Housing

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Housing

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#220240 1-Aug-2017 21:22

I was on the train today and passed a huge Summerset retirement village (seriously huge) and suddenly thought... Why don't we build houses like that in that scale for non retirement use?

Way faster if you want to make a dent in the need for more houses.

1 | 2 | 3

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1835281 1-Aug-2017 21:32

Why not? Seems like a good idea to me.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1835299 1-Aug-2017 21:47

Building them isn't a problem, buying them is, living with them can be. High density housing comes with a lot of social risks, especially low cost high density. If someone can't afford a $400,000 stand alone home they cannot afford a $400,000 complex home. The same goes if it is a rental situation.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1835300 1-Aug-2017 21:51

Geektastic:

I was on the train today (on my way home to my 5 acre rural property with mansion) and passed a huge Summerset retirement village (seriously huge) and suddenly thought... Why don't we build houses like that in that scale for non retirement use?

Way faster if you want to make a dent in the need for more houses.

FTFY

Actually - perhaps not where you live, but even in 1/2 gallon 1/4 acre pavlova paradise land, apartment complexes are common - in Akl/Wgtn/Chch at least.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1835302 1-Aug-2017 22:10

Fred99:

Geektastic:

I was on the train today (on my way home to my 5 acre rural property with mansion) and passed a huge Summerset retirement village (seriously huge) and suddenly thought... Why don't we build houses like that in that scale for non retirement use?

Way faster if you want to make a dent in the need for more houses.

FTFY

Actually - perhaps not where you live, but even in 1/2 gallon 1/4 acre pavlova paradise land, apartment complexes are common - in Akl/Wgtn/Chch at least.

18 acres, but what's 13 acres between friends?

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1835303 1-Aug-2017 22:12

MikeB4:

Building them isn't a problem, buying them is, living with them can be. High density housing comes with a lot of social risks, especially low cost high density. If someone can't afford a $400,000 stand alone home they cannot afford a $400,000 complex home. The same goes if it is a rental situation.

So, since such housing is commonly occupied in a number of reasonably comparable countries, is there some specific NZ character trait that prevents this?

Building more will eventually reduce the price.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1835305 1-Aug-2017 22:21

Geektastic:
MikeB4:

Building them isn't a problem, buying them is, living with them can be. High density housing comes with a lot of social risks, especially low cost high density. If someone can't afford a $400,000 stand alone home they cannot afford a $400,000 complex home. The same goes if it is a rental situation.

So, since such housing is commonly occupied in a number of reasonably comparable countries, is there some specific NZ character trait that prevents this?

Building more will eventually reduce the price.

Let me list...

If close to a city and services the cost of land
The incredibly high cost of housing materials etc in NZ
The deposit requirements and securability for mortgages. Banks are wary of those complexes
NZ low wage economy

If you are building away from services just don't they are a nightmare just waiting to happen eg Flaxmere

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1835310 1-Aug-2017 22:41

Geektastic:

Fred99:

Geektastic:

I was on the train today (on my way home to my 5 acre rural property with mansion) and passed a huge Summerset retirement village (seriously huge) and suddenly thought... Why don't we build houses like that in that scale for non retirement use?

Way faster if you want to make a dent in the need for more houses.

FTFY

Actually - perhaps not where you live, but even in 1/2 gallon 1/4 acre pavlova paradise land, apartment complexes are common - in Akl/Wgtn/Chch at least.

18 acres, but what's 13 acres between friends?

It's room to graze about 30 donkeys, 50 llamas, or house about 2000 Aucklanders.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1835331 1-Aug-2017 23:33

Fred99:

Geektastic:

Fred99:

Geektastic:

I was on the train today (on my way home to my 5 acre rural property with mansion) and passed a huge Summerset retirement village (seriously huge) and suddenly thought... Why don't we build houses like that in that scale for non retirement use?

Way faster if you want to make a dent in the need for more houses.

FTFY

Actually - perhaps not where you live, but even in 1/2 gallon 1/4 acre pavlova paradise land, apartment complexes are common - in Akl/Wgtn/Chch at least.

18 acres, but what's 13 acres between friends?

It's room to graze about 30 donkeys, 50 llamas, or house about 2000 Aucklanders.

Presently, only 3 alpacas!

Believe me, @Fred99, I would GLADLY sell it to house 2000 Aucklanders...!! At $350,000 per plot that $700 million would be very useful.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1835332 1-Aug-2017 23:34

MikeB4:
Geektastic:

MikeB4:

Building them isn't a problem, buying them is, living with them can be. High density housing comes with a lot of social risks, especially low cost high density. If someone can't afford a $400,000 stand alone home they cannot afford a $400,000 complex home. The same goes if it is a rental situation.

So, since such housing is commonly occupied in a number of reasonably comparable countries, is there some specific NZ character trait that prevents this?

Building more will eventually reduce the price.

Let me list...

If close to a city and services the cost of land
The incredibly high cost of housing materials etc in NZ
The deposit requirements and securability for mortgages. Banks are wary of those complexes
NZ low wage economy

If you are building away from services just don't they are a nightmare just waiting to happen eg Flaxmere

Surely none of those things relate to living with them?

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1835341 2-Aug-2017 01:05

High density is expensive to build properly - fire safety, earthquake strength, never mind stopping them from leaking. Im talking on the basis of a $$$ per m2 of built floor area. This means that the only way you can make them cheap is via very small unit sizes.

But banks require a 50% deposit for small apartments. (good luck trying to save that up). So they are mostly bought by landlords as they can provide the 50% deposit via equity in an existing property they own.

Apartments have to have a body corporate to manage insurance, services, and common areas etc. Which means ongoing fees. If you are a landlord they are tax deductible. Not if you are an owner occupier.

If you are on a constrained budget, Why buy a tiny apartment with 0 potential to add value. Compared to an 80m2 or so standalone house or unit? And if you need an 80% mortgage the bank won't let you buy the apartment anyway. And if you have lots of money, and you want a large 250+ m2 home (let alone a 300m2+ home). Or if you just have a large family. A 250m2 apartment will cost far more than a 250m2 standalone home.

Retirement village companies can sell their apartments for cheaper. As when the resident dies, the estate has to sell the apartment back to the village for a discount. Then the village owner gets to sell it again for current market value. A normal property developer doesn't get that ongoing future income stream.

Main problem is that only people who have worked in construction or land development understand how much extra cost is added to house prices by silly council rules. Combine that with 0 motivation by Labour or other left leaning political parties to put forward policies to reform those rules. And National being unable to pass such reforms due to their support parties blocking those reforms. Add in Baby Boomers and retirees having the highest home ownership rates. Who have done really well out of the house price rises, and don't want their home values to drop.

Just look a the price of land. Nothing is going to change until land prices drop. But the political will to pass the necessary reforms doesn't exist.

And I can't see the political will appearing until either enough baby boomers die that their vote bloc size shrinks alot. Or non home owners become a big enough voter bloc, that they can outvote the baby boomers.

sen8or

1789 posts

Uber Geek

#1835399 2-Aug-2017 09:07

The other issue is that ultimately, NZers still want the 1/4 acre dream. Apartment living is an overseas thing, cramming your life into a small unit among other small units, passing your neighbors in the hallway (maybe) and not being able to live freely, do what you want to your own space because of corporate body rules, not exactly the kiwi dream.

Out of necessity, people will buy apartments, or, where the plus side of the apartment outweighs its downsides (location, nearby amenities, price, views etc). The problem with apartment / high density housing in the burbs is that invariably, all they have going for them is the price, they still require significant commutes to the CBD, amenities are no different than a normal suburb and location can be somewhat compromised as existing residents don't like the idea of high density housing in their neighborhoods. In times of low supply of housing stock, sure, they will sell, but when the market settles, try selling your 80sqm apartment against even a modest 100sqm home on a 400sqm block, how much you think that apartment is going to have to discount to get people interested?

When we were up in Auckland last year, took a wrong turn and drove through the development in Mt Wellington quarry. That would have to be one of the ugliest, greyest most depressing areas I have ever seen. So much "sameness", no character at all, no charm, living in a pit and even then they were $900k+ for a 3brm connected box.

Access into Auckland CBD is the killer, from what I see on the news, rail seems to be better, but still problematic. When the city has been developed on the skinniest part of the entire area, it restricts growth in only 2 directions, north and south. This compounds the issue with transport times to the CBD and congestion.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1835424 2-Aug-2017 09:33

So in essence, everyone wants to solve the 'housing crisis' but no one wants to accept any reasonably cost effective solution to do so?

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1835443 2-Aug-2017 09:52

Geektastic:

So in essence, everyone wants to solve the 'housing crisis' but no one wants to accept any reasonably cost effective solution to do so?

No. It seems that a large number of people are simply waiting for a change in government so that "Rich Pr!cks" such as yourself can be taxed, levied, and otherwise compelled to give up the fruits of your labours for the benefit of those that would not or could not achieve success for themselves. ;-P

sen8or

1789 posts

Uber Geek

#1835480 2-Aug-2017 10:15

For land prices to drop, supply has to increase or demand has to decrease, thats basic economics.

For land supply to increase either crown or council owned land has to be opened up to development or, private owners of large blocks have to be prepared to sell (or develop). Problem is, council or crown owned land is typically parks, reserves, "culturally significant sites" or other such things. Try and develop those and all the perpetually aggrieved tree huggers come out in protest that the blue spotted mite lives there and we can't possibly destroy its habitat for housing developments. If the land is privately owned, sale price is pretty much the only thing that will motivate a land owner to sell, if the price isn't high enough, they'll typically wait until the price is right, restricting supply and driving up the price until they are happy again.

Don't forget, "the country" doesn't have a housing crisis, Auckland does. Theres plenty of land in most other parts of NZ, even in Christchurch where entire suburbs were "lost", the city simply grew in other areas, the "CBD" dispersed to outlying suburbs. The council is now trying to develop the inner city and bring business back in, but business has moved on, people have moved on and realised that business doesn't have to all be done within a few square blocks.

Now if the Govt were to incentivize "big business" away from Auckland to outlying areas but with good access to transport options (air, rail, sea) then this unending need to migrate to Auckland because of the opportunities might ease off and supply might then start to outstrip demand and price will come down, a bit, but in a declining market, unless people have to sell (forced sale through financial or other circumstances) then typically they won't, again, restricting supply until equilibrium of supply/demand is met.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1835493 2-Aug-2017 10:22

6FIEND:

No. It seems that a large number of people are simply waiting for a change in government so that "Rich Pr!cks" such as yourself can be taxed, levied, and otherwise compelled to give up the fruits of your labours for the benefit of those that would not or could not achieve success for themselves. ;-P

That is a rather narrow way of looking at it. Maybe some just need to be shown the satisfaction of helping the less fortunate.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3