KiwiBuild doesn’t fly.

Written By: - Date published: 10:29 am, November 2nd, 2018 - 215 comments
Categories: business, class war, discrimination, economy, Economy, Environment, health, housing, human rights, infrastructure, labour, liberalism, political parties, quality of life, Social issues, sustainability, useless, vision, welfare - Tags: , , , ,

By international standards NZ homes and building legislation are bloody woeful. With 100 000 house builds on the book, the government could save money by bringing the country’s building code into the 21st C, tackle chronic housing problems and the health problems associated with building to the current standards, and provide homes ‘fit for purpose’ in a warming world.

But no…

The New Zealand Building Code is below the standards required in most other IEA countries with comparable climates, and it would be absurd to have to retrofit newly built homes in the future.” International Energy Agency, Energy Policies of IEA Countries, 2017 Review

Compared to the UK where

In 2006 the UK government announced policy intentions and introduced associated building design standards and up-dated Building Regulations for all new housing to be ‘zero carbon’ by 2016 and all new non-domestic buildings to be ‘zero carbon’ by 2019.

So New Zealand government’s going to keep building the same bullshit and crap that was built last century  And bad as that is in terms of health, peoples’ back pocket and the environment, we know the detrimental effects are only going to increase as the world continues to warm. If the idea is to keep people safe, then everything slated to be built today under KiwiBuild will need to be retrofitted at a later date.

The links I’ve provided offer a lot of reading on those fronts, but I want to move on to another aspect of this whole KiwiBuild malarkey. Vanessa Cole goes straight to the point when she writes –

For the 9000 people on the Housing New Zealand waitlist40,000 homeless people, and low-income renters paying large proportions of their income on rent, the idea of homeownership is not an option.

I’d suggest it’s not even seen as something desirable, but that as it may be, what she writes isn’t news to many of us. But of course, there seems to be some commentary to the effect that homeless people and tenants should quit whining and wait for some incremental incrementalism and a trickle down, such that, if we so desire, we can still have the option of not buying a house in a country where the middle classes have had their home ownership aspirations satisfied.

If you think that’s too cynical, then reflect on the fact that sitting at the heart of this KiwBuild programme, public land is being gifted to the private sector. What does the government think the end result of that will be?

From the same Vanessa Cole article as above –

In Māngere the proposal is for 2,700 state houses to be demolished, to be replaced with around 3,000 new state houses, 3,500 Kiwibuild homes and 3,500 market houses. While this project is building more homes overall, it is not really increasing the much-needed public housing stock and is instead privatising public land that could be used to build it.

John Tamihere, CEO of West Auckland urban Māori Authority Te Whānau o Waipareira Trust called the policy of building a mixture of social, private and affordable homes ‘social engineering’ and argued that there should instead be 100% social housing built on public land.

Or, as the  Salvation Army’s economist Alan Johnson, quoted in the same article has written –

It is probably time to call the Government’s flagship KiwiBuild programme for what it is – state sponsored gentrification of state housing suburbs.

So, what the hell does this government think it’s doing?

There are thousands and thousands of people homeless and in dire situations. I commented under a post just the other day that NZ might be said to have a situation usually associated with what we used to call “developing” nations. In India and many other places, people live in slums. I dare say many a government the world over would love to be able to pull the trick that’s been pulled in New Zealand – so that instead of having slum dwellers concentrated in sprawling “eye sores”, they’d be invisibly dispersed behind garage doors throughout the country’s suburbs  and/or disappearing into the traffic flow every morning after another night “out of sight and out of mind” in a car park somewhere.

What this government’s doing is what every government wedded to liberal orthodoxy is doing – in the words of Mark Blyth (from about 9 min) –

you [ie government] basically take the bottom 30% of the income distribution and […] say “We don’t care what happens to you. You are something to be policed. You’re now something to have your behaviours changed. We’re going to nudge you into better patterns…” […] this no longer the warm embrace of social democracy, arm in arm in solidarity with the working classes.

And all the talk of all the “kindness” in the world won’t serve to cover up the repulsive nature of that ideologically driven political reality Jacinda.

 

215 comments on “KiwiBuild doesn’t fly.”

  1. james rawshank 1

    “public land is being gifted to the private sector.”

    what? no it’s not.

    I get the feeling your opposition to Kiwibuild is that typical trait on the far left of making the perfect the enemy of the good.

    we should build lots of state housing but how is kiiwbuild stopping that?

    • Bill 1.1

      How is KiwiBuild stopping that?

      Well, as per the quote in the post (that’s simply an illustrative example of other developments)

      In Māngere the proposal is for 2,700 state houses to be demolished, to be replaced with around 3,000 new state houses, 3,500 Kiwibuild homes and 3,500 market houses. While this project is building more homes overall, it is not really increasing the much-needed public housing stock and is instead privatising public land that could be used to build it.

      Could have been 9000 state homes right there, but no…

      • Dukeofurl 1.1.1

        NZ hasnt done whole suburbs of only state houses since the 1980s. You dont give a good argument- -well no discussion at all- that we should go back to that.

      • Labour_voter 1.1.2

        Agreed Bill. I am now really confused as what KiwiBuild is going to achieve. Build tax payer subsidised houses for middle to high income earners or low income earners?

        • Dukeofurl 1.1.2.1

          They arent tax payer subsidized!

          there is no evidence they are much less than ‘market price’ for similar homes in the same area.
          This the low level of the market for new homes, most builders work on more expensive homes with larger sections- which are $750k and above.

          Remember the average family income in Auckland is $120k pa. Thats not that half are below that level and half above as its not the median.

          That this price is still quite high is the way the national party left it.
          When national took over in 2008 they were moaning about ‘the types of lightbulbs in new houses’ under nanny state

          In my opinion once kiwibuild gets under way strongly, the lowest price level of homes in Auckland will stay as it is and become more affordable.

          • Mr Marshy 1.1.2.1.1

            Of course they are subsidized. How can you build houses under normal market rates without some kind of cost cutting or subsidy … geesh socialists really are low in the economics 101 skills

            • Dukeofurl 1.1.2.1.1.1

              Market value is around that point in that suburb. They are actually existing plans abd builder who pre sold all his ‘superblock’ to kiwibuild.

              BTW, the suburb was developed by Housing NZ who put in roads and services and sold the empty blocks to smallish builders.

        • Tricledrown 1.1.2.2

          Teachers Doctors etc needed in Auckland kiwibuild is not costing the taxpayer as much as what the many detractors claim as the kiwibuild homes are sold the capital is reinvested in the next build costing taxpayers very little. While desperately needed housing stock is increased.
          Building vast areas of monoculture low income housing was a failure ghettoizing poor people to lack of hope and good community leadership.
          Rich suburbs set examples of success poor suburbs failure.
          A balanced suburb of mixed incomes is far better.

      • Gosman 1.1.3

        There is no indication the land is being gifted to the private sector. I presume they are purchasing land at a market price.

        • Tricledrown 1.1.3.1

          Well said Gosman.

        • Bill 1.1.3.2

          There is a massive transfer of wealth from the public sector to the private sector going on in the shape of land. We’ve seen this before with essential swathes of infrastructure and know from experience that it doesn’t end well.

          The private sector (whether companies in the first instance or individuals further down the track) should never have any opportunity to secure ownership of that land.

          • Gosman 1.1.3.2.1

            Whether they should have the ability to gain access to the land is a matter of political ideology. What is not is whether the land is being “gifted” to the private sector. The land is being sold at presumably market rates. There is no “gift” involved.

      • Herodotus 1.1.4

        The reason IMO is that the govt needs to sell a portion so as to maintain their Budget responsibility rules. The cost to “re”build the 3,000 HNZ has to be financed how ??? By selling a portion. In this case selling 70%. The land was “free” so this free land is how the build will be financed.And think with an increase of HNZ stock the savings in Accomodation Supplement payments going to Private landlords.
        If the govt needs to fund the build, a mix of 6,500 HNZ and 3,500 Kiwibuild, as Phil needs to find the land to build KB and achieve the 10k p.a. target.
        I am waiting for independent analysis that there are 10k per year suitable and have the financial ability to buy “Kiwibuild, and of that 5,000 being in Auckland.

        • Bill 1.1.4.1

          Yup.

          It’s that “fiscal responsibility” that we’re meant to laud and set our expectations by – So it’s “Jam tomorrow…tomorrow…and tomorrow”. Or, as Mark Blyth correctly notes – 30% of us effectively get “binned”.

          • Dukeofurl 1.1.4.1.1

            Whom is Mark Blyth – is he someone we should blindly follow ?

            • Bill 1.1.4.1.1.1

              Well, you might want to follow him blindly. That your thing is it?

              He’s a self identifying fan of capitalism, so right up your alley there – if blind following is your thing DoF.

    • Jenny 1.2

      james rawshank 1
      2 November 2018 at 10:38 am
      “public land is being gifted to the private sector.”

      Well it was under the last government.

      The so called Tamaki Regeneration of Glen Innes and Pamure oversaw large tracts of Housing New Zealand houses and land handed over to private developers for free. That's right Zip, Zero, Nothing. They only had to pay for these public assets on development and resale.

      (As for the tenants they were moved on.
      To avoid opposition or even open revolt from the tenants few were evicted onto the street. Most were surreptitiously placed in Housing New Zealand properties in South Auckland. The real sufferers of Tamaki Regeneration were those previously first on the list for these state houses who were warehoused in motels.)

      The question being raised here, is Kiwi Build this government's version of the Tamaki Redevelopment writ large?

  2. Wayne 2

    It is much better to have mixed suburbs. So the strategy of having some state rental, some KiwiBuild and some open market makes a lot of sense.
    I live in a mixed neighbourhood, Bayswater. It has around 1,000 homes, all on a Pennisula. Around 200 are State rentals, the rest are a wide variety, ranging from ex State rentals to $10 million dollar homes (about 4 such). The average value is $1.5 million. So a bit above for all of Auckland, but it is influenced by a significant number of high value homes that are literally seaside homes (the sea at the bottom of the garden). Bayswater School is Decile 6, so not a typical Decile 10 school of the Shore.
    I think it all makes for a better community than all the same, whether that be at either end of the socio-economic spectrum.

    • Bill 2.1

      Mixed housing and gentrification are two possible outcomes.

      I’d suggest that unless “right to buy” is abolished and unless something is done with the “three year” on sale mentioned in the linked article, then the result is going to be gentrification.

      • Gosman 2.1.1

        You are quite happy to trap State House tenants in to being renters the rest of their lives are you?

        • Sabine 2.1.1.1

          They are already trapped. And under national you were quite happy to see them end up in emergency housing – after their state houses were knocked down, or kept empty – costing hundreds of thousand of dollars that these ‘tenants’ are now owing to Winz.

          When National, the party without leaders and mates, has a record of building state houses rather then selling them off you may have a point, but until then i suggest that you write us another scare post of Venezuela and how they are not living up to your standard.

        • A 2.1.1.2

          State house tenants are privileged.

          Facts:
          1. Social services such as low cost dental/doctor are targeted to State house areas
          2. They only pay 25% of (assessable) income for rent.
          3. The cash asset limit for State Housing tenants is just over $40,000.

          Sure, the landlord is a bit neurotic but State house tenants live substantially better than low and often middle income earners with less stress.

      • Molly 2.1.2

        There is such a thing a “permanent affordability”, a clause used in some countries to ensure that housing provided for social benefits, remains within the social housing community.

        ie. if you have access to buy a house at 70% of market rate, you can only sell for that amount. Your invested capital is returned, and the house is released only to the social housing market, so the intended use continues even as the occupants change.

        There are regulatory controls that can deal with the issues many commentators are making. They are just not even considered in our current housing crisis/investment culture.

  3. Dukeofurl 3

    Your comment ,”heart of this KiwBuild programme, public land is being gifted to the private sector.” is incorrect.

    The land is sold either for kiwibuild homes or the private sector ones, at ‘market rates’. The public land idea is incorrect as well. Its currently land for housing purposes and will continue so. Public land is for use of the public as a whole, whether parks, reserves etc

    • Bill 3.1

      Who or what owns the land right now in those places where existing state houses are being demolished to make way for KiwiBuild?

      • Dukeofurl 3.1.1

        I said it was land for housing purposes. HCNZ doesnt have to buy it back to build again.
        Who said it was ‘gifted’ , ie given away?

  4. mickysavage 4

    Have to respectfully disagree. This is not the only housing policy the Government has. It is wrong to say that because this policy does not address other problems it is not going to work.

    • Bill 4.1

      What other policies are meant to be tackling homelessness?

      You’re right enough that it would be wrong for me to say this policy fails because it won’t address problems apart from homelessness, but since I’ve provided the researched arguments of others that say it won’t touch homelessness….

      • mickysavage 4.1.1

        From my post earlier in the week.

        “Kiwibuild is not the only policy to address the housing crisis. There is the supported living apartment announcement, 1,500 additional places for homeless this winter, tenancy law reform, resourcing infrastructure needed for growth, and 6,400 new public housing places by 2022. And removing the need for Housing Corp to pay the Government a dividend has freed up much needed resources. To name a few.”

        https://thestandard.org.nz/national-badly-wants-kiwibuild-to-crash/

        • Bill 4.1.1.1

          I’m not going to pretend the rhetoric and the numbers don’t confuse me. They do. And I think it’s a deliberate component of how the information’s being presented.

          Demolishing 87 units to build 280 units for (is it fair to say?) “care in the community” peeps in Auckland. And those 280 units count towards the grand total of 6 400 state homes to be built in the next four years, that are being built in conjunction with the demolition of (how many?) state homes?

          Then there’s temporary housing being provided by various over winter that doesn’t actually combat homelessness – summer always arrives.

          I detest the way the government talks around these numbers Micky. They’ve been as clear as mud since day one. Saying that 6 400 houses will be built in such a way as to suggest there will be 6 400 houses in addition to what is already there is ….well, you can choose your own description for that.

          Meanwhile, NZ has 40 000 homeless people.

          • Dukeofurl 4.1.1.1.1

            NZ doesnt have 40,000 homeless. yes theres overcrowding, but thats different.

            Even those people on the street are necessarily homeless.
            https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/105390029/aucklands-phoney-homeless-raking-in-100-a-day-on-the-streets
            [Hate that dog whistle headline]

            • Bill 4.1.1.1.1.1

              You hate the dogwhistle headline above an article of vomit? How discerning of you.

              You care to find an official source of homelessness in NZ, based on NZs own definition of homelessness, that would show a marked deviation from that number of 40 000, then I’d be keen to see it.

              • Dukeofurl

                Because the rest of the story is done by talking to real people not that “Mark Blyth” would do that
                [British political scientist from Scotland and a professor of international political economy at Brown University. ] As though having overblown ‘experts’ like Petersen isnt enough along comes a new one’

                This is 2018, headlines which arent true are clickbait way to getting readers, a good example of clickbait headline is
                Kiwibuild doesnt Fly

                • woodart

                  yes. pure clickbait nonsense.

                • Bill

                  So you have no recognised reference to a different number to that
                  40 000 – just more pointless mud slinging in lieu of any meaningful engagement.

                  • Dukeofurl

                    I didnt mean mudslinging at at all.
                    I just showed how writers can use a clever headline to get readers in.

                    The story should have been called
                    ‘Street peoples diverse circumstances’- but Stuff has targets to meet on weekly clicks …… and they know what works

            • Patricia 4.1.1.1.1.2

              The guys on the street are a family ; left / chucked out of their family homes many years ago. Probably won’t live past 55 after sleeping on concrete for so long. Those with homes still have strong bonds to their mates but are not supposed to have them in their HNZ houses. So they meet on the streets. After living rough for so long some don’t know how to function in a house.
              They would be better going to a safe well supervised boarding house and then working their way into a house.

              • Molly

                Those with homes still have strong bonds to their mates but are not supposed to have them in their HNZ houses.
                Another reason state housing regulations need an overhaul. Even though our disposal income is limited, our ability to offer housing to people over the years has been of benefit to them and us.

          • marty mars 4.1.1.1.2

            It is not deliberate obsification of the numbers at all. You have an ideological block I think – why not trust micky who does understand the numbers?

            • Bill 4.1.1.1.2.1

              When a government says it’s going to build 10 houses, but is somewhat muted on the bit about knocking down 4 houses to build those 10 houses, then people are often led to believe that 10 extra houses will be brought into existence.

              • Seems you’ve got it so no problem. Others will have worked out the failed lie of dirty labour too – sheesh.

                • McFlock

                  HNZ stock levels are reported quarterly.

                  there for all to see.

                  • Molly

                    The number of people on the transfer register is worth looking at as well, since the stock reports only report on the number of houses, not occupancy or waiting list numbers.

                    There are also people not eligible for state housing that are unable to afford housing, and I haven’t seen any statistics for those. There would be some degree of difficulty getting that information though, as many would be loathe to share their personal situations.

                    • McFlock

                      Interesting link.

                      I suppose one could estimate the number of “in need of cheaper housing” folks by looking at the proportion of income going to housing costs using the Household Economic Survey, but that’s in a bit of flux at the moment (changing some criteria and increassing sample size). I think that MSD recently did an annual report that included incomes and housing, but I haven’t read it yet. Bryan Perry is the usual primary author.

                    • Molly

                      ” ….the Household Economic Survey, but that’s in a bit of flux at the moment (changing some criteria and increassing sample size). “
                      Thanks McFlock.

                      I remember looking at the HES survey population criteria, some years back when Paula Bennett was saying something pretty appalling, (can’t recall which instance 🙂 ). At that time, I remember thinking the sample size was limited and the criteria for selection was limiting and the information would be skewed because of it.

                      Good to know that something is changing there.

                    • Molly

                      Link to HES survey data.

                      Sample size for NZ is 4,700 respondents.

                      Reason given for small sample size:
                      “The HES collects data in great detail and, in order to reduce the burden on respondents it has a small sample size of approximately 4,700 households.”

                      This sentence doesn’t make sense. The burden on the respondents remains the same, you just have less of them.

                      Mind you, I believe the HES was set up by the National government in 2008 to collate data to match policy. It doesn’t surprise me that it was badly designed.

                    • Dukeofurl

                      4,700 ISNT a small sample !

                      Normal samples would be a lot less than that, more like 800.- thats a nation wide sample

                      By moving up the scale they get better results for the smaller provincial towns than 2 or 3 people .

                      I was involved in a survey much like HES very recently. From what they said , they took a couple of people( randomly) from each group of mesh blocks ( there are 46,000 mesh blocks in the country)
                      https://datafinder.stats.govt.nz/layer/92197-meshblock-2018-generalised/

                    • Molly

                      @ dukeofurl. As previously quoted the HES survey homepage itself says:

                      ““The HES collects data in great detail and, in order to reduce the burden on respondents it has a small sample size of approximately 4,700 households.”

                      (TBH, it feels like you are in constant deflect mode here. I don’t feel that you are taking time to consider whether there is any merit in what I post, you just are required to negate my comments. In part is good enough.)

              • Dukeofurl

                Its green party policy too ‘reuse existing land where possible for housing’

                Old houses are being knocked down all the time where I live , for new homes.
                New suburbs , all though further out, are being created too.
                No one would suggest thats the only way, although some are confused about how building really works

                Tamaki Regeneration is even doing shared equity in some of its new houses in Glen Innes Panmure area.
                But horror , old houses were knocked down . Oh woes!

                • Bill

                  No-one said there was anything wrong in knocking down old and run down houses.

                • Molly

                  “But horror , old houses were knocked down . Oh woes!

                  Entire long-standing social support systems and communities were ripped apart.

                  If you look at social costs and benefits alongside financial equity, then you might gain some perspective into why there was pushback against this development. State housing tenants in those homes also had good transport links, access to services, recreational activities and education facilities, that are not duplicated in many other state housing areas (yet, should be).

                  The issue was not simply one against the removal of old houses, it was the impact that it had on the people in that community.

        • mickysavage 4.1.1.2

          I should have added this announcement from yesterday. From TVNZ:

          “Almost 3000 state homes in Porirua, near Wellington, will be made “warmer, drier and safer”, says the Prime Minister, and an 2000 extra houses are set to be built with a mix of affordable, market and KiwiBuild stock.

          Jacinda Ardern made the announcement from Porirua today.

          It would see a $1.5 billion investment into Porirua.

          The Government intends to work alongside the Council, community and Ngāti Toa.

          She said the Government would work on a programme that would transform the eastern suburbs of Porirua.

          Ms Adern said the “hugely significant announcements” was expected to see 2900 state homes in Porirua be made “warmer, drier and safer”, and there would be an additional 2000 homes – a mix of affordable, KiwiBuild and market properties. ”

          https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/thousands-state-homes-in-porirua-made-warmer-drier-and-safer-part-1-5b-investment

          • Bill 4.1.1.2.1

            So “warmer, safer and drier” is part of, or an extension of Green Party stuff around insulation etc, yes? All good.

            But my question is this. Given that NZ standards for insulation are woeful by international standards,(links in post) then what does “warmer, safer and drier” actually mean? I mean, I could put a poly bag around my feet on a winter’s day and be “warmer and drier” but, y’know…

            So what standards are being applied to the work sign posted in the above announcement? It’s important.

            And the 2000 builds. Are they on vacant land, or is stuff being demolished? And again. What standard of building can be expected? Because again. It’s important.

            Constructing stuff for a 20th C world at a standard that was often barely adequate for that century, when we know the conditions of this century are going to be (how to say?) “demanding” is reckless, or some might say, bordering on the criminal.

            If this shit isn’t going to be done right – with an eye to likely future necessities in terms of AGW and infrastructure – then it shouldn’t be done.

          • Patricia Bremner 4.1.1.2.2

            And Micky a further 150 state homes were mentioned as well.

            • Bill 4.1.1.2.2.1

              A further 150 on top of figures already released? Or 150 that are simply a part of those already promised?

              And is it 150 on top of what already exists? Or in reality, is it 150 minus what’s going to be demolished to make way for construction?

              Because depending on the scenario, the word “further” is really misleading.

              The private ones are total numbers and on top of existing numbers. We know that because it’s only existing state houses that are getting bowled, yes?

    • Muttonbird 4.2

      The other policies appear to be an afterthought.

      This, the flagship policy, is targeted at the upper middle class – ie soft National Party voters. This is a major shift to the right. It is a raid on centre right votes. And it is upper middle class welfare.

      There’s already worrying signs that tenancy reform is being done ad hoc and that Twyford is diluting that reform under lobbying by property investor groups.

      Also, from SPC’s link on the other thread, Twyford doesn’t appear to be in any hurry to look at shared equity models as a well publicised and well accessed standard for low middle income Kiwis.

      I would have thought the goal is not just to build more houses, but to build strong, stable communities.

      If you give hope and options to people with no hope and options we’d be amazed at how they respond.

      Hope and options to the working class? This Kiwibuild policy does not deliver. They won’t vote in 2020 without hope and options.

      • Dukeofurl 4.2.1

        Upper middle class ?
        Warehouse workers, concrete workers, nurses…
        Why repeat kiwiblog nonsense when its plainly not true

        Its only the first 15 or so houses, when the next 1000 have been done, of course with a ballot system they cant be cherry picked for ‘class consciousness’

        • Muttonbird 4.2.1.1

          But there is a well defined window of household income with which to be eligible, that being $120K at the low end to $180K at the high end. Single income warehouse workers and concrete workers and nurses simply do not fall into this band and even some double income household of the same will not.

          As for the ballot Lotto system, well it is so appalling that the opportunity for young families to be secure is down to…chance.

          • mickysavage 4.2.1.1.1

            Two teachers fit into that eligibility window. Things are that bad two teachers cannot afford to buy a house in Auckland.

            And increasing supply will have a downward effect on the market.

            It won’t happen overnight but the problem did not develop overnight.

            Crashing the housing market to improve affordability does not appear to me to be a very realistic option.

            • Muttonbird 4.2.1.1.1.1

              Trickle-down as always sees the better off catered to before the rest who are expected to wait patiently until their superiors have had the cream. Only then will they be able to dream of creating stable communities.

              Perhaps Saturday should have been about two nurses rather than a doctor and a marketing executive.

              Saturday was easily the biggest screw up from this government so far. Totally blind to what it looked like to their core voters.

              • Sacha

                “Totally blind to what it looked like to their core voters.”

                You only get to be a large centre-anything party in NZ by courting the large ‘middle’ class. They vote.

                The nature of labour has changed over the last century. Far fewer watersiders and miners as a proportion of the population, and the meaning they carry for the rest has also faded.

                • Sacha

                  “Saturday was easily the biggest screw up from this government so far. ”

                  Certainly weak comms performance to imagine that the opposition would miss such an easy angle of attack, I agree.

                  • Muttonbird

                    The opposition response consisted of Collins doing what she does – bullying. Now they’ve galloped down the road to the massively inconsequential Karol Sroubek case. If there’s any more clear indication they have no idea what they are doing then that was it.

                    However, I believe the Nats released they couldn’t criticise Saturday’s announcement because if there is any one group less supportive of low-middle income workers in New Zealand than this government, it is the National Party.

                    Literally no-one cares about the people and their families who can’t even get to an auction, let alone out bid a property investor.

            • Nic the NZer 4.2.1.1.1.2

              “And increasing supply will have a downward effect on the market.”

              You have to make a number of ludicrous assumptions to draw that conclusion.

              An equally plausible conclusion is that an increasing supply may have an upward effect on the market. This should be understood to be highly plausible given that housing is frequently used as an income generating investment.

              In fact in theory your proposition is not even true. In 1974 it was demonstrated mathematically that what is assumed to apply to individuals (the ‘law’ of demand) does not apply to groups even to groups made up entirely of well behaved individuals.

              If your putting your faith in excess supply to reduce house prices your simply putting your faith in the government having ‘good luck’ in housing market outcomes. Nothing more.

          • Dukeofurl 4.2.1.1.2

            Its not $120k at low end.

            The TOP ends are $120K ( singles) and $180k (couples)-Kiwibuild Criteria

            Its not appallining- the old system of competing at auction against investors was appalling.
            No one bidding for any house has a guarantee they will be the buyer unless they keep pushing up their offer.

            Do you even know how houses , new and old, are sold ?

            • Muttonbird 4.2.1.1.2.1

              You missed the point. It is $120K at the low end because any household earning less than this would not get a mortgage from a bank. That excludes a lot of hardworking people.

              I know how houses are sold but you have completely missed the point again. I’m arguing against the lottery system and for a waiting list with criteria points. This of course is what those needing social house have to do.

        • Gosman 4.2.1.2

          Why do you repeat lines from Phil Twyford when he has yet to produce any substantive evidence of these people?

      • Clive Macann 4.2.2

        Twyford doesn’t appear to be in any hurry to look at shared equity models as a well publicised and well accessed standard for low middle income Kiwis.??
        https://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=279079

      • ankerawshark 4.2.3

        Respectfully kiwibuild is only for first home buyers earning up to $180,000.00 whose rates of home ownership have plumented due to greed and an unregulated housing market………………apparently this demographic account for half of the children in NZ. I WANT these people to be able to get into the property market (yes including Drs if they have been unable to buy on the open market). I don’t believe people would buy a kiwibuild house if they could afford something on the market.

        I found it heartbreaking reading about young couples going to auctions and being outbid by investors who are only interested in quick capital gain.

        Is it more heartbreaking that people are homeless or in damp mouldy houses. Of course it is and it is also disgraceful. Look at what it being achieved in terms of improving this. Some more state houses (probably needs to be even more, far call), Warm dry homes bill, end of letting fees rort, and I believe couples buying kiwibuild will create less demand in the rental market, = lower rents or better still investors leaving the market altogether and a house price drop……………………

        Kiwibuild is only one part of the housing policy………………………..And I agree with Wayne, mixed suburbs are by far preferable, rather than ghettoizing people.

      • All the way through the announcement they talked of Ngati Toa, community, opportunity for local work, NZ clients having the same rules and rentals for the new homes as for the old ones, and the ballot for kiwi build would be for those who were local and wanted to remain in their community.

  5. I had to laugh this morning when a spokesman from Ngāti Toa and Porirua City Council was explaining that the 75 year old council houses were no longer ‘fit for purpose’, old and run down.
    The thing is, old council houses were at least well constructed to start with, and are well worth revitalising. I wonder what the real life expectancy is on these new kiwibuild/state houses is?..50 years, at a stretch?? and then only with a level of maintenance few can keep up. And how much of the cladding and what not will be heading to the dump/our pristine environment in the next ten years??

    Though, maybe we could ship that waste over to the Sahara for ‘recycling’ in return for taking all their “blood phosphate”…

    • Draco T Bastard 5.1

      The thing is, old council houses were at least well constructed to start with

      No they weren’t. They were cold and draughty and not fit for purpose. This has been true of most houses built in NZ because our housing codes have always been sub-par as the IEA points out.

      • Siobhan 5.1.1

        I meant that they have “good bones’ as the saying goes. Hence the desirability of State Houses as do ups.
        I very much doubt many ‘affordable’ houses being built now will be worth doing up in the future.

        • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1

          I meant that they have “good bones’ as the saying goes.

          Most of them actually don’t. They may have when built due to being built with high quality wood (Rimu & Kauri) but wood doesn’t really last that long even with tanalising. Anything more than 30 or so years old should probably be pulled down.

          Hence the desirability of State Houses as do ups.

          Having been in some of them I’d wouldn’t buy one if you paid me.

          I very much doubt many ‘affordable’ houses being built now will be worth doing up in the future.

          Probably not.

          Houses should have a minimum design life of ~50 years but most being built today probably won’t get much beyond 25 years.

          • Molly 5.1.1.1.1

            Have lived and done up two of our houses and the studwork in both houses was dry rimu and still up to par – at the moment, over 100 years later.

            By this time, I guess all the damp and badly ventilated homes from that era have fallen over, or been demolished, but our existing home is circa 1910, and while we are trying to retrofit insulation, the existing structure needs no replacing. I do think that this has something to do with being in the position where passive solar design would place it, and having good ventilation allowing moisture to be eliminated. It would be interesting to see if the benefits of good passive solar design can be viewed by looking at older homes that are still existing and treasured by occupants.

            “Houses should have a minimum design life of ~50 years but most being built today probably won’t get much beyond 25 years.”
            (I think the average lifespan of a house in NZ is something like 35-39 years, but despite reading that stat somewhere I have been unable to find it again.)

            Thinking that is a reasonable outcome, makes me think that we are setting a really low bar for our architects, planners and trades. Building takes a lot of resources, and resource consumption is another issue that needs to be addressed if we are to tackle global warming effectively.

          • Tricledrown 5.1.1.1.2

            DTB Branz recommends that houses be renovated on average every 11 year completely painted interior/exterior new carpets floor covering any building work required as well.
            If you followed these maintenance timetables your new house will last 100 yrs plus.
            If you don’t you will be lucky to get 25years out of a house.

            • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1.2.1

              If good maintenance was done then I’d agree with you. What percentage of houses actually get that good maintenance?

              • Molly

                BRANZ do a House Condition survey every five years.

                Small sample – 560 houses, but some interesting considerations.

                I’m pretty sure I found information regarding house age etc there too at some point.

          • Rosemary McDonald 5.1.1.1.3

            “Anything more than 30 or so years old should probably be pulled down.”

            Unusually for you DTB…you’re talking rubbish on this. Where on earth are you getting your information from???

            Or have you never had to deal with the innards of an old house?

            • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1.3.1

              Where on earth are you getting your information from?

              I have family in the construction industry and they refuse to do quotes on renovations of old houses. They say that once you pull the cladding off the walls the ‘good bones’ are usually rotten. Amusingly enough, one of them kept telling me how good and solid his house was and then he started the renovations and ended up replacing walls and floor. And that house was only ~40 years old.

              • Molly

                “I have family in the construction industry and they refuse to do quotes on renovations of old houses. “
                QFT. We are currently scrambling for trades at present.

              • Rosemary McDonald

                Rosemary chuckles and wonders if DTB’s builder whanau have encountered the same issues I have….full size 4×2 framing, so solid that pilot holes need to be drilled in order to get a nail home. And all that fiddly packing to make up the difference between full size 4x2s and the modern stuff.

                I did up an old abode, and despite the timber piles being soup (high water table, poor drainage) and the bathroom/toilet/laundry area having issues(poor upgrade when the old copper was replaced) and some dry rot where an extension had been poorly married to the original structure it was a fine house. No, home. Solid timber. Real weatherboards and proper flashings. And wood, everywhere. And solid. Yet soft underfoot…unlike homes built on an unyielding concrete slab. And I learned some very useful skills…as I did most of the work myself.

                Had to do a job over the east side of Hamilton today…where I used to live twenty odd years ago. Delighted to see that the old houses are mostly still there despite huge ‘development’ along the arterial routes. Lots of big trees and vegie gardens and mostly very tidy if modest homes. It was like stepping back in time.

    • Clive Macann 5.2

      no longer ‘fit for purpose’ is true.
      Have you ever lived in one?
      Cold and miserable and really expensive to heat.
      Way too big a section and maintenance costs are extreme.
      Faulty plumbing and outdated wiring to name a few.
      Hence they are now run down.

    • ankerawshark 5.3

      O.k. Siobhan………..from what I have read is that Kiwibuild will be warm dry homes……….

      But maybe we should do nothing in case they only last 50 years or something else goes wrong. Oh wait a minute, that was National.

      • Bill 5.3.1

        …from what I have read is that Kiwibuild will be warm dry homes…

        To a standard rigorous enough to cope with the expected conditions of this century? Apparently not.

        Rather than knocking up bullshit that will need to be retrofitted, why not just do the damned thing properly in the first place?

        Doing half pie shit may well work out to be just as bad (perhaps worse) in the medium and long run than doing nothing

        • ankerawshark 5.3.1.1

          OK Bill I don’t have the information you have. I accept that. Perhaps I should read your post more clearly, which I will do later. Busy day at work.

          Thanks for posting.

    • Most are going to be refurbished.

  6. solkta 6

    You start by arguing that the government should move to not repeat the mistakes of last century but then quote Vanessa Cole to support your argument that the government should not privatise public land:

    In Māngere the proposal is for 2,700 state houses to be demolished, to be replaced with around 3,000 new state houses, 3,500 Kiwibuild homes and 3,500 market houses. While this project is building more homes overall, it is not really increasing the much-needed public housing stock and is instead privatising public land that could be used to build it.

    One of the very recognised mistakes with some of the state house developments was the creation of slum suburbs while more recent efforts have focused on peppering state houses amongst private dwellings. Do you really think it would be a good idea to build 10,000 state houses as one suburb?

    • Bill 6.1

      Stuffing 10 000 poor people into one area with poor facilities and services would be an abomination in my eyes.

      Laying the groundwork for the gentrification of developments that are ostensibly being undertaken to alleviate homelessness, is also abominable in my eyes.

      Constructing 10 000 state houses for rent, with a good decile mix (therefore kind of guaranteeing that good services and facilities will be provided) and no right to buy ….that works.

      • solkta 6.1.1

        10,000 houses would be about 40,000 people.

        Constructing 10 000 state houses for rent, with a good decile mix

        Why would the state want to build rental houses for people who can afford to buy Kiwibuild houses? And with no right to buy? It sounds to me like you are just anti home ownership.

        • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.1

          Home ownership is what’s causing the problem that we see now.

          • Sacha 6.1.1.1.1

            So nationalise all housing rather than pissing around.

            • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.1.1.1

              That’s my preferred option, yes.

              As I point out – the land that the house sits upon is still owned by the government. The deed of ownership is actually a lease. The only thing that keeps it in one person’s name is the rules.

              Put in place the right rules concerning the lease and government ownership of housing would make everyone better off – except the rentiers and the speculators.

              • Dukeofurl

                Where do you get that stuff.

                What deed of ownership is a lease. ?

                “http://www.smithpartners.co.nz/library/articles/property-law/what-does-fee-simple-mean/
                yep the property lawyers dont say its lease !

                Theres some real leasehold around but most home owners avoid them like the plague

                • Draco T Bastard

                  An article that I posted here a few months back but can’t find now.

                  You do not own the land that your house is on.

              • Tricledrown

                Nationalise all homes ffs how is that going to work who’s ever going to vote for that.
                The socialist/communist Party got less than 1,000 votes.
                There are always going to be people missing out on the basics of life.
                More miss out under communism between 50 and 100 million missed out all together in China and the Soviet Union they were euthanased because they didn’t agree with your argument many millions more starved to death

                • Draco T Bastard

                  There are always going to be people missing out on the basics of life.

                  Why do people always insist that this is true?

                  We can change things so that they don’t.

                  More miss out under communism between 50 and 100 million missed out all together in China and the Soviet Union they were euthanased because they didn’t agree with your argument many millions more starved to death

                  I’m pretty sure that none of my ideas were used in either of the USSR or China.

  7. Nah too much egg.

    It’s a big problem. The solutions are many. Kiwibuild is one part of the solution. Other parts are there too. Labour are aware of the problem.

    Sure I want much more solutions for homelessness and the people really suffering. But attacking the people putting solutions in is silly and shows a lack of understanding imo.

  8. SaveNZ 8

    +100 Bill

  9. SaveNZ 9

    With regard to building all the housing for state housing which would create a slum. Sadly they have already gone down that path by getting rid of social housing in richer areas (saying it was a bad use of money). Nope it isn’t, I like to see social housing in every suburb, Herne Bay, Mission Bay etc. It is just as important for the kids in Herne Bay to interact with social housing kids as it is for social housing kids to mix with Herne Bay kids and see another life. It is mixed housing that will benefit NZ and there should be a requirement that every apartment has social AND affordablel housing as part of the consent.

    I also think that the government can still redeem the concept of Kiwibuild by having the land kept as leasehold on 1/3 of the sales , 1/3 of housing kept as low rents for police, teachers and doctors, nurses within the housing so they effectively are the eyes on the ground in the estates and 1/3 social housing rented out at state house rents. The service workers then save a lot more money to buy a house while paying cheap rent and the government at least owns the land for the leasehold of the rest and that will encourage AFFORDABLE housing options unlike the current Kiwibuy which is just adding to the speculation of $800k+ housing in Auckland.

    Apparently there is now a glut of new housing. The problem, it is still too expensive to buy or be used as a rental on our low wages because it is $800k+

    Quality is poor on the building. Some are not habitable before they are even moved into. Many need extensive repairs within 10 years, they are falling down after 30! Something is wrong with council and government disinterest in building quality and regulation post build on the builders and developers who get away scot free while the rate payers pick up the tab.

    People have to leave Auckland and NZ to save money on our low wages. They need to concentrate on the low wages and cost of living, beyond housing.

    Housing, public transport, petrol, insurance, food, water, power, lending are all very expensive in NZ compared to the wages.

    • Sacha 9.1

      “Sadly they have already gone down that path by getting rid of social housing in richer areas”

      That was the Nats, both in the 90s and this decade.

      • SaveNZ 9.1.1

        Yes, it is mostly the Natz who sold the richer area state/social housing. Also Auckland council. But Labour are selling the state housing land into private hands which is just as bad. There was a lot of social housing around Auckland city that was sold off under John Banks as well. Its sad.

        Not just a loss as I said for the social housing kids, but also for the rich kids growing up in rich kid ghettos, with little social interaction outside their socio economic group.

        Funny enough apparently some of the rich kids suffer the same signs of decay as the poor kids aka drug use, lack of direction, motivation and inability to cope…

        Society works together. Aka people with people , level of wealth should not be having such a big effects on people’s lives, as it now does.

        • Molly 9.1.1.1

          The government offered 10% deposits for eligible state housing tenants to purchase as well. Those deposits did not have to be repaid if the house was kept in ownership for a specified number of years – 5 IIRC.

          Two of my friends had low individual wages from running businesses to be eligible for a state house, many of which were empty because paradoxically if you were low waged you couldn’t afford the market rent, and then used the scheme to purchase in Meadowbank.

          As for your comment, I agree with your take on the social costs for everyone on getting housing so badly wrong.

    • Molly 9.2

      I also think that the government can still redeem the concept of Kiwibuild by having the land kept as leasehold on 1/3 of the sales , 1/3 of housing kept as low rents for police, teachers and doctors, nurses within the housing so they effectively are the eyes on the ground in the estates and 1/3 social housing rented out at state house rents.

      This is the kind of approach that would provide the best outcome for eventual tenants, and the neighbourhood. Alternatively, instead of leasehold land, the houses built can be market rented to those who are not eligible for state housing at the moment, but who are unable to find a rental home on the open market.

      The pepperpot approach people keep talking about is not achieved by releasing land to private developers. It is achieved by requirement of social housing in developments of any land.

      The current role of state housing needs an overhaul. Apart from the fact that many in dire need are unable to get housed, we need statehousing to provide stable homes and communities, even if circumstances change. The social cost of transient communities is high, and should be offset. If someone in a state house, has a change of circumstance that improves their income. They should be allowed to stay, and be required to pay more.

      Those who demand that state housing be removed so that ‘capital’ is released, are often talking about the gentrification of established suburbs and communities. Relocation for state tenants have proportionally higher financial costs than for private tenants, and whole communities and social support systems are destroyed. Often relocation is to areas where community facilities are run-down or non-existent and transport costs to services, and work is increased.

      I would prefer that those on benefits are able to be housed if required.
      I would prefer there to be so many state homes that the excess is available to the general renting public. At that point, we would have achieved the goal of providing access to safe, healthy housing for all NZers.

  10. Craig Glen Eden 10

    Labours mixed housing solution = Social engineering

    Bills 10,000 state owned rentals all clumped together= answer to housing crisis utopia.

    • Bill 10.1

      Not quite.

      As I said upthread, laying in the groundwork for gentrification via first time buyers being able to flick for a profit after three years and (as far as I know) the retention of that utterly destructive “right to buy” nonsense, isn’t a way to address the homeless problems of poor or poorer people.

      Building state houses to house a cross section of NZ’s demographic mix works.

      That said, I don’t come from a place where people in general have an obsession with home ownership and disdain for renting or the thought of being a tenant. So maybe that culture needs to be tackled alongside (or as an intrinsic part of) whatever changes to tenancy rights and what not that need to be formulated and developed.

      • solkta 10.1.1

        Building state houses to house a cross section of NZ’s demographic mix works.

        Where does this work? HOW would this work? Do you want to make home ownership illegal? How else will you force wealthy people to be tenants of the state?

        • Bill 10.1.1.1

          Where does this work?

          Europe. And in any country that hasn’t fostered an unhealthy obsession with home ownership basically.

          • solkta 10.1.1.1.1

            Europe is a big place, could you be more specific? And tell me how you force middle to wealthy people to rent something they can afford to buy?

            And i’m interested to know why you think home ownership is a bad thing?

          • solkta 10.1.1.1.2

            I found this:

            Home Ownership Rate in European Union decreased to 69.20 percent in 2016 from 69.40 percent in 2015.

            https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/home-ownership-rate

            And this one by country showing Germany and Austria the lowest on 51 and 55%:

            https://www.statista.com/statistics/246355/home-ownership-rate-in-europe/

            • Sabine 10.1.1.1.2.1

              I would really not put Germany into the homeownership brouhaha as simply said we don’t need ‘home ownership’ in germany to secure long lasting housing.

              We have good rental laws in Germany, a rent mirror – i .e. pricing of housing that is reflective of the a hte property rented, b. the amenities provided etc. bus stop/train available etc and thus the cheapest rental would / was around 5 – 10 euro per sqm. – rent is per month, so cheapest set of houses would be around 450 + euros a month for about 45 – 55 sqm. (1 – 2 bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, cellar space)

              Tenancies are open ended, my mother lived in her last place for over 13 years.

              You have the right to fix the place up, i.e. paint the walls, lay carpet, tile bathroom, and you generally get money back from your landlord when moving on, after all chances are you increased the value of his property at no effort for him.

              State rentals, if you are unable to find a property on the private market you can sign up with the many housing co-operatives and the state to be given a state rental. These are generally for live unless really your living circumstances change in a way that you are able to find and afford a rental on the private market.
              You also have the right to fix up state rentals – paint walls, lay tiles in bathrooms, lay your own carpet, fix your own kitchen etc.

              So clearly for many people there just simply is not enough of an incentive to buy a house, consider aswell that with 80 odd million people we have a bit of a land issue in Germany.

              In fact, i would have never considered buying a property in Germany, the idea is outlandish and seems to be a waste of money, especially if you are young and building a career, chances are you end up moving one or three times for work. You can always leave a flat – three month notice for both landlord and tenant – but its hard to sell a house.

              The only reason i am now owning a small / old ministry of works house in nowhere is that i felt the need in NZ to secure a somewhat safe and affordable place to live in age. And no i have not bought anywhere near the expensive places thus only paid 120.000 for my retirement patch.

              • solkta

                So to answer the point that Bill was trying to make:

                Building state houses to house a cross section of NZ’s demographic mix works.

                “Where does this work?”

                Europe.

                how many middle to wealthy people rent social housing in Germany?

              • SaveNZ

                Just to point out too, in Germany often the rental come without a kitchen. The tenants put in their own kitchen. Also the German tenants are expected to put the apartment back to what it looked like when they rented it, when they leave and pay the costs of that themselves. The landlords apparently photograph every wall and the tenants repaint the walls back to what they were like when the tenants leave. There is a lot more of a collaborative approach and of course the tenants in Germany generally can afford to live in one place for 13 years because they are not working off 1 years contracts or be made redundant at the drop of a hat like NZ.

                • Sabine

                  First of all, yes we do own our ‘kitchen’. Often times this is way better then having to deal with what is considered an oven here in NZ. And yes, i have found a mumified rat in own of my rental stoves 🙂 .

                  Secondly the houses are expected to be left as found, i.e. white walls, broom clean. Which means if you put a carpet in you can discuss this with your landlord and do it together with him, or do it on your own. Laying carpet means you do not glue or nail it, you lay it. When you leave you can a. roll the carpet up and take it with you, b. have an agreement with your landlord and he will pay the rest value of the carpet back to you – write off value 10% per year, or. c. have an agreement with the next tenant who may like the carpet and is happy to give you money for leaving it behind. Same if you do a good job on the bathroom etc.
                  I have renovated several apartments in my time and have never lost any money on it.
                  Thirdly, the tenant always takes pictures before moving in. I do this here in NZ as well while i was still a tenant. Never would move in a place without doing so. Especially considering that often times the carpets are fucked and beyond repair and should simply be removed and replaced, often times the white wear is beyond believe and should be removed and replaced, same for the state of walls, doors, bathrooms etc. Even the newer houses are so shoddily build that tiles falling of the wall in the bathroom and such things are common. Take pictures of everything, send these to the rental agency for record.

                  If working on a contract basis and having to move often one can rent ‘furnished’. But generally Landlords don’t like short term leases as literally its to much work to constantly find someone, also the good name of a neighborhood is part of the rental mirror, so a neighborhood with stable tenancies often times has nice shops, cafes, bakeries, butchers etc as there are enough people to shop.

                  Last but least, most rentals in germany are not owned by private people but are held by cooperatives, or state owned, or a mixture of state owned/cooperative.

                  Landlords are expected to be part of society, i.e. work for the common good. Second homes or holiday homes are taxed. The government has confiscated – or force rented empty properties when housing crisis arise as was when the berlin wall came crashing down and there were suddenly 11 million east germans on the way to west germany.

                • Siobhan

                  A related issue is landlords in NZ, especially the so called ‘ma and pa’ investors who sell the houses everytime there is a lift in the market. Back when I was a renter, we had 5 houses sold out from under us in 10 years. I after 30 years of renting I was loathed to put in a veggie garden let alone paint a wall.

                  If we must have private landlords, I personally like the idea of landlords investing as a group and buying a number of houses together, that way if someone wants to cash out they are paid out by the collective (company), and the tenant need be none the wiser.

          • solkta 10.1.1.1.3

            And you were actually specifically talking about NZ:

            a cross section of NZ’s demographic

      • marty mars 10.1.2

        “That said, I don’t come from a place where people in general have an obsession with home ownership and disdain for renting or the thought of being a tenant. So maybe that culture needs to be tackled alongside (or as an intrinsic part of) whatever changes to tenancy rights and what not that need to be formulated and developed.”

        Lol maybe YOU change bill. Seems a bit OTT expecting others to.

        Edit. I don’t think there is distain for renting but there is an obsession with home ownership for sure. It makes us us imo. The desire never to be kicked out by anyone. To be safe. All relative of course.

        • solkta 10.1.2.1

          Yes, i’m assuming he is an immigrant telling us our culture is wrong.

          • Bill 10.1.2.1.1

            Hell no!

            I think having no real security of tenure is wonderful. I also think allowing housing built from the public purse to be snaffled by individuals seeking to spin themselves a profit is great. And homelessness and unaffordable rents for hovels is …well, it’s beyond any words of wonderment I might be able to conjure up really.

            • solkta 10.1.2.1.1.1

              The houses have not been “built from the public purse”. You have said this and been corrected enough times to make this a lie.

              • Dukeofurl

                The story is the new owners have a mortgage… Yet bill keeps getting carried away with the gifted theme.

                Land is gifted when it’s not…. Houses are from the public purse when they are paid for at around prevailing market rates in that area….

              • Bill

                NZ’s state housing programmes were (funnily enough) government projects that were funded by monies raised by government or borrowed by government (ie – the public purse)

                But then private individuals were allowed to purchase them and profit from selling them on.

                • solkta

                  So the state gets paid for the house and has money back in its “purse”. You really are doing some gymnastics with this.

                  • Bill

                    You’re missing the bit that when a state house is sold, the stock of state houses diminishes.

                    If the government had been building at a rate equal to or greater than the rate of sales, then there might have been an argument in support of “right to buy”

                    But since “right to buy” has meant a decrease in state house numbers over time, and a growing inability to house people as a result, I can’t see what justification there might be for retaining such a scheme.

                    • solkta

                      But there was only a decrease in state houses because that in itself was the policy of the LAST government. This government will use the money to build another state house. Stop your gymnastics before you pull something.

                    • Bill

                      So state house numbers only fell during the term of the John Key, National Party led government?

                      I’m pretty sure that’s not true, and that state house numbers were falling under the Clark led government and also under the Bolger one before that.

                      But maybe you have a link to the numbers of builds versus sales that would show I’m wrong on that front.

                    • solkta

                      All still irrelevant as it is the policy of THIS government to increase state housing stock.

                    • solkta

                      And here is a graph showing how the state housing stock increased during Labour governments and decreased under National:

                      https://teara.govt.nz/en/graph/32421/total-state-housing-stock

                      After an initial spurt, the Muldoon government (1975–84) sold off state houses, a practice continued at an even greater rate by the Bolger and Shipley governments (1990–99), which believed the state should only provide housing for the most needy. In contrast, with the exception of the Kirk/Rowling administration (1972–75), Labour-led governments have increased the total state housing stock on the basis that the market is unable to provide good-quality and affordable homes for all.

                    • Bill

                      Thank you for that.

                      So, just concentrating on more recent governments (and reasonably assuming a dip sits off the RHS of the graph), the state housing stock increases under Labour and decreases under National.

                      But how much of a role do you think the moratorium slapped on the sale of state house sales by Clark’s government played in the over all increase in state house numbers during that government’s term?

        • Molly 10.1.2.2

          Our obsession with home ownership is wrong though, marty.

          I believe it has to do with our learned observational experience of watching, over the last three decades, many of our other NZers find financial security mainly through the trading of houses. Many of my acquaintances and family have done so, and are in the enviable position of being mortgage free and with investment properties, bringing in income. They have benefitted from having capital, leverage, timing, and financial and tax policies that have encouraged such a route to personal financial wealth.

          But every time someone gains a huge windfall from trading a house, especially without investing in improvements, just by holding it – there is always another somebody that has paid just that much more for it. That increase must come from somewhere – and guess what, it is apparent in the New Zealanders that cannot access affordable, secure housing – rented or owned. Taxation policy and property investment regulations have encouraged – and continue to encourage – this behaviour.

          After much immersion in the consultation for the Unitary Plan in Auckland, (as I suspect from comments saveNZ has done as well), it was apparent to me that regulatory processes that could improve the housing situation for many would not even be considered. That seems to be true at a national level as well. Kiwibuild is an indication to me of where the focus for this coalition government lies.

          Like Bill, savenz and some others, I think it is in the wrong place.

          Worse, I think all the cheerleading about how wonderful it is and how it is just the beginning, will mean it never gets to the right places.

          • marty mars 10.1.2.2.1

            Home ownership is fine by me and I want that open to all. I’d do that by not allowing multiple ownership or housing as an investment class. As always the greed causes distorted thinking and exploitative tendancies.

            • Molly 10.1.2.2.1.1

              ” I’d do that by not allowing multiple ownership or housing as an investment class. “
              But your approach is not even being considered by this government is it?

              • No it isn’t and probably won’t be, so whatever they do is good if aligned with that vision of mine. So ‘in the wrong place’ is less important than ‘none at all’.

                • Molly

                  But marty, sometime that “something good” is worse than not doing anything, especially if it reinforces the status quo, and reinforces the view that the priority is ensuring that the middle class has a place to buy, rather than all New Zealander’s need a place to live.

                  The housing issue is inextricably linked to low wage increases that haven’t met cost of living increases, the taxation policies that put the reformation of tax burden on the waged and those on lower incomes, the immigration policies that have not even considered the impact on infrastructure, services and housing on both those that come here, and those already here. (At that is only a few considerations that have to be addressed).

                  Kiwibuild is a political answer, to the loud voices of the middle class who are finally saying something about the housing crisis. Not unfortunately, consideration for those who are unhoused or in unsafe or unsecured housing, but “our kids won’t be able to afford a home”. It is a political response, not an effective one.

                  • I agree in part that it is a political answer. I’m not defending it – some think you need the political kick start to create momentum for deeper and more targeted solutions. I don’t know. I don’t think “it reinforces the status quo, and reinforces the view that the priority is ensuring that the middle class has a place to buy, rather than all New Zealander’s need a place to live.” – I could be wrong. I don’t know. I spose I just don’t believe they are that cynical, calculating and fake.

                    • Molly

                      ” I spose I just don’t believe they are that cynical, calculating and fake.”
                      That’s putting words into this discussion that I didn’t introduce.

                      When I am more charitable, I think that they don’t even have the self-awareness to consider the priorities of housing, because they are not continually lobbied about it and so it remains on the periphery, to be dealt with when it becomes a priority.

                      Also, I think that the housing crisis is linked to a number of policy decisions made in the past that must be rectified in order to allow for effective measures. That task must be daunting – But it also needs to be identified before it can be started. This coalition has not even identified those other issues.

                      The housing is also being provided in the same manner that the crisis has eventuated. Bad planning, same supposed market acceptable build forms.

                      If Labour showed some compassion for those on low wages that were unable to afford housing – their application of a fuel tax in Auckland – gave some indication of their failure of comprehension, then I would be less critical.

                      I am critical – because without dissenting voices from the left – I am not convinced they will take the opportunity they have to solve this issue.

                    • You’ve put your case well and given me a lot to consider thanks. I strongly support everyone advocating and working with and for the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in our society. Well done and thank you Molly. Kia kaha!

                  • Dukeofurl

                    Molly , average household income in Auckland is now $120k per year

                    The world is not as you remember it

                    • Molly

                      I’ve tried twice to link to the NZ stats page, that shows that the average Auckland household income is indeed $120k.

                      However, more needs to be considered than that single statistic.

                      The tables provided at the link, don’t specify the median Auckland household income, but conservatively, if we use the national average vs. median, we can assume it is about 80% of the average. Meaning more than half of the Auckland population are operating on $96k or less. I suspect that in Auckland the differential would be greater than the national average BTW, but am using best case scenario, both here and for housing costs.

                      The HES data comes from surveys, and puts the average household costs for Auckland, at 17.7% of the total average household income – ie. $21,240/year. That translates into a weekly cost of $320 that covers rent/mortgage, rates, maintenance and insurance. Very low, and not accessible for many – if any. Finding a rental for $320/wk in Auckland for a couple would be an achievement.

                      Even using this very comfortable weekly housing cost, the take home pay for $96K is around, $64,300. The same housing cost is then around a third of disposable income. Almost double the comfortable – and questionable – statistic of 17.7%. As we head down the bell curve, this cost becomes a bigger and bigger percentage.

                      Table 8 shows that many on lower incomes are not able to meet their cost of living.

                      It is also difficult to extract from the stats provided, the number of occupants in the house contributing to household income, and the number of dependents on each contributor. We have issues with overcrowding in Auckland, and that can add to the increase of household income while still maintaining high levels of deprivation.

                      There are opportunities for the government to collate data that will find out actual figures for specific issues such as housing in the census. They have failed to do so and should address that failing if they want quality data.

                    • Macro

                      Further to the above, it should be understood that the average income is a much higher figure than the median income below which half of the population fall. In 2016 the average individual income was $45,100, whereas the median was $36,600. The average is skewed by the inclusion of a small but significant number of very high incomes. The average is therefore not a really meaningful statistic to use when assessing population incomes. The mode (the most frequent income bracket) is usually even lower than the median.

          • Dukeofurl 10.1.2.2.2

            ” Kiwibuild is an indication to me of where the focus for this coalition government lies.”

            Fair enough to say that you dont like it

            But Kiwibuild was an specific election policy, while your ‘opposed to but dont have a real answer’ wasnt an election policy that got enough no votes.

            This was the Greens 2017 Housing policy
            http://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/Green%20Party%20Housing%20Policy.pdf
            Seems to be aligned to labours ‘Kiwibuild- State rental build’ policies ?

            • Molly 10.1.2.2.2.1

              “But Kiwibuild was an specific election policy, while your ‘opposed to but dont have a real answer’ wasnt an election policy that got enough votes.”
              None of the parties in this election held what I could consider an effective housing policy.

              None of them mentioned:

              1. Overhauling the state housing regulations to ensure that once tenants were provided a house, they had security of tenure that could not be withdrawn if they chose to start a relationship, offer a home to someone in need, and ensure that state housing tenants had the same rights as any tenant on the open market.

              2. No statements that all New Zealander’s should have access to safe, secure affordable housing in thriving communities as a matter of first course,

              3. Repatriating residential homes from overseas investors to ensure that the price of homes plateaus, and that inappropriately taxed capital gains and rental incomes were not transferred overseas – or more appallingly, eligible for tax refunds,

              4. An effective implementation of a capital gains tax on housing,

              5. Social housing provisions at regulatory level that included:
              – increased land taxes for undeveloped residentially zoned land – to avoid landbanking,
              – provision of social housing in all developments – pepperpot approach from the angle of provision to social housing – rather than the state providing land for private development,
              – increased taxation on secondary houses and holiday homes,
              – a comprehensive apprenticeship scheme that specifically is intended to build state houses.

              6. Use of provisions such as:
              – “permanent affordability” given to social housing developments or “affordable” home buy schemes,

              7. Promotion of development models such as cohousing – that not only aligns with many of our cultural values, but cuts out the middleman thereby reducing costs,

              8. Promotion of sustainable, well designed housing with stellar community planning for social housing. This could be achieved with changes at national and local planning level.

              9. An acknowledgement of the failure of the 80’s changes to apprenticeship schemes, and a plan to address that systematic failure that increases the cost of building, while reducing access to skilled tradesmen.

              Also, none of them mentioned the requirement for the market to crash, realigning the cost of housing with the ability to pay for it.

              Which is where we are, unless wages increase phenomenally and social housing is available for all who rely on the state for income.

              But Kiwibuild was an specific election policy, while your ‘opposed to but dont have a real answer’ wasnt an election policy that got enough no votes.
              Which is one of the reasons I didn’t vote for them.

              If we are discussing what is on offer, you are correct.

              I was concentrating on what is going to be effective at addressing the housing crisis. This government does not miss out on critiquing, just because it is skilled at providing vague statements for policy at election time.

              We need better standards than that.

              • Dukeofurl

                Exactly .
                There is no mandate to do what you deem necessary

                You can see your problem is …..

                • Molly

                  Dukeofurl, if the Standard is only a cheerleading platform for any policy without looking at its effectiveness, then it is not the platform for discussion and critique I thought it was.

                  This kind of tribal group think is going to get in the way of solving the housing crisis. And it is a housing crisis.

                  I expect more from our representatives, whether they be in a National government or a Labour led coalition. And I believe democracy is more than voting once every three years for what is on offer.

                  Yanis Varoufakis, once spoke of an incident he witnessed when watching the Greek MP’s go into vote, and noticed one MP turn to face a young, female protestor just before he entered the building: “Who do you think you are to tell me what I should be voting?”. Her response: “Who do I have to be?”

                  My response to you: If there are noticeable deficiencies in the housing policy that is being rolled out by Labour, then I am justified in pointing them out – regardless of who I am. I do not have to be a Labour policy writer, or on the Labour committee.

                  If our representatives had some degree of self-awareness they would use criticisms as a way to hone and improve delivery and effectiveness.

                  • patricia bremner

                    I’m sure they do take on board reasoned critic’s points of view….. far more than National did, with their “Consultation” after the fact.

                    I wonder whether people are reading Housing NZ news each month?

                    • Molly

                      Do you have any comment on any of my points, patricia, or are you just inelegantly implying that I am not a “reasoned critic”?

                      “I wonder whether people are reading Housing NZ news each month?”
                      Well, I wonder if anyone is still visiting carparks late at night and still seeing vans parked up with families in them? Are those stories written up in Housing NZ news?

                    • Rosemary McDonald

                      @Molly
                      “Well, I wonder if anyone is still visiting carparks late at night …”

                      I hear tell (and have seen with mine own eyes) that the very best way of removing unsightly domiciliary vehicles is for the cops to pink sticker said vehicle and render it illegal to be on the road. Cue tow truck and homeless person on side of road with all their worldlies…

                      Post New Government and the Coalition of Lovingkindness.

                    • Molly

                      @Rosemary, your comment made me both sad and frustrated. I hope all those promoting Kiwibuild so assiduously start to recognise there has been a misdirection in human – not political – priorities here.

                      (BTW, our experience with old home structures seem to be similar, we’ve sometimes resorted to drilling pilot holes in order to get nails into the old seasoned rimu studwork. 🙂 )

                    • patricia bremner

                      Molly, I thought your comments were reasoned well, and therefore would be read and considered. MY BAD that it read differently.
                      My second comment was some generally do not seem to know what is happening.
                      I can only go by what has been done in Rotorua, and the support given. The coming together of the community to support movers and shakers has been a tough but rewarding road.
                      Further, yesterday my brother had a stroke, so my comments were hurried. YES I am Labour, a declared biased view.

                  • Chris

                    It’s interesting that when the nats set up the Rebstock welfare working group the left set up their own alternative welfare working group. There’s no such response to the current government’s so-called expert welfare working group. The left in NZ seem to want to keep holding on to this doomed trust in Labour, no matter what. This attitude needs to change across the board if anything’s ever going to be properly sorted out.

                    • Molly

                      “The left in NZ seem to want to keep holding on to this doomed trust in Labour, no matter what. This attitude needs to change across the board if anything’s ever going to be properly sorted out.”

                      Agree with this sentiment. I was pleased to find TS when looking for analysis of the political landscape in NZ. I’m a bit disappointed in the reluctance of others of the political left to continue that approach to policy now that we have a change in government.

                      So – there are people on the left that want to continue those discussions. If you change “the left in NZ” to “some of the left in NZ” I’ll also agree with your accuracy. 😀

                    • Chris

                      How about “a lot of the so-called left”?

                    • Molly

                      @ Chris. Happy to be corrected, and you probably have the right of it: “a lot of the so-called left” , it is.

                  • Carolyn_Nth

                    Replying to Molly & Rosemary.

                    I agree with many of your points on welfare, and the uncritical responses of some on the left to the current government.

                    It’s like being in power is seen by some as an end in itself, so
                    no criticism is allowed.

                    I despair at the lack of urgency in tackling homelessness and supporting those on low incomes. There is a major crisis.

                    It is an ongoing concern that every time I go into Auckland’s CBD (several times a week), there continue to be rough sleepers and a lot of begging. Also, at my local shopping precinct (on the edge of the PM’s electorate), there are usually a few people begging.

                    There also seems to be an increase in women begging and visibly sleeping rough. A recent UK piece of research showed that women rough sleepers tend to be less visible than men – in fact, the numbers of women rough sleepers are much higher than previously thought.

                    Women rough sleepers tend to hide away from sight as they tend to get beaten and raped.

                    • Rosemary McDonald

                      “I agree with many of your points on welfare, and the uncritical responses of some on the left to the current government.

                      It’s like being in power is seen by some as an end in itself, so
                      no criticism is allowed.

                      I despair at the lack of urgency in tackling homelessness and supporting those on low incomes. There is a major crisis.”

                      I confess to having had a few deeply sad days over the past couple of weeks.

                      Firstly it was the full feral pile-on here on TS over the Ross scandal. I was content just to sit back and watch while the National Party imploded….but so many took the whole pathetic affair as an excuse to gloat and speculate. Gossip is what it was.

                      Then the Kiwibulid debacle. I ended up wondering if I had somehow traveled through time and stood on a butterfly. The visceral response from some to well deserved questioning of the wisdom of Our Leaders has taken tribalism to a whole new level.

                      Been of much comfort to read the occasional comment from others having similar thoughts. And hats off and much respect to those few who have been loud and persistent. They know who they are. 😉 😉

                    • Molly

                      @Rosemary, @Carolyn_Nth, I’m also reassured when I read comments from you both (and others), which focus on the actual problems we have in NZ, rather than the perception.

                      I also have a strong suspicion that when the most in need are told – hang on, wait – we will get there – that their needs will never get addressed.

                      Like you, Rosemary, I’m uneasy at the perspective of some of the conversations here – also thankful that there are a few commentators that share that unease, and post thoughtfully and with intent to discuss not dismiss.

      • Tricledrown 10.1.3

        Bill you miss out the funding principal behind kiwibuild it will cost nothing to the taxpayer at the end of 10 years as the upfront cost to start will be recovered after 10 years.
        To build 100,000 state houses 40 to 60 billion dollars.

        • Molly 10.1.3.1

          That’s a $400,000 to $600,000 build cost per house.

          Considering that any state building programme has access to bulk purchase of fittings, and repetition of design and build forms, that seems excessive – especially as the cost of land is not needed to be included.

          I grew up in an old state house – that my parents purchased when my Dad left the army – and like many others, have an inbuilt recognition of Methven tapware, old wooden kitchens with wooden benchtops and the same interior doors and fittings as many of my classmates.

          I remember the removal of the still functioning wooden kitchen during my teen years with an up-to-date white kitchen with melteca tops. It took less than five years for wear and tear to take it’s toll.

          We are missing opportunities here to give industry in NZ long-term contracts to supply Housing NZ with fittings for these state homes. We are also missing opportunities to create homes with long-lasting built ins, that also can provide a stable employment and apprenticeship scheme for cabinetry and building.

          We invest in movies – America’s Cup – stadiums – aluminium smelters – Saudi sheep farms – all with the idea that investment will benefit NZers. Why not invest in housing that directly benefits NZers? All those houses, as they are built will generate income, all those apprentices learning trades will generate long term stability in the country, all those NZ companies able to streamline supply and provide quality will contribute to our collective wellbeing.

          Looking at financial capital figures only, misses the social benefits – which also have financial impacts – of concerted investment in housing NZers – rather than only providing houses.

        • Bill 10.1.3.2

          I understand the funding principle (and disagree with it).

          If the stupid ideological attachment to “fiscal responsibility” was dropped, the government could have borrowed on international markets at low interest and funded building without ceding valuable land to the private sector.

          What are the options going to be in a few years time, when and if the need for state houses is finally addressed, given that much of the public land that would have been available for building has been hocked off?

          • Molly 10.1.3.2.1

            “I understand the funding principle (and disagree with it).”
            Me too.

            I would like some acknowledgement that direct investment in ensuring NZers access to affordable, healthy, secure housing in strong communities has considerable social, economic and financial benefits for us all. Stable communities are able to form strong support networks, reducing reliance on the state, and providing individuals with opportunities for healthy engagement. Residents are also able to develop a sense of ownership, and local values that don’t monetise every community asset, and instead work hard to maintain and retain and enhance local facilities. Education is not interrupted by transience, and health and well-being outcomes are improved.

            Relying in purely financial development costs is short-sighted and an example of silo-thinking.

            Not a lot of discussion was held on the issue of rebates to the movie industry, allocation of funds to the America’s Cup, hosting the Rugby World Cup and a number of other seemingly unquestioned large transfers of government money, in the assumption that what is spent will be returned beneficially to NZers.

            And yet, I believe that especially in this housing crisis – a direct, immediate investment in housing people in state housing that is implemented in well-designed built forms and communities would out-perform any of the above.

  11. Draco T Bastard 11

    With 100 000 house builds on the book, the government could save money by bringing the country’s building code into the 21st C, tackle chronic housing problems and the health problems associated with building to the current standards, and provide homes ‘fit for purpose’ in a warming world.

    But if they did that then the newly privatised power companies wouldn’t make as much profit due to not selling as much power at retail prices.

    /sarc

    So New Zealand government’s going to keep building the same bullshit and crap that was built last century

    Yep because apparently increasing the code to Passive House standards costs too much. And so we end up with cheap houses and poor health that costs a hell of a lot more.

    What does the government think the end result of that will be?

    Profits for the private sector.

    The government’s working to make it look like they’re doing something while ensuring that the private sector and the housing market continue to make huge profits. Ensuring that everyone has adequate housing doesn’t come into it.

    So, what the hell does this government think it’s doing?

    I think you’ll find that they’re helping the private sector to make profits because increasing poverty from neo-liberalist policies decreases profits but they can’t say that.

    We’re going to nudge you into better patterns…” […] this no longer the warm embrace of social democracy, arm in arm in solidarity with the working classes.

    All part and parcel of the oppression that is endemic to capitalism. It even kills people through all the diseases of poverty but the rich, who benefit from these policies of oppression, get to blame that on the poor themselves.

    • Dukeofurl 11.1

      ” increasing the code to Passive House standards costs too much. And so we end up with cheap houses and poor health that costs a hell of a lot more.”

      Current houses are done to a high standard and with high levels of insulation. Passive houses are fad and come with their own problems when not ventilated properly
      Clearly Draco you havent recently been in a brand new house have you !

      • Bill 11.1.1

        Current houses are done to a high standard…

        Among the worst standards in the west according to the IEA, the OECD and others.

        I cut and pasted the IEA statement. Others are through links I provided in the post for the sake of information.

        • Dukeofurl 11.1.1.1

          The Spinoff – home of the most absurd SPIN seems to be the source of your claim

          https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/26-06-2018/our-buildings-are-crap-because-the-building-code-is/
          ‘Just last year, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said New Zealand’s Building Code is below the standards required of most IEA countries with comparable climates. ‘

          So they give a table of R values that Compares NZ to Britain ! Hardly the best for ‘similar climates’

          UK (2002) UK (2013) New Zealand
          Wall 2.9 4.0 1.9
          Roof 4.0 9.1 2.9
          Floor 4.0 7.7 1.3
          Window 0.5 0.8 0.26

          Branz gives some substantial different values than The Spinoff, but they are a cheap and nasty ’emerging media’ so lest not quibble
          https://www.building.govt.nz/building-code-compliance/h-energy-efficiency/h1-energy-efficiency/building-code-requirements-for-house-insulation/r-values-for-common-construction-types/

          Iron roof on timber frame is 3.3 not 2.9.

          • Bill 11.1.1.1.1

            The sources I used are through the links I’ve provided in the post. (Hiint: not The Spinoff)

            • Dukeofurl 11.1.1.1.1.1

              A student thesis ?

              Not even published ! Nothing could go wrong with that approach

              As for the other one is just desk top review by 2 people who have no building expertise as they are unable to do full original reasearch from builders and building suppliers. designerss will always say, like lawyers, that you can do it within budget. Grand Designs last night found out different

              • Bill

                And for the second time no – not a thesis. The link goes to a commissioned report.

                No idea what you mean by “other one”. The link pertaining to the info on NZ building standards and insulation has been provided to you. There was only one source used.

        • Tricledrown 11.1.1.2

          Bill not true in practice our houses are better built than those I have seen recently over seas.
          A new house in France I lived in has good insulation and the rest of the house is made of the cheapest materials you can get walls only 50mm thick doors a sheet of 22mm mdf with a stick on plastic edge door handles like you would find at the $2 shop.
          Cost $500,000.

      • Draco T Bastard 11.1.2

        Passive houses drop power consumption quite drastically which means that we wouldn’t need anywhere near as much power generation. This is one saving. The other is that they’re warm and dry throughout the year and so the occupants are healthier. This is another, even greater, saving.

        Yes, the ventilation needs to be well designed and maintained but, IMO, that’s a hell of a lot better than not designed or maintained which is what we have now.

        • Molly 11.1.2.1

          Imagine if your suggestion about a revitalised MoW, with an apprenticeship scheme for trades worked alongside this sustainable energy use approach. There are approaches not as rigid as Passivhaus that may be suitable for NZ’s climate.

          We would be able to have people trained in designing and building housing appropriate not only for sale or rent, but as a response to climate change and liveable for tenants for decades to come.

          (Also, many communities where state housing is required, would be an ideal place to source new apprentices for a national state apprenticeship scheme from. I’m sure it would be better than many of the mandated education schemes that beneficiaries are required to attend at present).

        • Dukeofurl 11.1.2.2

          passive houses or as the Germans who love this stuff call it, passivhaus.
          Not all houses can be orientated to ‘work’ under these principles and most of NZ has a shorter and not so cold winter than central Germany.
          They too have more factory built walls and roofs which can quality control the higher standards-essential.

          This comes at a substantial cost, which cant be good if they wont tell you right away.
          http://theca.co.nz/faq/how-much-more-does-it-cost-build

          • Dukeofurl 11.1.2.2.1

            How much extra cost for materials in NZ

            Value vs costs
            Triple-glazed windows can cost a staggering 30 to 50% more than typical double-glazed windows, and those who have them would not benefit from much higher energy savings. Therefore, they may not be the most cost-effective option for every home.”
            https://www.refreshrenovations.co.nz/advice/the-pros-and-cons-of-triple-glazed-windows/

            Already windows can be one of the largest cost items for a new house.

            I well remember a recent high end new build in Queenstown only had triple glazed on one side.

            • Tricledrown 11.1.2.2.1.1

              Double glazing /triple glazing windows only last 10 to 20 yrs depending on how much stress those windows seals take.

          • Pat 11.1.2.2.2

            “Passive house is often perceived as “very nice – but rather expensive.” But is passive house really unaffordable? While some have put the extra cost as high as 15 to 25%, other estimates tend to be lower, with estimates of the ‘cost uplift’ for building to passive house estimated anywhere from around 12-15%, down to 0% – or even below.1

            The differential does appear to be slowly diminishing, with a handful of pioneers (for example Beattie Passive with their kit houses, or two of the projects featured in this issue 2) reporting that they have achieved passive house on the same budget as the standard alternative.”

            https://passivehouseplus.ie/magazine/insight/the-cost-of-building-passive

          • Draco T Bastard 11.1.2.2.3

            Not all houses can be orientated to ‘work’ under these principles

            Yes they can.

            They too have more factory built walls and roofs which can quality control the higher standards-essential.

            WAAAAAAAH, we can’t do as well as anyone else because WAAAAAAAAH

            Yeah, stop bloody whinging.

            • Dukeofurl 11.1.2.2.3.1

              I provided a link to a company which does renovations, they show triple glazed windows are massively more expensive than double glazing we have now.
              And the savings in energy dont make it worthwhile.
              We havent even begun to look at the foundations side of things.
              Sealed houses doesnt suit NZ way of living and the high humidity we have. Not surprising we dont have to go through brutal central european winters

              • Draco T Bastard

                I provided a link to a company which does renovations, they show triple glazed windows are massively more expensive than double glazing we have now.

                That article is a really great example showing the confusion between economics and finances.

                The question should be:
                Does the triple glazed window save more energy in it’s lifetime than used in its production?

                This isn’t actually mentioned in the article. They only look at prices and the problem there is that prices are subject to scale and subjection both of which makes determining efficiencies by price inaccurate. Make triple glazed windows mandatory and the economies of scale switches to them rather than with single glazed which would most likely bring the price down.

                Sealed houses doesnt suit NZ way of living and the high humidity we have.

                Actually, I’m pretty sure the high humidity is a reason to have them as the controlled air circulation can be used to remove the humidity. Living through an Auckland summer with it’s high heat and high temp is brutal even with the windows open. In fact, having the windows open makes no difference whatsoever.

                After all that there’s the fact that we don’t have to bring in the Scandinavian designs. We need to do a bit of research to bring about the same reduction in energy use within our own climate.

  12. So some reckon Kiwibuild doesn’t fly,… well…

    Perhaps lets just leave it to the Kiwis to get things done once and done right.

    Here’s how :

    Inside a Kiwi Nest – YouTube

  13. SaveNZ 13

    Just noticed this, sounds like OZ has the same problems as Auckland…

    New Australian migrants facing five-year ban in big cities

    “The Australian federal government is facing demands for detail after reprising long-flagged plans to ban new migrants from living in Sydney and Melbourne for up to five years.

    Population Minister Alan Tudge will restate the proposal during a major speech on Tuesday as he stresses the need to ease congestion across road and rail networks in the nation’s most populous cities.

    Overseas migration accounts for 60 per cent of Australia’s population growth, with nearly 90 per cent of skilled workers gravitating to Sydney and Melbourne, as well as almost all of the humanitarian intake.”

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/107717417/new-australian-migrants-facing-fiveyear-ban-in-big-cities

    • Dukeofurl 13.1

      Its a dog whistle that wont happen – mainly because the ‘Coalition of losers’ is on their way out.

      They think big city voters will like it and small towns will think it gets them a lifeline. practically impossible to ‘enforce’ as migrants go where there are jobs.

  14. Gosman 14

    Any increase in building regulations will lead to increased initial costs (although a likely reduction in costs over the long haul) and increased time to build a house. As such it will make reaching the target of 100,000 houses even harder than it already is. Howere the target was always unobtainable anyway.

    • Sabine 14.1

      how many houses have been build under National with all regulation cut?

      and no i don’t ask for building permits issued, but actually affordable houses build.

    • Dukeofurl 14.2

      Unobtainable anyway because….
      The national party who you don’t support have said so ?

      You haven’t been keeping up with the new authority that will eliminate the council as middle man in issuing consents along with big firms looking at increased prefabrication to speed up construction and lower costs.

      For some unfathomable reason the last 9 years have seen numbers of houses built per year drop well below previous numbers per year , so some just say ‘who knows’ and assume nothing will change

      • Gosman 14.2.1

        Lol! If you believe that then I’ve got a bridge you might be interested in.

        • McFlock 14.2.1.1

          You guys haven’t had much luck selling Bridges lately…

          • Drowsy M. Kram 14.2.1.1.1

            “You guys haven’t had much luck selling Bridges lately…” – GOLD!

            Not just the opposition National party that’s off its game – some of today’s ‘contributions’ from local trolls provided good opportunities for ridicule.

            On today’s Open Mike

            “Collins will back Bridges to the hilt.” – BM@10.3.1.1

            “Lol the hilt sticking out of his back.” – marty mars@10.3.1.1.1

          • Molly 14.2.1.1.2

            🙂

            • JC 14.2.1.1.2.1

              kia ora Molly. Appreciate your analysis, and critic … Hopefull you’ll stick around! Although i understand if you don’t. 🙂

              • Molly

                Kia ora, JC. thanks for the kind comment. I also take time to read yours whenever I see your avatar. Been around for a while, but for the last year or so, have reverted to reading rather than commenting.
                When engaging with others who don’t seem to be reading and considering before responding, I try to remember all the other silent readers like me who do follow along – and that helps with editing out the swearing before pushing send. 😀

          • Gosman 14.2.1.1.3

            I am no supporter of Bridge nor the National party.

    • Tricledrown 14.3

      Gosman it will be relatively easy to build 100,000 kiwibuild homes mass production you idiot.
      Because of costs in traditional building mass production will come faster than you think Gosman.

  15. Sabine 15

    one thing in all the housing crisis that is never mentioned and it baffles me is the fact taht we could tryto get businesses to settle elsewhere then AKL

    one reason people move to akl is because essentially they have a smidgen of a chance to finding a job that does not involve cleaning up after tourists or milking cows. And full time, if possible.

    So i really would appreciate to see some effort go into getting new businesses to move to where there are empty houses and unemployed people rather then put another back office down town akl and expect people to commute from the country side into down town .

    its just lunacy, but then…. what do i know 🙂

  16. Stuart Munro 16

    I don’t think kiwibuild is the answer we’re looking for. But I’m prepared to humour it for a bit, on the principle that doing something is better than doing nothing for nine interminable years.

    It’s a palliative and would increase the local skill base – had the coalition been resolute in defending against those lobbying for disposable foreign labour. So it won’t be a vote winner, and the gross dysfunction that characterizes our housing market is not addressed.

    It is of course infinitely better than the lies and incompetence of the Gnats – but scarcely admirable. This was the best you could come up with? Whatever will become of you?

  17. SPC 17

    Hooton has only one objective – divide and conquer – when Labour is in government.

    And there are the useful fools on the left who will join him in attacking WFF and Kiwibuild.

    Attacking Kiwibuild because

    1. we should focus on regulation to require better quality homes – result less of them could be built each year and they would be less affordable to those trying to buy them.

    Maybe, if one prioritised quality of home over having enough homes for all …

    But this will not improve home ownership levels which are falling to some of the lowest in the first world.

    2. we should focus on building subsidised state house rentals – constraint government has to afford them within its 30% of GDP and thus can only build so many each year – so we cannot do this AND better fund health and education etc

    Kiwibuild does not take away capacity to build more state houses – the constraint on this is budgetary.

    Kiwibuild is what it is, a means to get higher home ownership levels. KIWIBUILD IS A SOLUTION TO A LACK OF SUPPLY (the private sector was not building enough) and using the capacity of those on middle incomes to pay for them increases our housing supply in a way the government can afford.

    And SHARED EQUITY is the means by which to extend access to permanent tenure in a home, and via Kiwibuild there might be enough of them so that this becomes viable for more and more people as property values flatline and incomes improve.

  18. Koreropono 18

    Fantastic article Bill! Correct me if I am wrong (and I may be). Having rolled my eyes and lost interest when Kiwibuild seemed more aimed at the lagging middle than the desperately homeless in our midst. It does seem that the anticipated trickle down will come too late for thousands of homeless children and their desperate parents. I am struggling with this idea that the affordable housing isn’t really affordable for those who need it most. Instead they’re the ones expected to hold tight and stop complaining about their substandard accommodation, shabby, cramped motel rooms, over-crowded houses, vans and garages. They’re the ones who are supposed to modify their behaviours and adapt their lifestyles and subject themselves to social work programmes because obviously they must’ve caused the mess they’re in. They’re the ones expected to hold it together while trying to parent their children, children who have become traumatised by the stressors and stigma of homelessness. These same children are also expected to hold it together when they’re removed from school after school, are tired from having to live in cramped, unsanitary and unsafe conditions. Hey but as long as the middle are tiddly ho, who cares right?

    It defies all common sense to continue ignoring those suffering the most, whilst propping up those who have more opportunities and face less discrimination on the current backward ‘dog eat dog’ rental market. A market where landlords have free license to intrude into the lives of would be tenants, where landlords openly submit property viewers to auction style competition, trying to extract the last cent out of those desparate individuals trying to put a roof over their children’s heads. Those same landlords and property managers openly discriminating against anyone on a benefit or because they have children. Meanwhile community agencies continue to bolster their contractual funds by pulling rental properties off the market to provide short-term housing to families (and I don’t understand how they don’t see the flaws and consequences of that model of housing supply) but I guess when money is up for grabs it is less about the people in need and more about adding to their coffers and damned if they even want to know about their complicity in maintaining the merry go round of trauma and uncertainty experienced by those who need housing the most. I agree mostly with your OP Bill, except where it comes to the home ownership bit…to me home ownership represents autonomy and certainty over ones life, without having to subject themselves to the intrusions of others.

    • Dukeofurl 18.1

      Kiwibuild election policy was clearly aimed at the ‘low end of the new house market’ – thats what they have said all along.

      Tell us which party in parliament has the points you raise- from what Ive read of the Greens even they dont go as far as you.

      Having more houses built helps everyone.

      [ You’re basically just trolling now. Draw a line under it and do something else with your day. This disingenuous point you’re trying to raise was already addressed by Molly when you brought it up before. Here’s the link to her comments in reply to you.] – B.

      • Tricledrown 18.1.1

        Bill your blinkered view is more akin to cynical attacks by National.
        This is just one of many policies by the coalition lowering immigration, increasing capital gains on home owners who sell up in under 5yrs,loan to debt ratio, foreign ownership, sweat equity, building more state houses etc.
        Auckland is the power house of the economy doing little or nothing is damaging the economy.
        Teachers, doctors, police, builder s, factory workers, service workers have to live somewhere as well if we do nothing those will be sleeping in cars to.
        Micro homes self contained caravans motor homes should also be looked at.
        You make assertions but don’t put all the facts on the table.
        The Labour Party is a Centre left party no longer the trade union dominated party it was up until the 1970’s.
        The reality is not everyone is going to get catered for.
        Kiwibuild is a fiscally neutral addition of a govt that is under the financial microscope of the right wing owned media.
        The other option of National a dolittle as possible and talk it up bigly.

        • Bill 18.1.1.1

          I’m not seeing what’s so blinkered about pointing to NZ’s low building standards, and that they are wholly inadequate in relation to AGW. I didn’t expand on this in the post, but substandard builds doesn’t just mean that more energy will be consumed when there’s a real need to cut consumption – it means that people will die.

          We’re already seeing deaths due to heat in rich countries in temperate zones in the Northern Hemisphere when more acute heatwaves of longer duration hit (as per last summer).

          Doctors and teachers and everyone else deserves a home. But this policy is abandoning those who are most in need. In the post I link to a conversation involving Mark Blyth where he provides a good iteration the of ideological reasoning or drive behind that type of abandonment.

          I responded to your comment around the fiscal neutrality of KiwiBuild in a previous comment, and yes, I’m fully aware that NZ Labour is on a different ideological footing to the NZ Labour of the ’70s.

          When you say – Micro homes self contained caravans motor homes should also be looked at are you meaning they should be looked at in relation to doctors and teachers, or just for poorer people?

          And are you taking into account that in a warming world with more intense and prolonged heatwaves “coming soon to a place near you”, that those types of dwellings are death traps?

  19. Steve Alfreds 19

    The only way the government will be able to really make KiwiBuild work is through a shared equity scheme for home buyers. When Phil Twyford first announced KiwiBuild there was a fleeting mention of it as a possible option, but nothing since. That was until last week when the government copped some criticism and he then announced in the NZHerald that the government was looking at a shared equity scheme. But there were no details on how much it would cost, who would qualify, etc. Was it cynical politicking by Twyford, or was the government planning to make announcement in the 2019 Budget and had been caught on the hop?

  20. Jenny 20

    Headline News:

    A doctor is able to afford to buy a house in a South Auckland suburb.

    Housing scheme’s morale-boosting propaganda doesn’t tackle crisis
    Liam Hehir – November 6, 2018

    Twyford took to RNZ to defend the policy. KiwiBuild was never intended to provide relief to low-income earners or the homeless, he pointed out. This is fair enough as far as it goes. But what about middle-income earners?

    To buy a KiwiBuild home your name has to be drawn from a lottery. For a couple to be eligible for entry, their combined annual income must be less than $180,000. This makes sense when you consider the KiwiBuild homes just sold went, at a knock-down price, for just under $650,000.

    But the median household income for New Zealand families (from all sources) is less than $100,000. How many households could service a mortgage on a KiwiBuild home on that kind of income? Not many, I’d wager, that didn’t have family help of some kind.

    Labour wants to build 100,000 of these homes over a decade. That’s a nice, big, round number. Given the construction industry is already straining to meet demand, it remains to be seen whether that’s achievable. We will have to see.

    And what’s the odds that these thousands of unaffordable ‘affordable homes’ can’t be sold, and will have to be turned into matchwood?

Leave a Comment

Show Tags

Recent Comments

Recent Posts