WYNYARD CENTRAL - 30 MADDEN | 30 Madden St, Wynyard Quarter | 11fl | Completed
New Willis Bond & Co apartments north of the tram barn in Wynyard:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11913897
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11913897
1 - 20 of 70 Posts
Another 160 carparks, how does Panuku really think they can achieve a 70 non-car mode share at this rate? Everything new development is packed with housing. There are fewer carparks in most of the new buildings in the central city c.f. what is getting built in Wynyard.
Transit into the area remains terrible and cycling consists of roads filled with queueing cars and a cycleway which they refuse to build because parking.
Transit into the area remains terrible and cycling consists of roads filled with queueing cars and a cycleway which they refuse to build because parking.
Looks good by Auckland standards but such a large site like this in other cities would have had 2-3 30 storey+ towers with 600-800 units in one site alone.
And people wonder why housing is expensive in Auckland. Such a waste for an area walking distance from downtown. They skimp out on the height/scale but never on the car parks.
Until we can build large buildings at scale, #densitydonewell will remain an option only for cashed up boomers in cute little buildings (like this one). Options for average people remain limited to the likes of Zest/Sugartree/Queens Square or something by the side of the motorway.
And people wonder why housing is expensive in Auckland. Such a waste for an area walking distance from downtown. They skimp out on the height/scale but never on the car parks.
Until we can build large buildings at scale, #densitydonewell will remain an option only for cashed up boomers in cute little buildings (like this one). Options for average people remain limited to the likes of Zest/Sugartree/Queens Square or something by the side of the motorway.
Density doesn't require that the central city be only full of 30+ apartment towers, if more of the city had apartments this sort of size we'd be a lot closer to sorting out the shortage of housing.
Then don't put restrictions on height on a significant chunk of the downtown area. Supply is constrained because of gimmicky 5 storey buildings which results in extortionate prices.
Yeah, it could be like Paris or Barcelona with 5 storey buildings as far as the eye can see but that ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Planners should stop day dreaming about European cities and see how other new world cities are handling housing supply. Auckland is a rip-off especially when you factor in the high mortgage rates.
Yeah, it could be like Paris or Barcelona with 5 storey buildings as far as the eye can see but that ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Planners should stop day dreaming about European cities and see how other new world cities are handling housing supply. Auckland is a rip-off especially when you factor in the high mortgage rates.
The high price of apartments in NZ has far more to do with labour constraints than anything. Look at Pacifica and the high rises being built in Melbourne, they are as expensive if not more so than many of the smaller apartment buildings being built.
There are definitely too many places in the central city that have restrictions on the height of the building.
^^...which pushes the land values up and they get passed around to new 'developers' every couple of years who keep flicking them off. Nothing happens.
As for Melbourne, it's cheaper on the whole compared to Auckland. I'd imagine if they were having an identity crisis (trying to make Docklands etc into some Barcelona/trendy European city replica) real estate would be even more expensive.
Not sure what your point is. The restrictive planning rules to do with height, scale, view shafts don't contribute to the astronomical prices and limited supply?The high price of apartments in NZ has far more to do with labour constraints than anything. Look at Pacifica and the high rises being built in Melbourne, they are as expensive if not more so than many of the smaller apartment buildings being built.
As for Melbourne, it's cheaper on the whole compared to Auckland. I'd imagine if they were having an identity crisis (trying to make Docklands etc into some Barcelona/trendy European city replica) real estate would be even more expensive.
^^...which pushes the land values up and they get passed around to new 'developers' every couple of years who keep flicking them off. Nothing happens.
Not sure what your point is. The restrictive planning rules to do with height, scale, view shafts don't contribute to the astronomical prices and limited supply?
As for Melbourne, it's cheaper on the whole compared to Auckland. I'd imagine if they were having an identity crisis (trying to make Docklands etc into some Barcelona/trendy European city replica) real estate would be even more expensive.
Not true, Melbourne is certainly not cheaper with regards to highrise apartments. In any case there are only a small number of construction firms in NZ that can actually build highrises due to the expertise they require (installing elevators and other engineering requirements) as opposed to hundreds of firms capable of building 3-4 storeys high. This is probably true in Australia as well. Here is another article that might be worth reading.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2017/08/31/high-rise-glut-affordable-housing/#53d37ee653e0
Read my comment again - I was talking about Melbourne "on the whole". It's not possible to compare the property markets in isolation based on low/mid/high rise. Besides, there's like 6 or 7 in Auckland.
Nah.Then don't put restrictions on height on a significant chunk of the downtown area. Supply is constrained because of gimmicky 5 storey buildings which results in extortionate prices.
Easy to spout on a blog, but I don't buy it without proper economic analysis.
There's only so much that can be built in a certain amount of time, and Auckland has plenty of resource constraints other than land.
There is land, and we're getting everything from Sugartree to Customs Residential, and everything in between - (good quality and bad).
Here is some economic analysis for you:
The Productivity Commission's inquiry into housing affordability:
Yeah, definitely easy to spout on a blog.
The Productivity Commission's inquiry into housing affordability:
Motu Economic and public policy research report into "impacts of planning rules, regulations, uncertainty and delay on residential property development":The prevailing approach to urban planning in New Zealand reduces housing affordability in our faster growing cities. The widespread planning preference for increasing residential density, while at the same time imposing restrictions such as minimum lot size and height restrictions, and limiting greenfield development, places upward pressure on house prices across the board.
Council imposed rules and regulations result in a significant loss in potential development capacity. The median loss in capacity was 22% (for developments that proceeded). For apartment buildings, the loss of capacity was primarily due to height restrictions or issues relating to view shafts. In other developments, the loss in capacity related to issues associated with urban design requirements, retention of heritage building and protected trees, and the need to provide on-site infrastructure over and above what was required to service the development.
Almost 90% of surveyed developers have been affected by delays or uncertainties related to regulation. Regulations that have had major effects on the actual building costs of apartments include: building height limits, balcony requirements, conforming to Council’s desired mix of apartment typologies and minimum floor to ceiling heights.
For affordable apartments, building height limits and balcony requirements can each have cost impacts of over $30,000 per apartment;
In terms of affordable apartments, assuming the total internal floor area remains the same and no deck is built, the impact on total cost typically ranges between $65,000 to $110,000. The majority of the cost relates to height limits on the building
This report is from 2015. Costs would have certainly increased in the past 2 years.The proposed unitary plan has introduced a range of height limits across the urban area, some of which reduce the development capacity of suburban and central city sites (as a result of new viewshaft requirements). The impact of height limits varies significantly across different sites. On the sample of 30 developments included in our analysis the impact under the existing planning rules and regulations ranged from an increased cost per unit of $18,000 to $32,000.
So your argument is that because there are a few buildings popping up here and there, height restrictions have no impact on 1) land prices 2) supply 3) cost of housing 4) quality?Nah.
Yeah, definitely easy to spout on a blog.
Nah. That's not my argument. You'd have to read my post to see my argument.
Interestingly titled report, by the way. "Impacts of planning rules, regulations, uncertainty and delay on residential property development" Yes, I would agree that each of these 4 things impacts on residential property development. I would be very concerned if they didn't! Imagine what a wonderful city we would have if we didn't have planning rules.
Interestingly titled report, by the way. "Impacts of planning rules, regulations, uncertainty and delay on residential property development" Yes, I would agree that each of these 4 things impacts on residential property development. I would be very concerned if they didn't! Imagine what a wonderful city we would have if we didn't have planning rules.
Whatever. You asked for "proper economic analysis" and I linked 2 credible reports from NZ that show impacts of height restrictions and view shafts on capacity and cost - to the tune of $32,000 per unit. And now you're telling me you're not surprised there's an impact :lol:
The wonderful city is there for all to see already, especially when all you're looking for a good quality place to call home.
I know you're being facetious but it doesn't work like that. Planning rules aren't binary.Interestingly titled report, by the way. "Impacts of planning rules, regulations, uncertainty and delay on residential property development" Yes, I would agree that each of these 4 things impacts on residential property development. I would be very concerned if they didn't! Imagine what a wonderful city we would have if we didn't have planning rules.
The wonderful city is there for all to see already, especially when all you're looking for a good quality place to call home.
Again, I would encourage you to read my post.
It's just up there ^^
But to respond to your last post: I'm not telling you anything; you seem to be jumping to all sorts of conclusions. I don't know what point you're trying to make about planning rules there but what I would say is that lots of planning rules and regulations add to cost. That's hardly surprising, and kinda the point -- unless we want to set aside a portion of the CBD as a favela where we can have a good old fashioned free-for-all. (Grafton gully, perhaps?)
The downtown area of Auckland has <1% of NZ's population. The chunk of the downtown area with height restrictions, which is what we're talking about after all, is not capable of solving or even hardly addressing the wider housing "issue". Even if we went full-favela! And again, Auckland has plenty of resource constraints other than land. Just ask Fletchers, or the BNZ...
It's just up there ^^
But to respond to your last post: I'm not telling you anything; you seem to be jumping to all sorts of conclusions. I don't know what point you're trying to make about planning rules there but what I would say is that lots of planning rules and regulations add to cost. That's hardly surprising, and kinda the point -- unless we want to set aside a portion of the CBD as a favela where we can have a good old fashioned free-for-all. (Grafton gully, perhaps?)
The downtown area of Auckland has <1% of NZ's population. The chunk of the downtown area with height restrictions, which is what we're talking about after all, is not capable of solving or even hardly addressing the wider housing "issue". Even if we went full-favela! And again, Auckland has plenty of resource constraints other than land. Just ask Fletchers, or the BNZ...
The view shafts get a lot of scorn on here, but the maunga are what gives Akl its unique character.
Do away with them and we just become another harbour city with a cluster of apartment blocks
Do away with them and we just become another harbour city with a cluster of apartment blocks
That's a common emotive argument that usually shuts down the debate at council level but no one is asking for the "maunga" to be quarried out of existence.
That's ignoring the point. Who said quarried. View shafts.....
1 - 20 of 70 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
SkyscraperCity Forum
A forum community dedicated to skyscrapers, towers, highrises, construction, and city planning enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about structures, styles, reviews, scale, transportation, skylines, architecture, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Katarzyna DJ
7040 Replies
calatravavx
3040 Replies
Srdjan Adamovic
1657 Replies
Recommended Communities
