If National wins ...

[fungus pudding]

I guess the more the merrier? https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...ordable-houses

I hadn't seen that, W69. Sounds useful, although there is the issue of reticulation and there being suitable work nearby. This new govt needs to start asking the big questions - like what population level is NZ looking for, in the next decade or 50 years?

A bigger question is, will the new govt become known as The NZ First led government, or simply The Winston led government?

[777]

You would think from some of the posts that there had been no building being done at all and that the builders and other tradies have been sitting around doing nothing. Odd that they will now be fully employed.

[elZorro]

Can you just remind me when it was that first home buyers got to buy a brand new house

It might be an apartment style property, and it might not be huge. A generation ago, first-home buyers were getting into new cost-effective homes, with a small amount of state assistance if they needed it.

[elZorro]

You would think from some of the posts that there had been no building being done at all and that the builders and other tradies have been sitting around doing nothing. Odd that they will now be fully employed.

You are implying that the current home building methods are super efficient - I can't see how that would be the case when they are predominantly built on site, with unique plans. The building sector experiences peaks and troughs - not that long ago new building firms sprang up and within a few short years were gone again - those people are now working in other areas. Any business sector needs a reliable level of forward orders to plan around. The private sector won't provide that sort of surety, but the government can.

[dobby41]

Can you just remind me when it was that first home buyers got to buy a brand new house

1957 my parents brought their first house - new.
People did back then when they were more affordable. More basic too but it was a good roof over their heads.

[blackcap]

1957 my parents brought their first house - new.
People did back then when they were more affordable. More basic too but it was a good roof over their heads.

I think an apt description would be "a lot more basic". My first home was a rough 3 bedroom bought for $73,500, mortgage of $53 per week, needed a lot of work though and was not in the best area of town. But that is the best way to get started.
NZ does have a lot of new build that is "not basic" for some reason. Is there just no demand for simple and effective?

[dobby41]

I think an apt description would be "a lot more basic". My first home was a rough 3 bedroom bought for $73,500, mortgage of $53 per week, needed a lot of work though and was not in the best area of town. But that is the best way to get started.
NZ does have a lot of new build that is "not basic" for some reason. Is there just no demand for simple and effective?

Is there no demand for basic?
There would be, I think, if they were built.
One of the biggest issues is the cost of a section. It used to be that the section was about 1/3 of the finished product but now is over half.
Someone needs to design a good modular house.
Buy with 1 bedroom, add another couple when kids come along.

[craic]

OK. In the early sixties I was a carpenter working for a large timber and milling company here in Hawkes Bay. In those day the powers that be produced a hard cover book "Carpentry in New Zealand" and it was the bible for all apprentices. It contained everything you needed to know from buying your first hammer to building a three-bedroom bungalow. It finished with a full set of plans for the three-bedroom bungalow. There were companion volumes of "Electricity in NZ'' and 'Plumbing in NZ" Any person reasonably handy with tools could follow the instruction and erect a perfectly good house that would last many generations. My job was largely fixing up balls ups by Builders who bought pre-cut houses from us and then stuffed up.I moved on to be a Timber Inspector and then into the Justice department where I remained till my retirement. I could still build a nice bungalow on my land BUT there are so many stupid conditions and rules that it would be a waste of time. There are a lot of fellows like me out there who might be convinced to get together in two's and three's to knock up a house here and there. My first house cost me $8,000 with no deposit and a State Advances loan on a leasehold section with a lease of $75 per year. It was brand new and yesterday I drove past it to show it to my grandson.

[westerly]

Can you just remind me when it was that first home buyers got to buy a brand new house

Up untill the late 1980's it was quite easy. Along came Douglas, Richardson , and others with their free market ideology and that was the end of State Advances. There were loan limits and consequently builders and developers built basic 2-3 bedroom houses with one bathroom, no garage and built on an unfenced section with no landscaping.
Now developers land bank, build 3-4 bedroom, 2 bathroom houses with built in garage ,fenced and landscaped with so many covenants you cannot even have a non conventional letter box.
Why ? Because they can make more money that way and the banks will lend if you qualify.
Consequently only the wealthy can afford a new house.

westerly

[minimoke]

Up untill the late 1980's it was quite easy.

westerly

I dont remember it being easy. 1989 mortgage rates were 16%.

Maybe it was easy because interest rates were trending down from 18.8 in 1987 and 17% in 1983. Not as easy when Craic was in housing. 5.5% in the mid 60's

1957 interest rates were around 5%