sharetrader
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Densification

  1. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    107

    Default

    Many thanks. I understand now that selling the property would involve selling all dwellings on the property, and that these new rules do not also allow for automatic subdivision. So, a little less flexible than I would have liked, but it makes sense.

  2. #12
    Ignorant. Just ignorant.
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Wrong Side of the Tracks
    Posts
    1,587

    Default

    A view on unintended consequences. . . .

    https://eyeofthefish.org/three/

  3. #13
    Advanced Member Entrep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,859

    Default

    This has gone through https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...low-more-homes

    The NPS-UD thing looks interesting for people who live near train stations, with apartments being allowed to be built, I think. Not much info on it though.
    BTC went to $69K and now $16K. Good thing I’ve been warning you since it was $3K! I was right!

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GTM 3442 View Post
    A view on unintended consequences. . . .

    https://eyeofthefish.org/three/
    I disagree with mostly in that article (which is voicing against the intensification of building in NZ). He certainly lacks the reasons why in other OECD nations, why houses are built CLOSER and HIGHER. If you have a look at how houses have been built in the past 20+ years in NZ, particularly in your new sub divisions, they are godly boring SINGLE STORY houses. As my architect friends back in Canada, they say our newly built homes, "look not much more than the barns sheds we build in Canada just to house our cars".

    I feel NZ for at least a whole generation, has lost a lot in terms of the productivity part of society, into home ownership. I mean high prices do nothing to increase productivity in society, it's a noose over their neck as profits that banks make do not funnel back into society. The damage is so severe when I compare to what my friends living in Canada were able to achieve and how their children were able to move into their 1st home SO MUCH MORE easily through the many Cdn gov't programs. Demand controls such as taxation for those owning more than their principle residence, supply controls by forcing land stake holders to do something with their land (and not held up by Maori interests that I see happen in NZ). After all 2/3rds of Canada wealth is not tied up in real estate like it is in NZ, rather 2/3rds is tied up in the stock market and business ownership.

    So going back to the article, it's clear the author is practicing NIMBYism. Certainly has not seen how cities grow abroad. The assumption that building high and close to the boundaries is something NZ should not do, but does not question why can it be done overseas? Again, typical myopic thinking.

  5. #15
    Ignorant. Just ignorant.
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Wrong Side of the Tracks
    Posts
    1,587

    Default

    I rather thought that the point of the article was that while the intention is to "densify" the inner suburbs, a more likely outcome is that the outer suburbs will be the place where the action is.

    Time will tell. . .

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GTM 3442 View Post
    I rather thought that the point of the article was that while the intention is to "densify" the inner suburbs, a more likely outcome is that the outer suburbs will be the place where the action is.

    Time will tell. . .
    That's the fear I keep hearing but that's far likely to happen. There is simply no economic reason to build 3 stories in rural outer suburb areas where land is more plentiful. The market for those wanting to live in a 3 story townhouse is entirely different to the detached dwelling house. Where I am in Christchurch, there is simply no need for a single person living alone, to be wanting to live in a 3 or 4 bedroom detached dwelling. He/She is certainly not willing to pay over $1M for such a place. The problem with NZ's housing market is the lack of small 1 or 2 bedroom 'studio units' that fetch for $300K or less. First time home buyers, newly married couple wanting to raise a family will have it hard to pay 1M for a fully detached house. So what the higher density building offers is those 'entrant' level ownership at a much lower price tag.

    This is how my friend got into the housing market in Vancouver some 25 years ago. He bought a high rise apartment at a price far more affordable than the large full size house dwelling ; if I recall less than half the price. This is affordable. But in NZ that option simply does not exist.

  7. #17
    Ignorant. Just ignorant.
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Wrong Side of the Tracks
    Posts
    1,587

    Default

    "That's the fear I keep hearing but that's far likely to happen."

    What does that mean? Far more likely, or far less likely? Or far <something else> likely?

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GTM 3442 View Post
    "That's the fear I keep hearing but that's far likely to happen."

    What does that mean? Far more likely, or far less likely? Or far <something else> likely?
    My bad grammar, I mean far LESS likely to happen. Anotherwords, just because the rules allow you to build massive and high in rural areas, does not mean it will happen.

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
  •