Originally Posted by
Hitcher
Many New Zealanders hanker for a bit of land that they can call their own, not that they have any intentions of doing anything productive with it, such as growing their own vegetables or even having enough room for kids to run around on. Then they'll bung up a 2.2m high undressed pine board fence around it to enhance their "privacy", the property's aesthetics and to stop their dog doing a runner. Marvellous.
Such pioneering twaddle comes at a cost, rarely met in full by the people who live there. Firstly there's the land itself, that could arguably be better used for market gardening or even agriculture. Then there's the kilometre of paved highway and footpath per resident ratio, not to mention the costs of reticulated services, such as power, phone, internet, sewage, water, stormwater. Don't forget rubbish collection costs. All of these costs are rarely fully met by the property owner or occupier. They are averaged out across all ratepayers or customers of utilities.
Then there are other services these communities demand, like buses, doctors, schools, shops, megacentres, sports facilities, and so on. The residents of these suburbs, rolled out like readilawn, again aren't meeting the full cost. But they're more than happy to capitalise the investments of others into the value of their humble abodes.
Real estate agents drive a lot of this nonsense, particularly those whose business is also a property developer. Gillies and Marks built Upper Hutt. I'm sure there are plenty of similar examples in parts of New Zealand that have a propensity to sprawl across their hinterland.
Intensification has merits, provided that it's well planned, purpose-built accommodation. In-fill is not the only way of delivering intensive urban residences.
This is much of the reasons why cities around the world have embraced spatial planning. This is what the Auckland Plan is seeking to drive.
If you want a third-of-an-acre section, move to Matamata. Otherwise get with the programme.
Bookmarks