Real estate, post level 4

Forums › Home Workshop DIY › Real estate, post level 4

1 | ... | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | ... | 172

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2678123 22-Mar-2021 07:09

tdgeek:
mattwnz:

I see the government are announcing some changes this week, which was delayed due to the last covid outbreak for some reason. But can't see there being any major changes. But it is is government problem to fix, and first home buyers should be taking them to task.

Why now? Hasn't this been an issue since 2003?

Because they said there was a housing crisis in 2017. They said they would build 100,000 houses. They said that they would fix the problem.

They have done nothing that has made a difference in housing affordability. It is absolutely right that the government is hammered over their abject failure to do what they said they would do.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2678125 22-Mar-2021 07:17

Handle9:

Because they said there was a housing crisis in 2017. They said they would build 100,000 houses. They said that they would fix the problem.

They have done nothing that has made a difference in housing affordability. It is absolutely right that the government is hammered over their abject failure to do what they said they would do.

No issue with that at all but the general commentary conveniently ignores that this crisis existed well before 2017, so I guess all the previous abject failures get a free pass. Failures such as expounding that the crisis exists, what will be done and none of it was, culminating in a denial that it actually exists. Unbalanced when it goes from head in the sand to today's apparent big issue

quickymart

13925 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2678152 22-Mar-2021 08:22

How did they do it in Christchurch after the earthquakes? I see there's actually an oversupply of housing there. Why not apply whatever-was-done-there to Auckland?

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2678162 22-Mar-2021 08:30

quickymart:

How did they do it in Christchurch after the earthquakes? I see there's actually an oversupply of housing there. Why not apply whatever-was-done-there to Auckland?

I can't tell you the specifics of what went on here, but there was a push to fix and rebuild existing homes, and develope new homes. There was a glut at some point as spec homes were built a lot. And as many just left ChCh. But they seem to have come back. House prices are up here, less then most other locations, but there is a LOT of new subdivisions. The city is flat and its expanding. While the latter isnt related to the EQ's, maybe there is more interest here building than buying compared to elsewhere?

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2678220 22-Mar-2021 09:55

tdgeek:

Handle9:

Because they said there was a housing crisis in 2017. They said they would build 100,000 houses. They said that they would fix the problem.

They have done nothing that has made a difference in housing affordability. It is absolutely right that the government is hammered over their abject failure to do what they said they would do.

No issue with that at all but the general commentary conveniently ignores that this crisis existed well before 2017, so I guess all the previous abject failures get a free pass. Failures such as expounding that the crisis exists, what will be done and none of it was, culminating in a denial that it actually exists. Unbalanced when it goes from head in the sand to today's apparent big issue

Free pass? LOL. They were voted out as a result of their perceived failure to address housing. Not to mention the "but national said there was no housing crisis" line that gets wheeled out every couple of days. Labour promised to fix it and largely has done nothing but pour petrol on an already roaring fire.

antonknee

1133 posts

Uber Geek

#2678223 22-Mar-2021 09:57

To me, the solution is the government should be buying land in existing urban areas and building townhouse and apartment developments on it (either directly a la Ministry of Works, or by funding the likes of Williams Corporation or NZ Living to do it).

We cannot endlessly expand our towns and cities - we simply don't have the infrastructure or the climate runway to do it. It already takes up to 2 hours to commute from parts of Auckland and most people do it by burning dinosaurs. Sewers are overflowing in Wellington and Auckland often has water shortages. Even simple things like libraries and parks. Not sustainable.

To my point about Williams Corporation - their model is to buy a big section that contained one house, in attractive areas, and develop it into 5-10 high quality townhouses, 2-3 stories each. They are not mansions, but they are warm and dry and have all the mod-cons including a nice garden area for each home, and are a good size for small families/households. The model works well and to my mind is what we need a lot more of.

Similarly NZ Living have a number of successful apartment developments with the same model in Otahuhu, Onehunga, Northcote etc.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2678226 22-Mar-2021 10:00

As has been proven already, the Government getting involved in building houses is not a good idea. It's not their core function.

What I think needs to happen, is they could potentially look at providing funding to implement good infrastructure in less popular areas, to get people to move their, removing pressure from more heavily populated areas. We have *plenty* of land in NZ.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2678232 22-Mar-2021 10:08

networkn:

Free pass? LOL. They were voted out as a result of their perceived failure to address housing. Not to mention the "but national said there was no housing crisis" line that gets wheeled out every couple of days. Labour promised to fix it and largely has done nothing but pour petrol on an already roaring fire.

"their perceived failure to address housing" Its not percieved

"but national said there was no housing crisis" That's a fact, albeit an inconvenient truth

"pour petrol on an already roaring fire" Interest rates dropped due to the Covid crisis requiring global money intervention, thats an obvious fact, was it alreday roaring? Yes it was

They failed yes, and yes it was an already roaring fire as Clark and key already stated, and with plans that were never implemented. Thats the last 20 years balanced view. Inconvenient.

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2678234 22-Mar-2021 10:09

antonknee:

To my point about Williams Corporation - their model is to buy a big section that contained one house, in attractive areas, and develop it into 5-10 high quality townhouses, 2-3 stories each. They are not mansions, but they are warm and dry and have all the mod-cons including a nice garden area for each home, and are a good size for small families/households. The model works well and to my mind is what we need a lot more of.

We need more of it in central areas like Parnell, Ponsonby, Epsom, Mt Eden etc where there are frequent buses like Link services. At the moment the South and West is doing a huge amount of heavy lifting for new development because the inner city areas with the gold-plated services refuse to take on any intensification on character grounds, or because volcanic viewshafts are more important than housing.

Otherwise we end up with a two-tier city; areas with all the traffic and all the development, and the other with all of the services and none of the development. It's not sustainable anymore.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2678245 22-Mar-2021 10:13

networkn:

As has been proven already, the Government getting involved in building houses is not a good idea. It's not their core function.

What I think needs to happen, is they could potentially look at providing funding to implement good infrastructure in less popular areas, to get people to move their, removing pressure from more heavily populated areas. We have *plenty* of land in NZ.

Yes we do have plenty. Something needs to encourage Kiwis to build. The development I linked to in Lincoln is a prime example. land, infrastructure included, it can and is being done but Kiwis prefer to buy than build. The or a Govt needs to go the Carters, work with them to do the developements everywhere. But even then they aren't building they are just developing, but at some point, building will be the only option, as it will be further out so likely cheaper land and then maybe a building boom may occur

blackjack17

1705 posts

Uber Geek

#2678264 22-Mar-2021 10:49

My wife's old apartment in Brussels

5 storey on the footprint of a single section, bottom 3 stories contain two 4 bedroom apartments and the top two a mixture of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments. The density allows for trams, bike share schemes, parks and a subway nearby.

My 15 storey apartment in South Korea.

Had a rooftop park with a BBQ, mini gulf and some pergolas, it was next door to a park similar in size to the domain, it had restaurants, retail and offices on the bottom 3 stories and a mixture of studio, 1, 2, 3, 4 bedroom apartments. I was walking distance to shops and supermarkets (3 within 5 minutes walk)

Both of these were built by the state. The one in Belgium was aimed at first home buyers and the owners were not allowed to sell for the first 5 years and the value of the apartment could only go up at a set rate (or something like that) The one in Korea was owned by their state owned housing company and rented out at market rent (they build, knock down and rebuild on set rotations).

Both of these are options in NZ, if we had the political will. Dominion road and the arterials should be 4-6 storey houses/apartments along their lengths, while city centres should be way higher. We shouldn't be endlessly stretching out and covering farmland with single storey houses, creating endless traffic and pollution issues.

Electric kiwi signup credit Sharesies credit

antonknee

1133 posts

Uber Geek

#2678267 22-Mar-2021 10:54

networkn:

As has been proven already, the Government getting involved in building houses is not a good idea. It's not their core function.

What I think needs to happen, is they could potentially look at providing funding to implement good infrastructure in less popular areas, to get people to move their, removing pressure from more heavily populated areas. We have *plenty* of land in NZ.

Has this been proven though? I would say Kiwibuild is precisely a terrible example because the government did not in fact get involved in building houses - if they had, I think we would be looking at a very different outcome. I would also say in the past government building schemes have been successful (state houses). I would also say Kainga Ora have been doing some excellent building work lately, with a number of apartment, terrace and duplex developments on their sites around Auckland and Wellington.

It's all very well to say get people to move there but it's a hard sell - people want to live where the jobs are, where their friends and families are. It would be asking an awful lot to get all of this to move, and I'm not sure there's the political will or capacity.

Cities will always present huge agglomeration benefits and I don't think there's any getting away from that, no matter how many motorways you build in small towns.

antonknee

1133 posts

Uber Geek

#2678274 22-Mar-2021 11:00

GV27:

We need more of it in central areas like Parnell, Ponsonby, Epsom, Mt Eden etc where there are frequent buses like Link services. At the moment the South and West is doing a huge amount of heavy lifting for new development because the inner city areas with the gold-plated services refuse to take on any intensification on character grounds, or because volcanic viewshafts are more important than housing.

Otherwise we end up with a two-tier city; areas with all the traffic and all the development, and the other with all of the services and none of the development. It's not sustainable anymore.

I quite agree. Williams Corporation (as an example) have traditionally done a lot of work in Te Atatu which is west and not all that well connected infrastructure wise (compared to Ponsonby/Mt Eden etc). The current intensification of Takanini is fine if you work in that area, but nightmarish if you end up commuting to town or even to office complexes in Ellerslie.

Areas like Mt Eden, Ponsonby, Parnell, Point Chevalier, Freemans Bay, even out to Greenlane/Oranga/Ellerslie/Mt Wellington which are all reasonably close to both the city centre and also to South Auckland industrial hubs, and with reasonable infrastructure, are ripe for this sort of thing. More heavy lifting needs to be done in these areas or it's not solving anything.

Volcanic viewshafts are not more important than housing (but you can have both) and character is something that changes over time IMO and is also not more important than high quality housing (also character houses are by and large very much lacking in quality).

blackjack17

1705 posts

Uber Geek

#2678292 22-Mar-2021 11:03

networkn:

As has been proven already, the Government getting involved in building houses is not a good idea. It's not their core function.

What I think needs to happen, is they could potentially look at providing funding to implement good infrastructure in less popular areas, to get people to move their, removing pressure from more heavily populated areas. We have *plenty* of land in NZ.

I could easily get a job outside of Auckland that would pay exactly the same. My wife would take a small pay cut but would be in a similar boat. However all of our family is in Auckland and as we want our children to experience their grandparents in more of a "visit a few time a year" type relationship, moving out of Auckland is not an option.

Electric kiwi signup credit Sharesies credit

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2678304 22-Mar-2021 11:11

blackjack17:

I could easily get a job outside of Auckland that would pay exactly the same. My wife would take a small pay cut but would be in a similar boat. However all of our family is in Auckland and as we want our children to experience their grandparents in more of a "visit a few time a year" type relationship, moving out of Auckland is not an option.

Same here; I find the idea that I should be expected to leave the city I was born in because those in charge have pursued an unrealistic and unsustainable growth strategy and actually fixing it is 'too hard basket' stuff to be greatly opposed to what I'm told are 'Kiwi' values.

I could in theory relocate somewhere else and do an extremely specific type of work in my industry, but I don't enjoy it and if I'm going to be more than two hours away from family, I might as well be better paid and doing what I do in Australia instead.

1 | ... | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | ... | 172