February 18, 2026 • 20 mins
A step forward for housing capacity in our largest city – or a step back on housing affordability?
Auckland’s explosive debate over density planning has come to a head, with Housing Minister Chris Bishop making a U-turn on capacity limits.
It’s all got to do with the controversial “PC120” plan.... which has been scaled back slightly to allow for 1.6 million homes to be built, as opposed to 2 million.
But, what does that actually mean? And why have the rules to pack more homes into Auckland sparked such a fierce debate?
Today on The Front Page, journalist Simon Wilson is with us to unpack the updated plans, the protests, and what it means for your backyard.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Editor/Producer: Richard Martin
Producer: Jane Yee
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Ki Elder.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. A step
forward for housing capacity in our largest city or a
step back on housing affordability. Auckland's explosive debate over density
(00:26):
planning has come to a head, with Housing Minister Chris
Bishop making a u turn on capacity limits. It's all
got to do with the controversial PC one twenty plan,
which has been scaled back slightly to allow for one
point six million homes to be built as opposed to
two million. But what does that actually mean and why
(00:49):
have the rules to pack more homes into Auckland sparked
such a fierce debate. Today on the Front Page, journalist
Simon Wilson is with us to unpack the updated plan,
the protests and what it means for your backyard. So Simon,
first off, what in the world is this plan change
(01:11):
one twenty.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
Well, if you listen to Chris Bishop, you go back
to twenty sixteen, which was the date when the Auckland
Unitary Plan was adopted and that allowed for pretty significant
up zoning of Auckland. And as Bishop said in his
speech today, now the result of that has been quite
a bit more density and also lower rents in Auckland.
(01:37):
It's been very well studied and it's been internationally pair
reviewed and all of that. So we know that the
Auckland unitry Plan, though, didn't allow for enough againsty in
the city. So what followed from that was a short
lived bipartisan agreement that they would allow for almost all
private sections to be subdivided in three, with three story
(01:58):
buildings built on each of the subdivided part. That bipartisan
approach didn't survive. It was ended up being a labor plan,
but National opposed it going into the last election and
they instructed the council. They allowed the council to put
(02:19):
that aside if they were prepared to come up with
a new plan that would retain the same capacity for
growth as the earlier one, but would focus it around
focus density around train stations, particularly the train stations that
would be part of the central city area of the
city railing area, which makes sense, yes, that's right. Town
(02:42):
centers also makes sense, and along other major transport routes,
which also makes sense. Everybody in theory says that's where
development should occur. In practice, if you live near a
train station and it means that an apartment building might
go near your house. You might argue that this is
still the wrong place. So that's what this debate has
(03:04):
been all about. Plan Change one twenty is the council's
response to a government directive from last year that says
we want density, but you've got to focus it in
those targeted areas. So that's what Plan Change one twenty does.
At the same time, it also made it much harder
to build in areas of coastal erosion and the areas
(03:25):
that are likely to flood, and that's a very important
part of Plan Change one twenty that nobody's questioned and
I think is going to stay whatever the developments are.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
So what's all this about two million homes being built
in Auckland. First off, that seems impossible.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
It is impossible. We have had around fourteen thousand homes
built each year for several years now. There's a pretty
stable average there. At that rate, it will take one
hundred years to build up to two million. We already
have five hundred and fifty and homes, so that to
build another one point five would take at least another
(04:03):
one hundred years. So that tells you that the two
million figure is not a target, is not a plan
that there will be those houses. Minister Bishop in his
speech spent some time trying to explain why you zone
for a larger capacity than you will actually need, and
(04:24):
the reason really comes down to if you only zone
for the exact amount of housing you think you're going
to need, that then becomes an instruction to every landowner
that they must build in the way the zoning to
the maximum the zoning allows on their own land, an
instruction to developers, an instruction to private homeowners. Of course,
(04:46):
you don't have that. Nobody's going to argue for that.
So you have to allow for more capacity than you
need so that landowners property owners have choice. I will
buy this piece of land and I will build because
I think I can put up an apartment building there
that people will want to live in because it's in
the right place. I won't buy that piece even though
(05:07):
it was zoned for it, because I don't think now
I can't get a good price, or I don't think
it's the right area anyway, and so on. So that's
why the two million figure was there. It was never
an instruction, it was never a target, but it became
what Bishop called a red herring, that became a lightning rod.
(05:30):
So the wonderful mixed metaphors there. What he's saying there
is that it's an irrelevancy to the real argument of
how our zoning should develop and how our density and
housing density should develop. And it also became a political
weapon if you like that. Galvin asked a whole lot
of anger around issues that really got on the way
(05:54):
of a good rational discussion about how we should develop
the city.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
Yes, if the two million figure doesn't really mean two
million more homes, it's not a target, it's only capacity,
then why move it down to one point sex? Does
it just is it just for purposes that it sounds
a little bit better. It sounds like they are listening
to Aucklands and delivering this.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
Is election year and it sounds better. Yeah, I think
you've put the nail on the head there. What Bishop
has said is that by moving it down to around
one point six, they've done a couple of things. One
is they've made it clear that nobody's intending that we
have two million homes all of a sudden, and that's
the first thing. The second thing is they've said, Okay,
(06:39):
the council will now decide where to lower the capacity,
and it's existing one plan change one twenty proposals, So
there'll be a plan change with a new number, and
the council will be the people, not the government, who
will decide which parts of the city don't have that density.
(07:01):
Provided provided, said Bishop, you still retain density around train stations,
town centers and on major transport routes. So, in other words,
what that turns into really is if you think of
a suburb like Hawick where the local councilors have been
upper arms about density proposed in their area, it's quite
(07:26):
likely that council will consider a proposal from those councilors
to remove how density from the plan, so it will
just retain one or two story housing. However, if you
look at a place like Mount Eden and the EPSOM electorate,
where there has also been a big controversy. Mount Eden
(07:47):
is close to train stations and it's close to town,
it's very hard to see how that area would not
retain the current plan change one tent one two DE
density requirements. So the political issue might go away in
the outer suburbs, Yeah, but it's not necessarily going to
(08:07):
go away in the in the closest suburbs, particularly in
that amount area. That two million number.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
How did I guess the debate around it to get
to the point where people thought there were going to
be two million new houses in Auckland.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
You used to be in the media, you'd learn more
than I would. I mean, these things get weaponized, right,
I mean, people here the number and get people hear
the number and say, you know, two million, and you know,
I try to explain, I mean, these things are difficult.
I'm not sort of I'm not really blaming anyone, really,
I suppose these things are difficult because people here two
million and they go, it's crazy, why do you have
any two million homes in Auckland? And the reality is
(08:48):
we don't. Is I tried to explain in my speech.
It's a capacity number, you know, It's like it's a
it's a theoretical development capacities of every house in Auckland,
where every section in Auckland was developed to its maximum capacity.
Speaker 3 (09:01):
That's the number.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
Now, it's never gonna happen, But the point is to
create abundant opportunities so that you can.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
Choose and The elephant in the room for them is Epsom,
isn't it. Because David Seymour has already gone off the
you know off on about this Aukland density and in
his suburb of Epsom. How likely is it that they
will just cater to David Seymour's needs given the polling
(09:27):
at the moment, given it it is election year, and
given that they may need you know, ACTS seats when
push comes to shove.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
You would expect that they won't want to give Act
too much ammunition, for too much of an incentive to
to attract voters in the EPSOM electorate away from National
to Act. And you have to remember that in Epsom,
although David Seymour comfortably holds the seat the electorate, the
party vote in EPSOM goes to National.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
That's right.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
The Act is only the the fourth most popular party
in EPSOM, behind Labor and the Greens. So there is
a lot of potential you could argue for the party
voter in EPSOM to swing to Act and National won't
want that to happen. So there's an ongoing political difficulty
for them. There. The National MP for the area, Paul Goldsmith,
(10:22):
who stands in the sea and always loses, but he's
there as a list MP. He's on record saying I
don't see the problem with just focusing on Greenfields, which
is the very out of fringe. The problem with that argument, firstly,
is that Greenfield's development costs more to do, costs a
city more because even when you have developer contributions, they
(10:44):
don't really pay for the extra motorway capacity you need,
they don't pay for all of the services that are required,
and they certainly don't pay for the maintenance of all
those services roading and water and so on. So it's expensive.
But also it's happening anyway. As Bishop said, there is
(11:04):
a new city quietly being built in the far south
of Auckland, around the Drury Pokikoe area that is happening.
That that city over the next twenty to thirty years
will be as big as Napier. It's really big, and
that's happening. So Greenfield's is happening. But at the same time,
(11:26):
the capacity for the central city, for the major part
of Auckland, for the fringe suburbs is central to the
whole equation because that's where the density can work and
be really functionally efficient. They spent all this money five
and a half billion dollars to double the capacity of
(11:47):
the rail network. That's the city railing, the CRAL that
will open this year. They want people to use it.
And the more people who live close to a train station,
the more they are lucky to catch a train and
into their fares, will help contribute to making the train
services better. There'll be more trains, there'll be bigger trains,
there'll be better security, and that goes round and around.
(12:11):
The more people who catch the trains, the better the
train services. The better the train services, the more people
catch the trains. That is the key to managing congestion
on the roads. That's why it's been done. It's also
helpful and lowering emissions. It's also helpful for public health
getting more people catching trains rather than say, being driven
to school. So there's a whole lot of issues there
(12:33):
that come together. However, in Ebsom, the answer to your
question is there is a political battle going on because
while people say yes, we want apartments, there is also
a great fear among many people that I don't want
an apartment next to my villa. There's a complication in
(12:54):
this too.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
And looking into my poll.
Speaker 3 (12:56):
Yeah, well, you're looking into my port. But there's a
complication in this because last year there was the report
published that showed that the people who want to buy
apartments in Remuera, Parnell EPs and those areas largely are
people who already live there. This is people who have
(13:17):
a family home but they retired, the family have left home,
they need to downsize, they don't want to look after
the grounds anymore. They want an apartment, but they want
to stay in their suburb, of course they do. So
while there's an election issue around we don't want apartments
next to our villa, there is also a whole lot
(13:38):
of other voters who are saying we do want apartments
in the suburb because we want to stay living in
it and we want to be able to buy an
apartment in it.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
Yeah, and the data has been done around.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
That, It absolutely has. So it's rather more complex than
the simple slogan airing Nimbi, we don't want apartments next to.
Speaker 2 (13:59):
Our ville, not in our backyard.
Speaker 3 (14:01):
Yeah, that's right. It is complex because there are a
whole lot of people who want to stay in their
own backyard and need an apartment to do it.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
To create a brighter, more prosperous future for these Zealanders.
We have to allow Auckland to grow and become a
world class international city. And it means as a country,
saying yes a lot more often and no a lot less.
Yes infrastructure, yes to events, yes to transit oriented development,
yes to housing, and yes to growth. But saying yes
(14:36):
is not just a political slogan or ideological posturing about progress.
It means real change and that's what this government is about.
We're a reform and government. We refuse to accept the
idea that New Zealand is in a state of perpetual
managed decline.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
So the announcement today, I'll walk you through what I
took from it. So everyone's unhappy that two million homes
are to be built, Hang on, actually it's not two
million homes. I'll explain to you why. It's about capacity.
But anyway, we'll bring it down to one point six million.
The Council is going to decide what areas are going
(15:16):
to be under this new plan. Don't know when, and
it's up to them.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
It will be. It will be this year because there'll
be new consultation that happens around this. Bishop was very
clear that the people will get their chance to have
a say, and if people have already had to say,
they can have another say, and people who haven't had
a say will be invited to have a say anyway,
So that will happen, But he is not extending the
timeline for the whole project. This all has to be signed,
(15:43):
sealed and in law by I think it's May twenty
twenty seven, So council has to get it. Skates on councils.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
If it's council's job, though, then why has government gotten
involved at all in the first place. If you just
have to get back to them you make the hard decisions.
You have to crack the news to the guys in
Mount Eden.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
Yeah. So Bishop's argument, which has previously been an argument
adopted by both Labor and National is that it's too
hard for councils to rezone for more density because there
are too many voters that jump up and down and
scream and shout and say you can't do it. So
where central government comes in and says you have to
(16:25):
do it, then that takes the political weight off the council.
So that's why government's been involved, because they have recognized
both National and Labor have recognized that unless they say
we need more density, it isn't going to happen, and
that leads the cities in a mess.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
Right. So it's when you're a kid, you're acting a
full at home mom says, wait until your dad gets home.
Government is dad. He's getting home, and you're going to
stop acting a full Yeah.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
Yeah, And Bishop and his speech spelled out what that
acting a fall means. If you have density in a city,
if you have a city that is a thriving, busy
place full of people, it's more productive and that means
things like there are more people who are there to
(17:16):
buy things, to be entertained by things, to use the
services that are provided. If you spread out too far,
if you just have suburban sprawl, it's very much harder
to do that. Everything costs more to do and the
transport costs on citizens become higher as well. So you
want your density because that helps with those things for
(17:38):
ordinary people. But also density drives productivity, it drives innovation,
and this has been studied globally. It drives progress for societies.
So it is Bishop's way of putting it is, he
says Auckland in New Zealand, we should stop thinking about
(17:59):
Auckland as large New Zealand city and start to think
about it as a small global city and look at
other global cities the same size as Auckland, which is
pushing up to two million, and see what they do,
how they thrive, what they do to be successful, and
density is always a part of that.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
One thing I did find fascinating, It's funny that you
bring that up is the comparison of you know, New York,
London and Ireland are looking towards Auckland for answers, and
I just sat there and thought, I, you know what,
I don't think, So I don't think Zon and Mundani's
sitting there watching this live stream being like, you know
what those density changes in Auckland, New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (18:40):
Yeah, you're you're You're right, You're right about that in
the sense that, of course people aren't glued to their
to their computers waiting to see what Auckland's next move
is going to be. But at the same time, because
the Auckland unitry plan did unlock housing growth and we
got from a flat situation, we got really a big
(19:01):
booster housing growth. It's when it kicked off the middle
of last decade. Because that happened, it has been studied,
it has been looked at, and you know, we've gone
from just one example. If you look at the central city,
there are and around forty thousand people who live in
Central Auckland. Now that's just what we many people call
(19:22):
the CBD. So it's much more than a CBD. That
is larger than any suburb in the country. But they
have no schools, they have no very few services, you know,
they just that's where they live. That's happened in the
last ten fifteen years, very very quickly, and there's capacity
for more so, you know, and that's a good thing
(19:44):
because those people can walk and often do. Many of
them don't own a car, or if they do, they
don't drive it very much. And you know, that's a
real change. It's not that everybody has to look like that.
And nobody's suggesting that there will be nobody.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
You saw it in my eyes. I'm not getting on
a bike, Simon, you know I'm not.
Speaker 3 (20:02):
But it's about choice. It's about choice, giving people choice
and not saying if you want to buy an affordable house,
you're going to have to go and live in booky k. Now,
it's because that is not going to work for most people.
Speaker 2 (20:14):
Thanks for joining us, Simon.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzidherld dot co dot enz The Front Page is
hosted and produced by me Chelsea Daniels. Caine Dickie is
our studio operator, Richard Martin, our producer and editor, and
our executive producer is Jane Ye. Follow the Front Page
(20:42):
on the iHeart app or wherever you get your podcasts,
and join us next time for another look beyond the headlines.
Ki Elder.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. A step
forward for housing capacity in our largest city or a
step back on housing affordability. Auckland's explosive debate over density
(00:26):
planning has come to a head, with Housing Minister Chris
Bishop making a u turn on capacity limits. It's all
got to do with the controversial PC one twenty plan,
which has been scaled back slightly to allow for one
point six million homes to be built as opposed to
two million. But what does that actually mean and why
(00:49):
have the rules to pack more homes into Auckland sparked
such a fierce debate. Today on the Front Page, journalist
Simon Wilson is with us to unpack the updated plan,
the protests and what it means for your backyard. So Simon,
first off, what in the world is this plan change
(01:11):
one twenty.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
Well, if you listen to Chris Bishop, you go back
to twenty sixteen, which was the date when the Auckland
Unitary Plan was adopted and that allowed for pretty significant
up zoning of Auckland. And as Bishop said in his
speech today, now the result of that has been quite
a bit more density and also lower rents in Auckland.
(01:37):
It's been very well studied and it's been internationally pair
reviewed and all of that. So we know that the
Auckland unitry Plan, though, didn't allow for enough againsty in
the city. So what followed from that was a short
lived bipartisan agreement that they would allow for almost all
private sections to be subdivided in three, with three story
(01:58):
buildings built on each of the subdivided part. That bipartisan
approach didn't survive. It was ended up being a labor plan,
but National opposed it going into the last election and
they instructed the council. They allowed the council to put
(02:19):
that aside if they were prepared to come up with
a new plan that would retain the same capacity for
growth as the earlier one, but would focus it around
focus density around train stations, particularly the train stations that
would be part of the central city area of the
city railing area, which makes sense, yes, that's right. Town
(02:42):
centers also makes sense, and along other major transport routes,
which also makes sense. Everybody in theory says that's where
development should occur. In practice, if you live near a
train station and it means that an apartment building might
go near your house. You might argue that this is
still the wrong place. So that's what this debate has
(03:04):
been all about. Plan Change one twenty is the council's
response to a government directive from last year that says
we want density, but you've got to focus it in
those targeted areas. So that's what Plan Change one twenty does.
At the same time, it also made it much harder
to build in areas of coastal erosion and the areas
(03:25):
that are likely to flood, and that's a very important
part of Plan Change one twenty that nobody's questioned and
I think is going to stay whatever the developments are.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
So what's all this about two million homes being built
in Auckland. First off, that seems impossible.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
It is impossible. We have had around fourteen thousand homes
built each year for several years now. There's a pretty
stable average there. At that rate, it will take one
hundred years to build up to two million. We already
have five hundred and fifty and homes, so that to
build another one point five would take at least another
(04:03):
one hundred years. So that tells you that the two
million figure is not a target, is not a plan
that there will be those houses. Minister Bishop in his
speech spent some time trying to explain why you zone
for a larger capacity than you will actually need, and
(04:24):
the reason really comes down to if you only zone
for the exact amount of housing you think you're going
to need, that then becomes an instruction to every landowner
that they must build in the way the zoning to
the maximum the zoning allows on their own land, an
instruction to developers, an instruction to private homeowners. Of course,
(04:46):
you don't have that. Nobody's going to argue for that.
So you have to allow for more capacity than you
need so that landowners property owners have choice. I will
buy this piece of land and I will build because
I think I can put up an apartment building there
that people will want to live in because it's in
the right place. I won't buy that piece even though
(05:07):
it was zoned for it, because I don't think now
I can't get a good price, or I don't think
it's the right area anyway, and so on. So that's
why the two million figure was there. It was never
an instruction, it was never a target, but it became
what Bishop called a red herring, that became a lightning rod.
(05:30):
So the wonderful mixed metaphors there. What he's saying there
is that it's an irrelevancy to the real argument of
how our zoning should develop and how our density and
housing density should develop. And it also became a political
weapon if you like that. Galvin asked a whole lot
of anger around issues that really got on the way
(05:54):
of a good rational discussion about how we should develop
the city.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
Yes, if the two million figure doesn't really mean two
million more homes, it's not a target, it's only capacity,
then why move it down to one point sex? Does
it just is it just for purposes that it sounds
a little bit better. It sounds like they are listening
to Aucklands and delivering this.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
Is election year and it sounds better. Yeah, I think
you've put the nail on the head there. What Bishop
has said is that by moving it down to around
one point six, they've done a couple of things. One
is they've made it clear that nobody's intending that we
have two million homes all of a sudden, and that's
the first thing. The second thing is they've said, Okay,
(06:39):
the council will now decide where to lower the capacity,
and it's existing one plan change one twenty proposals, So
there'll be a plan change with a new number, and
the council will be the people, not the government, who
will decide which parts of the city don't have that density.
(07:01):
Provided provided, said Bishop, you still retain density around train stations,
town centers and on major transport routes. So, in other words,
what that turns into really is if you think of
a suburb like Hawick where the local councilors have been
upper arms about density proposed in their area, it's quite
(07:26):
likely that council will consider a proposal from those councilors
to remove how density from the plan, so it will
just retain one or two story housing. However, if you
look at a place like Mount Eden and the EPSOM electorate,
where there has also been a big controversy. Mount Eden
(07:47):
is close to train stations and it's close to town,
it's very hard to see how that area would not
retain the current plan change one tent one two DE
density requirements. So the political issue might go away in
the outer suburbs, Yeah, but it's not necessarily going to
(08:07):
go away in the in the closest suburbs, particularly in
that amount area. That two million number.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
How did I guess the debate around it to get
to the point where people thought there were going to
be two million new houses in Auckland.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
You used to be in the media, you'd learn more
than I would. I mean, these things get weaponized, right,
I mean, people here the number and get people hear
the number and say, you know, two million, and you know,
I try to explain, I mean, these things are difficult.
I'm not sort of I'm not really blaming anyone, really,
I suppose these things are difficult because people here two
million and they go, it's crazy, why do you have
any two million homes in Auckland? And the reality is
(08:48):
we don't. Is I tried to explain in my speech.
It's a capacity number, you know, It's like it's a
it's a theoretical development capacities of every house in Auckland,
where every section in Auckland was developed to its maximum capacity.
Speaker 3 (09:01):
That's the number.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
Now, it's never gonna happen, But the point is to
create abundant opportunities so that you can.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
Choose and The elephant in the room for them is Epsom,
isn't it. Because David Seymour has already gone off the
you know off on about this Aukland density and in
his suburb of Epsom. How likely is it that they
will just cater to David Seymour's needs given the polling
(09:27):
at the moment, given it it is election year, and
given that they may need you know, ACTS seats when
push comes to shove.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
You would expect that they won't want to give Act
too much ammunition, for too much of an incentive to
to attract voters in the EPSOM electorate away from National
to Act. And you have to remember that in Epsom,
although David Seymour comfortably holds the seat the electorate, the
party vote in EPSOM goes to National.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
That's right.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
The Act is only the the fourth most popular party
in EPSOM, behind Labor and the Greens. So there is
a lot of potential you could argue for the party
voter in EPSOM to swing to Act and National won't
want that to happen. So there's an ongoing political difficulty
for them. There. The National MP for the area, Paul Goldsmith,
(10:22):
who stands in the sea and always loses, but he's
there as a list MP. He's on record saying I
don't see the problem with just focusing on Greenfields, which
is the very out of fringe. The problem with that argument, firstly,
is that Greenfield's development costs more to do, costs a
city more because even when you have developer contributions, they
(10:44):
don't really pay for the extra motorway capacity you need,
they don't pay for all of the services that are required,
and they certainly don't pay for the maintenance of all
those services roading and water and so on. So it's expensive.
But also it's happening anyway. As Bishop said, there is
(11:04):
a new city quietly being built in the far south
of Auckland, around the Drury Pokikoe area that is happening.
That that city over the next twenty to thirty years
will be as big as Napier. It's really big, and
that's happening. So Greenfield's is happening. But at the same time,
(11:26):
the capacity for the central city, for the major part
of Auckland, for the fringe suburbs is central to the
whole equation because that's where the density can work and
be really functionally efficient. They spent all this money five
and a half billion dollars to double the capacity of
(11:47):
the rail network. That's the city railing, the CRAL that
will open this year. They want people to use it.
And the more people who live close to a train station,
the more they are lucky to catch a train and
into their fares, will help contribute to making the train
services better. There'll be more trains, there'll be bigger trains,
there'll be better security, and that goes round and around.
(12:11):
The more people who catch the trains, the better the
train services. The better the train services, the more people
catch the trains. That is the key to managing congestion
on the roads. That's why it's been done. It's also
helpful and lowering emissions. It's also helpful for public health
getting more people catching trains rather than say, being driven
to school. So there's a whole lot of issues there
(12:33):
that come together. However, in Ebsom, the answer to your
question is there is a political battle going on because
while people say yes, we want apartments, there is also
a great fear among many people that I don't want
an apartment next to my villa. There's a complication in
(12:54):
this too.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
And looking into my poll.
Speaker 3 (12:56):
Yeah, well, you're looking into my port. But there's a
complication in this because last year there was the report
published that showed that the people who want to buy
apartments in Remuera, Parnell EPs and those areas largely are
people who already live there. This is people who have
(13:17):
a family home but they retired, the family have left home,
they need to downsize, they don't want to look after
the grounds anymore. They want an apartment, but they want
to stay in their suburb, of course they do. So
while there's an election issue around we don't want apartments
next to our villa, there is also a whole lot
(13:38):
of other voters who are saying we do want apartments
in the suburb because we want to stay living in
it and we want to be able to buy an
apartment in it.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
Yeah, and the data has been done around.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
That, It absolutely has. So it's rather more complex than
the simple slogan airing Nimbi, we don't want apartments next to.
Speaker 2 (13:59):
Our ville, not in our backyard.
Speaker 3 (14:01):
Yeah, that's right. It is complex because there are a
whole lot of people who want to stay in their
own backyard and need an apartment to do it.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
To create a brighter, more prosperous future for these Zealanders.
We have to allow Auckland to grow and become a
world class international city. And it means as a country,
saying yes a lot more often and no a lot less.
Yes infrastructure, yes to events, yes to transit oriented development,
yes to housing, and yes to growth. But saying yes
(14:36):
is not just a political slogan or ideological posturing about progress.
It means real change and that's what this government is about.
We're a reform and government. We refuse to accept the
idea that New Zealand is in a state of perpetual
managed decline.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
So the announcement today, I'll walk you through what I
took from it. So everyone's unhappy that two million homes
are to be built, Hang on, actually it's not two
million homes. I'll explain to you why. It's about capacity.
But anyway, we'll bring it down to one point six million.
The Council is going to decide what areas are going
(15:16):
to be under this new plan. Don't know when, and
it's up to them.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
It will be. It will be this year because there'll
be new consultation that happens around this. Bishop was very
clear that the people will get their chance to have
a say, and if people have already had to say,
they can have another say, and people who haven't had
a say will be invited to have a say anyway,
So that will happen, But he is not extending the
timeline for the whole project. This all has to be signed,
(15:43):
sealed and in law by I think it's May twenty
twenty seven, So council has to get it. Skates on councils.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
If it's council's job, though, then why has government gotten
involved at all in the first place. If you just
have to get back to them you make the hard decisions.
You have to crack the news to the guys in
Mount Eden.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
Yeah. So Bishop's argument, which has previously been an argument
adopted by both Labor and National is that it's too
hard for councils to rezone for more density because there
are too many voters that jump up and down and
scream and shout and say you can't do it. So
where central government comes in and says you have to
(16:25):
do it, then that takes the political weight off the council.
So that's why government's been involved, because they have recognized
both National and Labor have recognized that unless they say
we need more density, it isn't going to happen, and
that leads the cities in a mess.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
Right. So it's when you're a kid, you're acting a
full at home mom says, wait until your dad gets home.
Government is dad. He's getting home, and you're going to
stop acting a full Yeah.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
Yeah, And Bishop and his speech spelled out what that
acting a fall means. If you have density in a city,
if you have a city that is a thriving, busy
place full of people, it's more productive and that means
things like there are more people who are there to
(17:16):
buy things, to be entertained by things, to use the
services that are provided. If you spread out too far,
if you just have suburban sprawl, it's very much harder
to do that. Everything costs more to do and the
transport costs on citizens become higher as well. So you
want your density because that helps with those things for
(17:38):
ordinary people. But also density drives productivity, it drives innovation,
and this has been studied globally. It drives progress for societies.
So it is Bishop's way of putting it is, he
says Auckland in New Zealand, we should stop thinking about
(17:59):
Auckland as large New Zealand city and start to think
about it as a small global city and look at
other global cities the same size as Auckland, which is
pushing up to two million, and see what they do,
how they thrive, what they do to be successful, and
density is always a part of that.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
One thing I did find fascinating, It's funny that you
bring that up is the comparison of you know, New York,
London and Ireland are looking towards Auckland for answers, and
I just sat there and thought, I, you know what,
I don't think, So I don't think Zon and Mundani's
sitting there watching this live stream being like, you know
what those density changes in Auckland, New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (18:40):
Yeah, you're you're You're right, You're right about that in
the sense that, of course people aren't glued to their
to their computers waiting to see what Auckland's next move
is going to be. But at the same time, because
the Auckland unitry plan did unlock housing growth and we
got from a flat situation, we got really a big
(19:01):
booster housing growth. It's when it kicked off the middle
of last decade. Because that happened, it has been studied,
it has been looked at, and you know, we've gone
from just one example. If you look at the central city,
there are and around forty thousand people who live in
Central Auckland. Now that's just what we many people call
(19:22):
the CBD. So it's much more than a CBD. That
is larger than any suburb in the country. But they
have no schools, they have no very few services, you know,
they just that's where they live. That's happened in the
last ten fifteen years, very very quickly, and there's capacity
for more so, you know, and that's a good thing
(19:44):
because those people can walk and often do. Many of
them don't own a car, or if they do, they
don't drive it very much. And you know, that's a
real change. It's not that everybody has to look like that.
And nobody's suggesting that there will be nobody.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
You saw it in my eyes. I'm not getting on
a bike, Simon, you know I'm not.
Speaker 3 (20:02):
But it's about choice. It's about choice, giving people choice
and not saying if you want to buy an affordable house,
you're going to have to go and live in booky k. Now,
it's because that is not going to work for most people.
Speaker 2 (20:14):
Thanks for joining us, Simon.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzidherld dot co dot enz The Front Page is
hosted and produced by me Chelsea Daniels. Caine Dickie is
our studio operator, Richard Martin, our producer and editor, and
our executive producer is Jane Ye. Follow the Front Page
(20:42):
on the iHeart app or wherever you get your podcasts,
and join us next time for another look beyond the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Clifford Show
The Clifford Show with Clifford Taylor IV blends humor, culture, and behind-the-scenes sports talk with real conversations featuring athletes, creators, and personalities—spotlighting the grind, the growth, and the opportunities shaping the next generation of sports and culture.