sharetrader
Page 23 of 24 FirstFirst ... 13192021222324 LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 234
  1. #221
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,125

    Default

    I will have to agree to disagree with you on Nimbies for various reasons including the value of the investment in their properties and antiquated NZ Compensation provisions.

    I am always impressed by Inner Sydney. They have interesting street layouts and still provide service lanes for the properties too. However providing the rear service lane is important when you have terraced houses.

    I have only had a fleeting visit to Vancouver driving from Seattle. However it is a well laid out city and it felt like coming home when crossing over from Washington state!

  2. #222
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Tauranga
    Posts
    458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    Perhaps we (the people of NZ) need to know how many properties all these politicians own? I'm a firm believer that when a financial adviser is selling you a product, you also must look at what they're investing in. So if NZ politicians are saying housing is a problem ; perhaps the people need to look at if issues such as CGT, will affect their investments in houses.

    How they say, 'self serving their own interests?'

    I will go as far as placing those NIMBY people in the same category as the NZ politicians. My uncle studied to be an architect in Auckland and my complaints about how poorly planned Auckland is when I compared to great cities overseas like Vancouver in how they future proof their developments. I was explaining how overseas sub divisions are 'grided' and often divided by an alley way road way to service the back yards of the houses. The response from him was "these grid like developments are boring" and then I say at the cost of what? Burning more fuel / energy because the street ways are not straight? How about the extra requirement to build long driveways for individual lots that get sub divided? (when in Vancouver the back alley road already serves as road access to building 'lane houses'.
    With regard to Vancouvers lane layout I wonder what the original thinking was to build this way. When I was there in the 80's I dont think laneway development had started. I just assumed it was more logical planning from the original developers. It struck me at the time as being very clever thinking to layout a community in that manner. Lightyears ahead of what I ever saw growing up in Auckland. The mess unfolding with Auckland subdivision of recent times i find disturbing. Absolute shambles.

  3. #223
    FEAR n GREED JBmurc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Central Otago
    Posts
    7,413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ynot View Post
    With regard to Vancouvers lane layout I wonder what the original thinking was to build this way. When I was there in the 80's I dont think laneway development had started. I just assumed it was more logical planning from the original developers. It struck me at the time as being very clever thinking to layout a community in that manner. Lightyears ahead of what I ever saw growing up in Auckland. The mess unfolding with Auckland subdivision of recent times i find disturbing. Absolute shambles.
    Its not Just Auckland down southern lakes Queenstown is a mess ....all about fitting as many homes onto the land ..nothing around roading that makes sense many roads through these subdivision's not much bigger than a single lane ,,then as the sections are so small but house 3-4+ individuals all with cars >>and there is talk of even more housing feeding into roads overwhelmed with traffic

    https://crux.org.nz/community/ladies...WH5Q2E8Ed3ws7k

    look at the clip at the bottom of the article ....that starts 4kms out from Frankton roundabout another several kms to Qtn CBD ....and this is with very little tourism ..

    Now Qtn only has tiny 16,700 population ...and they can't sort the traffic issues that have been around for over a decade ..
    People don't have ideas, ideas have people

  4. #224
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    700

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ynot View Post
    With regard to Vancouvers lane layout I wonder what the original thinking was to build this way. When I was there in the 80's I dont think laneway development had started. I just assumed it was more logical planning from the original developers. It struck me at the time as being very clever thinking to layout a community in that manner. Lightyears ahead of what I ever saw growing up in Auckland. The mess unfolding with Auckland subdivision of recent times i find disturbing. Absolute shambles.
    Yes the term Lane Way houses never existed back then. The purpose of having alley ways was simply for back yard access to the houses. ie:

    1) Storage or rubbish: since it was unsightly to leave the rubbish bags out in the front of the houses, storing them behind the house along the alley way was logical. Also some city bylaws required secure storage of the rubbish so wild animals would not ravage around making a mess.

    2) Safety: yes quite often children would play in the back alley ways, away from the main road traffic. Growing up we had BMX jumps, played hockey, things kids do growing up, and parents knew playing right in front of the house where traffic could be busy was not safe. Normally the only vehicles that went down the back alleys roads were residents. I don't think in NZ, people understand the relevance of this? When you drive to your home on a main street with vehicles behind you (rushing) to get into you driveway, it's more difficult and stressful driving in (or backing in) at the front of your house. If you had your parking spot or garage in the back of the house, driving down the alleyway meant you would be less rushed in driving into the garage because there's normally not a queue of cars that would line up in the alley way.

    3) But above all, the service lane provides easy of access of ALL dwellings when it comes to construction of houses. No cranes are required, no close interaction with the neighbour's fence adjacent to each house like what we have here in NZ with individually sub-divide lots. You get more privacy without seeing cars drive close along the side of your home.

    In another thread, i've been criticized with the attitude that "this is NZ, and that is how we do things here". So it's without question and no surprise how the housing market has gone so unaffordable. Those that stand to gain from owning multiple houses are quick to say it's a supply problem and it's not a NIMBY issue. It seems the culture here is no one like myself, is allowed to question why? NZ should not look at how other countries address the housing supply problem. We have a Treaty of Waitangi where i've seen numerous times that the local Iwis just get the land, and sell it off for commercial gain. Very different than what I would see would be a better plan:

    Speaking for housing for indigenous people, here's what's happening to the town where I grew up in Canada:

    https://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/...elders-3928359

    "The entire project will eventually have 200 affordable housing units on the 2.8-hectare site."


    Here in NZ, because of this stupid RMA, we boast about fitting 16 titled service lots per hectare. The above example is over 70 per hectare and though there may be some examples of this density of building in NZ, such projects are not a common occurrence due to over regulations and restrictions (to the point that they're not economically viable in NZ). In Canada, the gov't provides the grants and subsidies for increasing the supply of building higher density projects (not by simply giving city land back to the 1st Nations - in return, the gov't builds projects FOR THEM as they have higher priority). Here in Chch, i've seen Ngai Tahu take huge areas of land (ie Wigram) and flip it off where they pocket the funds so their balance sheets will grow to $100M figures. I use to applaud certain Iwis that would move on and make progress but when I look closer, what Ngai Tahu has done is not a good example as many who are part Ngai Tahu, continue to live in subsistence living standards (meaning they don't equally share the wealth and the continue to put their hand out to the gov't on basic issues like health care etc because Ngai Tahu does a poor job in helping their Iwi. It's a joke and I hate to say it. No wonder Bernard Hickey has lost all hope in NZ for future generations wanting to get into a home. (less those top 5% that already have equity from richer parents).

    Oh and about the NIMBY issue. This it not to say that NIMBY does not exist in other places like Vancouver. For those in that camp there, they complain about a 5 - 10 story build complex. For NZ, they complain about single story houses being built in front of them believing it disrupts their hillside view.

  5. #225
    FEAR n GREED JBmurc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Central Otago
    Posts
    7,413

    Default

    double post
    Last edited by JBmurc; 08-07-2021 at 11:03 AM.
    People don't have ideas, ideas have people

  6. #226
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Tauranga
    Posts
    458

    Default

    Living in NZ has it's good points, dont get me wrong but crikey, we have managed our growth badly.
    After seeing some great very livable apartments being built in Vancouver in the 80,s I can't help but think we could have easily achieved similar affordable housing here with a little foresight. Sadly foresight is not something we do.

  7. #227
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ynot View Post
    Living in NZ has it's good points, dont get me wrong but crikey, we have managed our growth badly.
    After seeing some great very livable apartments being built in Vancouver in the 80,s I can't help but think we could have easily achieved similar affordable housing here with a little foresight. Sadly foresight is not something we do.
    Sadly not many good points in relation to housing and urban development. Foresight is sadly lacking here. Things are left to become urgent or a crisis. Then plans are rushed through. Hence much of the nimbyism arises as residents think their interests and concerns are brushed aside.

    The new developments in S Auckland have large dwellings on small sections with narrow roads. There are few public spaces, playgrounds or parks. Residents' cars end up being parked on the roads creating numerous bottlenecks and choke points. I think the latest regulations have fewer requirements for off street parking - not very practical for suburban Auckland with its patchy public transport. Are we creating the slum housing of the future?
    Last edited by Bjauck; 08-07-2021 at 12:00 PM.

  8. #228
    Member TeslaGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Location
    Auckland ! the only city that matters
    Posts
    259

    Default

    BlackRock , one of the largest landlords in the world

    Looks to Realestate and infrastructure

    Economic growth increasing demand

    Higher construction cost limit supply.

    Who am I to argue, win win for me.
    Last edited by TeslaGod; 26-08-2021 at 03:39 PM.

  9. #229
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    700

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TeslaGod View Post
    BlackRock , one of the largest landlords in the world

    Looks to Realestate and infrastructure

    Economic growth increasing demand

    Higher construction cost limit supply.

    Who am I to argue, win win for me.
    I'm not entirely against Blackrock buying up real estate in the US. Even Bill Gates has bought up vast amounts of farmland. The key distinction? They will pay capital gains tax. They're not gaming the system like investors do in NZ holding well past the Brightline test. Anotherwords, the examples there are not comparable to the examples I see in NZ.

  10. #230
    Member TeslaGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Location
    Auckland ! the only city that matters
    Posts
    259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    I'm not entirely against Blackrock buying up real estate in the US. Even Bill Gates has bought up vast amounts of farmland. The key distinction? They will pay capital gains tax. They're not gaming the system like investors do in NZ holding well past the Brightline test. Anotherwords, the examples there are not comparable to the examples I see in NZ.
    Obviously you don't understand how the wealthy especially in the U.S manage to avoid paying a CGT .

    I'll give you a hint

    I do exactly the same which is why I or they do not sell off real estate and land, or company shares for that matter.
    Last edited by TeslaGod; 26-08-2021 at 07:04 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •