No it isn't. It is being doing in the open and is nothing like fundamentalist Christians whatsoever.
Their membership decides what to do about this, which is far more democratic than you'd get with any other party in NZ. Compare that to the Uffindell saga.
To an extent, choice isn't a huge feature of our housing market. That will certainly change eventually if theres a big increase in supply, but therell be a lot of poorly thought out stuff in the housing stock to get to that point
He says ugly buildings, implying what they look like aesthetically from the outside, but he actually seems to be talking about designing apartments to actually be functional to live in, which I agree with. It gets even more important the smaller the size I reckon
There's a huge difference between ones done by private developers and kainga ora/kiwibuild imo. The former are more often investment units to extract tenant wages first and foremost. Storage, building amenities, light etc all non considerations. People I know in kiwibuild apartments love them.
The rest of what he says is the same old garbage and speaks to the risks of the govts approach. If nimby councils reject density around transport hubs as theyll be able to do under this, theyll push lower density sprawl further out and it'll be worse and more expensive for everyone.
But there have been some recent examples, Auckland, Wellington, where they haven't so I guess there's hope!
Yes I'd imagine so, and they might take it that way.
On the other hand, they might make the politically easier decision in the short term if those more expensive servicing costs are incurred in the future when it comes time to maintain/replace greenfield infrastructure.
It'll be great if it does, but there appears to be a big focus on greenfield both explicitly and giving opt outs to councils that can push to "other" areas if they don't upzone so called character areas.
So pushing development to the fringes that are less served by existing infrastructure and services, and therefore more expensive or just downright worse in that regard.
Expensive unsustainable sprawl
expensive unsustainable sprawl
deciding not to intensify for character reasons will lead to denser sprawl on city fringes without amenities, defeating the point a great extent given public transport funding has been slashed. This is already happening in Auckland
mixed use fuck yes do that
no minimum apartment size seems terrible when combined with the other sprawl idk. Banks are already very squeamish about lending less than 45sq m aren't they or has that changed
Wasn't the MDRS better than this though?
Build good quality, well sized apartment blocks and terraces in centrally located connected areas people actually want to live. If the private market can't or won't do that, then the state needs to step in and do it, like in every other housing crisis we've had in this country.
Yeah like I said, "better things aren't possible" fatalism.
I didn't say I don't consider roads as critical infrastucture, I specifically said "mega roads", i.e new multi lane motorways that are a waste of money because they will encourage more driving, more sprawl and make traffic even worse in the long run (and I imagine local roads will deteriorate as they did the last time this happened).
Three waters, the ferries, state housing, public transport are all better options right now that are woefully underfunded and in fact actively sabotaged by this govt.
The "we don't have the density" argument is often pulled out against funding public transport and it's unfounded. We're one of the most urbanised countries in the world. We could absolutely build more PT if we chose to, we've had far more extensive networks in the past than what we currently do.
Overall, saying what's happening is a symptom is just an attempt to claim what's happening right now is inevitable imo. Different choices can be made that would be far less damaging, they'd be positive even and actually address the underlying problems you highlight instead of this "better things aren't possible" fatalism.
Oh, is that the sound of a free market correction?
I get where you're coming from, Retail NZ and the sector they represent (which is not all retailers of course) always come off as incredibly self absorbed and uncaring imo, particularly when they comment on employment stuff. Bunch of small business tyrants.
But that lets the govt off the hook a bit I think. A lot of the article is Wellington focused, and talks about the link to the job cuts in the public sector and the way that's been done. They've actively cratered things on top of a downturn that was already happening.
Terribly, with a layer of sneering smugness to boot. The austerity justifciations are national party spin, swallowed whole. The govt is throwing billions to landlords and mega roads while cutting funding for public housing, critical infrastructure and even fucking food banks at a time of record demand for them.
They're also dumping costs onto households by cranking up user charges and abandoning councils to pay for decades of infrastructure underinvestment.
So no, they've chosen to loot and plunder.
Oh my bad I did misread what you said there