Sprawl vs compact development?

[Winston001]

We seem to be happy repeating the same mistakes everyone else has made.

I'm genuinely interested in the issues you raise but I'm also not sure what you see as ideal. Villages within cities? High rise apartment buildings with double parking and storage facilities (to mimic a large double garage)? Condominiums? Four story walkups?

No city in a democracy (that I know of) has ideal urban planning. The only place this can happen is in an autocracy (essentially dictatorship) where the state has complete control. China, Russia, North Korea etc.

Brazilia is the poster child for modern central planning of a city. I remember learning about it at school and it sounded great. Unfortunately it is regarded as a failure. The citizens don't like it.

Which leaves us with laissez faire organic growth - exactly what you are kicking against. And I'm not even slightly convinced people are forced into the developers dream. People buy and live where they can. The better-off build their own dreams and thank goodness they do - they inspire others.

[mashman]

Yep, but the reason I'm looking for local examples is that people respond to local examples better. If you show something from overseas people tend to say "well that can't happen here because we have different issues / different climate / different lifestyle. As much as I agree that essentially underneath it all, humans are all the same with the same basic needs, Kiwis tend to like to think we're different. And its easier convincing council if you can show them local examples.

They ignore the negative effects of it apparent all over the world. We seem to be happy repeating the same mistakes everyone else has made.

It would seem that we're always looking for "tried and tested" and councils and govts must be the worst of the lot for it (unfair maybe?)... but how often do you hear, but that's not how they do things there, they do things this way in Victoria ergo it must work for us too etc... If we're going to act in such a way we will crab forwards, as Winston puts it, with a laissez faire attitude towards our housing (none cares if it's affordable after the recent housing bubble that they don't want to have happen again). Unfortunately there's no pressing need to do anything different, we've got land to spare (sell too) and unfortunately we have a population that doesn't really give a shit about such issues as that's someone else's problem. We're reactive and it'll take something special to be proactive in an already established industry... is funding available for such housing projects?

[Ocean1]

It would seem that we're always looking for "tried and tested" and councils and govts must be the worst of the lot for it (unfair maybe?)...

Not at all, councils are indeed the worst. At pretty much everything.

[BMWST?]

some interesting thoughts here.
The size of sections is indeed set by councils via district schemes and zones.This is presumably done in response to demand.....from who,developers and builders?
I agree that methods of construction should be more free.....but who takes responsibility for it.In the current system the councils are stuck with being the policemen,and they are becoming more and more risk averse,and who can blame them when they are the ones in the sights when something goes wrong.I beleive that we should tighten up the rules and regs on who can build so that if a problem develops in a building the original designers and builders are held responsible for it ,not a third party like the council.If you want to build and sell a bulding with alternative solutions,fine,but you must be accountable for it,not turn a round and say the council let me do it or that it had a branz appraisal.
I have been looking around wellington recently at apartments and the range of stuff is amazing.Some are downright appalling,others quite pleasant but very very expensive....lease arrangements are interesting, you "buy" an apartment but say $8 000 a year on the lease,tied to the cpi!!!!,carpark $50000 more and storage $10000 more.
i dont have any answers just more questions.
There is a reason the "conventional" house persists.....it has been found to be a very good way to shelter it inahabitants form the elements

[mashman]

Not at all, councils are indeed the worst. At pretty much everything.

That's disappointing to hear, if it's true that is.

The size of sections is indeed set by councils via district schemes and zones.This is presumably done in response to demand.....from who,developers and builders?
I agree that methods of construction should be more free.....but who takes responsibility for it.In the current system the councils are stuck with being the policemen,and they are becoming more and more risk averse,and who can blame them when they are the ones in the sights when something goes wrong.I beleive that we should tighten up the rules and regs on who can build so that if a problem develops in a building the original designers and builders are held responsible for it ,not a third party like the council.If you want to build and sell a bulding with alternative solutions,fine,but you must be accountable for it,not turn a round and say the council let me do it or that it had a branz appraisal.

We've had a bit of a mare with the builder that built our place and it's kinda tricky to get them back in to do a job properly or even any job properly where they don't want to (a VERY common grumble amongst the neighbours). They can lie about their credentials quite easily and will only be found out if caught. The only fall back is insurance . As the council told me recently, ignorance is no excuse... in my case that went both ways and the council saw reason. There's no thick and fast in regards to how well the job will be done, even with rules and regs in place, because again, "they" need to be caught doing something "wrong"... and even then the "penalty" can, and most likely will, be a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket... or at least that's how "they" were treated by the Commerce Commission . Rules and regs mean fuck all where no one is willing to enforce them or at least take responsibility for enforcing them. They're only ever any use when a legal fight starts and then everyone runs for cover and hides behind lawyers and money gets poured down the drain. You pays yer money and takes yer chance... sometimes you have to fight harder than you might think to protect your "investment" .

[jonbuoy]

Instead of mortgaging yourself up to the eyeballs to be in a house thats more than you need to live in wouldn't it be encouragement enough to live somewhere just big enough and be free of the mortgage? Most people end up downsizing when they get older anyway, saves pissing away all that money in interest payments that could be invested, saved or spent elsewhere.

[avgas]

Instead of mortgaging yourself up to the eyeballs to be in a house thats more than you need to live in wouldn't it be encouragement enough to live somewhere just big enough and be free of the mortgage? Most people end up downsizing when they get older anyway, saves pissing away all that money in interest payments that could be invested, saved or spent elsewhere.

You can say that in NZ. Our entire economy runs on the principle of people spending more than they can afford.

[oneofsix]

You can say that in NZ. Our entire economy runs on the principle of people spending more than they can afford.

Yeah, its called capitalism

Garth Morgan had a bit of a whinge about our property lead economy in the Herald yesterday.

As to size of property, I tried downsizing with our latest because the kids were at that leaving age The Mrs was right ... again. Need the extra space for the visits.

I think you avgas, said about solving one problem at a time, sorry dud it doesn't work and is what is wrong. Hellezie is more correct in that you have to address the other problem as well to make the one solvable. If motels weren't too expensive for average kiwis then I wouldn't need the space for visitors.

Most of these planned communities don't allow for industry so manual workers need to travel and it is not in the NZ culture for an employer to lay on a bus or for the workers to be based in one location. There goes that NZ culture thing, wont work here because .... However as has been shown with booze and ciggies culture can be changed, in fact by its nature culture does change, an unchanging culture is a tradition (and usually a fucked up interruption of the tradition at that)

[mashman]

Instead of mortgaging yourself up to the eyeballs to be in a house thats more than you need to live in wouldn't it be encouragement enough to live somewhere just big enough and be free of the mortgage? Most people end up downsizing when they get older anyway, saves pissing away all that money in interest payments that could be invested, saved or spent elsewhere.

bwaaaaa ha ha ha haaaaaa. Pick your myth. Property or Investment. Either is a gamble, ill health/market forces/dodgy bastards all trying to help you to lose your life "savings". Mortgage free? Troll! I couldn't afford a shoe box (similar to MOST) and see no reason why I should pay rent money and not pay my rent money to me for the place I live in (yes I realise I'm paying the bank). The size of my place is my choice and for an extra 200 a month I can get something bigger for my family of 5, along with a bit of space for visitors etc... The places I've seen for rent in that lower price bracket are generally shite in comparison to what I'm used to (not dirty mucky cold etc... call me picky, but my kids health is worth it) and to that end I can understand where Hellzie is coming from, and whilst it's attainable, it's not going to become a reality where the price of land/materials/labour/compliance costs etc... are constantly subject to inflation/market valuations etc... and will never come down when fresh out of the box. You're dreaming if you believe that there's money left after paying rent/the mortgage as they're usually about the same value, so where's the savings to be invested?

[mashman]

You can say that in NZ. Our entire economy runs on the principle of people spending more than they can afford.

Ahhhhh, but according to the man you can afford it just as long as you're able to meet the repayments ... tough shit when you can't though. Isn't that the line we're sold?

[Paul in NZ]

In England there are lots of attempts down through the ages to cater for larger numbers of people. There were also lots of new towns created and Bill Bryson has a bit to say about it in Notes from a Small Island and usually its not kind... However its interesting to note that apartments in large cities that have shared gardens in squares reserved for the apartment owners are selling at a premium (usually location based $$ though). England has always had the allotment as well.

NZ Councils seem to be desperate to stop people having gardens due to water requirements. We are starting into a battle in Kapiti around water meters and already the emotive language is flying around people having 'inefficiently watered' gardens etc etc. What the council wants is for us all to live in concrete boxes with zero lawn or other area that requires water - except for the rich of course.

This topic is coming up because of increases in population. Part of the argument / discussion has to be about limiting population growth so that we can (if we want) stick to a traditional way of life. After all my tribal roots are in the 'burbs, its my heritage and I want to protect my culture.

[oneofsix]

In England there are lots of attempts down through the ages to cater for larger numbers of people. There were also lots of new towns created and Bill Bryson has a bit to say about it in Notes from a Small Island and usually its not kind... However its interesting to note that apartments in large cities that have shared gardens in squares reserved for the apartment owners are selling at a premium (usually location based $$ though). England has always had the allotment as well.

NZ Councils seem to be desperate to stop people having gardens due to water requirements. We are starting into a battle in Kapiti around water meters and already the emotive language is flying around people having 'inefficiently watered' gardens etc etc. What the council wants is for us all to live in concrete boxes with zero lawn or other area that requires water - except for the rich of course.

This topic is coming up because of increases in population. Part of the argument / discussion has to be about limiting population growth so that we can (if we want) stick to a traditional way of life. After all my tribal roots are in the 'burbs, its my heritage and I want to protect my culture.

Sorry Paul but the council screwed up and like most pollys don't want to back down from their position, it is not to do with your garden. Also they are bowing the UN edict on water, populations of Kapiti's size and larger should be metered (nothing to do with conservation) and water is a commodity.

Kapiti and everywhere else in NZ have enough water, we need to collect and manage it. Crikey our only thing close to a desert NZ has had to be created by a volcano that is now a fucking big fresh water lake.

[Zedder]

Ahhhhh, but according to the man you can afford it just as long as you're able to meet the repayments ... tough shit when you can't though. Isn't that the line we're sold?

"They" also sell mortgage protection insurance though.

[avgas]

Yeah, its called capitalism

Actually capitalism in its purest form has nothing to do with debt. Its about investment. But nothing stays pure when people are involved. Communism suffered the same problem. Just the names changed. In capitalism if you need more than you afford you 'borrow' from some scum bank, in communism you borrow from the govt (or KGB!).

In NZ you can do both - making us double fucked.

I think you avgas, said about solving one problem at a time, sorry dud it doesn't work and is what is wrong. Hellezie is more correct in that you have to address the other problem as well to make the one solvable. If motels weren't too expensive for average kiwis then I wouldn't need the space for visitors.

Most of these planned communities don't allow for industry so manual workers need to travel and it is not in the NZ culture for an employer to lay on a bus or for the workers to be based in one location. There goes that NZ culture thing, wont work here because .... However as has been shown with booze and ciggies culture can be changed, in fact by its nature culture does change, an unchanging culture is a tradition (and usually a fucked up interruption of the tradition at that)

It does work - but the problem is people give up on solving one problem at a time. They EXPECT everything to be solved at once. They EXPECT the impossible - which leaves us with a dozen half-arsed efforts to solve problems.

As for communities popping up and being catered for industry. The residents of Kaikoura, Tauranga, Cromwell, Huntly, Waihi.........would dissagree with you. However in most of these situations the community is only temporarily, as the work is only short-term (in most cases). Europe/China and US has shown us Building world class transport systems and world class housing does not completely change this (but it does slow decline).

The only recent adavancement that has changed this has been the internet.

Take things on step at a time and you will ease the next solution - but provide a solution that band-aids the problems together and you only have a temporary fix.

e.g.
Job problem - create jobs
House problem - build houses (this helps but does not complete resolve the job problem)
transport problem - build transport (this helps the house and the job problems, but does not resolve them)
In this series of solutions:
- People have jobs that sustain the town
- People have well constructed houses (often closer to work than previously thought possible)
- People have well constructed trasport that is effective to those who require it

not

Build houses and create transport - to create jobs.
Eventually all the work is done and people wonder why the fuck they are still living there, and all go on benefit or worse, wait for the houses and roads to fuck out again so they have more work to do.
In this solution:
- Roads are shit
- Houses are shit
- There is no work

This needs to be a top-down initiative. Companies can be coaxed to work anywhere. Especially when they find out that a town can be moulded to their needs, rather than bent to the beneficiaries wants.
People will move if they see an advantage. They are leaving us for Aus, US, Europe everyday for the same reason.

[mashman]

Actually capitalism in its purest form has nothing to do with debt. Its about investment.

Eh? How does that work then? Investment without return? slightly OT, apologies.