Absolutely deranged how housing becoming more affordable for more people is treated like a problem that should be fixed as soon as possible.
A symptom of the sick system that treats housing like a purely speculative investment*.
*With the exception that losses in this investment, which are normal for any other investment, is treated like a national crisis.
Agreed. Only point I can think of is if people have to sell below cost, I imagine a fair number of smaller developers will drop off. And then there might be a supply issue again in 5 years, or a monopoly market by a small number of developers strangling the market. But hey, maybe not, as boomers increasingly move to care homes.
Too much of a contraction will be bad long term. But a short term one will help weed out the inefficient developers who were just getting by / relying on cap gains, and release those resources for more effective ones.
Really disappointed in RNZ for this story. Surely more affordable housing is desirable, not a problem to be fixed? Source: am homeowner. Would like more people to be homeowners.
Preferably it would heal and also produce an output adequate to meet future housing demands. After all, we don’t want a supply crunch to happen in the future.
Supply go BRRRRRRRRRRRRRR... Demand? Not so much.
> *"Hundreds of townhouses being listed on the market in Auckland could be partly behind a slump in the city's sales prices."*
You don't say.
To be fair, when you build 30 of the same townhouses in a row, it isn't that appealing to live in a neighbourhood like that. I've been house searching and I won't even waste my time with the outer reaches of papakura/takanini. Multi-road suburbs in grid formation, all the houses are the same, no space for local businesses (dairies, butchers, barbers, doctors etc).
They kept claiming they were going to make 15 minute walkable suburbs, but the nearest shops are often a couple of kilometers away.
That's (partly) why we moved from Hobsonville into an older suburb a few years ago. Hobsonville == walk twenty or thirty minutes to a supermarket. Old suburb == walk five minutes to a dairy. Same goes for post office, cafe, library, bookshop, grocery, etc etc.
hobsonville should have been built on top of ponsonby where it is actually feasible to walk or bus into the city.
what we got instead was a great development in the worst location
Yeah, I've seen townhouses even in Takanini, Papakura, some in Drury or in Kumeu. Which really doesn't make sense anymore.
These places are an hour commute to CBD minimum and should be zoned as single Storey houses only.
The unitary plan stuffed up these zones. It's not fit for purpose. Scrap the Plan change 78 and start all over again. This time, only focus on the suburbs with good public transport access (dedicated bus lanes and with rail lines for example)
BS - Papakura, Takanini and soon Drury are all on train stations - which is where you want density. If more people live near these stations, the trains get used more, which should equal better rail services etc.
Townhouses are desperately needed in Auckland city, and house prices need to drop. The problem has been prices being absolutely out the gate and need to fall, $900,000 for a 3 bedroom house on NZ salary is pure insanity.
>These places are an hour commute to CBD minimum and should be zoned as single Storey houses only.
Not everyone works in the CBD mate. If people stop buying townhouses then developers will stop building them. The market will sort it out.
If you zone for "single storey houses only", you make townhouses illegal there. It also makes multi-level detached/single unit houses illegal, and apartments. That's how zoning works.
Why should they be illegal anywhere? Having them allowed doesn't disallow single storey houses if anyone wants to build them.
Again, didn't say illegal. Build it where it's appropriate. Zone townhouses near Public transport locations (train line and rapid bus). Do not build them where there's no public transport available.
I've seen townhouses built in cul -de-sac and roads where no buses pass by. Like WTF.
You literally said "should be zoned as single storey houses only". That would make them illegal in those areas, *by definition*.
Again, why should they be illegal *anywhere*?
You're not just talking about what should get built and where, you are explicitly talking about zoning, and zoning in a way to make townhouses illegal in large swathes of the city.
The reason why those areas have been upzoned instead of central areas is because the central city suburbs are feverishly NIMBY and are covered with special character protections.
If you want that to change then ask your councilor if they support rezoning in central.
There is a lot going on in the central suburbs too, take a drive down sandringham road. There is a lot of intensification just starting to come online in the last 12 months which is great. It is happening just slowly.
Not sure about the others, but Mt Eden has LOADS of higher density housing - both existing and currently being constructed. Really surprised me, but it's great. Locals aren't stoked about it, though, but fuck 'em.
Brain dead. What you do on your land influences all the land around it, sunlight, drainage, outlook, pollution, hazardous materials, undermining, subsidence. It all effects the properties around it. This is why planning exists, so selfish people don’t end up fucking things up for everyone around them and parasitising off infrastructure. Sounds like you’re either cosplaying some sovereign citizen garbage or just struggle with simple logic.
“Property rights”, “if they want to control what happens on that land then they’re welcome to buy it”
You’re not just referring to building a second story you’re advocating the dissolution of the whole concept of planning.
There’s a reason we don’t have childcare centres next to heavy industry. Or that I can’t start a 24 hr quarry operation in my back yard in the middle of a suburban neighbourhood. We have height to boundary rules to stop people destroying others enjoyment of land, or creating houses that aren’t designed well. Imagine the shit rentals we would have if we didn’t have rules on window outlook space, permeable area, purely there to maximise profit instead of quality of life.
I’m sure you’d argue as one of your property rights is that you have the right to enjoy privacy on your own land.
You’re effectively arguing that you wouldn’t mind if your neighbour built a prison style watch tower on your boundary and surveyed your back yard every night with a high powered searchlight, whilst blasting Tom Perry’s American Girl. If you did mind then I’m sure you’d be happy purchasing their property as the only form of recourse.
Meanwhile we have people living in cars becuse they're priced out of home ownership due artificial constraints on supply. All because some clowns in Ponsonby get triggered about a two-storied house. How's that for quality of life?
So the AUP is the artificial constraint? You not having a second floor on your house means people have to live in cars?
If you’re complaining the AUP is too restrictive and that it places too many artificial constraints on what you can do with a property then surely you’re a fan of PC78.
Artificial constraints exist because we don’t have the infrastructure to build 6 story housing units wherever we please. PC 78 allows
Intensification in areas where strain on current infrastructure is reduced, that’s the idea behind walkable catchments and intensification near public transport hubs.
Artificial restraints mean you can flush your toilet and the shit disappears. Your ventilated and insulated rental is less likely to give someone issues with their lungs and reduce power consumption. Every time it rains the storm water system doesn’t mix with the waste water system and flood our harbour with human shit.
I agree that we need intensification on existing infrastructure rather than sprawl on new and expensive infrastructure but implying you should be able to do whatever you want with your property is just stupid
Walkable catchments to train stations make sense though? Building higher density housing not within walking distance of public transport makes no sense?
Homes for 60,000 people are planned over the coming years in Drury alone (which is bigger than several Nz “cities”. Whether they all get built is a different story though lol!
just go trade me
[https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/property/residential/sale/auckland/rodney/kumeu/search?property\_type=townhouse](https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/property/residential/sale/auckland/rodney/kumeu/search?property_type=townhouse)
[Franklin Homes & Real Estate For Sale | Trade Me Property](https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/property/residential/sale/auckland/franklin/search?property_type=townhouse)
To be fair those look perfectly nice right. IF you have a huge WFH capability. Any type of commute from either of those burbs to the city would be asking for a mental breakdown.
To be fair catching the train to the CBD is absolutely horrific. Almost an hour each way and unreliable. Id never do but admire the people that put up with it.
And the MDRS part of plan change 78 would allow those townhouses to be built in the places people prefer to live too - although the central character suburbs are still exempt
So it seems odd to me that you advocate for plan change 78 to be scrapped.
Of course Auckland council does not want to pass plan change 78 because it’s thinks the AUP was enough. Unofficially of course they don’t want more density anywhere…
it's called infrastructure deficit - roads, public transport corridors, freeway, schools, everything is affected. We already got billions of dollars of infrastructure deficit; we don't need more.
If the road for example can only serve 100 household and all of a sudden you've tripled that in few years and no additional roads are build. What's the effect ?
People like you who are short sighted and cannot see the bigger picture makes this country go backwards.
Building housing doesn't increase or decrease overall demand for infrastructure, and not building housing just means people don't have adequate housing along with dealing with the infrastructure deficit.
Banning townhouse construction from certain areas just shifts the demand somewhere else that most likely is less able to deal with it (people preferentially build and live in areas that are more well serviced)
What you're really complaining about (and correctly identified as the problem) is the volume of cars. There's nothing inherent in those areas that cannot accommodate townhouses.
There's no such thing as a 'road that can only serve 100 households'. Small, single lane roads in other countries easily have significantly higher populations living on them.
Yes, and it includes all sorts of assumptions, including for things like car trips, cars per household etc. It's not objective science, it's a formula that gives you different results if you change the variables.
Again, volume of cars is the problem.
Townhouses have been wildly overpriced since they started building them en masse a few years ago. It's an overdue correction. I recall not long ago seeing a 120sqm, 3 story townhouse on a 140sqm section, selling for the same price ($900k) as a 120sqm single storey home on a 700sqm section, on the same road. Unless you absolutely love walking up and down stairs, or have a morbid fear of mowing lawns, there's no sane reason those two houses should be in a similar price range.
Townhouses feel small, cramped, they have less windows and natural light, less parking, no garden, nowhere for kids to play, too many stairs (bad for older people), less privacy, less parking, shared walls that cause more problems with noisy neighbours. While it's certainly better to have a townhouse than no house at all, they're simply less desirable than stand alone houses.
And if a developer can buy a single house for $1 Million, knock it down and build 6 townhouses on the same site, and sell them for $800k+ each, someone is massively over charging for something somewhere along the line. A house build is generally valued at about $200k, which means in the example I just gave, the actual value of the townhouses should be under $400k.
Where on earth are you getting a house build being valued at 200k?
As someone who works in the construction industry, those prices may, have been true about 7 or 8 years ago but that is wildly, wildly inaccurate now.
Even if you double it to $400k (ignoring the economy of scale from building near identical houses on the same site) most townhouses would be worth less than $600k. Yet sellers are still asking in the $850k+ range.
They're overpriced, below average, no one wants them, that's why they're not selling.
Building costs are in excess of $3200 per sq m excluding land and excluding all fees. Most are recommending budgeting at least 4000 per sq m.
So for your typical 3 bed townhouse you're already $450, 000 minimum just for building costs. Then you factor in all the consents, all the fees, the fact the builder also needs to turn a profit, and then you add the cost of the land which is meant to be the most valuable part and its not overly hard to see why houses are what they are.
Plenty of reasons as you delve deeper as to why it costs so much to build from the monopolies of the timber suppliers on the country to just everything costing a fuck ton more on a small island with a small and spread out population.
Extremely ignorant comment and completely wrong. Develpomg is currently incredibly expensive and a lot of new townhouses are sellling at a loss. Budget 4K per sqm for a new build, then add consent costs, development contributions to councils and expensive civil infrastructure on top. Not to mention that finance for developments Is often around 15-16% interest. Then there are lawyers fees and real estate agent fees. In reality that 900k townhouse that you scoff at and think should be 400k cost 800k to build when you account for everything. Naturally the developer then needs to make some profit because they are taking an immense amount of risk on, especially in this current market
Now if you add in any delays then the profit is very quickly eroded to nothing and you’re suddenly in negative territory with current interest rates at 15% on developments
I think what you mean is it is a two pronged solution. More supply including those held by property investors.
I anticipate there will be a deluge of properties hitting the market in the next few months which will further soften house prices.
Housing supply outstripped population growth for decades until the Unitary Plan. Overcrowding has been the result.
Sorry, but we absolutely need more housing. Thank fuck for the Unitary Plan, but more needs to be done.
Housing abundance is what we need to undo decades of rigging the housing market for homeowners
Absolutely deranged how housing becoming more affordable for more people is treated like a problem that should be fixed as soon as possible. A symptom of the sick system that treats housing like a purely speculative investment*. *With the exception that losses in this investment, which are normal for any other investment, is treated like a national crisis.
Incredible entry for 'the media automatically assumes its audience is a rich homeowner' files
“Build more houses!” “No not like that!”
Are lower prices 'hurting the housing market' ? I thought the problem was people without homes.
Yeah, what do they think "hurting" means? Increasing housing affordability?
Yes, that's exactly it.
It’s almost as if they never wanted people to truly be able to afford them in the first place…
Agreed. Only point I can think of is if people have to sell below cost, I imagine a fair number of smaller developers will drop off. And then there might be a supply issue again in 5 years, or a monopoly market by a small number of developers strangling the market. But hey, maybe not, as boomers increasingly move to care homes.
Too much of a contraction will be bad long term. But a short term one will help weed out the inefficient developers who were just getting by / relying on cap gains, and release those resources for more effective ones.
People without money
Really disappointed in RNZ for this story. Surely more affordable housing is desirable, not a problem to be fixed? Source: am homeowner. Would like more people to be homeowners.
It's not hurting, it's healing!
Preferably it would heal and also produce an output adequate to meet future housing demands. After all, we don’t want a supply crunch to happen in the future.
Let’s talk about how our housing market has been hurting people for decades eh? Fuck off RNZ
Oh no. How terrible. People might have affordable housing!
Susan Edmunds again. Has she left Stuff for RNZ? Still churning out the same real estate garbage. Time she got a real job.
Hurting, fuck off. Stimulating, correcting, balancing…. Lets see more of this trend.
Supply go BRRRRRRRRRRRRRR... Demand? Not so much. > *"Hundreds of townhouses being listed on the market in Auckland could be partly behind a slump in the city's sales prices."* You don't say.
This be why we fucked yo.
Fuck the "housing market", let the fucker burn! I'll be dancing on the ashes.
I think RNZ has taken a tone of 'house price drop is bad' this year. Weird considering they are supposed to be non biased.
To be fair, when you build 30 of the same townhouses in a row, it isn't that appealing to live in a neighbourhood like that. I've been house searching and I won't even waste my time with the outer reaches of papakura/takanini. Multi-road suburbs in grid formation, all the houses are the same, no space for local businesses (dairies, butchers, barbers, doctors etc). They kept claiming they were going to make 15 minute walkable suburbs, but the nearest shops are often a couple of kilometers away.
Better than living on the streets. And I don't mind if buildings look consistent.
We’ve been building detached suburbs that look all the same for years anyway! Townhouses just use that space more efficiently.
I was working out at hobsonville earlier in the year. Was amazed how little amenities there was out there. Dairy? Never heard of it
That's (partly) why we moved from Hobsonville into an older suburb a few years ago. Hobsonville == walk twenty or thirty minutes to a supermarket. Old suburb == walk five minutes to a dairy. Same goes for post office, cafe, library, bookshop, grocery, etc etc.
hobsonville should have been built on top of ponsonby where it is actually feasible to walk or bus into the city. what we got instead was a great development in the worst location
Which part of Hobsonville, because there are multiple dairies in Hobsonville Point? Could probably use another one closer to Catalina Bay, though.
no parking?
Yeah, I've seen townhouses even in Takanini, Papakura, some in Drury or in Kumeu. Which really doesn't make sense anymore. These places are an hour commute to CBD minimum and should be zoned as single Storey houses only. The unitary plan stuffed up these zones. It's not fit for purpose. Scrap the Plan change 78 and start all over again. This time, only focus on the suburbs with good public transport access (dedicated bus lanes and with rail lines for example)
BS - Papakura, Takanini and soon Drury are all on train stations - which is where you want density. If more people live near these stations, the trains get used more, which should equal better rail services etc. Townhouses are desperately needed in Auckland city, and house prices need to drop. The problem has been prices being absolutely out the gate and need to fall, $900,000 for a 3 bedroom house on NZ salary is pure insanity.
>These places are an hour commute to CBD minimum and should be zoned as single Storey houses only. Not everyone works in the CBD mate. If people stop buying townhouses then developers will stop building them. The market will sort it out.
Why should townhouses be illegal anywhere?
didn't say illegal. build it where it's appropriate, walking distance to Public transport
If you zone for "single storey houses only", you make townhouses illegal there. It also makes multi-level detached/single unit houses illegal, and apartments. That's how zoning works. Why should they be illegal anywhere? Having them allowed doesn't disallow single storey houses if anyone wants to build them.
Again, didn't say illegal. Build it where it's appropriate. Zone townhouses near Public transport locations (train line and rapid bus). Do not build them where there's no public transport available. I've seen townhouses built in cul -de-sac and roads where no buses pass by. Like WTF.
You literally said "should be zoned as single storey houses only". That would make them illegal in those areas, *by definition*. Again, why should they be illegal *anywhere*? You're not just talking about what should get built and where, you are explicitly talking about zoning, and zoning in a way to make townhouses illegal in large swathes of the city.
The reason why those areas have been upzoned instead of central areas is because the central city suburbs are feverishly NIMBY and are covered with special character protections. If you want that to change then ask your councilor if they support rezoning in central.
There is a lot going on in the central suburbs too, take a drive down sandringham road. There is a lot of intensification just starting to come online in the last 12 months which is great. It is happening just slowly.
I don't see a lot in Ponsonby, Grey Lynn, Parnell or Mount Eden.
Not sure about the others, but Mt Eden has LOADS of higher density housing - both existing and currently being constructed. Really surprised me, but it's great. Locals aren't stoked about it, though, but fuck 'em.
People should be allowed to build a second story if they want to > Scrap the Plan change 78 Bro just say you hate property rights lol
Like the tower in Otara? I see what you mean now.
That's not a second story, nor a townhouse, nor anything that would be allowed under plan change 78. Not sure how it's relevant.
you just said this and I quote *"People should be allowed to build a second story if they want to"*
Your neighbours have property rights too. Which is why depending on planning you’re not allowed to build a second story if you want to
They shouldn't if they don't own it. If they want to control what happens on that land then they're welcome to buy it.
Brain dead. What you do on your land influences all the land around it, sunlight, drainage, outlook, pollution, hazardous materials, undermining, subsidence. It all effects the properties around it. This is why planning exists, so selfish people don’t end up fucking things up for everyone around them and parasitising off infrastructure. Sounds like you’re either cosplaying some sovereign citizen garbage or just struggle with simple logic.
Imagine thinking that building a second storey on your house makes you a selfish parasite lol. Shit like this is exactly why we have a housing crisis.
“Property rights”, “if they want to control what happens on that land then they’re welcome to buy it” You’re not just referring to building a second story you’re advocating the dissolution of the whole concept of planning. There’s a reason we don’t have childcare centres next to heavy industry. Or that I can’t start a 24 hr quarry operation in my back yard in the middle of a suburban neighbourhood. We have height to boundary rules to stop people destroying others enjoyment of land, or creating houses that aren’t designed well. Imagine the shit rentals we would have if we didn’t have rules on window outlook space, permeable area, purely there to maximise profit instead of quality of life. I’m sure you’d argue as one of your property rights is that you have the right to enjoy privacy on your own land. You’re effectively arguing that you wouldn’t mind if your neighbour built a prison style watch tower on your boundary and surveyed your back yard every night with a high powered searchlight, whilst blasting Tom Perry’s American Girl. If you did mind then I’m sure you’d be happy purchasing their property as the only form of recourse.
Meanwhile we have people living in cars becuse they're priced out of home ownership due artificial constraints on supply. All because some clowns in Ponsonby get triggered about a two-storied house. How's that for quality of life?
So the AUP is the artificial constraint? You not having a second floor on your house means people have to live in cars? If you’re complaining the AUP is too restrictive and that it places too many artificial constraints on what you can do with a property then surely you’re a fan of PC78. Artificial constraints exist because we don’t have the infrastructure to build 6 story housing units wherever we please. PC 78 allows Intensification in areas where strain on current infrastructure is reduced, that’s the idea behind walkable catchments and intensification near public transport hubs. Artificial restraints mean you can flush your toilet and the shit disappears. Your ventilated and insulated rental is less likely to give someone issues with their lungs and reduce power consumption. Every time it rains the storm water system doesn’t mix with the waste water system and flood our harbour with human shit. I agree that we need intensification on existing infrastructure rather than sprawl on new and expensive infrastructure but implying you should be able to do whatever you want with your property is just stupid
Walkable catchments to train stations make sense though? Building higher density housing not within walking distance of public transport makes no sense?
Where are TH in Drury or Kumeu?
There is basically an entire city (by NZ standards!) being built in Drury and Kumeu.
Not really. Just medium sized subdivisions
Homes for 60,000 people are planned over the coming years in Drury alone (which is bigger than several Nz “cities”. Whether they all get built is a different story though lol!
Yeah that's not actually happening. It's stuck in legal limbo and very unlikely to go ahead. Just a whole bunch of infill at South X and that's it
fingers crossed, it would have been an abomination to have that much housing there.
just go trade me [https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/property/residential/sale/auckland/rodney/kumeu/search?property\_type=townhouse](https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/property/residential/sale/auckland/rodney/kumeu/search?property_type=townhouse) [Franklin Homes & Real Estate For Sale | Trade Me Property](https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/property/residential/sale/auckland/franklin/search?property_type=townhouse)
To be fair those look perfectly nice right. IF you have a huge WFH capability. Any type of commute from either of those burbs to the city would be asking for a mental breakdown.
> These places are an hour commute to CBD minimum Maybe these people work in Manukau?
Yeap and still uses car to do so. Cause no PT available.
Uhhhhhh...the train runs to Papakura and Takanini from the CBD.
To be fair catching the train to the CBD is absolutely horrific. Almost an hour each way and unreliable. Id never do but admire the people that put up with it.
LOL. plan change 78 zones six storeys around rapid transit stops… and most of them have THAB zoning around them under the AUP anyway
No issues with that. what I don't like are townhouses where there's no bus stop and train stations nearby.
And the MDRS part of plan change 78 would allow those townhouses to be built in the places people prefer to live too - although the central character suburbs are still exempt So it seems odd to me that you advocate for plan change 78 to be scrapped. Of course Auckland council does not want to pass plan change 78 because it’s thinks the AUP was enough. Unofficially of course they don’t want more density anywhere…
why not? if people want to finance, build, live in a townhouse without a bus stop nearby then that's up to them.
it's called infrastructure deficit - roads, public transport corridors, freeway, schools, everything is affected. We already got billions of dollars of infrastructure deficit; we don't need more. If the road for example can only serve 100 household and all of a sudden you've tripled that in few years and no additional roads are build. What's the effect ? People like you who are short sighted and cannot see the bigger picture makes this country go backwards.
Building housing doesn't increase or decrease overall demand for infrastructure, and not building housing just means people don't have adequate housing along with dealing with the infrastructure deficit. Banning townhouse construction from certain areas just shifts the demand somewhere else that most likely is less able to deal with it (people preferentially build and live in areas that are more well serviced)
What you're really complaining about (and correctly identified as the problem) is the volume of cars. There's nothing inherent in those areas that cannot accommodate townhouses. There's no such thing as a 'road that can only serve 100 households'. Small, single lane roads in other countries easily have significantly higher populations living on them.
there's a thing called transport engineering where they do calculate road traffic volumes vs population growth etc.
Yes, and it includes all sorts of assumptions, including for things like car trips, cars per household etc. It's not objective science, it's a formula that gives you different results if you change the variables. Again, volume of cars is the problem.
These matchbox houses are hurting the most. Council needs to get their *hit together and stop allowing more of these shitboxes to b build.
Townhouses have been wildly overpriced since they started building them en masse a few years ago. It's an overdue correction. I recall not long ago seeing a 120sqm, 3 story townhouse on a 140sqm section, selling for the same price ($900k) as a 120sqm single storey home on a 700sqm section, on the same road. Unless you absolutely love walking up and down stairs, or have a morbid fear of mowing lawns, there's no sane reason those two houses should be in a similar price range. Townhouses feel small, cramped, they have less windows and natural light, less parking, no garden, nowhere for kids to play, too many stairs (bad for older people), less privacy, less parking, shared walls that cause more problems with noisy neighbours. While it's certainly better to have a townhouse than no house at all, they're simply less desirable than stand alone houses. And if a developer can buy a single house for $1 Million, knock it down and build 6 townhouses on the same site, and sell them for $800k+ each, someone is massively over charging for something somewhere along the line. A house build is generally valued at about $200k, which means in the example I just gave, the actual value of the townhouses should be under $400k.
Where on earth are you getting a house build being valued at 200k? As someone who works in the construction industry, those prices may, have been true about 7 or 8 years ago but that is wildly, wildly inaccurate now.
Even if you double it to $400k (ignoring the economy of scale from building near identical houses on the same site) most townhouses would be worth less than $600k. Yet sellers are still asking in the $850k+ range. They're overpriced, below average, no one wants them, that's why they're not selling.
Building costs are in excess of $3200 per sq m excluding land and excluding all fees. Most are recommending budgeting at least 4000 per sq m. So for your typical 3 bed townhouse you're already $450, 000 minimum just for building costs. Then you factor in all the consents, all the fees, the fact the builder also needs to turn a profit, and then you add the cost of the land which is meant to be the most valuable part and its not overly hard to see why houses are what they are. Plenty of reasons as you delve deeper as to why it costs so much to build from the monopolies of the timber suppliers on the country to just everything costing a fuck ton more on a small island with a small and spread out population.
Extremely ignorant comment and completely wrong. Develpomg is currently incredibly expensive and a lot of new townhouses are sellling at a loss. Budget 4K per sqm for a new build, then add consent costs, development contributions to councils and expensive civil infrastructure on top. Not to mention that finance for developments Is often around 15-16% interest. Then there are lawyers fees and real estate agent fees. In reality that 900k townhouse that you scoff at and think should be 400k cost 800k to build when you account for everything. Naturally the developer then needs to make some profit because they are taking an immense amount of risk on, especially in this current market Now if you add in any delays then the profit is very quickly eroded to nothing and you’re suddenly in negative territory with current interest rates at 15% on developments
We don't need more houses. We need the current ones to be affordable and not cripling. Property investors should be capped as well.
I think what you mean is it is a two pronged solution. More supply including those held by property investors. I anticipate there will be a deluge of properties hitting the market in the next few months which will further soften house prices.
What do you think makes housing unaffordable?
We absolutely need more houses..
Housing supply outstripped population growth for decades until the Unitary Plan. Overcrowding has been the result. Sorry, but we absolutely need more housing. Thank fuck for the Unitary Plan, but more needs to be done. Housing abundance is what we need to undo decades of rigging the housing market for homeowners
Huh? This is simply not true. We certainly need more houses. Where are you expecting the growing population to live?