The Herald have published this really interesting map showing what kind of changes occurred to the capital values as a result of the revaluations that occurred last year. While this does show changes in capital value, for the majority of properties the change will mainly be a reflection of movement in the value of the land that the houses sit on. The map itself is able to be zoomed in to look at individual properties but at a high level there are some interesting but not surprising trends. The biggest of these is that the areas that saw the most increase in value were the inner suburbs, particularly the inner western ones.
It is probably safe to assume that part of the reason these central suburbs have increased so much in value is that there has been a huge increase in demand to live in those areas. We tend to see that most of the news reports about housing affordability will talk to some buyers struggling to buy a property which almost always tends to be in these central areas. Personally I think this is just the continuation of a trend we have been seeing of people wanting to live closer to the city once again. For the last 60 years we have seen the suburbs sprawl out into the countryside and while that dream still exists for lots, many young Aucklanders are wanting a more urban lifestyle closer to their friends, family and the central city without having a complete reliance on cars.
Of course Auckland is not unique in this, a similar trend is occurring all over the world. It is about time that political masters, both locally and nationally, woke up and realised that people want to live closer to the city, not flung out on the edge of the city
Processing...
Do you think that maybe we should allow more intensification in the inner west? Especially as it has probably the best PT accessibility of anywhere in Auckland, especially post CRL.
No. The values are up because “the market” values trees and villas etc. Mess with that- you kill the golden goose, the values go blue. See Summerville Villas (sic) at Richmond and Sackville and vile tow houses right hand end of Livingstone.
The Inner West has been dense enough for “light rail” since 1902.
As they say- “These aren’t the suburbs you’re looking for”
The Summerville Villas are crappy leaky buildings. If you actually look around Grey Lynn, you’ll see a lot of high-quality intensification, where it allowed.
Anyone would be foolish to suggest that the trees and villas get pulled down. But there are loads of carparks and even light industry that could well be intensively built residential to the benefit of many.
If the market values trees and villas then “allowing intensification” would not result in less trees or villas? Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by market?.
I’d suggest that the western and eastern bays are ripe for organic market led intensification.
By inner west I mean the western half of the isthmus. There’s plenty of development potential in non heritage areas. Plus heaps of large villas to split in half so you don’t need to be a millionaire to enjoy them.
Yes.
Geoff it is always a mistake to generalise from your taste.
It’s a valid way of interpreting the data Patrick, taste doesn’t really come into it.
Just by the by-
What is with all the blue in the CBD ? It all matches the harbour!
Oversupply of apartments built early last decade.
A lot of the CBD is commercial and probably represents the financial issues taking their toll. There was a period a few years ago when tenancies dropped quite a bit I think (but they are improving now)
Exactly – the reduction in property values in some parts of the city centre reflects a loss of value in commercial property post-GFC. If you look at Emily Place then you will find that my property (residential) experienced strong gains :).
Also, don’t underestimate effect of leaky buildings … I can see some buildings have suffered from this association.
I think it is critically important to point out that these are council valuations, not market valuations.
During the recent revaluation process the council effectively decided to devalue smaller apartments across the CBD for the purposes of CV, I’m not exactly sure why but it wasnt to match market value.
Mine for example were revalued back to less than their CV ten years ago, a drop of about 20%. Meanwhile my rental return has done nothing but climb and the market valuation is actually about 1.5-1.7 times the CV. The blue areas in the CBD is because someone decided on a policy of devaluing apartments for rating purposes. Anyone who has bought one recently will tell you that the CV on apartments is a great fiction.
Dumb question: Is this revaluation required in order to ensure that properties in the amalgamating cities are placed on to a common fair valuation basis in the super city? If the previous valuations were only used for rates setting purposes, then the absolute value of each property wouldn’t matter as long as there was relativity to other properties IN THE SAME CITY. Once amalgamated, was it obvious that the previous valuations of properties in the west and south were too high, those in the center were too low, and those in the north were about right… then tweaked blocks here and there? Or, to put it another way, if you hadn’t adjusted the valuations then people in the south and west would have paid too much rates while those in the center would have paid too little?
That sounds quite probable. So the current valuation map should allow us to compare properties across the region under a common rating system, however the value change map can only be used to compare properties within the same former local government area.
Is there a comparable land value map?
Yes that would be interesting (or at least land value by square metre)
The herald map seems to match exactly with the same dataset on the council GIS viewer, it even uses the same key.
http://maps.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/aucklandcouncilviewer/
If you do go into the GIS viewer there is also the option of land value.
I did have some trouble getting it to work though, it seems buggy.
First I zoomed in and selected a property using the ‘rates summary’ sidebar.
Then I clicked the little pie chart along the top of that sidebar for revaluation data.
This is when it showed error boxes for me about loading a mapservice, but I clicked land values, then percentage change, and it worked anyway.
In case it doesn’t work here is a screenshot of the city:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B-zujiRETKtuWGE5NmVUbTZzcnM
Ahh didn’t realise that one was in there, your docs looks like % change like in the map but I managed to get Capital value per sq m for residential properties
Wow that map is REALLY interesting. Really highlights that value in Auckland comes down to two things:
1) Proximity to the CBD
2) Proximity to the Waitemata Harbour
Wow that map is REALLY interesting. Really highlights that CV values in Auckland are a total load of ****, although actually this more looks like the map you’ve pulled up is even worse than the appalling lack of sense in the QV valuation process.
I’d love to think that Manor Park really has an equivalent CV per square meter as Panama road – but honestly don’t think I’m going to be able to sell from one and move straight into the other…
Although the original map you linked to also showed 2 real things.
A) people don’t like living near people in state housing
B) QV plays with the numbers. In my old area every house that sold in the last 2 years shows up as bright orange. Every other house shows as medium blue. Anyone else see a flaw here?
Areas way out from the city center are orange: Beachlands. Waiheke. And Albany. Areas that are commuter-close to the city center by virtue of being on a rail line are as blue as the surrounding areas: West Auckland. South Auckland. Some grotty areas are orange because they probably had no where to fall: Favona. Some nice areas are blue because they were probably overvalued to start with: The CBD and most of the area around Devonport.
I don’t see any consistent evidence of anything. I think the case for rail transport would have been bolstered if areas on rail lines were consistently higher than their surrounds, but that isn’t true. I am amused that Rangitoto has suffered a greater than 30 percent drop in value. Remind me not to look there for my next home.
Rail is yet to improve its service Obi, I don’t expect any move to rail corridors yet. If I was a developer and to play a medium term game though I would be looking for apartment block sites on the western line in anticipation of the big change in value they will get with the CRL.
Beachlands and Waiheke will see increases due to their proximity to the water most likely, also Beachlands is only about half an hour away by ferry which is similar to places like New Lynn. The vast amount of West Auckland that is blue suggests it was probably overvalued and I would hardly say that they are commuter close due to the rail line as remember the line goes the long way around to Britomart and a trip from Henderson to Britomart is still about 50m in the peak on the train.
I also thought the Rangitoto ones were quite funny, as are some of the parks like Cornwall Park/One Tree Hill.
Foolish talk Obi. There’s clear evidence of a spatial concentration in increased property values in central city suburbs. **Some*** parts of east and north auckland also going strong, but generally it’s about the isthmus baby yeah.
The big red splotches are really just “noise” in the system and can almost all entirely be explained through recent planning changes to those areas. Just look at Flat Bush for example.
Apartment construction underway again in the city, Greys Ave conversion of an office block and 500 x 1, 2, & 3 bedders at the top of Nelson.
Yes and yes. The great “re-centralisation” migration has started. Look forward to the end point – a more compact city.
I wonder if we need a better teen then compact city. Really what we are talking about is the really urban parts growing e.g. currently the area around Cook St isn’t really thought of as the “CBD” but in 20 or 30 years time things will be completely different as the city grows.