Just as the Deputy Mayor prescribes
However, the debate over up and out continues. I did catch the piece from Macro-Business earlier today over Auckland’s up and out debate.
From Macro-Business Blog:
Build up or out? Auckland needs both
Posted by Unconventional Economist in New Zealand Economyat 1:52pm on July 28, 2014
Hayden Duncan, the head of New Zealand’s largest real estate company, Harcourts, has provided an interview to Interest.co.nz, in which he expressed alarm at Auckland’s expensive home prices and urged the city to build up instead of out in order to cope with population growth and improve housing affordability:
The average price of homes sold in Auckland by Harcourts last month was $721,553…
“There’s no doubt that’s a frightening number,” Duncan said.
“It’s not being driven by cheap money, it’s not being driven by reckless borrowing, it’s not speculation,” he said.
The main driver was the region’s population growth, coming both from within New Zealand and overseas, which was putting pressure on an “under invested property market,” he said.
He saw the solution as more intensive residential development rather than building more houses further out into the countryside.
We have to go up, we can’t keep going out, he said.
How exactly would restrict Auckland’s urban footprint and forcing more and more citizens to cram into the existing urban area achieve a more liveable city and more affordable housing?
Constraints on land supply were slammed by the New Zealand Productivity Commission, whose 2012 reportinto housing affordability cited a body of evidence showing that strict policies of urban containment and slow development approval times had adversely affected the rate of new home construction in Auckland, as well as significantly inflated land and housing costs. The Commission later followed-up with further research showing that Auckland’s urban growth boundary (called the “Metropolitan Urban Limit” or MUL) has significantly increased urban land prices in general, with land prices in the lower part of the distribution worst affected.
…
Full blog post can be read here: http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/07/build-up-or-out-auckland-needs-both/
Yes it is true we do need (as our Deputy Mayor and Chair of the Auckland Development Committee Penny Hulse) to a “little bit up and a little bit out” when it comes to our future development in Auckland.
That said it pays to remember per the Auckland Plan that our Greenfield:Brownfield urban development ratio is set (realistically) to 60:40. That is up to 40% of all urban development in Auckland will be Greenfields a.k.a sprawl while 60% as intensification one way or the other. I would call that for the most part balanced.
A look at the Southern and North Western Rural Urban Boundary where both Brownfield and Greenfield (the yellow Future Urban Zone) is most likely to occur in those areas:

I have also just seen Auckland Council have been directed by the Unitary Plan Hearings Panel to a conference in regards to “Further Submissions” from what I can see.
More on this later once I have read the ‘Procedural Minute’ from the Hearings Panel
