Greenfields vs brownfields: Expert on Auckland’s future development | Q+A 2023
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 ноя 2023
- MRCagney economist Shane Martin shows Jack Tame a few development sites in Auckland, and discusses the pros and cons of putting new housing on greenfields
Subscribe to Q+A: bit.ly/QandASubscribe
Join Jack Tame and the Q+A team and find the answers to the questions that matter. Made with the support of NZ on Air.
WATCH SUNDAY 9AM ON TVNZ1 OR CATCH UP ON DEMAND: www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/q-and-a/
FOLLOW Q+A ON SOCIAL MEDIA
Facebook:
/ nzqanda
Twitter:
/ nzqanda
For stories that matter to you and the very latest from Aotearoa and around the world: 1News.co.nz/
Such an important issue imo when so many of our problems are due to our urban layout being so inefficient. Nats plan to repeal the bi-partisan Medium Density Resedintial Standard is sad given that looked to open up those Inner city suburbs where we'd get much more bang for our buck as a country, plus that brief moment of consensus was refreshing. Like all broad sweeping policy outlines there were problems that came along with the MDRS but it seems like those could've been addressed by building on it rather then throwing the whole thing out.
If one reflects on the development of the north shore and Pakuranga with rail and bus lane through the 1950s to say 1975. They were growing suburbs.
Why did the economist not directly mention the most important thing. Its by now well understood that green field development is subsidized by more intensively developed land. Ie increases in intensity, where people need to live, is far more economically viable than suburban sprawl. So if you want to pay less rates allow intensive brown fields development. And rate the socks off the special character areas because why should they be subsidized when they are wrecking the city for everyone else?
House on stilts in flood zones.
Auckland has a few golf courses that current cost the city millions to run at a loss, that could be converted into those green/brown field mixes.
Would help fill the city's coffers and part of the money could be used to invest in new courses on the edge of the city where the land is cheap and undeveloped.
Heritage homes need to be viewed in far more practical terms, moving forward, theres know need for 20 thousand homes to be all Categorized under the same umbrella, Not all need to be protected equally, give room for future scope! Then possible land can be developed.
In other countries I've seen Housing on bamboo Poles over a River.
Obviously we can't grow Bamboo in New Zealand ...
It's a Point of View - either we can or we can't - once you get past the can't and find we have to you'll find the We Can
Nz needs to get with the program...
Auckland, wellington.. needs to GO UP! BUILD UP!
its easily solved if we build apartments! UP UP UP...
30 story apartment buildings.. can easily accommodate 50.000 - 100.000 people.
look at ASIA! its the only way... time to change the skyline!!!!!
I think most New Zealanders choose to live here for the lifestyle, which does not include mass high rises and high density living like as you say in Asia.
@@janec1242 Yes, a better life style. That is why we need to increase urban density, to improve one's life style and have a good place for children to be raised. Not in 30 stored towers, that is not the most efficient way to densify. Look to the new British Columbian regulation for the provinces cities, including Vancouver.
@@janec1242But such a lifestyle is unaffordable for many and that's mainly due to how we design our cities.
Lack of urban intensification is also a major cause for NZ inefficient transport systems and infrastructure, high cost of living, housing crisis, economic inefficiency and due to those heavy expenses many Kiwi's find it easier to leave.
Do we need rapid population growth.Does everyone benifit. Maybe we do. Question is not really asked though.
If the Government started building a very very fast train service from Bluff to Cape Reanga (Sp?) like the have in China and Europe, people could live the life we always have had. They could get to the cities if they wanted but the little towns would prosper and the infrastructure need would be gradual.
5 million people in nz , 1 billion in china .crikey have you seen how long it takes to do things here ! , please dont hold your breath 😊 .
Here's what I'd do with this xmas tree flood area.
I'd open it up for the owner to sell Bamboo Stilt homes on the land and sell them here for 3 years before opening the market up to Vietnamese
Yo I saw him in real life
It seemed like Shane was hesitant to answer the questions, or needed more time to answer, because he was worried about offending us Kiwis? Just give it to us blunt, mate. Our Governing bodies haven't done a good job on housing and still continue to fk around while more people become homeless.