Auckland housing: Brown vs Smith

Written By: - Date published: 10:54 am, March 7th, 2013 - 53 comments
Categories: auckland supercity, capitalism, climate change, democracy under attack, Environment, housing, infrastructure, public services, public transport, sustainability, transport - Tags: ,

Nick Smith, freshly rejuvenated after is fall from grace, is now challenging Auckland council’s plan for compact housing.

Nick Smith Hypocrisy Smith wants to increase the urban sprawl to deliver more land to private developers. This will do nothing to create more affordable housing or to defuse the housing bubble.  It will add to Auckland’s transport problems.  Those that can afford to will buy or rent near the main transport routes.  The less well-off will be increasingly marginalised in the outer areas, adding costs and time to their journeys to work or to seek work, to services, and leisure activities.  For some such  things will become increasingly inaccessible. Smith’s plans for urban sprawl an the weakening of the Resource Management Act will put extra pressures on the environment and transport, doing nothing to counter the impacts of climate change.

NickSmith forked tongue

Simon Collins and Anne Gibson report in this morning’s NZ Herald online:

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.

The excellent Auckland Transport Blog has often made the case for a more compact Auckland, as in this post on a recent report which was,

paid for by the government and Auckland into the economic competitiveness of the NZ economy. … The report has been put together by Hong Kong-based Professor Michael Enright and another expert, Michael Porter.

The post quotes Enright thus:

Professor Enright said Auckland’s first priority should be a mass transit system, including the city rail loop, followed by revitalising the CBD – calling the $45 million upgraded Aotea Square a “concrete jungle” – and an end to urban sprawl in favour of an “overall denser Auckland”.

mickysavage, responded to the RNZ report on Smith’s plans with this excellent comment:

And so Nick Smith wants to “smash” Auckland’s metropolitan urban limit even though it is shortly to be replaced by the “rural urban boundary” which he seems ok with. And the difference between the two? The MUL is slightly stronger and permits less development outside it’s boundary whereas the RUB will be slightly more permissive. But they are both designed to change Auckland into a compact urban form. The repercussions of not having a MUL are clear through experience throughout the world, more sprawl, more need to rely on a car for transport, a less economically viable city and destruction of fertile land as the city expands. Development becomes more expensive and environmental damage increases. Smith is using violent language to try and deflect criticism of the Government for not doing anything about housing affordability. Now they can blame Auckland Council. It was good for Len Brown to stand up to Smith this morning. But stand by as National gets ready to undermine environmental protection and Auckland’s right to design a unitary plan so that Auckland grows the way that locals want it to.

Smith’s plan will do nothing for housing affordability, is undemocratic, and is looking to over-ride the plans of the council, done in consultation with Aucklanders.  It aims to enable a further land grab by developers.

53 comments on “Auckland housing: Brown vs Smith ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Draco T Bastard 1
    7 March 2013 at 11:24 am

    Smith’s plan will do nothing for housing affordability, is undemocratic, and is looking to over-ride the plans of the council, done in consultation with Aucklanders.

    What Smith’s and Nationals plan will do is increase the cost of living in Auckland as all the extra infrastructure needed needs to be paid for as well as all the extra transport. Of course, they’re probably thinking of that and so see extra possibilities in clipping the ticket to make themselves and their rich mates richer.

    • Tom Gould 1.1
      7 March 2013 at 1:51 pm

      Crystal clear. Have the ratepayer stump up for the infrastructure, the taxpayers for the roads, all built by Nick’s mates, then charge ‘what the market can stand’ for the sections, pocketing the gouged profits. Nick’s mates all win. The ratepayers and taxpayers pick up the tab. That’s how National Capitalism works. Break out the champagne.

    • UpandComer 1.2
      8 March 2013 at 4:53 pm

      I think it’s been pointed out that Auckland’s density in people per square Kilometre is actually very light by international standards.

      I don’t know what you are complaining about. Whether or not you want faster private development, or a billion free houses for no money, you are going to have to increase the density values in Auckland and free up land regardless.

  2. geoff 2
    7 March 2013 at 12:01 pm

    [deleted] Nick Smith’s forked tongue.

    [karol: agree with DTB below]

  3. vto 3
    7 March 2013 at 12:15 pm

    This is all complete and utter bullshit and politics. making a big shit stink and diversions in order to mash up the legs being made on affordable housing by the greens and labour.

    Makes me sick.

    Opening up such a tiny supply of land will make diddly squat difference. Sure, it is one factor, but every single other component is in fact more of a contribution to high housing costs. These include;

    1. GST being raised put housing and land up by 2.5%.
    2. Councils recently raised development contributions by a similar amount.
    3. Monopolies and duopolies in the construction sectror e.g. cement (not concrete) is entirely held by just 2 outfits, Fletchers and Holcim.
    4. on it goes.

    So buckle up you pollies and get in the stock car as you have plenty of laps to do with Smith in the old valiant beside you. Best get yourself out of the corolla and into a hummer, or you gonna get mashed.

    btw, here is an example of local authority abuse of monopoly power – dumping a potato at the dump costs more than planting, growing, harvesting, distributing and selling it. 40c per kilo to dump a potato when you can in places buy them for less thank 40c per kilo. This an example that highlights the problem. Then apply this to the entire building situation. No wonder there is such an affordability problem – we are simply being ripped off.

  4. muzza 4
    7 March 2013 at 12:31 pm

    Is this is genuine challenge?

    If yes, what is the intended outcome?

    If no, what is point of the exercise?

  5. jbc 5
    7 March 2013 at 12:34 pm

    Smith demonstrates a total lack of intelligence and critical thinking.

    If land prices are the critical factor then the obvious solution would be to make more efficient use of land, surely. That’s what makes cities cities. Population density and the efficiencies of scale that come with that.

    Smith is totally missing the point of why people move to, or settle in, Auckland. It is not so that they can be 30km away from the city on a fringe subdivision. They may as well be in Hamilton. He also misses the point of why people want to be *outside* Auckland.

    Smiths answer is basically to extend the city to enclose the people that want to live in it. Why not just rename the North Island to Auckland. Job done!

    • Draco T Bastard 5.1
      7 March 2013 at 12:41 pm

      If land prices are the critical factor then the obvious solution would be to make more efficient use of land, surely. That’s what makes cities cities. Population density and the efficiencies of scale that come with that.

      QFT, there’s a reason why the high priced land in at the city centre.

      National are just reaching back to the times when Labour built state houses to house people and it was popular. This paradigm no longer applies as the costs of sprawl far outweigh the slight lessening of the houses built on the freed up land. National’s land banking mates will make a bomb though.

      • Wayne 5.1.1
        7 March 2013 at 4:25 pm

        Does living in a 3 bedroom home on a 450 to 500 metre section in West Aukland really cost more than the total cost of living in say Avondale?

        Low cost houses in the West could be done for less than $400,000 (land and building), and that is for a 120 meter house, landscaped, with a garage. For a lot of people, a house on a section is a more attractive alternative than an apartment or very high density housing on say 250 meters. But you do need sections, out in the area of Swanson, and out to Kumeu. All the land on the cityside of the Hobsonville motorway should be able to turned into housing land.

        A lot of people work within 10 to 15 k of where they live and they travel by car. The difference in travel compared to a closer in suburb might be 10 k to 15 k per day, and for a car that would be an extra $30 per week (mostly fuel) – and pretty much everyone in Auckland has a car. More expensive houses closer in cost at least $500,000, so with the cost difference of $100,000 it is an interest cost of $5,500 per year. So living further out should be cheaper.

        By the way the cost of additional roads, sewerage, water, power, parks, etc is all covered by the development levies of Council, which are of course part the section cost.

        • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1
          7 March 2013 at 5:01 pm

          Does living in a 3 bedroom home on a 450 to 500 metre section in West Aukland really cost more than the total cost of living in say Avondale?

          Yes, several thousand dollars per year more as there’s far more travel involved.

          Then there’s the roads – lots of roads out west here that aren’t used anywhere near as much as the ones closer to the CBD. Those roads are needed though and so the rates go up.

          And that applies to pretty much everything. More travel, more roads, more electricity and power reticulation, more, more, more

          More expensive houses closer in cost at least $500,000

          Houses, yeah, they would be as they’re massively inefficient use of land. Apartments on the other hand can be much, much, cheaper.

          The difference in travel compared to a closer in suburb might be 10 k to 15 k per day, and for a car that would be an extra $30 per week (mostly fuel) – and pretty much everyone in Auckland has a car.

          I think you’ll find that your estimates of the Costs of running a car are out. Never mind the inefficiency of having a vehicle to go to work and then park it all day doing nothing.

          By the way the cost of additional roads, sewerage, water, power, parks, etc is all covered by the development levies of Council, which are of course part the section cost.

          1.) Do those costs actually cover the full costs involved?
          2.) What about the ongoing costs? I bet you haven’t even figured out that the costs associated with maintaining a city increases exponentially as it sprawls. That, IMO, is why rates in NZ keep going up at rates far in excess of inflation.

        • geoff 5.1.1.2
          7 March 2013 at 8:18 pm

          What DTB said. Also, most people in big cities around the world do not own cars. It’s a quaint, parochial vision for the city that you’ve got there, Wayne, and it’s complete bullshit.

          • Wayne 5.1.1.2.1
            7 March 2013 at 9:05 pm

            But they do own cars in places actually comparable to NZ, such as Australia, Canada and the US. By that I mean we have newish cities typically 100 to 200 years old. We are not going to replicate European cities any time soon.
            This idea we can’t grow outward at all is rather odd – we are simply talking about being the same size as Brisbane, hardly a place that is hell on earth. People there seem to be able live much the same as we do.

            • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.2.1.1
              7 March 2013 at 9:32 pm

              We are not going to replicate European cities any time soon.

              Yes we will, we’ll have no choice due to economics. The delusion is over, no more cheap energy, no more of having everything you desire simply because we can’t afford it. What we can afford is still a hell of a lot more than what was true 100 years ago when Auckland was being built exactly the same way that the European cities were being built but we won’t have personal cars, we won’t have aircraft and imports will be almost non-existent.

              That’s the future that we have to look forward to. It’s going to be good in many ways but it’s not going to just be more of what we have because what we have has come to its end.

              • Wayne …
                7 March 2013 at 10:05 pm

                “We won’t have personal cars, we won’t have aircraft and imports will be almost non existent”.

                Seriously that is not going to happen. Hydrocarbons have a 100 years of reserves, taking into account deep sea oil, tight gas, shale and in fact normal oil fields. There is of course the still vast reserves of the Middle East.

                Doesn’t the fact that the US still produces a huge amount of oil and gas 150 years after first commercial use indicate that there is still plenty out there, even in the US.

                Sure cars will be electric, or ultra fuel efficient (20km/l), but oil, gas methane are not going to run out in the next 100 years – might be expensive though. But at forecast levels of efficiency, a litre could cost $10 and it will still be barely more expensive (in actual total quantity used by each person) than at present.

                Boeing and Airbus are making more efficient aircraft, and orders are booming. Air travel is cheaper real terms that ever before. Prices would have to more than double before they got back to the levels of the 1980’s in real terms. In my entire adult life (since the early 1970’s) an economy class ticket to the UK has never been more than around $2,200, and in recent years has often been less. But wages have increased tenfold in nominal terms since the 1970’s, as have house prices. In fact in Auckland more like twentyfold!

                And ocean fright is extraordinarily more efficient than is generally realized. As a proportion of the cost of most imports it is only a very small proportion.

                Now I know about global warming, and that will moderate the use of fossil fuels, but it is mostly going to mean reduced coal use, which is already occurring – hence the problems of Solid Energy.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  7 March 2013 at 10:18 pm

                  Fail.

                  Declining vehicle passenger kms all through the western world.

                  In the USA real wages have been stagnant or falling since the mid 1980’s: except for the very elite of course.

                  • Wayne …
                    7 March 2013 at 10:36 pm

                    I agree on real wages, but I was referring to nominal wages.

                    For instance in 1975 a secondary teacher at the top of the scale got around $6,000, but today the top of the scale is around $70,000. I wonder if teachers then were better off in real terms than today.

                    Not easy to compare individuals since most people get promotions through a career, but I imagine there could be a 70 year old teacher still teaching in the classroom who was at the top of the scale 40 years ago and never chose to go up the career ladder. They would know if their living standards have improved. I imagine “yes” since in the last 40 years there has been some real growth, and it did not all go to the top 10%.

                    But the nominal cost of airfares has remained the same and I imagine for “grab a seat” are way less than they were 40 years ago.

                    • Wayne …
                      7 March 2013 at 10:43 pm

                      On the declining passenger miles (including NZ) it shows that a fair bit of car travel is actually quite discretionary. You can plan to do several things on a trip, you can car pool, you can work closer to home, catch the ferry rather than drive to the city (which I do more now than I used to) you can do more entertaining at home, see videos rather than go to the movies, etc, etc. But people still find their car is pretty important.

                      For instance 60% of people on the Shore work on the Shore compared to 50% twenty years ago.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      7 March 2013 at 10:53 pm

                      Nominal wages lol

                      Notice how packs of salt and vinegar chips are not just more expensive than 10 years ago, but contain fewer grams of chips.

                      That’s inflation AND deflation attacking the nominal wage at the same time

                      I’ll put it another way, if you were earning $25,000 pa in 1970 you were amongst the wealthiest people in NZ and could buy a lovely house outright in just one year.

                      Today you’re a pauper. Nominal wages lol

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      7 March 2013 at 10:54 pm

                      People are dumping their cars as they aren’t economic. This trend will accelerate.

                      Good luck with your cornucopian energy scenarios mate.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  7 March 2013 at 11:36 pm

                  Hydrocarbons have a 100 years of reserves,

                  That may be so, doesn’t mean that we’re going to get any.

                  Doesn’t the fact that the US still produces a huge amount of oil and gas 150 years after first commercial use indicate that there is still plenty out there, even in the US.

                  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/50/USEIA-US-Oil-Production1859-2008.jpg

                  And you should probably read this.

                  Now I know about global warming, and that will moderate the use of fossil fuels, but it is mostly going to mean reduced coal use, which is already occurring – hence the problems of Solid Energy.

                  /Facepalm

        • karol 5.1.1.3
          7 March 2013 at 8:42 pm

          Wayne, you have NFI of the areas you are talking about.

          Transport: In the last couple of years I moved from the New Lynn area to Henderson & then back to New Lynn. Last moVe I was looking at Swanson, Ranui, kumeu etc.

          I travel more by public transport into the city than by car. The train fare from Henderson is more than from new Lynn, plus the added time makes the longer journey a bit tiresome. Many low income people could be struggling to get to jobs etc. The public transport to and from Kumeu is very poor. The North Western motorway can be very slow during peak times, and it’s just not good for the environment.

          Housing: I am told by people in the know, that the new apartments in New Lynn(in a block of 6 or more storeys), have been selling very well. The ones with a balcony have been very popular, the ones without not so much, They are right beside the train station and bus interchange, have green spaces within walking distance, are right beside the mall and new medical centre.

  6. bad12 6
    7 March 2013 at 1:05 pm

    ‘The song’ will remain the same in Auckland as far as house price inflation goes until ‘The State’ gets real and builds 30,000 rental units within the current boundaries of Auckland City,

    The current crisis is simply one of supply and demand, when the demand for property from the would be landlords is killed off prices for housing for those wishing to by a home will at the least stabilize,

    Someone highlighted the removal of 17 HousingNZ homes from the States protfolio in the Auckland suburb of Sandringham in today’s ‘Open Mike’,

    2 of those properties were sold at auction last week for 2 million dollars, here’s the plans of one of the buyers,

    This couple,both professionals already ‘own’ another property, presumably with a mortgage, they plan to build ‘their home’ on the back of the HousingNZ property they have just bought at auction, subdividing the section and leaving the ex-State house on its present site,

    They will then live in the home built at the rear of the HousingNZ section and rent out the other 2 properties,

    And therein lies Aucklands ‘housing crisis’ 1000’s of such people who see their future as being landlords to others becoming the ‘owners’ of multiple properties, and thus pushing demand and prices ever higher,

    Note: Such ownership is in fact ‘unreal’ as these people are taking on multi-million dollar debts they are simply the ticket clippers for the US Banking Cartels and might upon their retirement actually ‘own’ such properties by the time they attain retirement age,

    Sadly to be 70 something and an actual multi-millionaire is simply ludicrous in terms of what they expect to be able ‘to do’ with such wealth at such an age if they are of course that ‘lucky’ as a 2% rise in interests rates any time in the next 10-15 years will wipe most of these ‘landlords’ out financially…

    • KAB 6.1
      7 March 2013 at 1:29 pm

      What about the other land Housing NZ is off loading in the same street as well. The land had resource consent for 42 units but HNZ says on its web site that it is too costly to build them so it is putting land on open market for other developers. Makes a mockery of Smith saying that the land needs to be available on the fringe to push land costs down. The issue is more complex and simplistic responses by the government do not address Auckland ( and NZ’s ) housing problems. Housing NZ is one of the few agencies that could deliver affordable housing given its existing landholdings. In Auckland where it is clear that intensification will be delivered through the Unitary Plan it should be holding on to the land, not selling it. Fragmented ownership will stop the ability to aggregate enough land to deliver intensification. Government should not make the Auckland Regions’ long standing compact city policy accountable for its failures.

      • Treetop 6.1.1
        7 March 2013 at 2:24 pm

        A good example of the government being a real estate agent with no social responsibility. I now know why the housing stock is falling, it is too expensive for the government to build housing on land they own.

  7. Treetop 7
    7 March 2013 at 1:36 pm

    I am against dense housing due to the social problems which arise.

    1. Banging car doors.
    2. Banging front or back doors.
    3. TV/stereo/radio heard through the wall.
    4. Neighbours who do not like children playing outside.
    5. Arguments being heard.
    6. Rows of rubbish and recycling bins.
    7. Dumped furniture/white ware/car parts.
    8. Cats which come into your home (crap in your garden, then walk over your kitchen bench or hang from your curtains).
    9. Sometimes a business may be run from the premise or the person is a big Trade Me seller/buyer
    10.All of a sudden a person cannot manage the stairs due to a stroke/broken hip.

    A lot of the above can be reduced by using good quality building materials e.g, hush glass and gib solutions.

    A combination of urban sprawl and strictly limited condensed housing is the way to go. People have different needs.

    I really like the way that Housing NZ used to serve the community, before the shortage of housing occurred. My one criticism would be that there was always a shortage of housing for single people and couples.

    Healthy housing is the priority. Auckland has been sprawling for years; efficent public transport is finally catching up. The Wellington rail system has served many outer areas for decades (some daily train trips are 45 minutes or more per journey), this is why Wellington does not have the housing problem that Auckland has.

    How much condensed housing gets bulldozed compared to single or double level housing and why?

    • Draco T Bastard 7.1
      7 March 2013 at 4:24 pm

      I am against dense housing due to the social problems which arise.

      And yet if we have a look around the world where they have such housing and they’ve planned for it they don’t have any of those problems.

      • Treetop 7.1.1
        7 March 2013 at 7:37 pm

        What is it that can be learnt from the rest of the world, re dense housing to avoid social problems?

        • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.1
          7 March 2013 at 8:05 pm

          Well, they have high density housing and none of the problems that you listed. This leads me to believe that there are solutions. Certainly, numerous studies have indicated that problems that did occur in high density areas were more to do with socio-economic conditions than with the high density itself.

          Here, a PDF and another PDF.

          • Treetop 7.1.1.1.1
            7 March 2013 at 9:01 pm

            So as long as the poor do not live in dense housing, social problems will be minimal because the wealthy have money to be entertained away from home, go on long or short trips.

            Those on a low income already live in dense housing (over crowding) in suburbs close to the city. Auckland will have over crowding in dense high rise apartments or the poor will be expected to live in the outer suburbs, which many already do.

            Either way the poor are stuffed.

            • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.1.1.1
              7 March 2013 at 9:38 pm

              No, they’re not unless the government, both local and central, keeps stuffing up by following policies that enrich a few and impoverish everyone else.

              <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10861959New Lynn units start at just $246k

              Cheaper than a house on its own patch of dirt, more convenient as well and a hell of a lot better in many ways.

            • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.1.1.2
              7 March 2013 at 9:39 pm

              BTW, I get really sick of the people who whinge but think of the poor waaaaah. The solution there isn’t cheap housing but changing the system so that there are no poor.

              • Treetop …
                7 March 2013 at 10:23 pm

                “… but think of the poor waaaaah.” There are too many policies which enrich a few and impoverish everyone else. Those who have the least struggle the most, I do not consider this to be whinging.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  7 March 2013 at 11:43 pm

                  Yes there are. Change the policies and we no longer have the poor. Cheaper housing isn’t really going to cut it simply because there’s really no such thing. Apartments are cheaper to build, cheaper to maintain and tend to be closer to work and play but not so significantly cheaper that suddenly every poor person will be able to go out and buy.

                  • Treetop …
                    9 March 2013 at 1:49 pm

                    My biggest concern is that changing policies anytime soon is not going to happen (so no closing the gap) and that the price of housing or the cost of rental is due to failed policy for at least the last decade. To a point WFFs bridged the gap in some households for purchasing a home or occupying a rental. The accommodation supplement benefits the owner or the bank and the AS is too low now for most areas.

                    No matter where housing is, it needs to be of a high standard and to be affordable.

        • Coronial Typer 7.1.1.2
          7 March 2013 at 8:07 pm

          Manila is dense. Melbourne is dense. They’re different. One is more attractive, more resilient, more amenable to human flourishing than the other.
          But why?

          • mickysavage 7.1.1.2.1
            7 March 2013 at 8:16 pm

            Open spaces, walking areas. good public transport, public art, preservation of heritage, lots of social infrastructure like galleries, sports stadia and communal places, investment in the arts, keeping cars out of areas, guess where …

            • tc 7.1.1.2.1.1
              7 March 2013 at 8:21 pm

              Yes but struggling and becoming gridlocked as it hasn’t spent enough in the last 10years on it’s transport/roads whilst piling people into CBD/inner urban.

              Still an awesome city but let itself slide by not maintaining the spend whereas has had AKL spent SFA in the last 30 years in total.

              • mickysavage …
                7 March 2013 at 8:38 pm

                Aye TC although not in relation to cars.

                The really great cities have a great train system, and the best ones have electric light rail.

                Auckland’s problem is that it killed its tram system to make way for cars. Trams are way better in that they are communal, affordable, quieter and people can relax as they travel to work. Cars are their own personal bubble where they can turn the radio on and listen to dipstick DJs and talk back hosts and burn petroleum and then require much of the inner city to be car parks so they have somewhere to store their cars. And carparks are the most ugly, destructive buildings in the inner city.

                In 1999 Auckland’s train system was ready to have the oxygen removed and put to sleep it was in such a bad way. Passenger trips were about 1 million a year.

                Then something happened. Local Government grew a pair and made some big decisions.

                Christine Fletcher and her Council (yes ex Nat MP) decided to invest huge amounts of money in Britomart. Banks then was elected but was unable to wreck what had been started. The other Councils around Auckland had elected to join with Auckland to buy the rail system off NZRail and improve it. This was really brave forward looking stuff.

                Banks had his evil way though. The Councils had agreed to light rail throughout the region including down Symonds Street where the student market would make sure that numbers were high enough to make the system viable. Banks removed Symonds Street from the planned network and this destroyed the business case for light rail. Of all his sins as a politician this particularly evil decision should have him crucified in 20 years time when people realise.

                The rest of the region stayed staunch and then Cullen decided to step in and renegotiate the deal. He also put significant money into the project.

                Since then passenger numbers have increased to 12 million. The growth should continue, especially after electric trains are introduced. If/when peak oil hits there will be a stampede and people will be thinking what were those stupid politicians doing not planning for this.

                The CRL is absolutely vital. At the same time the Council should trash some parking buildings and make car travel really uneconomic.

                Sorry bit of a rant … but Auckland could be wonderful if it can just tame its cars.

  8. xtasy 8
    7 March 2013 at 2:43 pm

    Smith is a National MP and minister at heart (much more blue than “green”), and National is serving interests primarily of the various business lobbies, which includes anyone from real estate agents, land owners/dealers, developers, builders, larger construction companies, materials wholesalers, contractors, insurers, transport operators, retailers, speculators, home owners, landlords, tourism operators, service delivers and to whosoever else comes to mind.

    So naturally they continue to dream of “endless economic growth” ensuring earnings and profits for their most important supporters, paymasters and lobbyists. Workers and residents that are struggling to afford housing are not their real priority.

    They want to create “growth” by plastering land between Whanagarei and Hamilton, to create the South Pacific’s mega city of a size like Sydney or bigger. Highways will interconnect wide spread “suburbs”, and only some trains will cart the have littles to work. The cross Tasman competitive mindset comes to help. So a mega city – bigger than Sydney or Melbourne – will house more hundreds of thousands or millions of additional migrants they want to allow in over coming decades. It will to them be an “achievement”. “We will be noted with a truly mega city”, they may think.

    It is the easiest way to “create” growth, by simply increasing populations and markets, and to look at resource costs later. But as profits of the owning and investing business and landlord classes are crucial to National, they do not care, whether it is short term “gain” and longer term “pain”, as they never think of the future of the kids of their kids. Me first is the highest motto and mantra.

    Irresponsibility and stupidity combined, I can only say to all this.

    • muzza 8.1
      7 March 2013 at 3:28 pm

      Auckland is , in no way a city fit for 2m+ people.

      All this talk about use space more efficiently, sure yes, but the closer together the plebs have to live, the more social problems we are going to have.

      Growth by population increase, is only a medium near term outcome. Medium to long term the consequences are going to be killer!

  9. prism 9
    7 March 2013 at 3:33 pm

    From the NZ Herald
    ” Developers picked to net $28m from Crown land selloff
    8:50AM Thursday Mar 07, 2013 By Alanah Eriksen

    A block of state housing land for sale in Sandringham is ripe for a townhouse development that could net a developer $28 million, a property expert … More”

  10. ad 10
    7 March 2013 at 5:50 pm

    Auckland is now New Zealand’s second government: where Auckland goes, New Zealand now follows in almost every respect. Economy. Society. Culture. Infrastrucutre. It’s very close to 40% of everything now except New Zealand’s land mass and energy production.

    This is the grand contest we face not only in the Local Government elections this year, but also in 2014’s central elections:

    Do we have another moment like 1949 in which Labour sought to build a progressive and coherent Auckland, built around public transport, and squadloads of affordable hosues with price-regulated state and Council flats, or does National get in again and reinforce a wasteful, unproductive motorway-based future yet again?

    The answer depends on how well Labour has a plan, has ideals to stand for, and has a campaign that wins – both in the central and local elections. Will Labour’s hierarchy enable strong ideals and a compelling capmaign to realign Auckland Council’s politics and, finally, win in 2014 to make the great alignment?

    Because unless it does, and wins, unless Auckland government and central government are aligned, New Zealand will jsut get sucked faster and faster into Auckland to no productive effect and to the great damage of the nation. Forever.

  11. prism 11
    8 March 2013 at 10:51 am

    There is a container in Christchurch on TradeMe for $2000. Someone from Auckland should snap this up and use it to start a container park for housing there. Simple streamlined and low cost living. No leaks? as found in expensive homes still being built. Put two side by side for family togetherness, and very low rental.

    This could be done actually, and set up to provide better living conditions at affordable prices than those many now are enduring. Someone from a Housing Association or Trust desiring to serve the people’s needs for adequate lot-cost housing should do this. Not of course Housing NZ. They lost their integrity of service to the people and mojo years ago.

  12. dw 12
    8 March 2013 at 4:03 pm

    I wonder, has anyone dug into the financial backgrounds of the cheerleaders for greater urban sprawl? I seem to remember the Productivity Commission (or was it Property Council) coming out recently saying that availability of land was the biggest factor in high house prices in Auckland, then surprise surprise, they recommended removing all urban limits. I wouldn’t mind betting if you looked into it, that these neo-lib fossils have a web of companies that own the landbanks on the urban fringe. Typical National crony-capitalism.

  13. prism 13
    8 March 2013 at 4:12 pm

    dw
    I remember hearing someone saying that he would be happy to see housing expand from Auckland to Hamilton. I couldn’t remember the name, and couldn’t find on Radionz the particular reference so may be it was this Commission.

    This country is constantly turning over its verities, like don’t build on land which could be farmland, it’s our biggest asset, and then someone looks under the stone and finds fools gold there. And another building block for a stable society with ongoing enterprise and reasonable prosperity
    undermined.