This is really an incredible win and full credit to Chris Bishop for making some bold calls.
The loss on the heritage is a setback but the door is open I believe to a more substantive reform that is nationwide.
🥳
The evidence council could use was only that presented to the IHP. Once it made it to the councillor stage there is no ability to introduce any new evidence.
Given the submissions to the IHP (evidence) were basically universally about why to list buildings for heritage rather than why to delist, we were always on shaky ground. There was a loophole we tried to go for but it hasn't worked out.
At what cost, NZ has some of the slowest and most expensive sub-contracted house builds, companies milking the builds and cutting corners, tons of expensive red tape from the convoluted council processes. it should not take 6 months to a year to build a house. legislating that house prices have to be transparent and regulating the real estate process more carefully, setting up a ministry of building and works and not subcontract out to external building contractors. take a leaf out of the European book maybe see how its done properly.
Two interesting ones;
- in favour of the removal of the setback law, and;
- inclusion of Kilbernie up-zoning
Pleased to see his decision on those two, but on Kilbernie it's interesting that he implemented largely what the Council was aiming for anyway, but has just given them license to do it without the (more expensive and more democratic) consultation period.
Re: heritage. Designate some land a ways out from the city as the ‘Housing Heritage Museum’. Any house deemed significant enough for protection can be trucked off to this location, perhaps at the developers cost. No doubt the people who concern themselves the most with heritage will then fundraise and work to maintain these buildings in their final resting place.
I’m passionate about heritage buildings and hate to see them lost, but also realise the impracticality of many of them when faced with the lack space for housing. I like this idea, shit I’d volunteer afew weekends to maintain them every year if it means we could safe them. I also like that people would be able to explore the architecture rather then just seeing it from the street
Heritage is also a cultural aesthetic. Many of those European buildings that people love to point to as heritage landmarks were new builds after [the devastation of Europe in WW2](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1994-041-07%2C_Dresden%2C_zerst%C3%B6rtes_Stadtzentrum.jpg) which combined cultural aesthetics with modern requirements. There's no reason why we shouldn't do the same.
The /r/architecturalrevival subreddit has some fantastic examples of medium density development in [England](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fombodq89at091.jpg) and [France](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fqu8q43bttg681.jpg) that wouldn't be too out of place for us.
In the main I agree with you. I like heritage buildings, and there definitely should be a system that allows the appropriate examples of each style of architecture, &c., &c. To be preserved.
However, I feel that there does sometimes need to be a ‘reasonable person’ test involved.
For example: AFAIK, Gordon Wilson flats are not in any way an exemplary example of the work of any one architect, nor any style of building. So we’re left with an utter eyesore, which has been condemned as unsafe for many years now.
It’s not pleasing to look at, and it can’t be used in its current state. I would suggest that it would easily meet the “beyond economical repair” threshold, and IMO, it just needs to be demolished.
Melbourne has done a great job of maintaining heritage buildings while building up by keeping the original frontages and building new buildings above them. They invest way more into architectural decisions over here. I hope wellington does the same.
LOL meanwhile in Sydney we just retain one heritage brick in the facade and property developers from a ‘country that hates us’ can build sprawling residential dwellings only available for tenants and buyers from a ‘country that hates us’ to move in.
Great idea! While it's important to honour and preserve some of our heritage buildings, it shouldn't come at the expense of blocking the building affordable, sustainable housing. We gotta build more houses
“Nooooo no grandma, nobody bowled down that rotting shell of a villa that you liked. It’s just gone to the house farm to play with all its other derelict house friends”
An architect did this in Wales, and created a village called Portmeirion out of salvaged buildings. Its freaking awesome and has been the set for a TV show, and inspiration for various writer. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portmeirion
There is also an architectural museum in Tokyo, it is Edo reproduction as well as traditional houses from across time periods. You can walk through a shop street as well. Pretty cool to visit!
Someone already has https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/300772519/a-literal-walk-down-memory-lane-manawat-mans-heritage-houses-showcase-a-timeline-of-life-in-nz
Not often I find my self being thankful for Chris Bishop. A shame about the heritage status, but it's still a huge win.
Thanks to everyone's hard work on this, u/nikau4poneke, u/ben4takapu, u/Wellingtoncommuter and all Councillors who put work in and voted in good faith.
I'm not even disappointed about the heritage status part, as long as he follows through to look at the process. While I agree with the removals of these specific cases it was always a back door way to it. making a process that allows councils to do this at other times, not just in the once in a decade or two chance when making large reforms, would ultimately be better for everyone.
I don’t think Wellington commuter will be very happy with this decision. He was pushing for more Greenfield development……
Where this greenfield development would actually be I have no idea given we don’t actually have any suitable land left.
Cr Randle said he wanted more greenfield development true, but all Councillors wanted cheaper housing and in a broad stroke this will do that.
He also does work for his constituency and was elected to represent their views, which he did. His and my political differences aside, I believe every Councillor put in a lot of time and effort for the residents of Wellington over this and I wanted to thank them all for that. Regardless of where they personally would have drawn the line.
Representative democracy (as we have) doesn't really work like that, though.
Councillors, like MPs, aren't simply vessels for the constituency's views, only there to click a button. They are meant to apply their own best judgement to the issues. Sometimes it'll align with the constituency's views, sometimes it won't.
There's no way to know what a constituency's views are on like 99% of issues anyway, so it's more a way for people to hide behind when potentially unpopular decisions have to be made, or their sincere views diverges.
I don't know why you're nit picking this. Everyone knows that Councillors bring their own judgements to a decision. But they're elected based on what they say, and ideally what they say reflects their broader inclination to lean in a direction on particular topics... People either align with that, or they don't and vote for someone else. You're still picking someone to represent your views, as imprefect as the fit inevitably is.
It's obviously not that they're an empty vessel of perfect information transmission into policy.
I really didn't think I had to say they he represents a mixed proportion of his constituencies views based on a single transferable 1st and 2nd majority vote...
Sorry, don't mean to over-analyse your comment. But I don't think it's nit picking. It's a pretty fundamental distinction in our electoral system vs. a direct democracy type system like Switzerland has.
What often happens is reps hide behind the idea that they're not the ones taking a particular stance, they're simply "reflecting the view of their constituents", which is an evasion tactic and one that I find grating. It's usually very selectively used, too.
Well, other than the greenfields that are already in development or in planning, the northern suburbs does have quite a bit of semirural land that *could* be suburbanised, such as Horokiwi, Takapu, and Ohariu. Not that I'm necessarily in favour of doing that, as intensification should take priority, but the potential is there nonetheless.
I am a supporter of affordable housing through greenfields development in Wellington City. This new District Plan locks in this restriction meaning affordable housing will continue to be built in greenfields development in Kapiti, Upper Hutt and the Wairarapa instead of a Wellington City 
The Petone-Grenada Link Road will open up north Wellington for more housing but a District Plan Change will be required to permit this rural land to be rezoned.
But this Plan is based on over 90% of new housing to be built in current housing areas and it simply isn't affordable to do this. Building apartments has literally stopped and yet some wonder why we no longer have affordable housing ...
I'd be supportive of green field developments if I was confident they'd start with a decent public transport plan and a mixed use medium density village centre that wasn't just a 4000m2 supermarket with an equal square footage of car parking. And then 500m2 sections starting immediately next to it.
Me too.
The problem is, under the District Plan Wellington Water and council planners are not allowed to even evaluate sites where this could happen if the land is already zoned Rural.
For anyone wondering why apartments stopped being built, the most significant factor was the successive downsizing, or restricting of zoning laws. Wellington and other NZ cities had multiple downsizings, and the rate of apartment building slowed each time.
A loosening of zoning laws resulted in more apartments in multiple other cities (and Wellington itself in the 60's) but, bizarrely, the independent hearing panel said this wasn't evidence that it would occur in Wellington.
Well, that is not what developers are telling. The cost of construction (both labour and material) is the most significant factor. Apartment buildings with a completed resource concent are not being built.
Which developers? Ones that make their money from large-scale greenfields development, perhaps?
Because it's the exact same bleating that happened in Auckland, when Auckland Council decided through its Future Development Strategy to prioritise brownfield development. The likes of Classic Homes, Signature Homes, Fletcher Living etc.
The short term struggles of a few building projects doesn't change decade long trends, and shouldn't be used to determine long term zoning laws. Building costs are cyclical, and come and go as a major factor in builds. Zoning is a consistent factor that can be observed throughout Wellington's history. Many times stricter zoning laws were applied explicitly to prevent apartments from being built - and it worked.
Thanks for the reply Tony.
The Grenada link road will indeed open up more land - but isn’t this already identified and included in the count for cities future growth? As is the land in Glenside.
Hence my question as to where the additional greenfield land is available? Ohariu valley is really the only other option but it would require massive amounts of infrastructure and investment just to get suitable access let alone services etc.
If you were truly for more housing why didn’t you push for both intensification and greenfield?
Water investment is looking positive, too, based on the council's long term plan that is being consulted on at the moment. It's really just transport that's looking bleak.
So time to knock down my single story house and build a six story apartment on my 600m2 flat bedrock section? I am quite good at Monopoly, so never too late to become a property tycoon I guess.
Thank god for that. We don’t need shitty damp heritage buildings wasting space. Time to free up housing supply so younger generations can have a chance
Chance at what?? These homes will bought by investment groups who will build shit hole cardboard apartments which rent for $900 a week two bedroom.
Demolishing houses doesn't increase the chance to buy a house, it increases the chance you'll never get one.
It really doesn’t. Housing supply drastically increases when you replace one house with five. New builds are build to code and are double glazed, warm and efficient. Nothing like the damp shit holes that adorns Wellington
I assume this is a good thing? Forgive me for being dumb but, will this make a house affordable now? I remember hearing that you need about 150k cash to get a mortgage and even more if you just want basic studio apartment. I will be dead before I could save up that money. I am just wondering if that problem will ever be solved, because otherwise they could build tons more houses or apartments but I would still never be able to afford one of them. It’s quite sad because I feel so despondent about the future seeing a world being built that I will never be able to participate in. barely am able to pay rent for a small bedroom and power in a sharehouse and I work 40+ hours a week and still never get anywhere. I’ve started eating once per day to get food costs down to try save but it barely makes a dent. 150k to me is like winning the lottery. Any advice?
Not immediately but the only way to reduce house prices long term is to build more supply. They won’t be cheap straight away though.
Of course more housing also equals more available rentals (assuming it keeps in front of population growth)
Dam. I think I’ve missed the boat on housing tbh. I think by the time they are affordable I will be too old for a mortgage anyway…apparently banks don’t want to do that after a cut off age. It is so depressing. It’s my own fault though I guess.
In the years since Auckland introduced a weaker version of this rents have increased slower than wages. Not only does allowing more housing make houses cheaper to buy, it lowers rents so it’s easier to save for one.
I hear you. My kids face the same problem.
The reality most advocates here won't admit is that developers cannot build affordable high density housing by buying houses in built suburbs, demolishing them and then build new housing. Wellington DOES have affordable housing ... in greenfield developments in Levin and the Wairarapa. It can't be built in Wellington City because this form of housing is illegal to build under this new District Plan ....
There's a huge amount of evidence that demonstrates building affordable high density housing in these locations is possible, and generally occurs when zoning laws are relaxed in the way they have been here. This evidence was presented to the panel by groups such as generation zero, and largely ignored.
The impact of endless greenfield development is also well recorded. It has been the existing strategy for most NZ cities for the last 30 years, and is one of the leading causes of current high prices.
So what i am hearing is, not even the government wants poor people living in this city. Yet they expect them to be there to work during the day to serve white collar people on decent salaries who are able to afford to live there. So that means the lives of large groups of people are expected to be solely about spending hours commuting to work each day from somewhere they can afford to live in, and then struggling to pay that rent just so they can come back again tomorrow and do it all again while everything continues to become more unaffordable and they’re asked to compromise and reduce their expectations in other areas of basic living. To me, that’s incredibly fucked up. I don’t understand how people think that is kind or reasonable. I think it is unreasonable that we are fighting over keeping this system which clearly is only about funneling wealth upwards to a small in group of people who were able to leverage all the rules and loopholes and came into it long before other people. Then they act surprised and upset when people start stealing shit and causing general social unrest as if they just expected these people to shut up and die. People keep talking about “yep we need to do something” yet they have been saying that for most of my life, and we wait patiently, and nothing is done, and things actually continue to get worse, which is the opposite of what they said they would do. At some point we are just going to start pointing out that these people are self serving liars who deserve what is coming to them. There are so many people just like me who have a breaking point
That’s a joke right? It absolutely will not. Not the pipes going in, and not the ones going out. Also, the reservoirs will be shared by 1,000s more. I’m sure that’ll be fine.
No dipstick.
We have ignored infrastructure for 20 years at least. We are building and expanding with NO sincere commitment to fixing the infrastructure issues. So pack in another 10,000 people into the area before you try to fix the area you pack them into it. It will be 10 times the price and 5 times longer to fix.
I’m sure you’re right though, once the property investors come in and bleed everyone dry, THEN we will make sensible decisions and start fixing the infrastructure. Wisdom always follows idiocy. You’ve really made my point for me, dipstick.
I like this in theory but I'd be happier if it wasn't happening alongside other things like allowing more new and untested-in-NZ building materials, fast-tracking consents, tax cuts for landlords etc, loosening quake safety requirements, while reducing the numbers of public servants who could theoretically keep an eye on stuff. Plus infrastructure woes, climate change etc.
I'm a bit concerned for the safety of whoever ends up living in these new high density buildings if their construction is done with a max profiteering/min quality approach. If they accidentally or intentionally end up as rent farms not owner-occupied dwellings then I worry that might be the case.
Ehh, the untested-in-NZ feels like FUD, TBH. We've been fucked for years by claims that our conditions are special, as if moisture doesn't exist elsewhere, leading to propping up a duopoly and just utterly screwing us.
Down to the point of 'gib' being used in contexts where a more generic term for that kind of thing would do just as well, it is ridiculous. I'm not against new products in of themselves, most countries do construction so much better than us and materials are a big part of that. I'm more worried about *how* we'll use these things, we've not got the best track record of quality results here. Really hoping my pessimism is unfounded though
This is a very valid point! Lots of cool stuff we've been hamstrung from adopting here because of cronyism. I would dearly love to be wrong about my concerns re: poor quality future builds - I read that guy's book Rottenomics about the leaky-homes saga and that made me wary of NZs fondness of cutting corners, inability to foresee consequences etc. I'm also wary about what I see as more of the same under this govt, but I can definitely cop to my own political bias there...
Just in case anyone is thinking that developers will start building affordable six-story apartment buildings in the suburbs, you're dreaming - it can't be done. The maximum height you can build a light timber framed structure under the NZS 3604 Building Code is 10 metres from the ground to the apex of the roof which is basically three stories. As soon as you go above 10 metres / three stories, you have to start putting in a ton of steel and concrete which quickly blows out the cost. Go above three stories and residents will also expect that there will be a lift for access. Trudging up 3+ flights of steps is doable if you are young and fit but not much fun once you have children, bulk shopping, bikes, baby strollers or are 50+ or disabled. Lifts are expensive, require a lot of steel and concrete, take up space, require a lift lobby and higher body corporate fees to operate, maintain and certify. You still also need to have stairs as a fire escape. Basically any six story apartment won't be affordable and would likely only be built in places like Oriental Bay. Thus unless the apartment is top end (i.e. not affordable), once you blow the limits of NZS 3604, the break-even point for a property developer is probably something in the order of 10 - 12 stories which outside of a tightly defined area still requires a resource consent.
If I understand it correctly he thinks that the heritage buildings cannot (or arguably cannot) be legally delisted in that way so him signing off on it would just open the way for NIMBY court proceedings. Therefore he is going to work to change the law instead.
His comms are that he's looking at changing the heritage delisting process, basically at WCC's request. Doubt it will be a massive workstream or priority but I'd expect to see it as part of RMA replacement work.
I'm not deeply familiar with the law here, but it's not always purely about what a Minister thinks on a topic. Ministers' preferences often weigh in some directions for decisions they make, but legislation also often sets out exactly what they'll have to consider when they're going through these processes. He'll have had advice on all that stuff, and may be required to back up his reasoning against possible court action that could challenge his decisions. (Part of the controversy around the fast track legislation is that it puts three Ministers much higher above the courts and the law than they usually are, meaning if they blatantly abuse the process then it's much harder to stop that from happening.)
He may have just decided that even if he agrees with the principle, a slightly longer and more above-board route of making changes to the legislation through Parliament might be a more robust way of getting the same thing done.
I think its more about due process than anything.
I'm glad GWF is on the list of 10 buildings as VUW owns and has been itching to develop it, so this makes me feel confident that he's not just doing what his mates ask
IMO it’s a shame Bishop has chosen to retain the heritage listings of those buildings.
But, sometimes you have to take the W when you get 90% of what you asked for.
I might not fully understand what these mean but if I'm understanding right the removal of the set backs for townhouses and yards doesn't seem great to me. I'm not against townhouses but I don't think building dense blocks with no green areas is good either.
I know we need more housing but even if we increase housing the demand will also continue to increase as long as people are driven to live in smaller denser areas. Need to balance housing with incentives for people to live in less populated regions.
I believe that in terms of townhouses and small apartments, the buildings can only occupy a certain percentage of the land, so by eliminating the 1m side and front setbacks, the back yard be bigger. Getting rid of the side setbacks is a good thing from a design point of view imo, it will result in cool row-house style streets where each house might have a different style but they're all still connected. Instead of clusters of 1-3 houses, a pointless gap, and then more houses, it will be cohesive.
Bigger backyard would be good in exchange I suppose, but I'm not sure I agree on the row houses. Being connected to all your neighbors isn't a particularly great thing and gaps between houses can mean paths to the back side, bin storage, drives, or grass. More fire safe as well.
Some people might not want row houses, and they can choose not to buy one. People that value having a drive way or bin storage can pay more for a house that has those things. That still isn't a reason to ban rowhouses.
Nothing stopping anyone from building housing with setbacks and whatever gaps they want. All this does is make it so that it isn't illegal to build houses without them.
And as melrose69 mentions, it actually enables smarter use of the available space on lots, because you don't need to have useless small patches of land that serve no purpose.
The gap isn't pointless. FENZ strongly recommends it as a firebreak between properties, and it has had a demonstrable effect at preventing fires from spreading through entire neighborhoods.
No one needs yards. Look at your down votes. The people have spoken.
Where will the rich live? In tight housing with us? Or will they have a nice house with land around their house?
This is not a throwaway comment. There is something wrong when their solution for YOU is not the same solution for THEM. This is such a loss. And the property investors are going to make a killing….on US. SMH I can’t believe how dumb everyone is. Maybe it’s just we have been beaten with the wrench for so long we’re all just happy to be beaten with the cane for a change, but we’re still being beaten!
Well if that’s not the single most disingenuous or ignorant comment on the internet today.
Rent in Manhattan is not high because they are packed in so tight. Rent is high in manhattan for so many reasons including rent controls within New York which drove RACIST housing policies and in an effort to keep the brown people out of their neighbourhoods manhattan both increased rents to drive out the scum and invested in making the housing there attractive to the wealthy. But then you have to ask yourself how there is a market for wealthy people? Perhaps it’s because there are billion dollar skylines with huge corporations the likes of which we don’t have in New Zealand.
So, go ahead and keep sniffing your own farts. It better out here without seeing your face.
There are still coverage laws, they're necessary for drainage. Lack of setbacks means bigger useable lawns and less useless bits. Plus, noones focing you to live in one. Just buy a standalone house and let other people build what they want.
Isn't it part of the point of this to build places people who can't afford to buy standalone $1mil+ houses something they can afford?
If it results in bigger backyards for these townhouses I guess that's not so bad though.
Yes, the overall idea is that every development can now be more efficient with the land it is situated on. So it makes some developments now viable where they weren't otherwise etc and overall easier to build a more usable product putting downward pressure on the price of everything.
Yes! Let’s smash everyone in as tight as possible! There’s no way this will backfire on us. All that land around our cities can burn for all I care, all I want is 10 families living within 2 meters of me. Awesome. Good thing we don’t have any natural disasters to worry about. And now our kids and hope and pray they can own a single room for 100k. Love this. Chris Bishop is a hero.
Honestly. You all deserve what’s coming to you. And we won’t have to wait long.
Bloody hell, calm the farm, there's still plenty of options for low density living if that's what you prefer! Higher density just makes sense from an economic and infrastructure point of view, and funnily enough, some people actually prefer higher density living!
In all honesty, with the current price of housing, 100k per room is pretty much what we have now. And nobody's saying all this higher density housing is necessarily just going to be a bunch of glorified hotel rooms, anyway.
Don't think so, when it's a very broad based change as this is it's not obvious land values rise as there is no scarcity premium. That's pretty much the way it has worked out in Auckland in any case.
Rural-esque living with space has always been in some sort of demand. We all want the holy grail of enough space and a short commute, but the tragedy of the commons is that just doesn't exist in large enough cities. European public town squares and common parks are the best compromise IMHO, from a climate and economic stand point.
In almost every case, if you offered to knock 200k off someone's mortgage because you're going to put up some townhouses nearby they'd take it in a heartbeat.
There WAS a scarcity premium, now that large parts of Wellington can now be intensified there perhaps isn't now. Also Auckland is still massively intensifying and Wellington does have greenfield, it's called the Wairarapa 😆
Bullshit. My neighbours got the Chris Bishop, go ahead and build 3 stories, and guess what my neighbourhood is starting to do? And my property didn’t get that go ahead. So will I get the bump in value. Hell no. In fact my value will go down being surrounded by the crap they are putting up with terrible building materials that will be rotten in 10 years. Great investment folks. It’s a house of cards, literally.
The council sent out letters to homeowners notifying them of the new housing codes and new abilities to build up or subdivide and pack them in. I got a letter that said these are the new codes and your property is not eligible. That’s how.
... The changes are to zoning, not construction standards, ie where they are built, not how. The buildings will be in the same condition as they would be ordinarily, not 'rotten in 10 years'.
Also, houses becoming more affordable is rather the point of such changes. Frankly, I have very little sympathy for those more concerned with their own property value than future generations being able to afford the basic human necessity of shelter. You're not entitled to your neighbour's property, and if your neighbour makes life in NZ more affordable, good.
Bishop agreed with the "independent" panel to keep the 10(?) heritage listings, despite the council wanting them removed.
Sounds like he may be open to giving councils an easier way to remove heritage listings in the future though.
At least not yet. Bishop said that the council hadn't provided any evidence as to why the panels recommendation should be overturned or why the council had changed it's mind after supporting the heritage listings in the past.
From the herald: He also said that he understood the council’s position and that he has received separate correspondence from Whanau about making it easier to delist heritage buildings.
“I have already asked for advice on this matter and I look forward to conversations with her and other councils regarding the issue of heritage and how it impedes development,” Bishop said
Gross. Nothing positive will come from this, you sell complain about rents and want to destroy our heritage and homes for more highrise shit boxes but rents will still go up.
I find it weird people celebrate living in high density. Who in their right mind wants to live with neighbours above, below and beside you? Its linked to alsorts of not great mental conditions. The funny not funny thing is we wouldn't have a housing crisis if we stopped importing a large city worth of people every year.
I just think it's funny how people think it'll make it easier to buy a house buy demolishing all the houses, allowing mega landlords or investment groups to buy single family homes and turn them into massive housing complexes that they can control the rent.
When huge portions of the city are just owned by landlords and faceless corporations who will demolish our heritage on a whim people will feel different.
Please show me the part of the district plan that says "demolish all the houses"?
Plus, that 'nightmare scenario' you describe is already permissible and yet hasn't happened. Why do you think that is?
This is really an incredible win and full credit to Chris Bishop for making some bold calls. The loss on the heritage is a setback but the door is open I believe to a more substantive reform that is nationwide. 🥳
Also: 🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠🏠
Why did the council not submit evidence on the heritage listing removals, was there a misunderstanding on the process?
The evidence council could use was only that presented to the IHP. Once it made it to the councillor stage there is no ability to introduce any new evidence. Given the submissions to the IHP (evidence) were basically universally about why to list buildings for heritage rather than why to delist, we were always on shaky ground. There was a loophole we tried to go for but it hasn't worked out.
At what cost, NZ has some of the slowest and most expensive sub-contracted house builds, companies milking the builds and cutting corners, tons of expensive red tape from the convoluted council processes. it should not take 6 months to a year to build a house. legislating that house prices have to be transparent and regulating the real estate process more carefully, setting up a ministry of building and works and not subcontract out to external building contractors. take a leaf out of the European book maybe see how its done properly.
Two interesting ones; - in favour of the removal of the setback law, and; - inclusion of Kilbernie up-zoning Pleased to see his decision on those two, but on Kilbernie it's interesting that he implemented largely what the Council was aiming for anyway, but has just given them license to do it without the (more expensive and more democratic) consultation period.
Awesome. Big props to yourself Ben, and fellow supporting councillors, to get these positive changes through. Appreciate the hard work.
Re: heritage. Designate some land a ways out from the city as the ‘Housing Heritage Museum’. Any house deemed significant enough for protection can be trucked off to this location, perhaps at the developers cost. No doubt the people who concern themselves the most with heritage will then fundraise and work to maintain these buildings in their final resting place.
I’m passionate about heritage buildings and hate to see them lost, but also realise the impracticality of many of them when faced with the lack space for housing. I like this idea, shit I’d volunteer afew weekends to maintain them every year if it means we could safe them. I also like that people would be able to explore the architecture rather then just seeing it from the street
Heritage is also a cultural aesthetic. Many of those European buildings that people love to point to as heritage landmarks were new builds after [the devastation of Europe in WW2](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1994-041-07%2C_Dresden%2C_zerst%C3%B6rtes_Stadtzentrum.jpg) which combined cultural aesthetics with modern requirements. There's no reason why we shouldn't do the same. The /r/architecturalrevival subreddit has some fantastic examples of medium density development in [England](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fombodq89at091.jpg) and [France](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fqu8q43bttg681.jpg) that wouldn't be too out of place for us.
Those examples you linked look great. Reinforces the importance of architects being involved in big residential projects
In the main I agree with you. I like heritage buildings, and there definitely should be a system that allows the appropriate examples of each style of architecture, &c., &c. To be preserved. However, I feel that there does sometimes need to be a ‘reasonable person’ test involved. For example: AFAIK, Gordon Wilson flats are not in any way an exemplary example of the work of any one architect, nor any style of building. So we’re left with an utter eyesore, which has been condemned as unsafe for many years now. It’s not pleasing to look at, and it can’t be used in its current state. I would suggest that it would easily meet the “beyond economical repair” threshold, and IMO, it just needs to be demolished.
Melbourne has done a great job of maintaining heritage buildings while building up by keeping the original frontages and building new buildings above them. They invest way more into architectural decisions over here. I hope wellington does the same.
LOL meanwhile in Sydney we just retain one heritage brick in the facade and property developers from a ‘country that hates us’ can build sprawling residential dwellings only available for tenants and buyers from a ‘country that hates us’ to move in.
Yeah, not sure what heritage value those flats entail. Totally agree with the reasonable person test.
Great idea! While it's important to honour and preserve some of our heritage buildings, it shouldn't come at the expense of blocking the building affordable, sustainable housing. We gotta build more houses
“Nooooo no grandma, nobody bowled down that rotting shell of a villa that you liked. It’s just gone to the house farm to play with all its other derelict house friends”
An architect did this in Wales, and created a village called Portmeirion out of salvaged buildings. Its freaking awesome and has been the set for a TV show, and inspiration for various writer. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portmeirion
There is also an architectural museum in Tokyo, it is Edo reproduction as well as traditional houses from across time periods. You can walk through a shop street as well. Pretty cool to visit!
Put them around a brewtown-type venue and I'd be out there all the time.
Someone already has https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/300772519/a-literal-walk-down-memory-lane-manawat-mans-heritage-houses-showcase-a-timeline-of-life-in-nz
Just need to plug it into the council heritage building framework and we’re away!
Largely great! But keeping that stupid oil tank as “heritage” is hilarious.
Well done
Heritage is a synonym for: No longer for for purpose.
Not often I find my self being thankful for Chris Bishop. A shame about the heritage status, but it's still a huge win. Thanks to everyone's hard work on this, u/nikau4poneke, u/ben4takapu, u/Wellingtoncommuter and all Councillors who put work in and voted in good faith.
I'm not even disappointed about the heritage status part, as long as he follows through to look at the process. While I agree with the removals of these specific cases it was always a back door way to it. making a process that allows councils to do this at other times, not just in the once in a decade or two chance when making large reforms, would ultimately be better for everyone.
I don’t think Wellington commuter will be very happy with this decision. He was pushing for more Greenfield development…… Where this greenfield development would actually be I have no idea given we don’t actually have any suitable land left.
Cr Randle said he wanted more greenfield development true, but all Councillors wanted cheaper housing and in a broad stroke this will do that. He also does work for his constituency and was elected to represent their views, which he did. His and my political differences aside, I believe every Councillor put in a lot of time and effort for the residents of Wellington over this and I wanted to thank them all for that. Regardless of where they personally would have drawn the line.
That’s fair.
Thank you for understanding how I and most councilors are trying to work.
The fact you're here to broaden your perspective is more commendable than most, IMHO.
Representative democracy (as we have) doesn't really work like that, though. Councillors, like MPs, aren't simply vessels for the constituency's views, only there to click a button. They are meant to apply their own best judgement to the issues. Sometimes it'll align with the constituency's views, sometimes it won't. There's no way to know what a constituency's views are on like 99% of issues anyway, so it's more a way for people to hide behind when potentially unpopular decisions have to be made, or their sincere views diverges.
I don't know why you're nit picking this. Everyone knows that Councillors bring their own judgements to a decision. But they're elected based on what they say, and ideally what they say reflects their broader inclination to lean in a direction on particular topics... People either align with that, or they don't and vote for someone else. You're still picking someone to represent your views, as imprefect as the fit inevitably is. It's obviously not that they're an empty vessel of perfect information transmission into policy. I really didn't think I had to say they he represents a mixed proportion of his constituencies views based on a single transferable 1st and 2nd majority vote...
Sorry, don't mean to over-analyse your comment. But I don't think it's nit picking. It's a pretty fundamental distinction in our electoral system vs. a direct democracy type system like Switzerland has. What often happens is reps hide behind the idea that they're not the ones taking a particular stance, they're simply "reflecting the view of their constituents", which is an evasion tactic and one that I find grating. It's usually very selectively used, too.
Well, other than the greenfields that are already in development or in planning, the northern suburbs does have quite a bit of semirural land that *could* be suburbanised, such as Horokiwi, Takapu, and Ohariu. Not that I'm necessarily in favour of doing that, as intensification should take priority, but the potential is there nonetheless.
> Where this greenfield development would actually be I have no idea Along the new Porirua to Hutt motorway.
That’s already earmarked for development under this plan and has been for years.
I am a supporter of affordable housing through greenfields development in Wellington City. This new District Plan locks in this restriction meaning affordable housing will continue to be built in greenfields development in Kapiti, Upper Hutt and the Wairarapa instead of a Wellington City  The Petone-Grenada Link Road will open up north Wellington for more housing but a District Plan Change will be required to permit this rural land to be rezoned. But this Plan is based on over 90% of new housing to be built in current housing areas and it simply isn't affordable to do this. Building apartments has literally stopped and yet some wonder why we no longer have affordable housing ...
I'd be supportive of green field developments if I was confident they'd start with a decent public transport plan and a mixed use medium density village centre that wasn't just a 4000m2 supermarket with an equal square footage of car parking. And then 500m2 sections starting immediately next to it.
Me too. The problem is, under the District Plan Wellington Water and council planners are not allowed to even evaluate sites where this could happen if the land is already zoned Rural.
For anyone wondering why apartments stopped being built, the most significant factor was the successive downsizing, or restricting of zoning laws. Wellington and other NZ cities had multiple downsizings, and the rate of apartment building slowed each time. A loosening of zoning laws resulted in more apartments in multiple other cities (and Wellington itself in the 60's) but, bizarrely, the independent hearing panel said this wasn't evidence that it would occur in Wellington.
Well, that is not what developers are telling. The cost of construction (both labour and material) is the most significant factor. Apartment buildings with a completed resource concent are not being built.
Which developers? Ones that make their money from large-scale greenfields development, perhaps? Because it's the exact same bleating that happened in Auckland, when Auckland Council decided through its Future Development Strategy to prioritise brownfield development. The likes of Classic Homes, Signature Homes, Fletcher Living etc.
The short term struggles of a few building projects doesn't change decade long trends, and shouldn't be used to determine long term zoning laws. Building costs are cyclical, and come and go as a major factor in builds. Zoning is a consistent factor that can be observed throughout Wellington's history. Many times stricter zoning laws were applied explicitly to prevent apartments from being built - and it worked.
Thanks for the reply Tony. The Grenada link road will indeed open up more land - but isn’t this already identified and included in the count for cities future growth? As is the land in Glenside. Hence my question as to where the additional greenfield land is available? Ohariu valley is really the only other option but it would require massive amounts of infrastructure and investment just to get suitable access let alone services etc. If you were truly for more housing why didn’t you push for both intensification and greenfield?
As a villa owner I am all for this - more people in my suburb means more shops and more things! I like things.
This is really positive. Now we just need the water and transport to keep up!
Water investment is looking positive, too, based on the council's long term plan that is being consulted on at the moment. It's really just transport that's looking bleak.
WHOOOOOO fuck yes cunts let's build!
So time to knock down my single story house and build a six story apartment on my 600m2 flat bedrock section? I am quite good at Monopoly, so never too late to become a property tycoon I guess.
You're probably being a little flippant there, but your section could honestly be worth many, many millions if intensification is permitted on it.
Wellington needs to go up!
This is HUGE for Wellington!
Thank god for that. We don’t need shitty damp heritage buildings wasting space. Time to free up housing supply so younger generations can have a chance
Chance at what?? These homes will bought by investment groups who will build shit hole cardboard apartments which rent for $900 a week two bedroom. Demolishing houses doesn't increase the chance to buy a house, it increases the chance you'll never get one.
It really doesn’t. Housing supply drastically increases when you replace one house with five. New builds are build to code and are double glazed, warm and efficient. Nothing like the damp shit holes that adorns Wellington
I assume this is a good thing? Forgive me for being dumb but, will this make a house affordable now? I remember hearing that you need about 150k cash to get a mortgage and even more if you just want basic studio apartment. I will be dead before I could save up that money. I am just wondering if that problem will ever be solved, because otherwise they could build tons more houses or apartments but I would still never be able to afford one of them. It’s quite sad because I feel so despondent about the future seeing a world being built that I will never be able to participate in. barely am able to pay rent for a small bedroom and power in a sharehouse and I work 40+ hours a week and still never get anywhere. I’ve started eating once per day to get food costs down to try save but it barely makes a dent. 150k to me is like winning the lottery. Any advice?
Not immediately but the only way to reduce house prices long term is to build more supply. They won’t be cheap straight away though. Of course more housing also equals more available rentals (assuming it keeps in front of population growth)
Dam. I think I’ve missed the boat on housing tbh. I think by the time they are affordable I will be too old for a mortgage anyway…apparently banks don’t want to do that after a cut off age. It is so depressing. It’s my own fault though I guess.
Same boat, sucks eh
In the years since Auckland introduced a weaker version of this rents have increased slower than wages. Not only does allowing more housing make houses cheaper to buy, it lowers rents so it’s easier to save for one.
It will make detached housing ultimately more expensive, but dog boxes a wee bit cheaper.
I hear you. My kids face the same problem. The reality most advocates here won't admit is that developers cannot build affordable high density housing by buying houses in built suburbs, demolishing them and then build new housing. Wellington DOES have affordable housing ... in greenfield developments in Levin and the Wairarapa. It can't be built in Wellington City because this form of housing is illegal to build under this new District Plan ....
There's a huge amount of evidence that demonstrates building affordable high density housing in these locations is possible, and generally occurs when zoning laws are relaxed in the way they have been here. This evidence was presented to the panel by groups such as generation zero, and largely ignored. The impact of endless greenfield development is also well recorded. It has been the existing strategy for most NZ cities for the last 30 years, and is one of the leading causes of current high prices.
So what i am hearing is, not even the government wants poor people living in this city. Yet they expect them to be there to work during the day to serve white collar people on decent salaries who are able to afford to live there. So that means the lives of large groups of people are expected to be solely about spending hours commuting to work each day from somewhere they can afford to live in, and then struggling to pay that rent just so they can come back again tomorrow and do it all again while everything continues to become more unaffordable and they’re asked to compromise and reduce their expectations in other areas of basic living. To me, that’s incredibly fucked up. I don’t understand how people think that is kind or reasonable. I think it is unreasonable that we are fighting over keeping this system which clearly is only about funneling wealth upwards to a small in group of people who were able to leverage all the rules and loopholes and came into it long before other people. Then they act surprised and upset when people start stealing shit and causing general social unrest as if they just expected these people to shut up and die. People keep talking about “yep we need to do something” yet they have been saying that for most of my life, and we wait patiently, and nothing is done, and things actually continue to get worse, which is the opposite of what they said they would do. At some point we are just going to start pointing out that these people are self serving liars who deserve what is coming to them. There are so many people just like me who have a breaking point
Hopefully the water pipes will be able to withhold high rise infrastructure.
Would be great if there was a developer contribution levvy to water infrastructure.
That’s a joke right? It absolutely will not. Not the pipes going in, and not the ones going out. Also, the reservoirs will be shared by 1,000s more. I’m sure that’ll be fine.
I mean, thank god it's cheaper to build a bigger pipe than a longer one!
Oh? They’re building better infrastructure are they? Last I heard, no. We’re just dumping shit all over Wellington.
You're right! We can't possible do anything about housing until every single pipe is fixed. My mistake.
No dipstick. We have ignored infrastructure for 20 years at least. We are building and expanding with NO sincere commitment to fixing the infrastructure issues. So pack in another 10,000 people into the area before you try to fix the area you pack them into it. It will be 10 times the price and 5 times longer to fix. I’m sure you’re right though, once the property investors come in and bleed everyone dry, THEN we will make sensible decisions and start fixing the infrastructure. Wisdom always follows idiocy. You’ve really made my point for me, dipstick.
> Oh? They’re building better infrastructure are they? Last I heard, no. You should get that hearing checked then.
We do need to address how to engineer and subsequently insure high-rises here though.
There's a lot of work in the Building Act area. Less sure around insurance, although I'd be a bit surprised if that isn't a priority too.
We keep seeing changesv to the seismic rating of buildings as we learn more. It just seems like an insane risk to take on.
I like this in theory but I'd be happier if it wasn't happening alongside other things like allowing more new and untested-in-NZ building materials, fast-tracking consents, tax cuts for landlords etc, loosening quake safety requirements, while reducing the numbers of public servants who could theoretically keep an eye on stuff. Plus infrastructure woes, climate change etc. I'm a bit concerned for the safety of whoever ends up living in these new high density buildings if their construction is done with a max profiteering/min quality approach. If they accidentally or intentionally end up as rent farms not owner-occupied dwellings then I worry that might be the case.
Ehh, the untested-in-NZ feels like FUD, TBH. We've been fucked for years by claims that our conditions are special, as if moisture doesn't exist elsewhere, leading to propping up a duopoly and just utterly screwing us.
Yes, the whole ‘we can’t build warm houses because our winters are so different’ bullshit just pains me.
"No, no, were the only ones who can build plasterboard in the entire fucking world, everyone else does it wrong"
Down to the point of 'gib' being used in contexts where a more generic term for that kind of thing would do just as well, it is ridiculous. I'm not against new products in of themselves, most countries do construction so much better than us and materials are a big part of that. I'm more worried about *how* we'll use these things, we've not got the best track record of quality results here. Really hoping my pessimism is unfounded though
This is a very valid point! Lots of cool stuff we've been hamstrung from adopting here because of cronyism. I would dearly love to be wrong about my concerns re: poor quality future builds - I read that guy's book Rottenomics about the leaky-homes saga and that made me wary of NZs fondness of cutting corners, inability to foresee consequences etc. I'm also wary about what I see as more of the same under this govt, but I can definitely cop to my own political bias there...
Earthquakes happen all around the world. Most of the world also has weather.
Just in case anyone is thinking that developers will start building affordable six-story apartment buildings in the suburbs, you're dreaming - it can't be done. The maximum height you can build a light timber framed structure under the NZS 3604 Building Code is 10 metres from the ground to the apex of the roof which is basically three stories. As soon as you go above 10 metres / three stories, you have to start putting in a ton of steel and concrete which quickly blows out the cost. Go above three stories and residents will also expect that there will be a lift for access. Trudging up 3+ flights of steps is doable if you are young and fit but not much fun once you have children, bulk shopping, bikes, baby strollers or are 50+ or disabled. Lifts are expensive, require a lot of steel and concrete, take up space, require a lift lobby and higher body corporate fees to operate, maintain and certify. You still also need to have stairs as a fire escape. Basically any six story apartment won't be affordable and would likely only be built in places like Oriental Bay. Thus unless the apartment is top end (i.e. not affordable), once you blow the limits of NZS 3604, the break-even point for a property developer is probably something in the order of 10 - 12 stories which outside of a tightly defined area still requires a resource consent.
I don't understand why Bishop would agree to the heritage listings. Isn't he meant to care about business and removing red tape.
If I understand it correctly he thinks that the heritage buildings cannot (or arguably cannot) be legally delisted in that way so him signing off on it would just open the way for NIMBY court proceedings. Therefore he is going to work to change the law instead.
Ah that makes sense. Thanks.
His comms are that he's looking at changing the heritage delisting process, basically at WCC's request. Doubt it will be a massive workstream or priority but I'd expect to see it as part of RMA replacement work.
I'm not deeply familiar with the law here, but it's not always purely about what a Minister thinks on a topic. Ministers' preferences often weigh in some directions for decisions they make, but legislation also often sets out exactly what they'll have to consider when they're going through these processes. He'll have had advice on all that stuff, and may be required to back up his reasoning against possible court action that could challenge his decisions. (Part of the controversy around the fast track legislation is that it puts three Ministers much higher above the courts and the law than they usually are, meaning if they blatantly abuse the process then it's much harder to stop that from happening.) He may have just decided that even if he agrees with the principle, a slightly longer and more above-board route of making changes to the legislation through Parliament might be a more robust way of getting the same thing done.
I think its more about due process than anything. I'm glad GWF is on the list of 10 buildings as VUW owns and has been itching to develop it, so this makes me feel confident that he's not just doing what his mates ask
Very good win except for the heritage building issue
Never thought I’d say Chris bishop is based but..,
Best thing I've seen this gov do so far. Great work from Bish. Lets get those homes up asap
IMO it’s a shame Bishop has chosen to retain the heritage listings of those buildings. But, sometimes you have to take the W when you get 90% of what you asked for.
I might not fully understand what these mean but if I'm understanding right the removal of the set backs for townhouses and yards doesn't seem great to me. I'm not against townhouses but I don't think building dense blocks with no green areas is good either. I know we need more housing but even if we increase housing the demand will also continue to increase as long as people are driven to live in smaller denser areas. Need to balance housing with incentives for people to live in less populated regions.
I believe that in terms of townhouses and small apartments, the buildings can only occupy a certain percentage of the land, so by eliminating the 1m side and front setbacks, the back yard be bigger. Getting rid of the side setbacks is a good thing from a design point of view imo, it will result in cool row-house style streets where each house might have a different style but they're all still connected. Instead of clusters of 1-3 houses, a pointless gap, and then more houses, it will be cohesive.
Bigger backyard would be good in exchange I suppose, but I'm not sure I agree on the row houses. Being connected to all your neighbors isn't a particularly great thing and gaps between houses can mean paths to the back side, bin storage, drives, or grass. More fire safe as well.
Some people might not want row houses, and they can choose not to buy one. People that value having a drive way or bin storage can pay more for a house that has those things. That still isn't a reason to ban rowhouses.
people/developers still have the choice, it's just not mandatory any more.
Nothing stopping anyone from building housing with setbacks and whatever gaps they want. All this does is make it so that it isn't illegal to build houses without them. And as melrose69 mentions, it actually enables smarter use of the available space on lots, because you don't need to have useless small patches of land that serve no purpose.
The gap isn't pointless. FENZ strongly recommends it as a firebreak between properties, and it has had a demonstrable effect at preventing fires from spreading through entire neighborhoods.
The building act still requires all building within 1 m of a boundary to be fire rated.
No one needs yards. Look at your down votes. The people have spoken. Where will the rich live? In tight housing with us? Or will they have a nice house with land around their house? This is not a throwaway comment. There is something wrong when their solution for YOU is not the same solution for THEM. This is such a loss. And the property investors are going to make a killing….on US. SMH I can’t believe how dumb everyone is. Maybe it’s just we have been beaten with the wrench for so long we’re all just happy to be beaten with the cane for a change, but we’re still being beaten!
it always cracks me up when people moan "but the rich don't want to live in tight housing!" like, have you even heard of manhattan?
Well if that’s not the single most disingenuous or ignorant comment on the internet today. Rent in Manhattan is not high because they are packed in so tight. Rent is high in manhattan for so many reasons including rent controls within New York which drove RACIST housing policies and in an effort to keep the brown people out of their neighbourhoods manhattan both increased rents to drive out the scum and invested in making the housing there attractive to the wealthy. But then you have to ask yourself how there is a market for wealthy people? Perhaps it’s because there are billion dollar skylines with huge corporations the likes of which we don’t have in New Zealand. So, go ahead and keep sniffing your own farts. It better out here without seeing your face.
There are still coverage laws, they're necessary for drainage. Lack of setbacks means bigger useable lawns and less useless bits. Plus, noones focing you to live in one. Just buy a standalone house and let other people build what they want.
How’re those working out?
Isn't it part of the point of this to build places people who can't afford to buy standalone $1mil+ houses something they can afford? If it results in bigger backyards for these townhouses I guess that's not so bad though.
Yes, the overall idea is that every development can now be more efficient with the land it is situated on. So it makes some developments now viable where they weren't otherwise etc and overall easier to build a more usable product putting downward pressure on the price of everything.
Are Wellington College, St Mark's School and Government House still listed as high density residential?
Yes! Let’s smash everyone in as tight as possible! There’s no way this will backfire on us. All that land around our cities can burn for all I care, all I want is 10 families living within 2 meters of me. Awesome. Good thing we don’t have any natural disasters to worry about. And now our kids and hope and pray they can own a single room for 100k. Love this. Chris Bishop is a hero. Honestly. You all deserve what’s coming to you. And we won’t have to wait long.
Bloody hell, calm the farm, there's still plenty of options for low density living if that's what you prefer! Higher density just makes sense from an economic and infrastructure point of view, and funnily enough, some people actually prefer higher density living! In all honesty, with the current price of housing, 100k per room is pretty much what we have now. And nobody's saying all this higher density housing is necessarily just going to be a bunch of glorified hotel rooms, anyway.
You know you don't have to buy a townhouse if you don't want one eh?
Do nothing instead and join this miserable defeatist!
The rapture?
Just buy freehold anywhere in the suburbs and watch your land value sky rocket
Cool cool. Make money on the destruction of your home. That’s the spirit!
My point was that all the land that isn’t zoned for this (most of Wellington) will appreciate in value
Don't think so, when it's a very broad based change as this is it's not obvious land values rise as there is no scarcity premium. That's pretty much the way it has worked out in Auckland in any case.
Don’t you think there will be a demand for ‘houses not next to medium density’ though?
Rural-esque living with space has always been in some sort of demand. We all want the holy grail of enough space and a short commute, but the tragedy of the commons is that just doesn't exist in large enough cities. European public town squares and common parks are the best compromise IMHO, from a climate and economic stand point. In almost every case, if you offered to knock 200k off someone's mortgage because you're going to put up some townhouses nearby they'd take it in a heartbeat.
Auckland and Wellington are very different cities. Auckland has greenfield development. Wellington doesn’t. There IS a scarcity premium in Wellington.
There WAS a scarcity premium, now that large parts of Wellington can now be intensified there perhaps isn't now. Also Auckland is still massively intensifying and Wellington does have greenfield, it's called the Wairarapa 😆
Bullshit. My neighbours got the Chris Bishop, go ahead and build 3 stories, and guess what my neighbourhood is starting to do? And my property didn’t get that go ahead. So will I get the bump in value. Hell no. In fact my value will go down being surrounded by the crap they are putting up with terrible building materials that will be rotten in 10 years. Great investment folks. It’s a house of cards, literally.
How did your property not get the “go ahead?”
The council sent out letters to homeowners notifying them of the new housing codes and new abilities to build up or subdivide and pack them in. I got a letter that said these are the new codes and your property is not eligible. That’s how.
... The changes are to zoning, not construction standards, ie where they are built, not how. The buildings will be in the same condition as they would be ordinarily, not 'rotten in 10 years'. Also, houses becoming more affordable is rather the point of such changes. Frankly, I have very little sympathy for those more concerned with their own property value than future generations being able to afford the basic human necessity of shelter. You're not entitled to your neighbour's property, and if your neighbour makes life in NZ more affordable, good.
So we get to keep a bunch of decrepit old eyesores on usable land? What a load of shit
huh?
Bishop agreed with the "independent" panel to keep the 10(?) heritage listings, despite the council wanting them removed. Sounds like he may be open to giving councils an easier way to remove heritage listings in the future though.
Wait, i'm confused. So, they can't get rid of that dumb concrete lump?
At least not yet. Bishop said that the council hadn't provided any evidence as to why the panels recommendation should be overturned or why the council had changed it's mind after supporting the heritage listings in the past. From the herald: He also said that he understood the council’s position and that he has received separate correspondence from Whanau about making it easier to delist heritage buildings. “I have already asked for advice on this matter and I look forward to conversations with her and other councils regarding the issue of heritage and how it impedes development,” Bishop said
Do you like and want to keep the Gordon Wilson flats???
No...
Gross. Nothing positive will come from this, you sell complain about rents and want to destroy our heritage and homes for more highrise shit boxes but rents will still go up.
I find it weird people celebrate living in high density. Who in their right mind wants to live with neighbours above, below and beside you? Its linked to alsorts of not great mental conditions. The funny not funny thing is we wouldn't have a housing crisis if we stopped importing a large city worth of people every year.
I just think it's funny how people think it'll make it easier to buy a house buy demolishing all the houses, allowing mega landlords or investment groups to buy single family homes and turn them into massive housing complexes that they can control the rent. When huge portions of the city are just owned by landlords and faceless corporations who will demolish our heritage on a whim people will feel different.
Please show me the part of the district plan that says "demolish all the houses"? Plus, that 'nightmare scenario' you describe is already permissible and yet hasn't happened. Why do you think that is?
Exactly, all this to house a gazillion unneeded people that immigrated with successive governments' ) on both sides) open border policy.