That may be behind some media stories about old dumps being bought in some parts of Auckland for over a million or even millions of dollars. The buyers, likely developers, may be more after the scarce land, and have no intention of using the structures on it, as they will be pulled down and replaced with multilevel housing, offering secure, good returns.
Totally agree. Plans like this depend on that dynamic - council sets the framework, and private developers fill it in.
Council already made amendments after looking at earlier feedback
Unfortunately by weakening intensification. Still, guess that may get reversed in some areas in this round of feedback.
There does seem to be a need for more granular planning of which areas are prepared for intensification over each decade, rather than the current 30-year Plan that treats them as if it's all at once (encouraging landbanking, etc).
The extra million bit is based on a high projection by Statistics NZ
It has been less than the actual growth path over the last decade or two. Former govt statistician Len Cook gave an illuminating presentation on this last year - which is where I first heard the split for 'natural' internal population growth and migration.
it was decided by the mayor and council by 2010 to grow the population at a higher rate
Nope. Just responding to the data mentioned above.
True that the infrastructure CCOs like Watercare use a lower projection, cos they can always increase provision later if they're wrong. Urban planning, not so much.
the submissions made on the Auckland Unitary Plan, and I mean those by individuals or residents groups, are in their vast majority against intensification.
True for the wealthy coastal areas highlighted in the first map in this Transportblog post. Those are the whinging fogies who got so much publicity during the draft urban plan process, demanding that their parts of this great city stay like a quaint 1950s seaside village cos that's what they bought.
Well, fuck em. I really hope the council cuts off the funding taps for *any* improvements to those suburbs in favour of those like the inner West who actually supported denser living and therefore are doing their bit to welcome the million new residents being born (2/3) or moving here (1/3) in the next couple of decades.
Seems we're in agreement.
using public transport to get between them
which requires denser populations to make viable - hence won't happen while we still prioritise fringe single-level sprawl like Flat Bush. Property developers and construction companies need to get less lazy about how they make their money. And regulators need to stop kow-towing to them.
the ‘family contribution’ isn’t available for everyone
a handy class proxy, if anything
the sort of lives that Auckland’s citizens want to lead
In well-located apartments and other denser dwelling types, you mean? Plenty of sprawling suburban houses already.
way too subtle
Totally agree. Bubble looks like shit from the inside. And the outside.