The Tamaki area is one with so much potential yet so far has failed to live up to that. There have long been talks about redeveloping the area and it seems that something might finally be about to happen. Almost a year ago the government and the Auckland Council formed an urban redevelopment company to oversee the transformation of the area. Today the company is released a draft strategic framework for how they plan to do this. The herald reported this morning.

Auckland’s low-income suburbs of Glen Innes, Pt England and Panmure will roughly double in population under a draft plan for more intensive housing to be unveiled today.

The urban “regeneration” project, which could add up to 6000 new homes to an existing 5050, is expected to be one of the first “special housing areas” with fast-tracked resource consent processes under a housing accord signed last month by Housing Minister Nick Smith and Auckland Mayor Len Brown.

The target of 6000, included in the accord, makes it the biggest housing development scheduled in Auckland and twice as big as the 3000-unit Hobsonville development.

It covers the area between West Tamaki Rd in the north and the Panmure Basin in the south, including 2880 Housing NZ homes, about 1160 owner-occupied houses and just over 1000 private rental properties.

The area covered in the Tamaki area is huge, to show the size of it and its relation to the city the transformation company have produced these maps

The Herald continues:

Unlike other developments, the draft Tamaki strategy also includes 11 other social, economic and environmental elements, as well as housing, designed to make the area more liveable despite doubling the population density.

The area is among Auckland’s most deprived, with a 2006 median income of only $20,000 and an employment rate of only 52 per cent, compared with 65 per cent across Auckland. Sole parents make up almost half the area’s families.

But the strategy sees opportunities for more jobs and training by attracting new businesses, redeveloping under-used land along the existing railway and encouraging training agencies such as Manukau Institute of Technology, Unitec and Te Wananga o Aotearoa to take over parts of Auckland University’s Tamaki campus, which the university plans to sell as it develops a new campus in Newmarket.

The strategy says private investors have expressed interest in redeveloping an area next to the railway line where containers are stored, including possibly reopening the former Tamaki station between Glen Innes and Panmure.

The plan proposes a mix across the redevelopment area of market and affordable housing, likely to be developed by private developers, community and iwi organisations.

I’ve said before that I’m not keen on the idea of reopening the Tamaki station, to me it is just too close to both Panmure and Glen Innes and I think it would be good to avoid turning the inner parts of the eastern line into a slow crawl like the inner western line is.

I have only read through a few parts of the document so far however like most things, it sounds good but will really come down to the implementation. For example the strategy talks about redeveloping housing to provide better quality dwellings and more housing choices but gives no firm indication as to just what that means i.e. I assume they mean a mix of dwellings from standalone houses through to terraced houses to apartments in the town centres but there isn’t really an indication of what mix they are aiming for. You can read the entire thing is here.

I think it’s also worth pointing out some of the history behind the area. It was one of the first post war suburbs built and was done so right at the start of our period of our auto dependency, at a time when cars were promoted as the future. Thinking that is highlighted so well in this video from 1960.

NZ On Screen

Share this


  1. I still think the GI station is in the wrong place. I would have placed it further north with a Tamaki station where the Wine makers are. Damn wine.

  2. I’d like to be more confident that whatever good things may be agreed here, aren’t just kicked to the kerb the next time Nick Smith or some other minister from Wellington wants to score some ideology points, or arrogate himself another couple planning powers he hasn’t yet passed into law.

    Whenever I hear “agreement between central government and local government” these days, I read “one-sided statement that may be revoked from Wellington at any time”.

  3. Good to see intensification will be around the train stations, which will hopefully have good feeder bus services from the surrounding areas.

    The Tamaki River waterfront and other green spaces need to be redeveloped and made safer and more attractive.

    1. I agree.. the more people live here, the more the green spaces matter.

      They need to be protected, yes, and improved where necessary, so that they are appropriately high quality and serve the diverse needs of the local population present and future.. especially including active recreation, notably cricket, rugby, football at Colin Maiden Park.

      On the map, CMP is shown an auspicious concrete-grey colour.. so I hope this is not indicative of future development, whether business, residential or park n ride.

      I note that the excellent cricket facilities at CMP include one of the best grounds in Auckland which is also one of the very few potential test match venues in Auckland.. and it is very conveniently located 5 mins walk or so from GI railway station.

        1. Looks like they’ve picked up the zoning “underneath” the present “tertiary education” overlay, if I understand that correctly?

          So when the University moves to Newmarket there will be nothing anyone’s can do to stop the bulldozers. Unless for exampe the whole of CMP is re-zoned “active recreation” before that happens.

          I know a lot of people in this area made supportive comments about retaining CMP in their Draft UP submissions.

  4. That’s a rather interesting video, comparing what was planned with what actually happened.

    It was interesting to see that the motorways were designed for 80km/h and the harbour bridge for 60km/h.

      1. I’m unaware of a single road project to make the claim it will remove congestion forever, same goes for PT projects. Feel free to mention a project to the contrary however.

        On that note however. That video claimed the CBD was much nicer and easier to get around without the trams. Don’t know what that was based on but that was the claim. Certainly in Melbourne the trams stuff up the road for everyone making it faster to walk. Only with lots of money and dedicated roads do they start to outperform general lane based transport.

          1. I really don’t think such claims were ever made. On the topic though, the CMJ looked rather interesting with its little tunnels rather than the big cuts they made. Of course that would have prevented the upgrades made during the 2000s and may have resulted in the faster progress of the WRR.

        1. No, the video claimed that downtown congestion was reduced. Not that it was easier to get around.

          Also, have you ever actually been to Melbourne getting around is much easier, getting a car around is slightly harder.

          1. Sailor boy. I user to live in Melbourne. That’s how I now it’s faster to walk than take the tram, unless your on one of their 100m wide roads with dedicated tram lines.

            As for driving, for anywhere other than the CBD driving is about twice as fast as PT. I had one trip that took 2 hours on PT when it only took 20mins in a taxi.

          2. I’ll have to watch the video again as to what was actually said, but from memory they did compliment the barns dance crossings.

          3. Most of the central and inner city has dedicated ROW’s for the trams. I found it incredibly easy to get around the inner city there.

            Do’t get me wrong I agree that the outer suburbs were a nightmare on PT but I don’t see how that is relevant to this discussion?

          4. Yes quite right it is rather easy to get round the central city as you can just walk those short distances. As I said before the trams on the dedicated roadways are rather fast as well, which comes at the cost of making vehicle travel extremely hard.

            As to what this has to do with the discussion, I don’t know. Patrick made the comment on trams to which I responded in an Auckland context.

          5. When I was in Melbourne last year my daily trip across the CBD by tram took about 15 minutes. One time I was running late so got in a taxi, after the driver told me it would take 40 minutes to get to the destination I promptly got out of the taxi and caught the tram instead. The trams seemed very fast and efficient to me.

          6. Well of course taking a tram across the Melbourne CBD is fast, as I’ve said twice before now, they have their own dedicated right of way. In most cases it’d about 15 to 20m of road space just for trams. And as you quite rightly point out is that this means a taxi ride takes 40 mins when you could likely walk it in 20.

            Now given Auckland never had, and still doesn’t have any of these massive road reserves that Melbourne has to run their dedicated tram ways on it’s completely out of context to use it as a reference as to if what could have been if we had kept our tram lines.

            In reality what you want to look at are the bad tram lines in Melbourne as this is all the space we left ourselves.

          7. Queen Street is more than wide enough as is GNR and Dominion Road. Ponsonby is wide enough if we remove carparking. Manukau Road is wide enough aswell. Also, I’d like to see you walk a distance of more than about 2k in Melbourne faster than the tram. I struggled to get down the main street without about 7 going past.

          8. Sailor boy, with the exception of queen street you are talking about completely destroying the one and only arterial road in the area just so you can give trams a free run. They haven’t done this anywhere in Melbourne except for the CBD with the consequences mentioned about 3 times above.

            As for walking 2 km faster than a tram, I’ve managed to do trips of 4km without a single tram coming past even though there was meant to be one every 10-15mins.

          9. How is that destroying it?

            I am increasing the capacity from 4800 pax/hour/direction, to 26,000.
            That seems more like fixing the arterial to me. Though you seem to design roads to move cars not people for some strange reason.

            Also, you must have been walking bloody fast that should be a 40 minute walk at a reasonably brisk pace.
            A 15 minute wait means that the speed of the tram is less than 10 kmh which from my albeit brief experience of Melbourne is bullshit if we are talking about the kind of proper corridors we had in Auckland, or would have on those roads that I suggested.

          10. You are destroying it sailor boy by completely removing its ability to move vehicles or provide any parking just so that you can run some trams which will be empty most of the time as they are too fixed to be able to provide for the trips 95% of people want to take. You have successfully closed some businesses and congested the local roads however so good work.

            As for Melbourne, whilst walking I have actually been able to catch up and pass some trams implying they are traveling at less than 4km/h.

          11. Oh and sailor boy, providing for 26,000 trips that only 1,000 people want to take is a gross waste of money and space.

          12. And how does anybody know how many people will want to use a service that doesn’t exist? Especially as part of a whole network that doesn’t exist. It is a complete falsehood to claim that current levels of use of any mode reflects desire separate from what options are offered. And modelling of future demand has been shown to be not much more accurate than asking the average bright 8 year what they reckon. So yet again your assumptions are crooked.

          13. That is true Patrick, such a service does not currently exist however there are multiple other services along this route with vastly superior diversity and so by using them as a base I have over estimated the patronage.

            You will find however my assumptions are more grounder than your highway removal claims from yesterday which proved to be a complete joke. There was more similarity between a used sock and a solar flare than what we see in Wellington.

          14. How is GNR the only arterial when just a hundred meters away there is a motorway that has had hundreds of millions thrown at it? Same with Dom Rd. A mere 1km or so to the east and west lie Mt Eden Road and Sandringham Road. Also, with the multi billion dollar WRR there will be another alternative for motorists to get to town. At 100 km/h no less.

          15. Bryce. Please explain to me how any of the motorways in the city would be of any use what so ever in making a trip from the centre of Mt Roskill to the centre of Sandringham.

            I just can’t see any of them being of any use what so ever, and if course none if them were built with the intention of providing for such a trip and so this shows nothing as to diminish their use.

          16. Your entire argument is always that cars should be the primary focus of every mode.

            Until you can learn that moving people and moving cars is different you are never going to be respected here because traffic or infrastructure engineers like yourself are the problem in New Zealand.

            People like you are the reason that Auckland’s urban form is so bad.

          17. Sailor boy, you could not be more wrong if you tried, assuming you weren’t trying to be wrong.

            Firstly I challenge you to find one case were I argued that cars should be the primary focus of every mode. And preferably find this example in reality rather than in your imagination.

            Secondly, I know full well that moving people is different to cars. What you and others seem to forget is that A) cars have people inside them, and B) people go were they want to go and not where you build a rail or tram line to.

            As for people like me, who think people have choice and provide for them to travel in any mode for which they chose from were and to they chose all within a nice natural environment that promotes environmental sustainability and a vibrant and community based city. How we make Aucklands urban form so bad I do not know.

            Certainly your idea of closing main roads forcing traffic down what we’re otherwise quite residential streets would go a long way to destroy Aucklands urban form. So again try and give one actual example where one of my examples or even projects have diminished the city in some way. Is it my busway that you think has stuffed it up? Or maybe you don’t like the CRL I’m working on? Or did I stuff up the city somehow duplicating the western line? Maybe its some of these grade superstitions of level crossings you want me to stop?

          18. Have you heard of the word disingenuous? You should look it up. It perfectly describes your behavior.

          19. Good to know you can contribute insults sailor boy as opposed to backing up your fictional and abusive claims.

  5. I see nothing really new here and plenty of platitudes about this and that with aspirational ideas and little actual of the stuff they’re going to do to fix the current mess except the Government has a totally hands off approach to housing and assumes that community housing providers will take up the slack.

    I note this comment under transport “Support a sub-regional park and ride location in Tamaki”

    So, we want to spend big dollars fixing up Tamaki and the Transport system and then build a big Park n Ride so all those folks further out can drive to park in Tamaki and catch a cheaper train ride to town?

    We need a transport system that negates the need for Park n Rides anywhere in the city context, not more Park n Rides.

    So “Epic fail” right there guys.

    First order of business TRC – work with AC/AT and sort out the transport network so you don’t need a park n ride and use the space for more green spaces and parks
    – with doubling the population and potentially losing Colin Maiden Park you’re going to need that space. And as mentioned before reopening Tamaki station doesn’t actually solve anything.

    Reading between the lines here, is there a proposal to create a large Park N Ride around Tamaki station which will be easy to drive to from Pakuranga and beyond courtesy of AMETI?
    Sure might be better than a large container park, but at least container parks don’t induce traffic demand like a Park n Ride does?
    Also sound like a away to justify AMETI as a giant causeway for Park N Riders
    – probably to handle all those soon to be disgruntled Orakei Park n Riders when that gets ripped up for the Orakei Bay Development.

    And the biggest single problem in this place, the elephant in the room, is the railway line.
    So what are they doing about reducing its severance and general impact on the area?

    Well, not a lot as far as I can tell, no more bridges under the rail line, despite the fact that they’re keen to rip up and reconfigure roads to make the land better for houses?
    So why not put a few new roads under the railway to fix up the glaring severance issues – keeping the existing 2 (under) crossings of the railway between St Johns Road and Panmure is not going do much longer term to stop “the wrong side of tracks” situation from continuing.

    And while on housing I note this comment:

    Under Innovation Actions #2
    ” investigate alternative methods of construction including modular and prefabrication”.

    Which comes with this explanation:

    “Consider a range of construction types to reduce the cost of building. This will also diversify the housing choices available and may improve efficiency of construction.”

    I’m all for doing things better, but hey wasn’t this modular and prefabrication technique used in GI/Tamaki originally and thats caused the current set up as it was applied to the nth degree.
    And didn’t it also cause the leaking homes disaster when they removed all the rules in 90s in failed revisionist exercise?

    So how will revisiting the past now change the outcomes for the better without doing something different?

    And we do all this because it MAY be more efficient? May – seriously – may – be more efficient than what we do now.

    I could imagine lots of ways that modular and prefab buildings couldn’t fail to be more efficient to construct.
    They could also look seriously ugly and cheap and nasty too but thats not the issue here. We must be able to do better than suggest this may be better.

    So whats this word may all about?

    Really sounds like some Nick-Smith speak right there doesn’t it.

    1. Yes the p’n’r nonsense is pure NatPat ideology… Movement is completly impossible/inconceivable without a car… This is pretty much religion for their kind. And the so called Minister of Conservation in particular.

      AT just have to get those new feeder bus routes in, if a PNR is forced on this location then we must price it appropriately… The market will fix it!

  6. They will need another Police station with all those people moving to the area. What better place to put it than a highly visible location in one of the train stations? Would be good to see a 24 hour police presence in what will become busy public areas; stations and on trains too. Would create a safe point stop for anyone in difficulty,harassed or robbed on the transport system.

    1. Whoah, back up! I grew up in the area; it’s a good place to buy a first home at the moment, seeing as it’s close to the train station and not a particularly affluent area while still being relatively safe. Given its proximity to the water, I can see the area being the new Point Chevalier/Grey Lynn in twenty years time. A lot of people will recall the ‘old days’ when those suburbs were hardly prime real estate either. A lot of the hinges on the developments, though, which is where I’d be concerned. I’d love to move into a good-sized, medium density property in that area when I eventually get back from overseas. A small, badly designed concrete box? Not so much…

      I agree there’s no need for a Tamaki Station; Panmure and GI stations aren’t that far apart.

      1. If there was decent bike parking at the stations almost the whole area is within a ten minute bike ride of the current stations, as it’s flatish….

      2. Melon – I agree Tamaki; G.I/Panmure are great areas with character and potential. Buy there soon I’d suggest. My point on having Police based at a train station is about them getting out of cars and into the community more. Private security work for the organisation or business that pays them whereas Police are public servants who represent all of us. What better location than a busy public area on what will be the new SH1 of people movement around Auckland (oh no another reality show). You see it overseas, even across the ditch and it would be good for the organisation’s image and instill greater confidence in the public – whether it be parents letting their kids go to school alone, teenagers off to the movies at night by train or whatever. To most of us the Police are seen in cars with flashing blues lights screaming from crisis to crisis. In GI they’ve been known to drive to the post box just down the road rather than walk, just like most people of course, but the Police might also consider moving with the times like the rest of us.

  7. Very keen for a tamaki station, but I’m self interested as I live in between GI and panmure stations. With the existing tamaki and Pt England populations, stonefields, and the new tamaki station development it should have a good catchment. Also, the development in tamaki will be a destination rather than just a place for people to commute from.
    With the electric trains, stopping for one more station will be outweighed by the benefits of encouraging people to switch to rail. If you’re really worried then take out meadobank, which is now a short walk to orakei and really only serves cul de sacs.

  8. I’m not sure that GI/Panmure will become the new Grey Lynn, but I think there’s a fair bet it’ll be the new Onehunga, considering the access to train stations and the future AMETI busways.

    Hmmm. The old Tamaki City of course went as far south as Otahuhu. Have they decided that that neck of the woods has been “revitalised” enough by Sylvia Park?

  9. Looking at the 2022 frequent network the 2 feeders services running here will be included as part of the frequent network, so every 15 minutes. This will provide great access through the suburb.
    However if a really large scale Mixed Use development was to go on here on both sides of the tracks (both eastern warehouses and western container yard and racetrack) then a station could be worthwhile, especially if large amounts of employment involved.

    1. Agree. And although GI station is geographically closer to stonefields, there is a steep hill to climb to get to Merton rd, so a developed tamaki station would also be attractive to that suburb.

  10. It’s important to note there will be a de-facto motorway (AMETI) running through the middle of this area, and dumping traffic out near Merton Rd.

      1. You know as well as I do that the Auckland CBD is 3 defined census areas and that Freemans Bay and points west have never been part of it.

        Why on earth would you muddy the waters by introducing the nebulous term ‘central city”?

    1. I would say that they make it look smaller. Cutting out Newton, Grafton and Quay Park.

      Completely agree with Patrick. The moat is such a mental barrier.

      1. Moat’s were used as open sewers, I was going fr the mental images of death feces and seperation.

        I agree that there is a tangiable divide cause by the moat, but the mental separation is even greater.

  11. I think the comparisons with Grey Lynn etc are accurate in the sense that this is a currently undervalued area with many good [but different] attributes like Ponsonby/Grey Lynn was before the last few decades of constant upgrading [or gentrification if you prefer]. But the big difference is that apart from some parts of Freemans Bay this area has been rebuilt privately by owners and not in a City and State directed way.

    Of course the State is the owner of half of the properties in Tamaki according to reports so they have to either sell out or be involved, and, as far as I know there is no or little bidding up of the properties by outsiders [gentrifiers] as occurred in my neighbourhood. I guess it would be hard for that to happen anyway as Housing Corp owns so many properties.

    Anyway, I’m not saying that there is an ideal way to rebuild tired old houses in badly planed suburbs but rather just trying to be accurate about the similarities and differences between these places and times.

    There is another important difference; lot size, the properly Victorian suburbs of Freemans Bay, Ponsonby, Arch Hill, Newton, St Mary’s Bay, and inner Parnell are made up of small lots with close buildings. They were already dense, just had very poor housing stock by the 1960s/70s. Believe me I know just how Dickensian it was. Even Grey Lynn, Westmere, and Herne Bay while the lots are bigger, have either long since filled in or were already fairly tightly built.

    In contrast these post war suburbs often have one house in the middle of an oversized lot and really need consolidating or subdividing to improve the vitality of the area and get some agglomeration effects occurring, not to mention to just make better use of that oh so valuable resource; land. So it is going to have a great deal more of a top-down solution.

    This is the challenge for these agencies to do it well for both the current residents and future ones, and to not let the various ideologies run the game…. Best of luck,all Auckland could do with this potentially beautiful area having happier, healthier, and better housed and employed citizens contributing to the whole mosaic of the city.

    1. I guess the good news is that if HNZ own most of the sites it will be easy to do a comprehensive redevelopment. The bad news is that national will insist that the be stand alone houses on quarter acres with 10 carparks each.

    2. Amen. I hope that the area is well-planned and that they build a good amount of medium density housing. You’re also bang on with the need to subdivide and consolidate – there is a massive amount of underutilized real estate there sitting idle on the back lawn of state houses.

  12. Just thinking about one of those different attributes, while the inner west suburbs have proximity to the city as their greatest virtue Tamaki does have the rail line [and the Tamaki River].
    Currently the rail line doesn’t seem like that much of a big deal but while many are usually clear about the improvement that the CRL will bring for people with access to the Western Line, very few think about just how much better it will also make the Eastern Line users’ options.

    Direct one seat rides to more of the city of course but then there’s the direct connection with the whole of the Western Line too: straight to Kingsland for Eden Park for instance. East to West and visa versa are very clumsy journeys right now, involving changes at Britomart and Newmarket, and the whole roundabout route.

    And because the train will be fast and frequent it opens up a whole wider set of movements if you just add one transfer by bus or ferry to the mix.

  13. In the strategic plan it also mentions shared spaces in GI town. Tis is a good idea. One of the former roads running from east to west was pedestrianised which has really killed the former street. The north south rd was turned into a car park. Shared space might help these spaces a lot.

  14. That video is hilarious, if you take into account how Auckland city planners have made such of mess things since 1960:

    “Look, the city is nice and peaceful and traffic can flow freely with those nasty trams gone!” “Look, Auckland is sprawling in every direction – isn’t that exciting?” “Look, we’re building more parking buildings so everyone can take their car into the CBD!”


  15. Lets be completely honest about the redevelopment of Glen Innes/Tamaki because I have yet to see any honesty. Its all about making a hell of a lot of money for developers and those connected to developers and this is very National, taking care of donors and voters whilst nurturing business connections.

    Take the scum state housing tenants out of this area and free up the land, the same tenants who don’t vote or certainly don’t vote National and relocate them to the corners of society in overcrowded zones and forget them because frankly they and their children don’t deserve anything. Pretend its to free up money, to better service their needs, or just lie. Meanwhile extend Glendowie and beyond for maximum returns. When ex housing minister Phil Heatley claimed this was to free up money for more state houses it was thoroughly unconvincing, this type of government couldn’t care less about that side of life and in the 90’s it was the same. Now that Nick Smith is pushing it I believe Nationals claims even less.

    It happened in the 1990’s to Madeline Ave and Esperance Ave in Glendowie and made a lot of money for the few, so why not exploit state housing areas elsewhere were a buck can be made at the expense of those in need.

    PT will be a distant afterthought and knowing this government it will have absolutely no priority if at all but I reckon the dream Eastern highway/motorway is in the donor mix somewhere because how else is doubling the population out there going to be moved without decent PT. And National are calling the shots not Len Browns council!

    1. I’m lazy and haven’t investigated very much, but is there any allocation for state housing? Some of the newer blocks built in GI across from the wine-maker look tasteful and are a practical use of land – those are state houses aren’t they? More of that would be fine, but is that in the pipeline?

      1. That’s talbot park, all if them are state. They redeveloped them a few yrs ago. The plan was to sell some into private ownership to get a mix of ownership types, but they didn’t do that in the end. This was in the 2000s, so it was probably a political decision.
        I don’t think the developers involved made much if anything out of that. The spec was very high and by all accounts the flats are good quality.
        This is the risk of privately funded projects. You either save on the build, or you sell high. It’s hard to get cheap and good quality.

        1. ‘It’s hard to get cheap and good quality.’

          True dat! Which is why the densities need to rise to divide the land cost component between each dwelling, and to gain other economies of scale.

        2. I believe the Talbot renewal and similarly the Tonar St upgrade in Northcote were state initiatives to improve the quality of run down state housing units and likewise improve the immediate area. Some of these units (3 level Starflats and the two level semi detached types) were not the most attractive even new. It achieved what it set out to do. The difference being it had nothing to do with putting state tenants out of the area to have a free for all private development.

          1. State housing tenants will be booted south if there is not a state-housing component built in for sure, but is the government not going to use some of the land for state houses?

        3. Talbot park was redeveloped by the State to show examples of what modern exemplar developments should be like. And was intended to be the model for all such upgrades.

          The word I hear is the cost of the renewals was considered too high for mere state house tenants so was not repeated elsewhere.
          So there we have a fine example of what can be achieved. Never to be repeated as it seems unlikely that TRC will follow that thinking with their plans.

      2. Since the Govt announced at Budget time last month that all State house tennants are to be put on 3 renewable tenancies, the concept of the state house for life is now ended.

        This means that the Govt can and has wiped its hands of the provision of State Houses.

        And the TRC document clearly states that social housing needs will be met by third parties so-called “CHPs” and NOT the state.

        These may get allocated land from the current State housing land to have a portion of the the social housing from the building built on the land, but the plan is clearly to on sell the houses/land to private owners (the occupants or private landlords) and/or move the tennants on if they look like becoming a burden via the 3 year State house limit.

        1. I don’t have a problem with the land being more effectively utilized, but I am concerned if they’re not replacing the state houses they’ll demolish with dwellings that can house the equivalent number of people that are being displaced. That will have the sum effect of shifting the ‘problem’ south, which might actually be part of the plan.

  16. Totally agree with Waspman. I have family that used to live in GI but have been relocated further out to Mangere, and even Drury.

  17. The important Point in this report is that we no longer have a mezzanine lending finance sector. Funding medium size developments will therefore be very difficult. The tamaki scheme smells like welfare for private developers in the form of guaranteed purchase or lease of units, or ppp type availability payment schemes.
    This may or may not lead to good outcomes in tamaki.
    But I do wonder about the likelihood of medium size developments in non govt sponsored areas. Where will the project finance come from?

  18. due to heavy demand on housing in the Auckland district and it being an entrepreneur decision who is money orientated for simple business form executes the simple living for people who have resided in this country longer than the politicians who is in parliament and they being foreigners. there is no mercy for the peoples well being of today regardless of their age and the length of period they have been in this Country more than 2years which is the legal limit of becoming an New Zealand Citizen is what the Government considers the benefit of the people of this Country.

Leave a Reply