how they go about that, and can set national direction and standards to shape it
Do go on. I am anxious to hear about this.
deleted by creator
A good start and pegging progress to a relative marker like income multiples is the right approach.
I think Chris is making a mistake trusting councils. Keeping the zoning requirements but giving council power to decide where they are implemented will probably lead to more ghettos. In Wellington they are already bending the rules and redefining some train lines as “not mass transit” to prevent density in affluent suburbs.
I do agree that councils will need to be watched closely in regards to how they apply the rules, yes.
So more expensive sprawl on the fringes with a lack of public transport infrastructure, and a belt of character protection surrounding cbds that prevents intensity on the best land for it, close to amenities and with existing infrastructure to utilise. Garbage decision
You’re definitely a glass half full type, aren’t you?
