Monday, March 26, 2018

Twyford's housing announcement is total bullshit

I can't take credit for the headline, nor the content of this post.  Matthew Hooton has done my work for me (on Facebook).

Hooton has spent just one hour crunching the numbers on Twyford's announcement, and has discovered that, on a number of scenarios, the development just cannot work.  If it does, the density will be greater than Manila, Mumbai and New York.

The numbers Twyford talked of don't take account of roads, parks and other amenities.

He put this on Facebook.  A former Labour MP made a comment.  It was, "moan, moan, moan. FFS.  We have a crisis."

When comparing it to Hobsonville (which is very compact and dense), Hooton discovers this:
For Hobsonville, there will be 11,000 people on 167 hectares which is 65.9 people per hectare. 

Assuming only 3000 houses with only an average of 2 people per house, Twyford is assuming 6000 people on 29 hectares which is 206.9 people per hectare, or more than 3 times the population density. 

Of course, he says he wants up to 4000 houses and "young kiwi families" may be an average of 2.5 people per house, which would make it 344.8 people per hectare. So he is bullshitting whichever way you look at it, especially if he is saying only 3-4 story structures (not sure what's allowed under Unitary Plan).
This country has made an utter mess of housing and land development.  The major culprit is the Resource Management Act, but there is no desire to burn it and start again.  Instead, politicians create homebuyer subsidies, bureaucracies and puff their chest out and produce a lot of bluster just to get votes.  It's shameful.  And I don't limit this to Labour - Nick Smith was equally as bad.


Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Remember Nick, you have to make allowances. These are the same people who couldn't count how many MPs they had on the Opening Day of duck shooting in Parliament.

Anonymous said...

Stats can be a funny thing. The cities you mentioned are not at the top. Singapore is with 75 per Hectare. But that is not the way to measure you must measure parts of the city and it's connectivity, access and infrastructure. The Borough of Islington London has a pop density of 138 per hectare with easy movement and infrastructure yet there are parts of London with half that number and crap transport/road system which make living difficult.

There is a hell of lot more to it than pop density.

Lord Egbut

Psycho Milt said...

For those having trouble spotting the scam: Hooton's compared the proposed population density of this small development with the population density of entire cities. A more accurate comparison would be to compare the proposed density of this development with dense parts of other cities.

For example, Hooton lists the population density of New York 11,000 per sq km, which is much less dense than the scenarios proposed for the Unitec site. However, Manhattan's population density is 27,826 per sq km, and there would be areas of Manhattan more densely populated than that.

Which means there's nothing particularly unusual about the Unitec site - it's an urban development close to the CBD, so of course it will be high-density. And if someone were to build a 30-story apartment block on the site, Hooton would presumably die of apoplexy at the thought of hundreds of people on less than acre.

What's really grating on him, of course, is that a government's finally recognising there's a housing crisis and doing something about it, which makes the previous NACT government look bad. Sucks to be them, I guess...

Nick K said...

Milt, Twyford has promised nothing over 3-4 storeys.

I"ll make a prediction that not one dwelling on this land is built before the next election.

Johno said...

Agreed. They wouldn't be able to get the planning and permission done in that time let alone build it.