• Full Story

State houses on big plots to be revamped

Email
Print

State houses on big plots to be revamped

3News NZ

Contractors have begun to remove 40 state houses earmarked for redevelopment in the Auckland's Glen Innes

Contractors have begun to remove 40 state houses earmarked for redevelopment in the Auckland's Glen Innes

Eighty ageing state houses on large sections in Auckland are to be redeveloped in a Housing New Zealand programme costing around $45 million.

The 24 redevelopment projects, mostly in West Auckland, would be carried out in partnership with the private and community housing sectors over the next three years, Housing NZ said.

They would involve the building and refurbishment of at least 150 houses, some to be state rentals and the rest for private ownership and social housing providers, Housing NZ asset development manager Sean Bignell said.

State-housing levels in Auckland would remain about the same.

"We want to replace these 80 old state houses on very large sections with more contemporary housing options that fit into the broader community and are safe, affordable and use quality materials and modern construction methods," he said.

Housing NZ had a lot of old homes on quarter- and half-acre sections in Auckland, which was not sustainable given the city's housing shortage.

"We cannot keep holding and repairing properties that are an inefficient use of land and really are a barrier to achieving more and better housing options as is desperately needed in Auckland."

A panel of developers had been selected to tender for the projects as well as future opportunities.

The tenants living in the 80 rental properties had been informed. Some would be able to remain living there and the rest would be shifted to other state houses.

NZN

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

21/08/2012 5:31:48 a.m.

alison wrote:

This was a labour initiative that national campaigned against and put a stop to. Now its a national idea and its all go. If theyd carried it out years ago it was very cost effective I believe but with inflation has risen to what price national? Maybe a journo out their can do the maths for me.

20/08/2012 8:24:36 a.m.

alison wrote:

Wasnt there a state house built in Rotorua that was state of the art and it was supposed to be one of many. How about our journalists look into that and see how that developments doing to see just what these tennants are in for?

20/08/2012 7:57:21 a.m.

Mike wrote:

Our education system at work.

I know my own english skills are bad, but ...

Lets look at the numbers of state houses in NZ court Jester.

How many in say 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012?

Now if you find the number of houses has remained fairly static, then all that drivel you spouted is pure drivel.

State houses cost more to maintain than non-state homes because the tennants look after them less well, generally. There are some good state housing tennants, as good as one could want anywhere. But there are also tennants that completely trash a home in weeks which are costing NZ dearly in maintenence, and in reduced funds for others.

Take how much housing NZ has spent on repairs and maintenence on state houses in say 2001 under Labour, and 2011 under National? Now I think you will find that National is spending much more on repairs and maitenence of state homes - ie they are doing the exact opposite of your claims!

NZ interest rates are low. If someone is willing to get off their backside they can afford to buy a home for similar to what they pay for rent. State homes on the other hand are handouts/free lunches where people chose the lifestyle of sitting on their backsides while the rest of NZ works to provide their lifestyle choices. Demand for free stuff will always exceeed supply - basic economics.

19/08/2012 4:50:34 p.m.

Court Jester wrote:

And still the Housing NZ properties, on which Houses were demolished for redevelopment in the Hutt Valley remain barren, green spaces where no-one can live (except illegally in a tent). Housing NZ and the National Government's policy is not the renovation and redevelopment of State Housing, but rather asset stripping, and eviction. The goal putting pressure on the private rental market to drive rental prices, and land values up "to stimulate" the economy, at the expense of the most vulnerable. Pity the goal is unachievable, and homelessness will be forced upon ever increasing numbers. it is bizarre that it is considered better to evict and demolish a house when people live are forced to live in garages. Even worse for Housing NZ policy to discourage subletting to boarders (permission is only granted in unusual circumstances, to approved boarders), and thus force people out of homes that are considered "too big" by Housing NZ. Perhaps Housing NZ should spend $45 million on a rebranding exercise as Unhousing NZ would seem to be a more accurate brand. Housing NZ complains it can't fill the houses it has on its books that are presently vacant. Strange, given that many families are seeking any affordable roof over their heads. Most would not quibble about having an extra room or two; some families with children would be glad of an affordable one bedroom granny flat. When building infill housing do tenants need to be evicted: I myself have lived quite contentedly, by necessity on building sites, and on newly cross-leased properties. On occasion a poorly maintained house may be cheaper to knock down and rebuild, but more often simply re-situating a house on a property would suffice to give enough room to construct infill housing. Why does Housing NZ insist on a green-fields approach? Also, perhaps Housing NZ should consider purchasing/leasing some of the vacant commercial property in inner city areas as a means to redeveloping it to provide the one and two bedroom properties it says their clients are demanding. Now is the time while there is negligible demand for office buildings. In Wellington for example there is certainly plenty of commercial over capacity that could be used to house folks in need, and plenty of folks in need, many of whom sublet rooms (with out permission from Housing NZ), but who Housing NZ declines to acknowledge as being in need. The problem is not "wrong size, wrong place": it is Housing NZ policy which chooses to fail to maintain, or offer tenancy or accommodation to those who need help. Perhaps NZ would benefit from reintroducing the Right to Squat in urban properties that landlords neglect to maintain or rent: A return to a state of affairs that gives all a right to be accommodated. An empty, unmaintained house decays much much faster than an occupied house. A right to squat AND maintain a dwelling can have benefits for neglectful owners such as Housing NZ.

19/08/2012 8:06:42 a.m.

Mike wrote:

That $45 million is not net cost as no doubt Housing NZ will sell off non state houses, recouping most of the cost, and also reducing Housing NZs rate bill each year.

18/08/2012 7:31:19 p.m.

Brent wrote:

@PETRINA, That property and The Kettle st Property were on tenderlink last month, You can look through Google, I think it was 18 houses, They were calling for Biulders, Plumbers, sparkeys, Interested partys.

18/08/2012 6:53:01 p.m.

Kim wrote:

Soooo... they are going to spend 45 million and end up with the same ammount of houses? Surely with $550000 to spend on each section they could be split in 2 and new houses built on each so we end up with 160 (or if they do it right 200) state house or more???? Who is running housing NZ.. a monkey with an abacus?

18/08/2012 5:15:11 p.m.

jt wrote:

Sounds like typical govt spin justifying their plan to make extra money from higher density housing. The welfare of the tenants would barely register in their thinking.

18/08/2012 4:04:33 p.m.

Lesley wrote:

Dont trust what the national govt says, look at their policies!!!
The old state houses are very solid and timber stands up well in quakes. Existing houses could be moved to allow more homes to be built thereby better utilysing the land. Old homes can be upgraded and insulated at a cost much less than demolishing and rebuilding.

18/08/2012 2:33:19 p.m.

Petrina wrote:

Housing nz demolished a site with more than 6 houses on it just around the corner from me, promising a big redevelopment of the site with new homes, that site has sat empty on Latham st in Napier for a couple of years now....i wouldint trust anything any government spokes person says