Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
11900 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3858

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1625143 7-Sep-2016 16:03
Send private message

mattwnz:

 

tdgeek:

 

 

 

Yes, there certainly needs to be changes to fees and consents and rules, simplification and efficiency to save costs, to encourage new builds. Incentivise builds over renovation as renovation doesnt increase the housing stock. Mandate that immigrants must build, than buy existing. However, while its obvious we need more houses, having a Govt build mass produced boxes at 40% the price of current homes, which are better quality, and make a profit, is a great idea, albeit misguided. 

 

 

 

 

In the UK, they make new builds GST free. This is why people are more likely to demo an old house over there and build new. This also means that the country ends up replacing their old building stock. NZ does have a significant amount of old poor housing stock. So I would like to see a 'conversation' (the current buzz word politicians use) into whether we should make new house builds and materials GST free. NZ also doesn't want to end up with bland boxes. There are some terrible developments in Auckland, that I am amazed have been allowed. But some developers will take liberties with the district plan, to see what they can get away with, as they want to spend as little as possible to maximise their returns.. 

 

Although that really has nothing to do with Aucklands problem, as property prices will go up no matter what the condition of the house is, as the price is based on the land opportunity price with the unitary plan.

 

 

This seems sensible, although there is always the risk that the house builders will simply replace 15% GST with 15% New Boat Profit!






5119 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2085


  Reply # 1625150 7-Sep-2016 16:11
Send private message

thinus:

 

I live in Auckland for mostly these reasons:

 

  • Work availability (50+ job listings for my skills, Wellington/Christchurch about 10 each, rest of NZ 1 or nothing)
  • Education / Opportunities, not just for me but also for my child
  • Access to Services

Auckland workers contribute more tax. Unless you want your government services to be affected it is actually in your interest to keep Auckland functional. I don't think anyone in the country would not be impacted if there is a serious downturn in Auckland.

 

I do agree that the Government should be doing a lot more to establish additional business centres on the fringes of Auckland. There just doesn't seem to be enough incentive for businesses to shift anywhere else. 

 

 

I like Auckland. I love to visit.

 

Auckland officially generates a lot of tax revenue, but also consumes a lot of tax payer funded resources.  The tax expenditure side of the ledger in Auckland must be impressive too.

 

There is infrastructure investment, then there are health, crime and other social problems.  Look at a diabetes map of NZ for example.  Those problems chew $$.  I'd love to see the overall net tax $ flow.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 





Mike

13430 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1625151 7-Sep-2016 16:12
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

mattwnz:

 

tdgeek:

 

 

 

Yes, there certainly needs to be changes to fees and consents and rules, simplification and efficiency to save costs, to encourage new builds. Incentivise builds over renovation as renovation doesnt increase the housing stock. Mandate that immigrants must build, than buy existing. However, while its obvious we need more houses, having a Govt build mass produced boxes at 40% the price of current homes, which are better quality, and make a profit, is a great idea, albeit misguided. 

 

 

 

 

In the UK, they make new builds GST free. This is why people are more likely to demo an old house over there and build new. This also means that the country ends up replacing their old building stock. NZ does have a significant amount of old poor housing stock. So I would like to see a 'conversation' (the current buzz word politicians use) into whether we should make new house builds and materials GST free. NZ also doesn't want to end up with bland boxes. There are some terrible developments in Auckland, that I am amazed have been allowed. But some developers will take liberties with the district plan, to see what they can get away with, as they want to spend as little as possible to maximise their returns.. 

 

Although that really has nothing to do with Aucklands problem, as property prices will go up no matter what the condition of the house is, as the price is based on the land opportunity price with the unitary plan.

 

 

This seems sensible, although there is always the risk that the house builders will simply replace 15% GST with 15% New Boat Profit!

 

 

When they build bland boxes, they arent building them for you and me. Bland boxes have a market, the lower sector of those that can afford their own home.


14353 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1866


  Reply # 1625260 7-Sep-2016 20:04
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

 

 

 

 

When they build bland boxes, they arent building them for you and me. Bland boxes have a market, the lower sector of those that can afford their own home.

 

 

 

 

The problem is that that sort of low spec high intensity housing creates ghettos. You also end up with certain ethnic groups in high concentrations. The whole purpose of immigration is to distribute people evenly throughout society, so we end up with a mix, rather than concentrations of certain ethnic and socio  economic backgrounds. It is actually the whole reason why back in mid last century, state houses where build within the existing urban fabric, so there wasn't concentrations of groups of certain people. So you had state houses being built close to luxury houses etc. It also means that in the future these cheaper houses can be improved and their value goes up. It is why housing NZ has had some state houses worth over a million, solely because they are in a good location. With these ghettos, they often end up being bulldozed, which has happened in some areas where their were high concentrations of state houses that attracted crime. 


14353 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1866


  Reply # 1625261 7-Sep-2016 20:06
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

mattwnz:

 

tdgeek:

 

 

 

Yes, there certainly needs to be changes to fees and consents and rules, simplification and efficiency to save costs, to encourage new builds. Incentivise builds over renovation as renovation doesnt increase the housing stock. Mandate that immigrants must build, than buy existing. However, while its obvious we need more houses, having a Govt build mass produced boxes at 40% the price of current homes, which are better quality, and make a profit, is a great idea, albeit misguided. 

 

 

 

 

In the UK, they make new builds GST free. This is why people are more likely to demo an old house over there and build new. This also means that the country ends up replacing their old building stock. NZ does have a significant amount of old poor housing stock. So I would like to see a 'conversation' (the current buzz word politicians use) into whether we should make new house builds and materials GST free. NZ also doesn't want to end up with bland boxes. There are some terrible developments in Auckland, that I am amazed have been allowed. But some developers will take liberties with the district plan, to see what they can get away with, as they want to spend as little as possible to maximise their returns.. 

 

Although that really has nothing to do with Aucklands problem, as property prices will go up no matter what the condition of the house is, as the price is based on the land opportunity price with the unitary plan.

 

 

This seems sensible, although there is always the risk that the house builders will simply replace 15% GST with 15% New Boat Profit!

 

 

 

 

True.Although it would work better as a rebate, so the end customer claims back the GST they either paid for the house from the builder, or the materials and labour if it was a self build, from the IRD, like businesses do. 


3112 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1205

Subscriber

  Reply # 1625262 7-Sep-2016 20:09
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

Geektastic:

 

mattwnz:

 

tdgeek:

 

 

 

Yes, there certainly needs to be changes to fees and consents and rules, simplification and efficiency to save costs, to encourage new builds. Incentivise builds over renovation as renovation doesnt increase the housing stock. Mandate that immigrants must build, than buy existing. However, while its obvious we need more houses, having a Govt build mass produced boxes at 40% the price of current homes, which are better quality, and make a profit, is a great idea, albeit misguided. 

 

 

 

 

In the UK, they make new builds GST free. This is why people are more likely to demo an old house over there and build new. This also means that the country ends up replacing their old building stock. NZ does have a significant amount of old poor housing stock. So I would like to see a 'conversation' (the current buzz word politicians use) into whether we should make new house builds and materials GST free. NZ also doesn't want to end up with bland boxes. There are some terrible developments in Auckland, that I am amazed have been allowed. But some developers will take liberties with the district plan, to see what they can get away with, as they want to spend as little as possible to maximise their returns.. 

 

Although that really has nothing to do with Aucklands problem, as property prices will go up no matter what the condition of the house is, as the price is based on the land opportunity price with the unitary plan.

 

 

This seems sensible, although there is always the risk that the house builders will simply replace 15% GST with 15% New Boat Profit!

 

 

When they build bland boxes, they arent building them for you and me. Bland boxes have a market, the lower sector of those that can afford their own home.

 

 

GST exemptions are a bad idea. Lots more admin work calculating GST returns. And would allow building materials to be "laundered" through new house jobs. Builder would over quote all of the materials for a new house job by 10% or so. And under quote the labour to keep the cost to the end customer the same. The builder would be able to quickly stockpile materials that they didn't have to pay any GST on. Which they can then use on renovation jobs, by under-quoting the materials and over quoting the labour. Or do cashies without any GST on either the labour or materials. At least people doing cashies currently can't avoid the GST that the material suppliers charge.

 

 

 

Houses would be far cheaper to build, if they only had to comply with the building act and codes. With council rules being kept to the bare minimum. As the building codes cover everything necessary for structural integrity, durability, energy efficiency ect.

 

 






13430 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1625264 7-Sep-2016 20:18
One person supports this post
Send private message

mattwnz:

 

tdgeek:

 

 

 

 

 

When they build bland boxes, they arent building them for you and me. Bland boxes have a market, the lower sector of those that can afford their own home.

 

 

 

 

The problem is that that sort of low spec high intensity housing creates ghettos. You also end up with certain ethnic groups in high concentrations. The whole purpose of immigration is to distribute people evenly throughout society, so we end up with a mix, rather than concentrations of certain ethnic and socio  economic backgrounds. It is actually the whole reason why back in mid last century, state houses where build within the existing urban fabric, so there wasn't concentrations of groups of certain people. So you had state houses being built close to luxury houses etc. It also means that in the future these cheaper houses can be improved and their value goes up. It is why housing NZ has had some state houses worth over a million, solely because they are in a good location. With these ghettos, they often end up being bulldozed, which has happened in some areas where their were high concentrations of state houses that attracted crime. 

 

 

I dont disagree, but you get that seperation naturally, it always exists. The affluent, middle, and lower class. Bland houses attract lower income people, and the subdivision land prices allow that, i.e. less desirable, or smaller sections. Always been the case. Immigrant wise, I cant speak for all ethnicities, but Asians tend to congregate. In ChCh, Riccarton and Aidanfield have high percentage of Asians. If I immigrated, I'd live where Kiwis gather as well. But if you had a lower price subdivision, of new tidy homes, thats far better than concentrations in rental areas. The buyers are doing well to get a title, so good on them.


13430 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1625272 7-Sep-2016 20:25
Send private message

Aredwood:

 

 

 

Houses would be far cheaper to build, if they only had to comply with the building act and codes. With council rules being kept to the bare minimum. As the building codes cover everything necessary for structural integrity, durability, energy efficiency ect.

 

 

 

 

A previous poster tells us that the Govt can build a better quality home for 40% less, and make a profit. That seems to be the solution to go with


282 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 76


  Reply # 1625397 8-Sep-2016 08:57
Send private message

I stumbled across this last night. It's interesting to see Auckland isn't the least affordable city in the country. It's also crazy that outside those two cities, affordability is so much better.

 

 

 

http://www.redcoatsfinance.co.nz/uncategorized/house-prices-to-household-income-ratios/

 

 


5119 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2085


  Reply # 1625425 8-Sep-2016 09:16
Send private message

Is Queenstown a city? 

 

It's certainly in danger of disappearing up its own backside. 

 

'Aspen' syndrome.  Most of the jobs are low paid (hospitality, tourism, retail) and the people that work in them can't really afford to live there. 

 

Also worth noting that district has the most finicky planning rules in NZ around housing developments - right down to exterior colours.





Mike

282 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 76


  Reply # 1625443 8-Sep-2016 09:33
Send private message

MikeAqua:

 

right down to exterior colours.

 

 

 

 

Reminds me of a documentary I once watched about people living in Celebration, Florida - Disney's utopian town. I recall someone in it saying "Now I'm not saying Disney promised us our lives would be better if we lived here, but...". I just about fell out of my chair!


11900 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3858

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1625451 8-Sep-2016 09:59
Send private message

MikeAqua:

 

Is Queenstown a city? 

 

It's certainly in danger of disappearing up its own backside. 

 

'Aspen' syndrome.  Most of the jobs are low paid (hospitality, tourism, retail) and the people that work in them can't really afford to live there. 

 

Also worth noting that district has the most finicky planning rules in NZ around housing developments - right down to exterior colours.

 

 

 

 

Just to mention that rules like that are not uncommon elsewhere in the world! NZ actually has unusually relaxed rules in that it is rarely necessary to get approval for the external appearance or materials choices here.






502 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 119


  Reply # 1625896 8-Sep-2016 17:10
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

 

 

A previous poster tells us that the Govt can build a better quality home for 40% less, and make a profit. That seems to be the solution to go with

 

 

 

 

Somehow I doubt that would be the case in reality.


13430 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1625905 8-Sep-2016 17:19
Send private message

wsnz:

 

tdgeek:

 

 

 

A previous poster tells us that the Govt can build a better quality home for 40% less, and make a profit. That seems to be the solution to go with

 

 

 

 

Somehow I doubt that would be the case in reality.

 

 

Your right about that


11900 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3858

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1626519 9-Sep-2016 12:57
Send private message

We should seriously be looking at alternative ways of building that are faster than what we do now.

 

See here for example.






1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.