Such an important issue imo when so many of our problems are due to our urban layout being so inefficient. Nats plan to repeal the bi-partisan Medium Density Resedintial Standard is sad given that looked to open up those Inner city suburbs where we'd get much more bang for our buck as a country, plus that brief moment of consensus was refreshing. Like all broad sweeping policy outlines there were problems that came along with the MDRS but it seems like those could've been addressed by building on it rather then throwing the whole thing out.
Why did the economist not directly mention the most important thing. Its by now well understood that green field development is subsidized by more intensively developed land. Ie increases in intensity, where people need to live, is far more economically viable than suburban sprawl. So if you want to pay less rates allow intensive brown fields development. And rate the socks off the special character areas because why should they be subsidized when they are wrecking the city for everyone else?
House on stilts in flood zones. Auckland has a few golf courses that current cost the city millions to run at a loss, that could be converted into those green/brown field mixes. Would help fill the city's coffers and part of the money could be used to invest in new courses on the edge of the city where the land is cheap and undeveloped.
Heritage homes need to be viewed in far more practical terms, moving forward, theres know need for 20 thousand homes to be all Categorized under the same umbrella, Not all need to be protected equally, give room for future scope! Then possible land can be developed.
I literally have no issues who moves to New Zealand, its the number of people. The last two decades, or even since the recession of 2008, the population has exploded. Since the year 1985 mentioned, its not just globalisation and general economics but the share number of people has lowered the quality of housing, rivers, many things. I do think that local councils also play a big a big part, thinking of infrastructure. Talking about immigration doesn’t automatically mean negative connotations towards immigrants. Outside of people entering here due to humanitarian reasons, we seriously need to rethink how we view the volume of immigration as not such a contentious topic.
Housing is a big problem and as someone who worked for a big developer overseas the planning of infrastructure/doctors/schooling etc needs to come first before any place is allowed to be developed and also working with the people around you - i live out of town in a farm area and big money brought next door for cheap and is putting housing on it but under current law don't have to notify anyone not even to say for the next 2 years you are going to have constant construction noise - yet people closer to town can't sub-divide on similar land (its like this building 3 storey houses next to a 1 storey house and killing there gardens/privacy/sun) - we need housing but i always believe communication is a big thing and it needs to be community based not cause someone has money or is able to pay the right people to do it (as council members etc get paid to much for the little they do (old boys club style) - we have a "But" clauses added in a legal document wtf)
Nz needs to get with the program... Auckland, wellington.. needs to GO UP! BUILD UP! its easily solved if we build apartments! UP UP UP... 30 story apartment buildings.. can easily accommodate 50.000 - 100.000 people. look at ASIA! its the only way... time to change the skyline!!!!!
I think most New Zealanders choose to live here for the lifestyle, which does not include mass high rises and high density living like as you say in Asia.
@@janec1242 Yes, a better life style. That is why we need to increase urban density, to improve one's life style and have a good place for children to be raised. Not in 30 stored towers, that is not the most efficient way to densify. Look to the new British Columbian regulation for the provinces cities, including Vancouver.
@@janec1242But such a lifestyle is unaffordable for many and that's mainly due to how we design our cities. Lack of urban intensification is also a major cause for NZ inefficient transport systems and infrastructure, high cost of living, housing crisis, economic inefficiency and due to those heavy expenses many Kiwi's find it easier to leave.
@@janec1242 I am born in New Zealand and I want them to build up. The lifestyle you allude to barely exists and inhibits the progress of this country, NZ needs to start taking inspiration from Asia
In other countries I've seen Housing on bamboo Poles over a River. Obviously we can't grow Bamboo in New Zealand ... It's a Point of View - either we can or we can't - once you get past the can't and find we have to you'll find the We Can
It seemed like Shane was hesitant to answer the questions, or needed more time to answer, because he was worried about offending us Kiwis? Just give it to us blunt, mate. Our Governing bodies haven't done a good job on housing and still continue to fk around while more people become homeless.
If the Government started building a very very fast train service from Bluff to Cape Reanga (Sp?) like the have in China and Europe, people could live the life we always have had. They could get to the cities if they wanted but the little towns would prosper and the infrastructure need would be gradual.
Here's what I'd do with this xmas tree flood area. I'd open it up for the owner to sell Bamboo Stilt homes on the land and sell them here for 3 years before opening the market up to Vietnamese
Such an important issue imo when so many of our problems are due to our urban layout being so inefficient. Nats plan to repeal the bi-partisan Medium Density Resedintial Standard is sad given that looked to open up those Inner city suburbs where we'd get much more bang for our buck as a country, plus that brief moment of consensus was refreshing. Like all broad sweeping policy outlines there were problems that came along with the MDRS but it seems like those could've been addressed by building on it rather then throwing the whole thing out.
If one reflects on the development of the north shore and Pakuranga with rail and bus lane through the 1950s to say 1975. They were growing suburbs.
NIMBY boomers paid a lot of money to National to get rid of that policy. I despise nimby boomers
Why did the economist not directly mention the most important thing. Its by now well understood that green field development is subsidized by more intensively developed land. Ie increases in intensity, where people need to live, is far more economically viable than suburban sprawl. So if you want to pay less rates allow intensive brown fields development. And rate the socks off the special character areas because why should they be subsidized when they are wrecking the city for everyone else?
House on stilts in flood zones.
Auckland has a few golf courses that current cost the city millions to run at a loss, that could be converted into those green/brown field mixes.
Would help fill the city's coffers and part of the money could be used to invest in new courses on the edge of the city where the land is cheap and undeveloped.
Heritage homes need to be viewed in far more practical terms, moving forward, theres know need for 20 thousand homes to be all Categorized under the same umbrella, Not all need to be protected equally, give room for future scope! Then possible land can be developed.
I literally have no issues who moves to New Zealand, its the number of people. The last two decades, or even since the recession of 2008, the population has exploded. Since the year 1985 mentioned, its not just globalisation and general economics but the share number of people has lowered the quality of housing, rivers, many things. I do think that local councils also play a big a big part, thinking of infrastructure. Talking about immigration doesn’t automatically mean negative connotations towards immigrants. Outside of people entering here due to humanitarian reasons, we seriously need to rethink how we view the volume of immigration as not such a contentious topic.
Housing is a big problem and as someone who worked for a big developer overseas the planning of infrastructure/doctors/schooling etc needs to come first before any place is allowed to be developed and also working with the people around you - i live out of town in a farm area and big money brought next door for cheap and is putting housing on it but under current law don't have to notify anyone not even to say for the next 2 years you are going to have constant construction noise - yet people closer to town can't sub-divide on similar land (its like this building 3 storey houses next to a 1 storey house and killing there gardens/privacy/sun)
- we need housing but i always believe communication is a big thing and it needs to be community based not cause someone has money or is able to pay the right people to do it (as council members etc get paid to much for the little they do (old boys club style) - we have a "But" clauses added in a legal document wtf)
Nz needs to get with the program...
Auckland, wellington.. needs to GO UP! BUILD UP!
its easily solved if we build apartments! UP UP UP...
30 story apartment buildings.. can easily accommodate 50.000 - 100.000 people.
look at ASIA! its the only way... time to change the skyline!!!!!
I think most New Zealanders choose to live here for the lifestyle, which does not include mass high rises and high density living like as you say in Asia.
@@janec1242 Yes, a better life style. That is why we need to increase urban density, to improve one's life style and have a good place for children to be raised. Not in 30 stored towers, that is not the most efficient way to densify. Look to the new British Columbian regulation for the provinces cities, including Vancouver.
@@janec1242But such a lifestyle is unaffordable for many and that's mainly due to how we design our cities.
Lack of urban intensification is also a major cause for NZ inefficient transport systems and infrastructure, high cost of living, housing crisis, economic inefficiency and due to those heavy expenses many Kiwi's find it easier to leave.
@@janec1242 I am born in New Zealand and I want them to build up. The lifestyle you allude to barely exists and inhibits the progress of this country, NZ needs to start taking inspiration from Asia
@@janec1242 well you go to a smaller town, you will have no lifestyle if we just have continues urban sprawls
In other countries I've seen Housing on bamboo Poles over a River.
Obviously we can't grow Bamboo in New Zealand ...
It's a Point of View - either we can or we can't - once you get past the can't and find we have to you'll find the We Can
It seemed like Shane was hesitant to answer the questions, or needed more time to answer, because he was worried about offending us Kiwis? Just give it to us blunt, mate. Our Governing bodies haven't done a good job on housing and still continue to fk around while more people become homeless.
Do we need rapid population growth.Does everyone benifit. Maybe we do. Question is not really asked though.
If the Government started building a very very fast train service from Bluff to Cape Reanga (Sp?) like the have in China and Europe, people could live the life we always have had. They could get to the cities if they wanted but the little towns would prosper and the infrastructure need would be gradual.
5 million people in nz , 1 billion in china .crikey have you seen how long it takes to do things here ! , please dont hold your breath 😊 .
Just stop listen to whoever planned AKL until now ... these dudes have no idea
Here's what I'd do with this xmas tree flood area.
I'd open it up for the owner to sell Bamboo Stilt homes on the land and sell them here for 3 years before opening the market up to Vietnamese
Yo I saw him in real life