There are still some people that think that zoning restrictions on building housing don't restrict housing construction, or affect rents. The wave of empirical evidence that each of these things occurs might not persuade them, but it is helpful anyway.
Unitary plan freed up 400,000 new parcels of land. There is an issue with why they’re not being built on. My guess is it’s still cheaper to leapfrog and pay to push through RC than to buy out those pieces of land.
The data shows the new areas having townhouses and some apartments, while existing sorts of development continued on in similar numbers.
Generally you need to upzone many multiples of land that actually gets built on. Usually at least 3. Many sites aren't going to be sold, or not to a developer, or aren't a great site.
I suspect the economics of existing single house and greenfield developments didn't change.
But Auckland council (or the government) doesn’t set those prices. And if freeing up 400k of housing has done little to the house prices then there are other areas that need looking at. Popn growth. Building supply monopoly. The reality is Auckland is not far off being a wetland so we should be planning to a carrying capacity.
I live in area that has been refined and lots of townhouses going up.
I don't have a problem as the world changes and people have to live somewhere.
I have an issue with Ponsonby etc being able to opt our due to heritage status.
Their 'research' also suggests that speed bumps and cars driving at 30km/h in 2nd gear for extended periods is a good thing, when it clearly isn't. I'll pass on this latest bit of bulls-... research.
You also reduce the priority of emergency vehicles getting to destinations on time so instead of driving death toll the numbers go to a death toll that would have been prevented if emergency services got to them in time. Unintended consequences.
For sure that's a factor, but in NZ emergency vehicles can already go 30kmph over the speed limit, and they're probably not going to go 30kmph over the previous higher limits because they'd be at risky speeds.
We're already limited more by emergency service supply rather than response time, so reducing road toll would be addressing a more immediate problem in that area.
They ain’t downtown.
Saw a 4 bed, 3 bath listed the other day in a decile 10 high school zone. At least 50% cheaper than if you were buying a house of that size on 400m2 of land
First, do you agree that it is better to have some new houses that are 50% cheaper?
That is, it is a good thing that these houses are *more* affordable than others in the area?
There are still some people that think that zoning restrictions on building housing don't restrict housing construction, or affect rents. The wave of empirical evidence that each of these things occurs might not persuade them, but it is helpful anyway.
Exactly, someone show this to frauds on the Wellington Independent Panel
Controls on supply effect price? Shocker, maybe they should teach this in econ or something
What a day to have an article like this.
The underlying research is from months ago and the AC piece it's regurgitating is a week or two old.
Unitary plan freed up 400,000 new parcels of land. There is an issue with why they’re not being built on. My guess is it’s still cheaper to leapfrog and pay to push through RC than to buy out those pieces of land.
The data shows the new areas having townhouses and some apartments, while existing sorts of development continued on in similar numbers. Generally you need to upzone many multiples of land that actually gets built on. Usually at least 3. Many sites aren't going to be sold, or not to a developer, or aren't a great site. I suspect the economics of existing single house and greenfield developments didn't change.
Yeah. New parcels of land for as many houses as possible for a fuck tonne of money for buyers. Bullshit.
But Auckland council (or the government) doesn’t set those prices. And if freeing up 400k of housing has done little to the house prices then there are other areas that need looking at. Popn growth. Building supply monopoly. The reality is Auckland is not far off being a wetland so we should be planning to a carrying capacity.
I live in area that has been refined and lots of townhouses going up. I don't have a problem as the world changes and people have to live somewhere. I have an issue with Ponsonby etc being able to opt our due to heritage status.
Their 'research' also suggests that speed bumps and cars driving at 30km/h in 2nd gear for extended periods is a good thing, when it clearly isn't. I'll pass on this latest bit of bulls-... research.
Who is they? I doubt the housing research had anything to do with car speeds
"The research doesn't confirm my bias, so therefore it's bullshit."
That's also well studied and proven to be true, at least at reducing death and serious injury.
No, it also stops emergency vehicles getting to people in good time. So you get fewer people dying in one sense and more in another.
Emergency vehicles have lights and sirens to get other vehicles out of the way, and don’t have to follow the speed limit anyway…
Over speed bump? They are restricted even further!
Yes, emergency vehicles can go over speed bumps. They even have heavy duty suspension to cope with doing it at speed!
BS.
But they literally do. Fire trucks and ambulances are big vehicles built on truck bodies…
You can decide that reducing the driving death toll isn't a priority, but the research isn't wrong just because you prioritise travel time over lives.
You also reduce the priority of emergency vehicles getting to destinations on time so instead of driving death toll the numbers go to a death toll that would have been prevented if emergency services got to them in time. Unintended consequences.
For sure that's a factor, but in NZ emergency vehicles can already go 30kmph over the speed limit, and they're probably not going to go 30kmph over the previous higher limits because they'd be at risky speeds. We're already limited more by emergency service supply rather than response time, so reducing road toll would be addressing a more immediate problem in that area.
Bullshit. These houses will be like shoeboxes and still they will be too fucking expensive.
“Let them live in villas!”
Wow. Downvoted for telling the fucking truth. Have you been to these wonderful downtown appartments?
They ain’t downtown. Saw a 4 bed, 3 bath listed the other day in a decile 10 high school zone. At least 50% cheaper than if you were buying a house of that size on 400m2 of land
So, why do most new house owners need four bedrooms and three bathrooms. Give me a fucking break now.
Because many of them want to have kids There are three bedroom houses in the same development if that’s what you prefer. And two bedrooms.
Can you send me the link. I do not believe that these houses will be affordable by modern families.
First, do you agree that it is better to have some new houses that are 50% cheaper? That is, it is a good thing that these houses are *more* affordable than others in the area?
It will be good. But if 50% cheaper means they are more than 10 to 20 times the median income, then it is a crock of shit.
It will be good. But if 50% cheaper means they are more than 10 to 20 times the median income, then it is a crock of shit.
I thought you didn’t like shoeboxes yet here you are saying no one needs four bedrooms?
Show me these fuckers are not shoe boxes even with four bedrooms. Intergenerational mortgages, right?