22
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2024
22 points (95.8% liked)
NZ Politics
514 readers
1 users here now
Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!
This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi
This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick
Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Expensive unsustainable sprawl
expensive unsustainable sprawl
deciding not to intensify for character reasons will lead to denser sprawl on city fringes without amenities, defeating the point a great extent given public transport funding has been slashed. This is already happening in Auckland
mixed use fuck yes do that
no minimum apartment size seems terrible when combined with the other sprawl idk. Banks are already very squeamish about lending less than 45sq m aren't they or has that changed
Wasn't the MDRS better than this though?
Build good quality, well sized apartment blocks and terraces in centrally located connected areas people actually want to live. If the private market can't or won't do that, then the state needs to step in and do it, like in every other housing crisis we've had in this country.
#1 & #2 does feel like a bit of a gift to the folks who got in some years ago and banked land on the boundaries. Explains why an apple orchard down the road felled all the trees and just left them there - no new grafts or anything; the block got bought by a major property developer who must have seen the chances of either a zoning change or removal of the urban/rural zone coming.
Sprawl typically also means fewer 200+m2 houses on larger blocks of land when looking at opening up public spaces and building denser housing close to public transport is a better solution for long term transport emissions.
Isn't the whole point of the legislation encouraging just what you're suggesting though?
It'll be great if it does, but there appears to be a big focus on greenfield both explicitly and giving opt outs to councils that can push to "other" areas if they don't upzone so called character areas.
So pushing development to the fringes that are less served by existing infrastructure and services, and therefore more expensive or just downright worse in that regard.
Does that give incentive for the council to not use the character clause? They can use it, but if they do they will face more expensive servicing of properties.
Yes I'd imagine so, and they might take it that way.
On the other hand, they might make the politically easier decision in the short term if those more expensive servicing costs are incurred in the future when it comes time to maintain/replace greenfield infrastructure.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure councils bend to NIMBYs all the time, even when it's a bad idea.
But there have been some recent examples, Auckland, Wellington, where they haven't so I guess there's hope!
There is a greenfield development in Upper Hutt that is nearing completion, on a former Ag Research piece of land. It's a very dense development, a mixture of townhouses and stand alone buildings, with the standalone buildings mostly multi story. Still has walking access to public transport and shops, too.
It's definitely easier to build on a large scale when starting from scratch like that.