Dream of an urban paradise

By ANNE GIBSON

The state of property present and future is outlined in a study which looks at the shape of Auckland over the next 50 years.

Imagine an ideal Auckland. It would be a place where:

* Everyone gets where they want to go easily and affordably;

* beaches never have to be closed because of polluted water;

* the air never smells like a burning log;

* there is plenty of clean drinking water;

* streams are full of life;

* quaint old buildings are restored and loved;

* animals and noxious weeds are under control;

* native plants, animals, fish and birds are not threatened by extinction;

* new houses are well-located, affordable and have access to water, electricity, shops and transport;

* the city's landfills are not overflowing with material that could have been reused;

* Aucklanders have a sense of pride in their regional community and enjoy its prosperity.

This is the dream of regional growth forum communications co-ordinator David Lindsey in his report A Day in the Life of Auckland.

His aim is to point out the implications of our everyday activities and to raise issues about how we want our city to be in 50 years' time. His report is due to be published in booklet form this year.

Auckland has about 400,000 homes and is growing by 21 houses a day. At this rate, we will need about 720,000 houses by 2050.

"Without some sort of strategy, twice as many houses in Auckland could mean a city stretching from Warkworth to Pukekohe," Lindsey writes.

"If this is not the kind of Auckland we want, perhaps there is another option. Maybe some people would not mind - even prefer - to live in houses with smaller sections. It would perhaps suit others to live in apartments with no section. A third group of people will probably still prefer a larger house in the suburbs."

Yet Kaiwaka research consultant and public policy analyst Owen McShane challenged the regional growth forum's view this week, writing in the Herald that the artificial rationing of land had driven up house prices and there was no need to ring-fence the city.

The ARC wants local authorities to encourage housing on smaller sections, especially around passenger transport routes.

Then Auckland's need for more land would be halved, it says.

Yet McShane wrote that the ARC had "an anti-growth strategy" which would only increase traffic congestion and pollution and overload our sewage and stormwater systems.

Some of the property information contained in Lindsey's report shows that:

* Just over one in every three homes in Auckland is rented;

* the average rent paid by these households is $220 a week, which is a quarter of their household income;

* about $3.5 million is paid in rent daily;

* one in five new houses in Auckland is an apartment. Ten years ago, only one out of every 20 was an apartment;

* apartments range from a single-level unit in the suburbs to a multi-storey city block;

* property sales account for $20 million worth of business daily in Auckland;

* our housing stock increases by about $3.5 million daily, due to the number of new houses being built;

* the average Auckland home is 150sq m, but new houses are larger, at around 180sq m;

* Auckland houses are worth nine times the average personal income before tax. Ten years ago, they were worth seven times the average personal income;

* each house has fewer people now - statistically speaking, in 1956, 3.6 people lived in each home, now it is just under three;

* every day, 39 homes in the region are broken into and two catch fire;

* the total value of Auckland's land and housing is about $175 billion.

The Regional Growth Forum has released its own report, Auckland Metropolitan Area: Capacity For Growth, which says the city is becoming increasingly short of housing and commercial building sites.