Friday, March 28, 2008

No qaurter acre paradise, then what is the point of New Zealand?

If Kiwis can no longer have their quarter-acre bit of paradise, then what is the point of New Zealand?
The Real Estate Institute today says the quarter-acre days are gone and we should embrace appartment living.
What better way to accept the povery of today than poverty in one's aspirations as a country.
Keeping the populace confined in tiny boxes when we have land to spare.
Have the bosses at REINZ ever been into such places like the Volt, or Zest or the many little rats nests springing up all over Auckland.
What about our political leaders?
Are such boxes what they want for us New Zealanders?
If New Zealand cannot make it back up the OECD ladder, if we are to remain a poor country ranking alongside Greece in economic league tables, at least let us have room to breathe and enjoy this fine land.
If the best New Zealand can offer is a poky apartment, then off to Australia we Kiwis must fly, or even return from whence we came, crowded, congested, England.
If we must have some appartments, why not roomier specimens in decent suburbs, or better still
find some room in this great land of ours and build some new or expanded towns?
Does development have to be focussed on Auckland? I am sure some expanded settlements along SH1 to Hamilton would work, and along SH2 to tauranga. And why not have Hamilton having 250,000 people. Even Palmerston North could be smartened up and expanded.


Anonymous said...

I have 1160 m2 in Greenhithe, Auckland, no apartment living for me.
Go cry me a river FFM. You have to start somewhere, I did in South Auckland.

Clunking Fist said...

I like apartment living: it's a great way to get a place closer to the heart of a city. It also feels more secure (unless you're on the ground floor), and is easier to heat. You also share a lot of the maintenance costs.
I do get nervous, though, wondering whether everyone has turned off the gas...

But now I'm raising a family (with help from the wife), a section is a must.

ropata said...

Fairfacts, you raise a very important point. It's a huge social shift and NZ is now characterized by selfishness and materialism rather than a fair go and a decent living. A real shame, young people these days are getting shafted.


Certainly the young people seem to be paying for the older people mwho are feathering their nests for retirement.
The only young to benefit from this will be those with rich parents.
Thankfully, mine a quite comfortable.
But on point I make is that New Zealand has sold itself on quality of life.
Early this century when ACT and National would raise the brain drain issue, the exodus to Australia , etc, the government would reply that we had quality of life.
But where is the quality of life if you are living in some poky little apartment in a city with congested roads.
True, Auckland has nicer weather than birmingham, manchester or Leeds.
But I and many others didn't come to the other side of the wor;ld for this.
If we kiwis and immigrants cannot have the money, the riches, or we cannot have the quality of life, beacuse a house and garden costs too much and planning restrictions prevent the development of more, and councils prefer us to live in apartments, then wat is the point of New Zealand?
Over the past ten years, i have lived all over New Zealand, from Thames to Dargaville, Christchurch, Auckland CBD and Rodney district.
I much preferred the provinces but work drags you to ther city.
many will be in the same boat.
Spo, shouldn't new Zealand as a priority make the city pleasant and affordable, even if that means trying to encourage much development elsewhere.

Osbourne Ruddock said...

You don't even bother to fix your misspelt heading you sad sad bastard. Enjoy the tumble weeds.

ropata said...

Enjoy the tumbleweeds
Are you enjoying the housing bubble osbourne?

Fairfacts has a legitimate concern, but as long as you are OK your fellow kiwis can get stuffed, is that it?

NotPC has some great thoughts and resources on this important subject.


Thanks Ropata.
Indeed, I thank NotPC for explaining well how land supply and the cost of land has restricted housing affordability.
Now, Peter Creswell might be dismissed by some as a fringe Libertarian.
But it is basic supply-side economics that if something is restricted, it's price will go up.
And it is basic economic common sense that if there is a charge imposed on something, say development contributions on a section, that cost will be passed on in turn to the end consumer.
What adds weight to NotPCs comments on the housing issue is his own experience; his work as an architect, which is highlighted by the many wonderful drawings of fancy buildings he displays on his blog.