Modulating the mish-mash
An affordable housing plan for Auckland needs collective thinking.
Auckland’s housing crisis deepens every time a politician blurts out another bit of policy. Their mish-mash of partial ‘‘solutions’’ is a recipe for disaster - economically, socially and environmentally.
They might increase the supply of homes through massive interventions such as new government agencies, contestable funds, subsidies and the gutting of essential planning processes.
But not enough of them to meet needs, let alone restore affordability. The rash of hastily designed and built properties will ghettoise the poor, increase infrastructure costs, blight the landscape and weaken the economy.
National, for example, is pushing Special Housing Areas. But many of the 210 designated so far are small, expensive to serve with utilities and transport and lack commitment to realistically affordable homes.
Labour, for example, has grand plans to seize land, wipe out council rules on what can be built where and partner with the private sector to ramp up construction. But its goal is only 5,000 more Auckland homes a year over the next 10 years.
Both parties are also only picking away at providing more social and emergency housing. Yet, the demand for both is soaring as the housing crisis worsens.
At least National and Labour are honest about one thing. They are dead opposed to prices falling despite the damning data.
The median house price in Auckland has risen 66 per cent in the past four years, and keeps rising. As recently as 2012, some builders were saying it was still possible to build a small home for $300,000. Now the new ‘‘affordable’’ is fast approaching $600,000.
But at $600,000, 67 per cent of 20 to 40-year-olds in Auckland can’t afford to buy a home, according to recent analysis. Even at $300,000, 31 per cent of them can’t buy in Auckland, and 39 per cent can’t buy in the rest of the country.
The arithmetic is simple. Even if home prices were flat, incomes would rise so slowly it would take two generations to restore some measure of affordability, Don Brash, a former Reserve Bank governor, pointed out this week.
Meanwhile, the real estate and construction sectors are very vocal about all the impediments to building. But they’re irresponsibly silent on the revolution they need to build well-designed, high quality and affordable homes.
Fletcher Building, for example, wants to construct a wall of apartments and a tangle of roads and parking at the Three Kings quarry in Auckland to the detriment of homebuyers, community and landscape.
The Local Board and two community groups have had to take it to court to demonstrate how almost the same number of homes could be built in ways that would enhance the neighbourhood. A verdict is nigh.
If Fletcher had designed well at the outset it would have saved precious time and money for its customers, the community and itself - and delivered better outcomes for everyone.
Across the whole city, Auckland can only grow well, fast and equitably if it understands what needs to be done where, and how to do it.
Over the past six years, citizens and council have learnt a great deal about ‘‘what’’ and ‘‘how’’, first in the city’s 30-year plan and now in the 10-year Unitary Plan nearing fruition.
Next Friday, the Independent Hearings Panel, after two years of evidence, will deliver its Unitary Plan recommendations to the council. This will cut through the paralysis of competing interests.
Every single person will find aspects they love, those they can live with, and others they hate.
But we would wreck the city if we tried to re-litigate the plan.
The plan can’t possibly be perfect. But it will be the best collective wisdom we can muster. We can improve it by doing and learning as we go.
To do that, we need political parties to park their deeply flawed policies and unite with the council and citizens.
Then, perhaps we will have a chance to devise the most effective inter-generational ways to solve Auckland’s crisis.
We would wreck the city if we tried to re-litigate the plan