sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

QV says Auckland property values up 15.4% in 2013, LVR restrictions haven't impacted values yet and won't in Auckland

Property
QV says Auckland property values up 15.4% in 2013, LVR restrictions haven't impacted values yet and won't in Auckland
<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/">Image sourced from Shutterstock.com</a>

By Gareth Vaughan

National residential property values rose 10% in 2013 with Auckland area values up 15.4%, government valuer Quotable Value says.

QV also says there's no apparent impact on values yet from the Reserve Bank's restrictions on banks' low equity home loans and there won't be in Auckland, although there will be in the rest of the country. The other major influence on the property market this year is likely to be rising mortgage interest rates, QV says, increasing the cost of servicing mortgages meaning people borrow less and offer less for properties.

The national average residential property value rose 10%, or $42,314 in 2013 to $466,022, QV says, with Auckland area values up 15.4%, or $92,681, to $693,549 at December 2013 from $600,868 at December 2012. Nationally values are now 12.5% above the previous market peak reached in late 2007. For the last three months of 2013 national values rose 3%.

"As was the case in 2012, most of the nationwide increase in values was driven by strong increases in Auckland, and to a lesser extent Christchurch," said Jonno Ingerson, QV.co.nz's research director.

“Sales volumes each month up until October were also higher than the same month in 2012 by between 5% and 18%. This represented an increase in activity but this was still well below the level of sales seen in 2003 to 2007, and is only just getting back to a long term average level."

The Reserve Bank introduced restrictions on banks' high loan to value ratio (LVR) residential mortgages from October 1. This mean banks must restrict lending at LVRs above 80% (where borrowers don't have a deposit of at least 20%) to no more than 10% of total new mortgage lending. This 10% limit excludes high LVR loans made under Housing New Zealand’s Welcome Home Loans scheme, the refinancing of existing high-LVR loans, bridging finance or the transfer of existing high-LVR loans between properties, and new residential construction loans.

"The Reserve Bank signalled well before October that they were likely to put in place measures to cool the market, and these began to have an immediate impact, at least on activity," said Ingerson.

"The number of sales slowed down and the number of new listings followed suit. As yet there appears to have been no impact on values, although it is really too early to expect dramatic change."

Ingerson said the LVR restrictions should have an impact on the market for at least the first half of 2014.

"The first sign so far of their impact is a decline in the number of new listings,” said Ingerson.

“The impact of the speed limits is likely to differ across the country. Auckland values are expected to keep increasing throughout the year as both internal and external migration boosts the population while the supply of housing remains tight. This strong demand and low supply is likely to keep pushing values up, although the rate of increase will probably be less than the previous year.”

However, Ingerson said that around the rest of New Zealand the LVR restrictions will reduce property turnover and values.

"Outside of Auckland and Canterbury there isn't the same imbalance between supply and demand. There generally aren't multiple purchasers vying for the same property, so the LVR speed limits are likely to significantly decrease demand and therefore prices.”

  Average current value 12 month
change %
3 month
change %
Since 2007 market peak
change %
Auckland - North Shore $820,459 16.6% 4.9% 27.1%
Auckland - Waitakere $538,095 18.6% 4.7% 26.9%
Auckland - City $822,536 15.0% 3.6% 32.1%
Auckland - Manukau $575,638 16.4% 5.9% 25.8%
Auckland Area $693,549 15.4% 4.6% 26.9%

Here's more detail from QV's release

Main centre comparison

“A comparison of the main centres shows how much the nationwide annual increase of 10% was pushed up by Auckland and Christchurch. From the North Shore to Manukau values increased between 15% and 18% annually, and values in Christchurch went up 12.7%. In contrast, the rest of the main centres increased between 2.5% and 4.0% apart from Hamilton which was slightly higher at 5.8%,” said Jonno Ingerson.

“Considering that values in Auckland have now been increasing since early 2011 it is not surprising that they are now 27% above the previous 2007 market peak. Likewise values in Christchurch are 20% above the previous peak. Tauranga remains 8.2% below peak, while the Wellington area, Hamilton and Dunedin are just above or below previous peak levels.”

Provincial centres

Jonno Ingerson said, “The provincial centres showed less of a clear trend over 2013 than the main centres. Apart from Wanganui and Queenstown all the provincial centres increased during 2013, but the increases were less than 5%. The exceptions were Gisborne which increased by 5.5%, and New Plymouth 7.3%.”

“Relative to the previous market peak, only New Plymouth and Nelson are beyond that level by 4.5% and 5.1% respectively. Most of the other centres remain a few percent below peak, while Whangarei, Gisborne and Wanganui are over 15% below as all three of those areas did not show the same recovery in the market in 2009 and 2010 that most of the rest of the main centres did.”

“Compared to 2012, sales volumes dropped in many of the provincial centres by a few percent. The notable exceptions were Whangarei, New Plymouth and Nelson where sales were well above the year before.”

The outlook for 2014

“The LVR speed limits are likely to have an impact on the market for at least the first half of 2014. The first sign so far of their impact is a decline in the number of new listings,” said Jonno Ingerson.

“The impact of the speed limits is likely to differ across the country. Auckland values are expected to keep increasing throughout the year as both internal and external migration boosts the population while the supply of housing remains tight. This strong demand and low supply is likely to keep pushing values up, although the rate of increase will probably be less than the previous year.”

“In the last month or two of 2013 there were early signs that values in Christchurch and the surrounding areas may be faltering. In a few months from now we should be able to tell whether this was due to the LVR speed limits having a temporary influence, or whether values in Canterbury have reached their ceiling.”

“Across the rest of the country it is likely that the LVR caps will have a downward impact on property turnover and values. Outside of Auckland and Canterbury there isn't the same imbalance between supply and demand. There generally aren't multiple purchasers vying for the same property, so the LVR speed limits are likely to significantly decrease demand and therefore prices.”

“The other big influence on the property market this year is going to be the upcoming increase in mortgage interest rates. The last two or three years have been characterised by historically low interest rates which have encouraged people into the market. As rates rise later this year as they are expected to, this will increase the cost of servicing mortgages which in turn will lead to people borrowing less and therefore offering less for properties.”

“Counter to these potential downward forces are increasing levels of business and consumer confidence, particularly in the big cities. Consumer confidence in particular is a strong driver of the property market.”

“As is usually the case over the Christmas break, people tend to rethink their options. This may be particularly the case this year with the introduction of the LVR speed limits.

Buyers will be considering whether to stay out of the market and save more of a deposit, to find alternative sources of funds to boost their existing deposit (for example borrowing from family), or whether to downgrade their expectations to a lower value property.”

“Nationwide values are likely to increase only modestly this year, but that will probably be as a result of everywhere outside of Auckland slowing while the Auckland market itself will continue to increase.”

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

68 Comments

So now families with mortgages on their homes in Wanganui, Hastings, Palmerston N etc are going to be punished with higher interest rates because ofan Auckland / Immigration / Foreign capital problem.

Up
0

This is great news for those who currently own property. What about our children and grandchildren who will  be buyers in the future? Do any of the property spruikers who comment on this site think about them?

Up
0

It's great for speculators and to some extent for investors (move leverage to play with).

For your average home owner I'm not sure why this is great. It means they can withdraw more equity, but also that the next rung on the ladder has moved further away. Unless you're downsizing or leaving the market this isn't good news.

Up
0

Why is that a great news for existing property owners?  Someone like me for example, an owner occupier who does not plan to sell nor borrow against the rise in equity, will not be benefited from it at all.  If anything the CV is likely to increase comes July 2014 and more rates increase.  It's a lose-lose situation.

Up
0

Had a peek at the council rates of our previous home in Freemans Bay and it's now $4800/year.  My current home in Brisbane (same proximity to CBD) has roughly the same value and I am paying $1300/yr.  Here we still get rubbish collected weekly, the berm and footpath gets mowed/clean bi-monthly, lots of cycle tracks around the city, all libraries are free, free concerts in the park, fireworks, etc... I don't get it why Auckland rates are so high

Up
0

We are paying $5,500 /year rates at the moment so don't tell me it's going to be over $6k after July-14.  In saying that we are more fortunate than our next door neighbour who is paying over $10k rates /year for their $5 mil property~

Up
0

If they are economically rational/focussed solely on prices, them kiddies will be buying in Whanganui District, where values have declined.

Up
0

I sure do, when I have them (I'm only in my early 30s) I'll make sure to teach them how to hedge.  Don't be a victim Gordon. 

Up
0

Happy New Year all. 

 

Yes gordon we think of them (not to label myself a spruiker). Well to be honest I'm not thinking about your children but I'm thinking about mine. They will be very well off thanks to Dad's foresight buying property today! The last house I bought was specifically with the idea that my eldest child will probably end up in it as their first home. 

 

I get your point though. The way I see it the great divide is only going to get wider. It's good to debate 'the problem' from the moral high ground but I strongly recommend picking up a few investment properties whilst you do so - for your children and grandchildren's sake if not your own..

Up
0

What a pity your children have to rely on their parents to get them into a home. I enjoyed buying my first home with my well saved deposit and bank loan my wife and I obtained without any guarantees fom third parties. Many X and Y will not experience the satisfaction of getting into the property market by their own endeavours. What a pity for them. Nothing like getting something by your own endeavours. Far more enjoyment in that. What signal are you sending your kids. Don't worry about working,saving or studying too hard as I will look after you. Have the baby boomers spoilt their prescious offspring? I am retired at 58 based on property and share investments by the way.

Up
0

Ha! I'm not a baby boomer gordon. I'm a gen x'er who got started just as you did - through my own toil. I mourn with you that things aren't as they used to be. What should I do - not act because it's a pity this is the way of the world? I observe what is going on around me and act to benefit those dear to me. I would like it to be a fairer system with better prospects for all, but it is not. I do not have the desire to enter politics and try to change  this system - so I learn the game according to the rules set by others and play  it as best I can. 

 

My children will still have to buy their own houses. It might just be that the only way they can do that (in Auckland) is with Dad's help, but if that's what it takes to give them a leg up in life why not? I'd rather it not be but if it is I'm going to do that. I'm not going to hang my kids out to dry because I disagree with the system.

 

I'm sending my kids the signal that whether or not you like the system you have to learn to operate well within it if you want to be comfortable in life. You can complain about it but for goodness sake get on and play the game. I'm teaching them by example that if you work hard, spend sensibly and invest well you can build your own wealth. I'm teaching them that helping your family is important and worth doing if you can. Don't be greedy. I'm teaching them that if they work, save and study as best they can I'll always be there to support them as best I can.

 

Congratulations on being succesful enough to be retired already. I hope you are enjoying it!

Up
0

Yes I am enjoying it. I was a very busy professional and twelve weeks into retirement I had a medical checkup and everything was great. Eight years ago I was looking at blood pressure pills and now my blood pressure is normal. Stress does affect the body believe me.

 

Now I am having fun share trading in a market full of growth stocks which I do not think are worth holding. The bulk of my equities pay good dividends. These growth stocks which are currently flavour of the month do not even make a profit let alone pay dividends. A lot of retail investors who missed out on Xero are now in the market building up numbers in Wynyard and alike. These companies better hold up just like property will need to when interest rates start rising. People can get too confident.

Up
0

This is great news for Auckland homeowners only if you are intending to sell and downsize or head south, or head west 

Up
0

Wasn't this QVs quarterly release? Why the focus on year on year figures? 

 

3% quartly rise = 12% annualised vs 15% trailing twelve months.  Things are slowing down, but not by much yet.

 

Where is the actual QV press release? I can't find it linked here nor on their website.  Does it show the Auckland quarterly figure?

Up
0

My chart in the story above shows Auckland quarterly figures.

Up
0

Oh, ,nice work, how did i miss that?

Up
0

Must admit it's getting very tiresome having to recalulate upward the values of property every few weeks.

Up
0

Gotta be in to win team.

Up
0

I'm in with a grin!

Up
0

I hope YL and SK are also in shares as they are having an amazing run again already this year after some very good earlier years. It pays to have a diversified investment portfolio including property.

Up
0

YL and SK possibly have  a pile of precious metals (gold/silver) as well... 

Up
0

Of course.  I actively manage my portfolio so don't do long term buy and holds.  My positions over Xmas/New Years were SML and SUM, already got a 10%+ bump on SUM and not far off that on SML. 

 

Good to see your learning Gordy. 

Up
0

Olly Newland predicted that house prices could double over the next few years.

He may be right to the chagrin of his crticis.

A $600k Auckland house today increasing by 15% pa compounding will be worth $2,427.334.64 in 10 years time.

Not bad money if you can get it.

Up
0

Critics...  What critics?  Everyone loves Olly. 

Up
0

Did he factor in the chance of Labour/Greens may be the govt in 2014, they will introduce CGT in 2015 and force all rich landlord to re-education, hard labour camp by 2016? 

Up
0

.. and a median income of $90,000 now (generous) growing at 4% per annum (generous) will be about $130,000. Who's gonna buy your house?

Up
0
Up
0

That's why I added the "generous". One of Interest's other members tried to argue median for Auckland was $150-200k!

 

 

Up
0

Hi Guys, Just want to keep you updated with the latest top 21 Auckland million dollar suburbs in terms of Median House Value (QV) as at Dec-2013.

1          Herne Bay       $1,770,900

2          St Marys Bay   $1,534,300

3          Remuera          $1,331,850

4          Epsom             $1,292,600

5          Westmere        $1,271,900

6          Stanley Point   $1,253,250

7          Ponsonby        $1,195,900

8          Campbells Bay $1,188,900

9          Orakei             $1,178,050

10        Mission Bay     $1,158,600

11        St Heliers        $1,133,000

12        Kohimarama    $1,126,550

13        Devonport       $1,125,650

14        Omaha            $1,106,400

15        Glendowie      $1,105,300

16        Parnell            $1,085,500

17        Takapuna        $1,074,500

18        Castor Bay      $1,055,450

19        Mellons Bay    $1,022,050

20        Narrow Neck   $1,013,150

21        Greenlane       $1,002,100

Up
0

I was referring to median household income, not individual income.  See SK's comment below - he thinks 200k household income is "standard" in Auckland.

Up
0

A lot of the "investors" think 200k is standard. Reality will bite eventually, hard. 

Seek comes along and states that median is $75k, but in reality that's only high end jobs. Most folk are on 35-50k - that doesn't buy property in Auckland, even in the bad suburbs. Higher interest will tighten the screws even harder.

Up
0

I don't know why you still don't get it!!  Household income means total income in one household.  So if there are 4x workers living in one house and each earns 50k then they make the 200k household income.  Which school did you attend??

Up
0

ostrich which hole in NZ do you live in??  In Auckland it only takes an average couple with a standard 100k salary each to have a household income of 200k, not to mention those who earn millions from family businesses.  Do you live in Otara?

Up
0

Please tell us where you get your figures from.  100K is a 'standard' income in auckland now?  What do you mean by standard if not median?

Or are you just making up figure as you go along to support your hypothesis?

Up
0

Let's work out this hyppothetical average couple (keeping in mind that as the average is above the median it is a relatively smaller amount of people, and the subset of two such small groups being a couple is even smaller) from the Stats NZ data. Average male Auckland weekly income in 2013 was 1180 (61360 per year). Average female Auckland weekly income in 2013 was 858 (44616 per year). For a total total couple income 105976. The actual average total household income is really much lower, at 83252, as not every of the small subset of average earning men is partnered to the equally small subset of average earning women.

 

Up
0

Your argument is absolutely flawed. Let's say they were regular kiwi couples earning between $45,000-$90,000 do you think they would be able to service a $500,000 mortgage on those incomes? I don't know anyone whose families have given them $500,000 towards a house. So you are wrong. So yes, you do need to earn $150,000-$200,000 to be able to save a deposit and buy a house if you have grown up in NZ.

Up
0

Maybar, the median multiple measure long ago became obsolete, it doesn't consider inheritance,  OE savings, capital gains in previous properties or any number of other reasons a person or persons do not start from $0.  Your also oversimplifying by taking one basic measure and applying it to every suburb, every street in the nation.  The average income has little to do with the good people of Herne Bay, they don't earn the average income so trying to say their properties are overvalued because of a multiple of a figure that does not relate to them is..... nonsense.  The average NZ household income would be relevant if you were considering Glen Innes, Manurewa or Hamilton but even there it would still be a gross generalisation. 

Up
0

I think you are right Happy23.  I think we have overcooked the medians and averages with our tunnel vision by focussing on the Herne Bay & Westmere in the west, Remuera & Mission Bay in the east, Epsom & Mt Eden in the south, and Devonport & Takapuna in the north.  It needs to go a lor wider than that for a more accurate gross generalisation!!

Up
0

It does feel like it should be a poll "does history provide any lessons about NZ house prices"

Up
0

Silly indeed.  Your assuming NZ is exactly the same today as it was 20, 30 or 50 years ago. 

 

What was the average inheritance when families were 6 - 10 kids?  As oppose to the 2.1 today. 

 

What were interest rates 20 years ago?  As oppose to the record lows that are now the norm.

 

Suburbs...  What is the the wealth gap today compared to 50 years ago?  There's probably another thread on this very sight where you are moaning about the increasing gap between rich and poor. 

 

History...   Have a look at my posts from 1, 2 or 3 years ago on this sight, Happy saw this coming long before it was a headline. 

 

I'll have a double thanks. 

Up
0

I know you are taking the perspective that "this time is different" but when in all of history have there ever been an average of 6-10 kids by the time they were old enough to inherit anything? Pre-contraception, in the 19 century, women average 6.5 live births, but infant then childhood mortality to a significant toll before the kids were old enough to inherit anything.

Up
0

You seem to be tacitly agreeing that there were bigger families in the past, I'll concede that by the time inheritance rolled around there may not be the full 6.5 kids left but even half that is still more than the average family today.  The next big factor in the equation is how much do they split, I'd wager (and this is just my opinion/observation) that your average Kiwi baby boomer will leave a lot more wealth than their parents generation that was ravaged by 2 world wars. 

Up
0

I would absolutely agree there have been larger family sizes in the past. However, I have to caveat that with it has been up and down, and adjusting for the survival to inheritance age, the generation born in the 1910s and 1920s (before germ theory and antibiotics) would have been sharing inheritances with about the same number of siblings as today. People don't realise how odd the post ww2 baby boom was compared to long term trends. You can see the births (rather than survival to adulthood) at

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/graph/26967/new-zealands-fertility-rate

Up
0

rjf, you said "Seek comes along and states that median is $75k, but in reality that's only high end jobs. Most folk are on 35-50k".

You are basically right. Using the latest States NZ information at

http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/index.aspx

The median income for all adults in Auckland is $29,600. The median income for those in paid employment is $45,864. However housing affordability is measured by household income, and Aucklands median household income is $1,458 per week, which is $75,816.

Up
0

one gotta be there pulling at least 150~200k to look for a decent house in auckland now.

even 150k can't really make one feel comfortable.

below that the family is more likely renting.

CGT won't work. It never worked.

Up
0

hauraki, not only would a CGT not work it would make property more expensive.  CGT is a tax, an expense, if you increase the tax on cigarettes what happens to the price...  If you increase the tax on a imported good what happens to the price...  Adding tax increases the cost.  If Labour/Greens were serious about house price inflation (which we know they are not as evidenced by the naughties boom they orchestrated) they would be campaigning to halt all immigration until the supply shortage is corrected.  They will never do that because it's the new, poor immigrants that tend to vote left, Labour will open the flood gates just to boost their voter base.  In my experience this National govn is doing more to correct the supply imbalance than the rest. 

Up
0

And therein lies the whole problem.  Yes, who is going to buy these houses.  And is the solution - if no one buys, then the prices reduce?  I heard a documentary on immigration on Radio NZ National last week and many immigrants to Auckland cannot afford to buy homes now. 

Up
0

Trouble is, it's not actual immigrants, it's the non-resident cashed up foreigners with money burning a hole in their pocket needing somewhere to stash it, so into the Auckland property market it goes. If we had things like CGT, or stamp duty, or better yet, just didn't allow them the opportunity, it wouldn't be nearly so bad and they would never had been able to skew the market as they have. Same with farm land, non resident foreign owners are a scourge

Up
0

And, if you cant bring yourself to vote for winston, nothing will change

Up
0

the usual raegun rant about foreigners, where's your stats....  What happens if all foreigners are banned and there's still a shortage?  This is our problem, created by us and perpetuated by us.  Blaming 'foreigners' is just weak.

Up
0

Don't let the lack of any hard facts get in the way of a good rant.  So now it's California hedge funds...  not just those pesky Chinese.  You do know what/who you sound like right.....

Up
0

Throw them in the gulag!

Up
0

200k Household income in many auck suburbs would be standard, not really enough to party on.

Up
0

When are those dashing rents going to rise... factoring in rate increases if Len keeps his word (Whatever) a 2% rental increase p.a isn't going to cut it. Media start the hype, my tenants are coming up for renewal soon ;o) Good to be on the rung!

Up
0

Yes, Yes, Yes ..... more great newz for the "asute" property investooor .... up, up and away they go !!

 

Enzud (esp. Awklund) is getting what "the powers that be" always wanted ...as long as all you "baby boomers" are happy and are already in the market, what does it matter whether they increase 5% or 25% .... question is "who is going to buy you overpriced, damp, leaky, dump for 1.85 mil that you bought for 450k a few short years ago ???

 

This is want the National Gummint want..... with no restrictions to foreign residential property ownership and with the air quality in the BRIC countries esp. China, Hong Kong there will be a market for these ridiculous prices ...... meanwhile for your $1.85 mil ...an equivalent thereof.....

 

http://www.zillow.com/homes/Annapolis-MD_rb/#/homes/for_sale/Annapolis-MD/35998336_zpid/16773_rid/3-_beds/1000000-2000000_price/3932-7864_mp/days_sort/39.081706,-76.32185,38.880477,-76.685429_rect/11_zm/1_fr/

 

 

Up
0

Annapolis?  8kms outside of a town of 38K?

 

1.8M also buys you allot if you like living just outside of whangarei!

Up
0

When were you last in Annapolis dtcarter ?

Up
0

Google Maps shos that it is 50min from The White House  Washington DC. I would have thought that the point is that this is a home for the US elite right at the beating heart of the greatest empire on earth,and  on a pretty nice beach is actually not a whole lot of money

Up
0

I've never been to Annapolis, America is somewhere that i have not travelled extensively.

 

Google maps also shows that it is in the country.  You can't compare it to the herne bay villa that 1.85M will by in the centre of a city of 1.5M people.  

Try looking at what 1.85M will buy within a 50min drive of auckland.  There's pleanty of damn nice places on the beach for that budget. And it'll be a proper beach too, not some lousy inlet with man-made rock walls just offshore to stop the sand washing away..

Are we going to start saying the states has an affordability problem because 1.85M doesn't buy much on Fifth Ave?

Up
0

Huntly isn't the home of the Unites States Naval Academy, along with 44 other teritiary institutions within 50 km. Nor do I think there are 1012 restaurants within 25km of the town centre of Huntly. Nor does Huntly have 5 movie complexes with 25km of the town centre. I would be guessing there are not 135 golf courses in 50km of Huntly.

Up
0

dh you are spot on dude !!  that is my point ..... these "astute" kiwi property investors have blinders on when you bring up what you can buy for your $$$'s around the world - especially in countries where the standard of living is so much higher, with so much more to do AND be able to afford it ... just drive down the 50 freeway outside Annapolis or any freeway in MD for that matter and the cars are so much newer ...average age 2-3 years as opposed to 10-12 years down here in NZ. Also Annapolis is the state capital of Maryland and as you mentioned,  with all those facilities, esp. the Naval Academy,  there would some very good opportunities/jobs there as well.

 

So for someone to compare Annapolis with Huntly, while having never been to Annapolis, just shows just how deluded some folks are out there.  They are so convinced that they are 100% "bullet proof" from any event, that may affect their "property market", it just makes me laugh....NOTHING is a sure bet .....

 

However, the sad part is the present Government, banks, media, RE agents and all the hangers on are all for it and are up to their necks in it ..... vested interest abounds !!

 

I always go back to my theory - let the prices go "sky high" and pick up the pieces when the "cheap money" runs out or something out of the blue crops up ....... so let the prices hit the moon and they can scrap it out amongst themselves.

 

 

 

 

Up
0

Yes i don't think Huntly is a good comparison, although the distance to DC is the same, the property  is under 10km to Annapolis.

 

It's a tricky one to comapre to, we don't really have anywhere with strip of city clusters, surrounded by low density semi-rural suburbs.  The waitakeris come to mind as a suburb with a similar low-density spread of housing set on bush.

On the one hand it's 50km to a big city, but on the other it's less than 10km to the small but compact and dense 'city' of Annapolis.

Mangere Bridge is the right distance, but far higher density

https://maps.google.co.nz/maps?saddr=Church+Rd&daddr=Queen+St&hl=en&ll=…

 

Perhaps costal property in Weymouth, it's on an inlet.  No far more densly populated

https://maps.google.co.nz/maps?q=Weymouth,+Auckland&hl=en&ll=-37.04956,…

If you start heading further out, you start hitting lifestyle block around Drury/Kraka, and they are getting less populated.

 

Yup it really is just the Waitaks that have the same sort of  density as outter Annapolis.

https://maps.google.co.nz/maps?q=Weymouth,+Auckland&hl=en&ll=-36.951212…

 

vs

 

https://maps.google.co.nz/maps?q=65+Bay+Dr,+Annapolis,+MD,+USA&hl=en&sl…

 

In the meantime in central DC you can get this for 1.85M

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3810-Fulton-St-NW-Washington-DC-20007…

Up
0

With all due respect dtcarter, please refer to Plan B's comment above (thank you Plan B you are on the money).....for someone who hasn't been to Annapolis, MD you sure seem quick to make a comparison with some tinpot small city in NZ..... but that's the "kiwi way" when it comes to residential property and the "astute investooor".... 

 

 

 

Up
0

go on, please do explain for those of us not intricately familar with tiny US towns, why i should be concerned that luxury central city detached housing in auckland costs the same as costal property 50km outside of DC?  (it's a bit closer to that modern metropolis of Baltimore).

Certainly the income figures for Annapolis are nothing to be envious of.

 

You move out of the city, you get more for your money, it works the same the world over.

Up
0

You may not realise that essentially the entire Washington, New York, Boston seaboard is more or less one continous urban area. So while Annapolis is small in population, it is actually pretty small in area as well with a population density of 2064.6 per square kilometre. To put this in perspective Auckland's Metro density is 2,700 per square kilometre, North Shore's 1600. So it is fairly dense urban. The city's median income is above the national median, and even above the median for Maryland, which is the highest median income in the United States, so it is a well off area that is of city density, not a rural town.

 

Up
0

I'll have to respectfully disagree that Boston to Washington in "a continuous urban area". That would be one hell of a city if it was, but the reality is it made up of numerous cities surounded by miles of countryside, the cities do not bump up against each other.  New York state is an area i have spent some time in, and there's pleanty of wilderness there before you hit Boston.

 

Quoting the population density of Annapolis is all well an good, but the house being quoted here is not inside Annapolis, it is outside of the town boundaries, in a low density semi-rural area.  

 

Do you really think this picture looks similar density to Aucklands inner suburbs?

https://maps.google.co.nz/maps?q=65+Bay+Dr,+Annapolis,+MD:&hl=en&ll=38…

 

Anyway, i agree aucklands prices are crazy.  We all know affordability is up with the worst in the world.  I just don't think the comparison is relevant.  Perhaps when Crazy Horse said "Awklund" he actually meant coastal property a 50 min drive from auckland?

 

 

Up
0

It is a "strip" mega city, along the main travel routes, so there are green spaces if you go sideways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_megalopolis

The basic argument is you can get from Washington to Boston travelling through urban/ suburban population density areas, though the New York- Boston leg is the weakest. The Wikipedia page has a population density map on it.

Up
0

Interesting as I did DC to Delaware return in November, right past Annapolis. Later I did DC to New York and then the stretch from New Haven back to NY.

I don't know that you would want to swim that far into Chesapeake Bay, yes it is dense but that means a lot of industry also.

Up
0