By Greg Ninness
Much of the recent discussion around the Government’s KiwiBuild scheme has centred on how it could affect the supply and price of housing, and the problems in implementing it.
But another aspect of the scheme that’s received less attention is that it could be transformational for this country’s construction industry and also have a significant impact on the banking sector.
The key to how KiwiBuild will affect the construction and finance sectors is its scale.
The Government intends to build 100,000 affordable homes over the next 10 years, with half of those in Auckland.
That’s an average of 10,000 a year.
Last year there were only 31,000 new homes consented in the entire country and not quite 11,000 in Auckland.
So on those numbers, KiwiBuild will increase housing construction by 32% nationally and by 45% in Auckland.
Or looking at it another way, in the not too distant future KiwiBuild could be providing around a quarter of all the new homes built in this country and almost a third of those built in Auckland.
That’s massive, and one of the ways the Government expects to be able to build so many houses at an affordable price point is through increased use of prefabricated construction methods.
This can take two forms.
Either an entire house can be built off-site and transported in finished form to its ultimate location. That’s the house on the back of a truck scenario.
Or sections of the house can be built in a factory and transported to the building site where they are put together.
It is already common for roof trusses to be built in a factory and then transported to the building site to be lowered into place, and many low rise commercial buildings have walls made out of reinforced concrete panels that are prefabricated in a factory and installed on-site.
This second method of partial prefabrication will probably be the most common method used in KiwiBuild projects, because to meet the Government’s price targets, many and perhaps a significant majority of the new homes built will be multi-level dwellings – either multi-storey terrace houses or low to mid-rise blocks of apartments, and these don’t lend themselves to being transported in finished form on the back of a truck.
But the type of componentry that will be prefabricated will be much more sophisticated than mere exterior concrete panels.
As well as the exterior cladding, walls will be pre-wired and pre-plumbed, insulated, fitted with doors and windows and painted inside and out.
In other words complete.
Same with the interior walls, floors, ceiling and roof.
Essentially an entire building, whether it be a standalone house or a block of flats, could be delivered to its site in a few giant flat packs.
Once the building is assembled, the bathrooms and kitchens would need to be fitted out with any appliances installed, and everything needed for that is likely to come in another couple of boxes on the back of a truck as well.
Setting up this type of operation, especially one capable of producing at the scale required by KiwiBuild, will be expensive.
But there's also the scale of KiwiBuild and the size of the construction contracts that will be on offer that will make it attractive to companies to invest the sort of capital required to set up such operations.
These could be overseas companies that already have extensive prefabrication experience, who could set up shop on their own or in partnership with local companies.
Or it could be larger local companies with the financial muscle to do the same thing.
But it won’t end there.
Merger activity?
The size of the KiwiBuild contracts means that the building companies who win them will have considerable clout when it comes to procuring building materials, and they may be big enough to import them directly if that gives them an advantage.
Materials suppliers, whether they are based here or overseas, will not have been slow to pick up on that possibility, and it won't be a surprise to see them involved in some sort of consortium arrangement or alliance with building companies that tender for KiwiBuild contracts.
So one way or another, we are likely to see some major new players setting up shop in the residential building market via KiwiBuild.
And there's more.
KiwiBuild will provide those companies with a beachhead into the lower-priced end of the market, but once they are up and running there is no reason why they couldn’t start competing in the general residential market as well, and possibly also in commercial construction.
The size and scale of their operations would mean they could have a price advantage over traditional players, and as prefabricated construction becomes more accepted by the public they will likely extend their operations up the value scale as well, into higher priced properties.
That could see a flurry of merger activity among smaller to medium sized building companies as they look to set up their own prefabricating operations to remain competitive.
Residential construction could be in a similar space to where the New Zealand wine industry was a couple of decades ago, where many of the smaller independent players were being bought out by the big corporates or going out of business because they couldn’t compete, leaving most of the family-owned businesses operating as boutique players towards the top end of the market.
It’s interesting that while some may mourn the passing of those smaller wineries, you don’t hear many complaints about the quality of the wine that’s available these days, or its price.
What about the banks?
But how could the banks be affected by these changes?
Well, they too could be staring into the winds of change.
Firstly, the buyers of the new KiwiBuild homes will need mortgages, so it gives the banks a great opportunity to write a lot of new business in a market that might otherwise be fairly stagnant.
Much has been made over the last few weeks about banks being hindered in lending on prefabricated homes when they are fully assembled in a factory, because the banks can’t take mortgage security over the asset until it’s secured on its section.
But that shouldn’t be a problem where flat pack construction is used, because the banks should be able to allow the mortgage to be progressively drawn down as certain construction milestones are reached, in the same way that they would if the house was being built using traditional construction methods.
The main difference will be that the timeframes for progress payments will be compressed, because flat pack construction is a lot quicker than traditional methods.
And there will likely be creative solutions to the problem of financing homes that are fully built off site.
These present both opportunities and threats to the Australian-owned banks that currently dominate our residential lending market.
The construction companies involved in KiwiBuild will almost certainly have banks or other financiers providing them with debt funding, secured over the assets of the business.
Those banks will be well placed to offer the buyers of the homes that are being built a mortgage as part of the deal, perhaps at a slightly discounted rate or with other bells and whistles.
Security could pass more or less seamlessly from the business banking division of the bank to its mortgage lending arm, giving the bank two bites of the cherry.
You can almost hear them licking their lips at the prospect.
But it would also provide an opportunity for a bank that wasn’t already a player in New Zealand's mortgage lending market to start building a portfolio, taking market share from the established players.
As well as providing a beachhead for new players to enter the construction industry, KiwiBuild could also provide a beachhead for new entrants into the banking sector.
There’s also the possibility that the Government and its fellow shareholders in Kiwibank could decide that it should play a major role in KiwiBuild.
Get your KiwiBuild home with Kiwibank, now that has such a nice ring to it.
The cornucopia of new mortgage lending that KiwiBuild will provide could also see banks, whether they be new or existing players, entering into formal consortium arrangements with construction companies and their suppliers to tender for KiwiBuild contracts.
So it’s unlikely that the big Aussie-owned banks are sitting around saying “KiwiBuild? Oh no, we couldn’t possibly do that. Far too difficult.”
They are more likely to be crapping their pants at the thought of what could happen if they don’t get involved.
You can receive all of our property articles automatically by subscribing to our free email Property Newsletter. This will deliver all of our property-related articles, including auction results and interest rate updates, directly to your in-box 3-5 times a week. We don't share your details with third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time. To subscribe just click on this link, scroll down to "Property email newsletter" and enter your email address.
80 Comments
Top end houses are still going gangbusters. Property record set in Herne Bay: Mansion goes for just under $30m - Otago Daily Times
https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/property-record-mansion-goes-just-u…
What’s to comment on? It’s a theoretical article on how prefabs could lead to some changes in the various housing related industries. It doesn’t add anything new to the discussion or address infrastructure, land cost etc.
For the record, I can’t see why anyone would oppose affordable quality homes, except for those where values might be impacted. They won’t be built in 1071 so I’m not bothered.
As I said before, if I had to pick a street in Remuera for them it would be either James Cook Crescent or Maui Grove as they are the classic plaster disaster type streets. The entire Remuera Rise building, the Oakridge Apartment block, and the surrounding houses are all either leaky or plaster with no cavity.
Ironically in an effort to address Auckland's biggest issue, housing affordability, the other big issues like traffic congestion, public transport and lack of infrastructure will all be compounded. 100,000 houses is a lot of extra people and yes they will be extras.
Is it just me or is Greg generally anti-property? There seems to be lots of puff, ideas and talking about funding but not on the actual execution like the current government... who guarantees the quality or are they going to be self-regulated? How do we know each and every material they are using is going to stand through time or is this another leaky home disaster? Do we have enough trained workers to put it all together? If things go wrong from Kiwibuild do the tax payers foot the bill for the repairs? etc... Heaps more critical thinking is needed and most of the populous doesn't seem to be to keen on asking the hard questions, just lots of schadenfreude from property market stalling and gulping down milkshakes sprinkled with stardust :)
Prefab homes must be built to the same building standards as other types of constructions. They are subject to the same Building Code and council regulations and approvals. They are just a more efficient way of building, which means a ceratin number of workers building prefab homes will produce more homes than the same number of workers using traditional construction methods.
Good comment Stev-O.
I'm wondering if any thought is going into the way these houses and developments will age and weather.
We should design and build houses to improve as they age.
Also will houses eventually be built using fully automated processes in the future?
What will be the ramifications of that?
Houses that improve with age. What a great idea. But I fear we are not there yet. The reality is that all houses require constant maintenance and every so often a major refurbishment to be kept to a ceratin standard. Some more than others, but there's no getting away from the neccesary evil of maintenance..
Two 3D printers print ten houses in 24 hours using cement here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SObzNdyRTBs
or a 3D printed prefab here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R1CBFBxuew
Zac, you could view some 1920s style prefabs here; http://www.searsarchives.com/homes/1915-1920.htm
Quality and street appeal come first. We need more like this...
https://waiotaiki.co.nz/properties/4-silverton-avenue/
Ease of maintenance is the key to longevity. The use of ceramics and bricks. Wooden weatherboards that are simple to sand and repaint. Sheet materials that crack should be avoided. Plastics should be avoided except for plumbing. Covenants that commit owners to a regular and effective maintenance program. Awards for well kept or cleverly enhanced properties.
A wooden weatherboard house is one of the easiest to bring back to life with a lick of paint. It is also easy to customize or improve the look as you can change the colour.
Corrugated iron roofs that are designed to be easily replaced possibly and are easily maintained. A classic and quite good looking material as well as traditional and cheap. Industrially produced modular houses look like consumable items to me that age poorly and are simply need to be dumped after a few years.
Avoidance of materials that pretend to be something they are not. Leaky homes pretend to be Mediterranean style solid stone or block houses. It seems that nature herself finds this sort of carry on offensive and punishes the perpetrators.
Designs that take into account the high rainfall especially in Auckland.
Excellent analysis of the situation. Government scales are a different beast.
If anything, prefabrication is an antidote to shoddy standards which have blighted 1000s of kiwi buyers and owners since 90s.
Timely since Sunday morning announcement by Government sounds like a perception shifter for the eyes and expectations of the Public. Kiwis will lap up the optimistism. God help political nay sayers.
Agreed - scale makes a dramatic difference. But it has to be allied to commitment: the big investment needs certainty that the houses will be built come what may. No more random recession causing all building to stop and our best builders to move overseas. Even if immigration stops and kiwis flood to a wealthier Australia (not likely but a possibility) the government must stick to its commitment. Since it may take another two years to get things moving a change of government (likely) must not mean killing this initiative. So it is important it gets multi-party support - it is Labour's idea but they must take care not to alienate National.
Ex Expat, it wouldn't be as distasteful to swallow if it were new National blood saying "forget about what National didn't do to fix the crisis" It could be seen as a revived National Party. It's just the same old National MPs saying it when all the while it brewed under their nine year watch.
Anyway, what housing policy has National developed in the last six months?
The problem is mate, they are doing something. I know, as unacceptable as it is in Nya Zullin’, the labour Government has ducked the status quo and started doing something about home ownership. I know, how very dare they? Doing nothing is the right wing Kiwi way. She’ll be right. Steady as she goes, don’t do anything, you might spook the new natives... the original natives shouldn’t complain, after all it’s their fault they were colonised.
All the above assumes that there would be no price response from traditional builders. Or indeed that the prefab construction technique efficiencies (if there are any) will not just end up as extra profit margin for the prefab companies. All said and done, houses sell for what the highest bidder can afford.
Well, we don't know that yet Greg, we will know how cheap or not they are once we see the finished product ( built here in NZ , not o/seas examples) -- Besides, there is a big difference between Cost and Value , as you know.
Your piece above has more assumptions, hopes, and some experience copied from elsewhere in the world than what could actually materialise once rubber meets our local road ...
You have left out some major issues - the Gov is silent and evasive about price , their "Affordability" scale is very fluid ( simply because they don't know), the prospective buyers capable of paying $500K - $600K a piece in auckland ( where the problem is) are scarce - most FHBs are likely to afford merely < $500K .....
The first prefab building(s) will take at least 12 months to finish, Only then we will know the actual cost or sell price - which I reckon would be in the space of $650 - $750K for that 100m2, 3 bdrm dream unit -- ( these estimates are drawn from similar apartments currently being built or on the market today. One and Two bdrms are a bit cheaper.
These units have to be marketed first to know if they are going to be sold at such prices ... unless there is a guaranteed buyer e.g. the Gov will offer them to HNZ !
There won't be many buyers around for these prices as they would still be able to buy a good house with a piece of Dirt to their name with that sort of money { so current and future values are essential } . - Why would anyone buy a depreciating asset when similar new units will pop up every year for almost the same price? so depreciation will be a continuous loss to the buyers!
Another point, The scale you are talking about is out of The NZ Gov's capabilities both in financial and administrative terms - let alone it falls outside the traditional house buying and the living culture in NZ -- this is possibly why the Gov wanted investors to jump in, take the risk and make very little profit while it takes all the credit and score political points ...
The only thing this Gov can do is secure land ( only God knows at what prices) and provide facilities as in immigration and tweek regulations etc ... Oh! and raise the minimum wage year after year and set industry wages to make life "easier " for any potential building partener ! ... So what are the odds of building becoming cheaper in future? ..Zilch.
This is a project for big consortiums and deep pocketed conglomerate who are willing to take such a risk for a healthy Return on Investment ( after doing sound research based on market realities - not emotions and hopes)..... The clever person who thought that $2B can be recycled to achieve 100,000 in 10 years hasn't even passed fifth form Maths and apparently has never held a hammer.
This is not about banks and how they would finance such a project or lend money to buyers ( that is a mere detail - progressive lending could or Not be arranged by certain banks). the whole concept of such projects need to show both social and economical merits and value before going into sideways discussions which is usually done behind closed doors not on media pages. ( unless it was intended to calm an angry crowd who know very little about how such projects are done from concept to finish!)
As i said , I wish PT well in pulling this out ,, Alas nothing he has done thus far encourages me and others to think he will get anywhere near what he is promising or dreaming of - Sadly, the lack of planning and floundering around in the past 150 days, while talking tough to business and telling them to suck it up, are anything but encouraging. This is not only a building problem , it is an ideological and attitude issue too.
Good intentions alone are not enough -- rosy dreams often get shattered on the hard rocks of reality. Anyone who has developed few housing projects knows that too well.
you might be talking about houses not buildings with roads, facilities, landscape and services ... they won't achieve these numbers if they don't go highrise ..otherwise they will need acres upon acres of land .... and they don't know that yet, that is why they are unclear about details...12 months is a very optimistic number from plan to fininsh
Long set of comments eco-bird;' and some confusion on the way, with lots of sweeping statements.
Why would anyone buy a depreciating asset when similar new units will pop up every year for almost the same price? so depreciation will be a continuous loss to the buyers!
Firstly, all houses depreciate - the same as cars or any asset. It has just been in the bubble world of Auckland that this fundamental rule has been misunderstood. And yes prices will relate to what they cost to build (the same way cars are a function of their new price depreciated for age). It is just in Auckland where people have forgotten this. As well with the demographic changes NZ is going through, people are opting for new smaller houses without land.
In terms of land - Government freeing up lots of land would be sensible (move the naval base, sell the golf courses). However, largely land has been bid up by speculation - as prices fall land will fall faster.
I applaud this approach to the housing crisis - because it is the appropriate role for the Government to fix the bits that the market can't overcome. The transformation of the building industry is critical - and I think has been misunderstood because when prices kept going up people didnt care how much it cost to build. Overcoming 'market failure' is what the Government should focus on - and trying to get sufficient supply from a disjointed industry is a major 'market failure'.
Indeed, all houses depreciate but some get CG more than others and slumps will be the last of the cab if they systematically continue to pop up ....but unlike cars, No one can dispute Auckland property appreciation in value over the last 50 years which has just been phenomenal ( fundamentals or not, the proof is in the pudding) - very different from most provinces where movement are small and slow ...and only move when Aucklander or big city folks move, retire, or sprawl.
I disagree that folks in Auckland ( especially families) would like to raise their kids in Apartments and give away land ownership ... that piece of Dirt is still sacred to most.
I also applaud the approach and as I said , I wish PT well and good luck ... but more than just luck is required to get this baby off the ground and so far he and his mates showed nothing to enforce that confidence... See, if you keep cursing your predecessors in every second word of your speech after being in power for over 150 days, then that is another clear sign of weakness to be added to the lack of substance in your actions.
My point about smaller houses is that the demographics are changing. If you allow for the 'empty-nesters' (children left home); yet-to-nest (young adult having children much later) then the demand for traditional housing is far less. Auckland demographically still has a high proportion of families. However, what you are seeing in Wellington, for instance, is acres of family homes with less families to be in them. In the Hutt Valley for instance the school age population is dropping by around 3,000 over the next ten years. In essence the other aspect of an aging population is less traditional families.
What we are seeing is my daughters paying nearly as much for a modern townhouse as my mother would get for her large family home, on 1,000 sqm section in one of the better streets.
And that is the sad really, but maybe that is the nature of the culture there in addition to other property pressures. ... which reminds me with how members of other cultures come together and consolidate their incomes to buy a house where many members of a family ( or even extend family) live together for few years until they could buy another house and split the lot into two ... then buy another as an investment few years later ... it is a sacrifice that leads to ownership and prosperity ....
Mind you I was talking about Auckland, where the problem could be a bit different but much bigger too and the demand is also high .. however we are not as stretched in property availability as Wellington ATM.
Children who leave home will most likely rent for few years unless they have already saved and on decent wages to be able to afford a $500K unit - most FHBs would be couples 25- 32 year old who have been well established financially and ready to settle down and almost ready to start a family and that is when they think about the future,.
Again, for everyone's sake , I hope this Lot will do the right thing and won't leave a big mess behind. they will only have themselves to blame in 3 years time.
Cowpat, Libor rates heading in one direction - up; http://www.fedprimerate.com/libor/libor_rates_history-chart-graph.htm
The public should be asked to put forward designs and ideas.....
I'm thinking of something that is larger on the inside than it is on the outside. Something that blends in with the environment. Something that is very high tech, that has actual artificial intelligence. Extra points for being able to travel through time and space.
“Banks licking their lips”?
There’s a reason banks won’t touch prefab/flatpack construction. It is fraught with risk. This will be amplified with scale. Especially with the incumbent builders so new to the frame.
This type of process would be best left to the state to manage, and fund. Perhaps with a rent to own scheme, or by introducing cheap government mortgages.
Unlike traditional construction methods, which left banks holding mortgages on thousands of homes that leaked or had other construction issues that required remediation work, which often left their owners with negative equity and the banks with security that was worth far less than the loan they had advanced and having to decide whether to put up more money to fund repairs or cut their losses. Not pretty.
The anti-prefab prejudice isn't based in any kind of reality, not now, when there are quality products available from all over the world. But if people will insist on deluding themselves that prefab=asbestos hut, then can they please update their ideas or get out of the way.
The idea that individual build=quality is laughable, especially in New Zealand. Evidence to the contrary with wonky walls, half-arsed finishing, missing components and obvious water damage is standing there in plain view all around us.
My comment has nothing to do with build quality, it has everything to do with “risk”. A bank or finance company takes security over an asset. If it is not attached to the site then it poses a risk to the institution, that on repossession, or at drawdown either the value isn’t there (funds have moved sideways) or the goods have been moved. Research it and you will hear some horror stories. Examples; bank who tried to mortgagee a house north of $2m that had been uprooted from its foundations, never to be seen. Or developers using funds at drawdown for “other” purposes. I can tell you for a fact hundreds of $millions went south during the gfc for this very reason. It’s why banks/finance institutions rely heavily on quantity surveyors to establish performance/value when releasing funds. It is why the prefab industry will have an uphill battle to get established funding lines. Especially early on, while the industry is in its infancy.
This is part of the benefit of kiwibuild. As the article says, when the government is throwing some financial muscle behind it these problems will be ironed out. How about the government covers the risk until the prefab is in place, then the purchaser takes on a mortgage on what is by then a normal home?
I read the article in its entirety Greg. That section you refer to is why I commented. No need to be a bully. I work in the industry, and are adding my two cents! You comment that the risk moves seamlessly from one party to the next. Sounds great in principal, the reality is quite different. If, and I say a big IF this industry gets a full head of steam. The risks are huge for funders. That is why the government may well be the best backer. Enough
The big announcement tomorrow from Unitec is going to be very interesting.
There will be very little detail which this Coalition government is now well known for!
Will it be rows and rows of prefab box’s that will look like Colditz or will it be semi detached terraced house that will be another eyesore?
Let’s see the detail and then if no accurate no.s are mentioned we can then all,conclude that they really are delusional and not fit to be running any country, let alone NZ!
Lots of places around the world have terraced houses and it's not an issue. At some point you can't keep going outwards without increasing density, travel times get too long. I know I would rather live in a townhouse 15 minute cycle from work than spend hours in a car each day. The face of NZ in changing, demographically and culturally. This is an opportunity to try and get ahead of the curve for once, it's just a shame that so many people are fixated on trying to think about why it won't work than how we can make it work. Doesn't seem very kiwi to me.
Why are prefabs bad? It's just a more efficient way of building the same product. I'm not sure if you've noticed but all of the 'individual builds' in places like Wigram Sky and Faringdon look basically the same anyway. The covenants in these subdivisions don't allow for a whole lot of creativity.
With almost 700000 new residents over the last ten years, clearly there is some sort of housing shortage. We need to wave our fists at which ever political party allowed this without building houses and infrastructure... it’s safe to say it’s nothing less than the pinnacle of incompetence!
Anyone watched PT this morning on Q+A would simply figure out how delusional and indecisive this man is ...
He is getting lost even in his own dreams and appears to have no clues what so ever of how to put 2 and 2 together ... this logic of doing anything is better than doing nothing is utterly fraud and stupid .... some desperate people keep repeating it as if we are back in the 1930s.
The interview was a shambles - he is backing off from all his election promises and watering down all his ill-planned and ill-thought big mouth announcements. He keeps selling us the 100,000 home dream in 10 years and ask us to follow him like fools with no solid process or plan in place :
- so 100% kiwibuilt becomes "maybe 30 - 40 %"
- The land sounds very expensive and iwi is involved
- Terrace houses or apartments 2-3 bedrooms - no specifics --- @ 500 - 600K ..fluid , no specifics....affordable ..maybe no specifics
- Gov or private sector: well will see, not specific
- 5 years BL CG?, well will see ..maybe a specific ( significant) period of time ! we are having a look at it !!
- Instant CG on newly sold units? ..Well not really will see when supply increases- then maybe in the first years only.!!
- when : in about 12 months,
- will $2B be enough as it will be consumed by this project alone, well will see we will bring in other resources ----- pulling answers and numbers out of thin air? you bet
This Gentleman is completely lost and has no idea about consequences of actions taken or he continues to fool the very people who supported them and brought them into office ...hopefully she'll be alright attitude ....
One word: He is a disaster for a minister of housing - still in damage control and campaign mode. ... We NZers deserve better than this !
This seems like a great opportunity for NZ to wrestle back some of banking sector from the big 4 Australian banks. Last year I read that the profits from the four big Australian banks NZ divisions added up to more than the total profits of all the other companies on the NZX. Imagine keeping those sorts of profits in NZ.
At the top of this thread DGZ states, Top end houses are still going gangbusters
Some people found this information boring but it is kind of interesting. I walked past a house that recently sold and thought I would look it up. I found the following three properties that sold at auction in the first week of March. The sales prices are extraordinary, especially when compared with 2017 RV and their previous sales. Who is buying these properties for these prices?
6 MORVERN ROAD Sold for 3.950M RV 3.375M last sold 2014 2.950M
13 PUKENUI ROAD Sold for 4.200M RV 2.975M last sold 2008 1.375M
1 BELVEDERE STREET Sold for 3.470M RV 2.975M last sold 2010 1.910M
The first has increased by 7.5% a year, the last by 7.7% a year, Pukenui road says it's been rebuilt and extended which probably explains the ~12% per year increase on that one. Is that particularly extraordinary? Auckland median price has increased by ~6.5% a year since 2010 and 9% a year since 2014. Perhaps the high starting prices make the increases look impressive in real terms, but in percentage terms there's nothing spectacular here over and above the abnormally large increases in Auckland as a whole.
https://www.interest.co.nz/charts/real-estate/median-price-reinz
There is a silver lining in the kiwibuild projects in Auckland .... It will gradually push the $1M+ properties higher as people move up the property ladder ....
As more mixed housing units pop up, the demand for quality stand alone houses on a specific piece of dirt will rise especially in irreplaceable and precious locations ...... recent unlucky apartment and unit buyers will suffer stagnation in their CG for many years to come because of this. ... Unforeseen and unintended consequences ...
If there is sufficient stock of places priced in the 5-6 times average household income bracket, that is of decent quality then I suspect that most of the population doesn't care if your 1071 properties go to 20 million each. People just want the opportunity to own their own place and not be burdened under a mortgage until they are 65 (or later), fancy postcodes be damned.
If this is not the answer,what is...you can't keep importing people without building houses,the previous administration rode the immigration wave to make everyone feel rich through increased property values...but at some point,the music stops and there aren't enough chairs(read houses).
Now it is time to pay the piper,we are going to have to face massive developments of intensification to house these people,never mind affordability.They were voted in for 3 terms,based on short term gains/thinking....will our grandchildren be looking back at this time as when Auckland changed for the worse.
I repeat,what are some viable options,everyone is bagging everyone else,but I have yet to hear options tabled instead of he said,she said,it's the rights fault,its the lefts fault...a lot was greed on the part of everyone thinking who cares about the future,I will cash up and b*gger off out of AKL when its gone to hell in a hand cart...
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.