As the saying goes “when it rains it pours” and that seems to be the case with developments at the moment as developers try to make up lost ground following on from the global financial crisis. We have seen heaps of apartment building proposals pop up in the last two months it has been hard keeping up and now another new one has appeared.

Called Park Residences it is located on the corner of Albert and Swanson St in the CBD and backs on to St Patricks Square. It will have 225 apartments, although I’m not sure how big they are. From what I can tell it is about 30 storeys high.

Park Residences

And here it is from the intersection of Albert St and Swanson St.

Park Residences from Albert St

And here is what it is meant to look like from St Patricks Square.

Park Residences from St Patricks Square

There are some details which look like they could be done better, like the look of the podium floors and how the building interacts with the square however in general it seems like a nice building.

With so many developments appearing once again, and probably a lot more to come in the future I thought I would set up a page on the blog to keep track of them all. You can see it at the top of the page and the first cut of the list is below however let us know if anything is missing or needs to change. There are a couple of developments that I couldn’t find the numbers for but there are there are 3,500 -4,000 dwellings on the list and I suspect there will be a few more to come yet.


City: 132 Vincent St – 62 Apartments – Tawera Group – A conversion of and old office building to apartments

Under Construction

City: Sugartree Stage 1 – 148 apartments – Lily Nelson Ltd – A series of apartment buildings being developed around Cook and Nelson St. Completion late 2014

Grafton: 8 Nugent St – 56 apartments – Neil Properties Ltd – Part of a mixed development including office and retail space.

Parnell: 28 Balfour Rd – 30 apartments – Not a lot of details but appears to be aimed at high end of the market.

Grey Lynn: The Isaac – 55 apartments – Ockham Investments – A lower rise development (four stories) that is already well under construction.

Herne Bay – Vert Apartments – 14 apartments – Location Group – Low rise apartments in Herne Bay

New Lynn: Merchant Quarter Condominiums – 109 apartments – Tasman Cook – 10 levels of apartments above a new car parking building and medical clinic development right next to the train station.

Manukau: M Central – unknown – The conversion of an existing office building (ex IRD) to apartments and retail.


City: Sugartree Stage 2 & 3 – 220 & 195 apartments – Lily Nelson Ltd – A series of apartment buildings being developed around Cook and Nelson St. Proposed completion late 2015 & 2016

City: Queens Residences – 272 apartments – Conrad Properties – A couple of towers on Airdale St.

City: Park Residences – 225 apartments – Conrad Properties – 30 storey tower on the corner of Albert and Swanson St

City: Club Life Victoria – unknown – Fresh Reality – An apartment development on the western edge of the CBD aimed solely at baby boomers.

City: Soto – 80 apartments – 18 Storey apartment building in Liverpool St.

City Fringe: Urba Residences – 143 apartments – Conrad Properties – Apartment building replacing an old low rise office building

City Fringe: Hopetown Residences – 79 apartments – Tawera Group – A conversion of and old office building to apartments

City Fringe: The Saint – 20 apartments – Fresh Reality – A great looking low rise development in Newton.

Ponsonby: Shoji – 12 apartments – Fresh Reality – Apartments as part of the Vinegar Lane development

Newmarket: 88 Broadway – 165 apartments – Equinox Group – An apartment development above the Newmarket railway junction.

Grey Lynn – The Square – 83 apartments – On the Gt North Rd ridgeline, not many details available at this stage.

Hobsonville Point: Brickworks – 60 apartments – Tasman Cook – Low rise apartments with retail on the ground floor.

Browns Bay: Norfolk Apartments – 42 apartments – Tasman Cook – Low rise apartments with retail on the ground floor.

Orakei: Orakei Village – 300 apartments and 100 town houses – Equinox Group – A series of apartments, town houses and retail on Orakei point above the rail station.

Takapuna: Merge – 90 apartments – Location Group – Mixed use development with a ton of carparking that the council will operate.

Rosedale: Apollo Square – 154 apartments – Mixed development on the North Shore

Albany: Tenor – 41 apartments – Mixed use development, not a lot of details

Orewa: Ocean Point – 28 apartments- Low rise apartments.

Whangaparaoa: The Link – 44 apartments – Mixed use development but not a huge amount of details.

Bayswater: Marina Development – 125 town houses – Housing being developed on “wasted land” at the Bayswater marina. Currently used for car parking.

Greenlane: Alexandra Park – 150 apartments – Trotting club to develop some of its land into low rise apartment buildings.

Mt Wellington: Springpark – 420 apartments/townhouses – Brownfield development turning old plant nursery into low rise town houses and apartments

Share this


  1. Hmm, what makes this a nice building, I wonder? Looks like same-old, same-old in my eyes. It will also likely perform poorly, acoustically and thermally, with all the concrete and glass. I am not convinced we need high-riser for higher density to begin with, but if we are going to comment on them: maybe we should come up with what differentiates a good high-rise residential development from a not so good? Any examples of good high-rise residential buildings in Auckland? Good as in: pleasant to live in, well integrated into the urban fabric? With high-rise being defined as over 6 stories. Can’t think of any – maybe Metropolis is a contender for integration with the urban fabric, but I haven’t lived in it or know anyone who has. I would not want to live in most others, even rent-free. I have no trouble with apartment living in general (I live on the third floor), but Park Residences does not look the slightest bit tempting.

    1. It’s a bit hard to criticise acoustic’s and thermal effects of a building by the architectural drawings. Insulation and window glazing play a vital role. Double glazing is usually all you need with an apartment building but if the developers are keen they could stump up enough cash for triple glazing of windows (quite expensive). Insulation is also a big question, you can get thermal insulated concrete or have a insulation void between the internal cladding and concrete walls. There are many options depending on the construction of the building. Stanford Residence is a nice apartment block from the inside, and not a bad building to look at. Some would argue that it also fits into the Urban fabric that surrounds it, however this is more or less, cars cars and cars (not the fault of the developer). I quite like the Brooklyn apartments from the outside, never been in. Darlinghurst and Dilworth buildings are pretty cool from the outside too. I hear Dunningham house isn’t too bad. Eliot Street apartments and Hampton court flats don’t look too bad. There’s the Heritage Tower, again not surrounded by the prettiest area, e.g in-between Hobson and Nelson city highways! Probably one of the most impressive is the Metropolis as you mentioned. Precint isn’t too bad for a modern building. St James is a pretty cool building at 6 stories just meeting you criteria.

      1. Yip, Stanford is one of the few apartments I would consider buying.
        but i can’t be bothered with the risk of body corporates.

        Apartments can be good for rental returns, but their capital price can disappear pretty quickly, as happened in the GFC, and when a lot of volume comes on in a short space of time, like now.

      2. As a building physicist, I am happy to make educated guesses about the thermal and acoustic performance of a building from looking at the drawings. With the amount of glazing, it is very unlikely to get good results for both, even in the unlikely event that triple glazing is used. It is rather more likely that the -compared to opaque structures – poor U-value and high solar gain results in an indoor environment that is unnecessarily cold during winter and hot during summer, and empirically, that was proven to be true even in award winning buildings by greats like Foster of Arup. Unshaded glass is a recipe for high energy demand to get interiors conditioned. While glass-palaces of the before-mentioned designers are generally admired from the outside – go ask someone who lives/works in them. The most striking response a friend, who surveyed some award winning towers got, was: “We are suffering here for architecture.” The measured energy consumption for conditioning only (no appliances) was furthermore on par with post-war buildings without any insulation. For a good view. you do not need a fully glazed facade. Fully glazed facades are an architectural folly. You see less and less of them being build in Europe. Like everything else, it will take a few more decades for it to transpire here. A good tower offers visual and acoustic privacy. Concrete (=mass) alone is typically not suited for good acoustic results – but it is indeed hard to tell whether any additional measures are being taken by looking at the drawings. The constructions seems however run-of-the-mill and not well thought through otherwise. This makes me doubt that they spend a lot of time on optimising acoustics.
        The buildings you consider good otherwise – I generally agree. Much better proportioned facades,

        1. I’m not so confident, it will entirely depend on what side of the market they are aiming for, and the budget they have set. Higher end residential apartments are becoming increasingly popular, and many of the disadvantages of open design has been overcome with product development. The advantage of having big glassed area’s, particularly in north facing units, is controlling the amount of UV light emitted in the room. Internal furnishing, such as blinds and shade curtains can be adjusted to allow a certain amount of light in turn adjusting the temperature of the room. In turn you are gaining more control over your environment. Not to mention creating the illusion of a bigger apartment. Window glazing technologies and concrete material properties have come along way in the last 10 – 20years, although I do agree it is possible to get better insulation with more traditional building design. In the end I believe there are ways of minimising the disadvantages of the different design forms. As you can see from the properties I mentioned above, I’m more a fan of the traditional brick style traditional buildings, however this is from a appearance preference rather than internal performance.

          If they are hitting the mid-lower end of the market, they will be taking short cuts either-way they go.

          The biggest problem of bigger windows comes down to bracing, which then becomes my problem as a Engineer. However I might be a bit biased as it also make it more interesting and fun to design.

      1. maybe we can hope in a bit of socialism coming if labour wins next year and they in some way ban foreign speculation? I can’t see how it benefits New Zealand that 545$ of my wages are going every week to a dude sipping cocktails in Gold Coast.

      2. I don’t think its possible for so called speculators to push up rents, unless you are suggesting that they are being bought and held empty for long periods of time. In Canberra, where I now live, a boom in apartment construction that has been fuelled by investors has really started to push rents down. Two years ago when I moved here people were paying through the nose, even offering rents over the asking price to land an apartment. Now the situation is quite different, its a renters market now and rents are dropping. I just negotiated a drop in my lease and rents have fallen even further since then. This has nothing to do with recent election either – prices have been falling for more than 6 months – instead it has everything to do with the huge quantity of apartments that have entered the market over the past 2 years and that couldn’t have happened without investors putting their money on the line to construct the new dwellings.

        1. That’s probably due to no one wanting to live in Canberra more than anything. I’ve never been to such a dull lifeless city with terrible weather. Sydney on the other hand is red hot property-wise at the moment, although probably overhyped admittedly

          1. A very inaccurate comment, up until about a year ago it was more expensive to rent in Canberra than even Sydney, its still more expensive than Melbourne, Brisbane or adelaide. People have to live here even if they don’t want to. During this period of falling rents Canberra actually experienced population growth. At a growth rate of 2.3% in 2012 the ACT was the second fastest growing state/territory second only to WA. Clearly it is not right to say that Canberra rents dropped because nobody wanted to live here, if that were the case they wouldn’t have been so high in the first place.

        2. Demand for apartments in Auckland outstrips supply, so you can more or less charge whatever you want and still find someone who’ll move in.

      3. bbc, how on earth is an i ncrease in apartment supply going to drive up prices? Please explain the entire mechanism step by step as it contradicts a fundamental law of economics.

  2. I”m interested in when the council starts to take the population of the inner-city seriously and starts rebuilding roads for pedestrians, one expensive shared space a year isn’t getting us anywhere fast. Where’s the programme to remove a slip-turn each month, to install buildouts on intersections each month, to install zebra crossings on all these inner-city roads where at present there is no pedestrian facility at all??

  3. I was speaking to someone in Albany village who said that many of the car dealerships would soon be making way for apartments.

  4. I went and had a look at the Park presentations today as it is just around the corner from me and I noticed the guy in the tux yesterday morning. They are being developed as executive apartments, the $500-800 range. Fairly expensive for the average kiwi punter. The ground floor will be retail which you can also buy.

    I am pleased to see there are better quality apartments being built, if rather pricey. The outside appearance doesn’t do much for me. It looks like a graduate of our 70’s office building design.

    Most of the apartments with the best view went yesterday (saturday), and I think I saw the saw name on the purchase sheet for a number of properties, indicating investors/speculators. It’s cheap funding being sourced from overseas that’s doing the buying Mr Wheeler.

    It’s going to be close to the height of the anz tower across the road which will be impressive – 29 levels. (I’m having doubts it is as tall although it’s well above the Stamford residences – these are luxury and $800 plus).

    1. Executive apartments?? Maybe by Conrad property standards (the developer) but these are small.

      60sqm + deck 2 bedrooms are as big as they get and that is right up to ‘penthouse’ level as well.

      I would say young working professional.

      However, in true Conrad fashion, a lot of them have small ‘studies’ which will end up being single bed slum apartments.

      Glazing is double, or single if they can met a certain standard.

      If you want executive, go Stamford or Quay west.

    1. There is one nice, if plain, building that I’m not happy to see demolished, and a couple of clunkers. This site has been earmarked for redevelopment for a long time, at least ten years ago a large development was proposed then mothballed.

    2. I remember when the Angus Steak house used to be in the ground floor of the corner building – where do all the stag party dinners go to now? A real shame to see it go – the building not the steak house.

  5. One silver lining about the amount of car parking at Merge is that is will make it far easier to justify getting rid of some of the other space-wasting car parks in Takapuna, particularly those along the Strand. The big central car park could be put to far better use as well.

  6. I’m most excited about that Orakei development over the station. It will improve the area tremendously and having a covered rail station is another bonus

  7. I don´t mind apparments being built in the city. However, please incorporate the older buildings in the developments to try to retain, what is left, of older Auckland. We went through an insane period in the late 1980´s which ruined large chunks of our city.

  8. Remember folks, if medium density is rejected in the existing suburbs of Auckland, and mostly it has been by Councillors, then the only way the growing market of people who do not want to live half way to Hamilton or Whangarei can be met is with towers in the city.

    Don’t want towers, don’t want low rise apartments in centres? Something’s going to have to give. Interesting moment for Auckland. I see more change coming than some expect.

    1. It’s possible to get density without building extremely tall apartment blocks. Look at some European cities which are very dense but relatively flat. I’m not against building up, but density can be achieved with the likes of terrace housing and the like too. Some parts of Paris rival Hong Kong but without the skyscrapers

      1. Of course, but in much of the UP consultation, even low rise (3 to 4 story medium – high density) was ruled out due to objections. If we are unable to build these forms then the requirement for high rise is going to be that much greater. Auckland residents, be careful what you wish for because it might bite you in the butt.

  9. That is just not true! There’s plenty of space in the inner city, occupied by cars. From my apartment, I am looking at a vast expanse of parking spaces. Then there are numerous completely obese roads. Overseas cities with densities far outstripping anything we will ever see in Auckland do not require towers to provide this. Towers require large side-setbacks – typically, you can get higher densities with about 5 stories and no setbacks. The equation no towers=sprawl is just plain wrong. We do not need towers – we need better land utilisation. I am not strictly against towers – but most failed miserably, here and overseas. Until we know exactly what makes a good residential tower, we should not build any, as there is no need for them.

    1. You have missed the point. It is not that no towers = sprawl, but no towers + no medium density permitted in city suburbs = sprawl or homelessness.

      “Until we know exactly what makes a good residential tower, we should not build any, as there is no need for them.”

      It would seem there is a need for them because we are not allowing much to be built anywhere other than the CBD.

      1. Sorry -you missed my point: there’s plenty of space for residential development in the CBD that is currently misappropriated. As for the suburbs: the objection to towers was what thwarted medium density. If council had suggested better land use rather than an arbitrary number of storeys – without any modelling of alternatives for obtaining the same or higher densities – we may not be in the pickle we are in. Everyone loves Paris, don’t they? Just again voted as the number one destination in the world. 5 storey buildings, not side-setbacks, great cycling and walking – this should have been the vision. Instead, council proposed towers. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would find some deliberation in this, as the outcome was clear.

        1. When did Council ever propose towers in suburban areas? That was just a myth spread by the Herald and dishonest Councillors such as Quax and Brewer. Towers were never proposed beyond the few metropolitan centres and the CBD, most of them places where it was already possible to build high rise.

          I would also prefer more 5 storey buildings as you would find in Paris, but given that intensification has been almost entirely restricted to the CBD, we can not make up for this by building a few low rise buildings on ‘misappropriated’ CBD land, even if it were possible to build in the road reserve as you seem to be suggesting.

        2. That is almost exactly what was proposed in the town centre zones and they all got gutted by people like yourself who didn’t even bother to read the plans Kara.

          1. Well – you say: metropolitan centres – I say: suburbs. I do not believe we have a metropolitan centre in Auckland outside of the CBD. And again: I did not see any modelling to suggest towers are the best way of providing higher density . So: why were they proposed in quite a few areas, actually (I consider everything >6 storeys as a tower)? Because developers told council that with lower heights their margins would decrease. This has nothing to do with the best form for the highest density in e.g. Milford – which I certainly don’t consider a metropolitan centre. I maintain that we have plenty of space for increasing the density well beyond even the highest population projections without any need for sprawl or more than 5 storeys. Reduce the space that cars are taking up, get rid of minimum plot sizes and side-setback, and you get a compact, liveable city. Towers get you none of this. Not the high densities – as they require large side-setbacks to work, not the contact to the public spaces that makes living in the city interesting, not the outcomes for community. I am not the slightest bit worried about the reduced heights in the new Plan, I worry about minimum plot sizes, side set-backs and car infrastructure. Heights are a red herring and a developer’s profit margin. Higher density is not achieved with higher buildings.

          2. I didn’t say Milford was proposed as a metropolitan zone. What I did say was: 8 storeys were proposed for Milford, which I consider a tower, and not beneficial for higher densities. Please enlighten where alternatives for achieving higher densities were modelled. All I have seen is the equation: higher building = higher density, which is simply not very well thought through. Zurich for example did do this modelling and concluded that higher densities are better achieved with moderate heights. And yes: they did model towers, but rejected them because of a lack of achievable density. Again: in light of very densely populated cities without towers, I find this a very plausible argument.

          3. So you’re entirely happy that instead of 3 or 4 stories in much of suburban Auckland. we appear set for 2? St Helliers, Milford and others already have towers of varying heights. They appear to be very popular from what I have seen. You don’t seem to like them – fine – but don’t tell other people how to live. The high rise towers are only planned for metro areas. ie – large town centres where high density, and retail have to mix. Even European cities like Amsterdam have these areas and mix it with vast areas of 3 and 4 story development.

            The 8 story limit for Milford was only mooted for right over the mall (from memory) and the rest of the town centre was lower. Outside of the town centre was zoned for MHU with an 11m height limit. Dwellings also needed to meet height to boundary restrictions. Very much a reasonable scenario. Stop scaremongering.

          4. If you consider 8 stories a tower then you are at odds with the entire rest of the world.

            In the unitary plan almost all of the density provisions are either 2-3 story terraced houses or 4-6 storey apartments, aka exactly what you think should be done, so why are you so incredibly angered by the plan? There were 10 centres where height limits were greater than 8 storeys, and from memory, only 8 more were zoned for 8 stories, though I believe the motivation in these centres was to have employment density rather than residential density.

          5. A key point to remember is that the UP does not force any development but allows developers to build what the market may want or need. Why haven’t we been building 2 brm ‘sausage flats’ for the past 40 or so years? It’s not because people didn’t want to live in them but because people who didn’t live in them viewed them as undesirable. Once again, one group of people placing their standards on another, without pausing to think why. The key thing is that those flats were cheap. Cheap to build, cheap to rent, cheap to buy and afforded a reasonable density in an expanding city.

          6. Sailor Boy: I am angered that the density discussion was narrowed down to building heights, as this is nonsense. Yes: we need significantly higher density in Auckland. Are we getting it by proposing to build higher. No. We are a) getting a predictable beating, b) there is nothing to substantiate the claim that building higher than 5 storeys equals higher density. As to being at odds with “the rest of the world” by labelling a 32.5 m high building a tower: would you care to substantiate this? As for reading the plan: 32.5m (>8 storeys) were proposed for 13 areas, with 7 more areas significantly exceeding this. I agree that the areas in question are not large – so even more so: why is it so important to insist on the necessity to build that high – without any proper foundation that this will in fact create higher densities for the whole area? What it predictably does is creating resistance, which is then equated with resistance to higher density. What we need instead is a vision for a denser city that creates some buy-in. Yes, there are some towers in Paris – predominantly offices, though, and notorious for the poor urban environment they created. I am not saying that towers necessarily create poor urban environments – I am saying: looking at examples the world over, chances are high they will. If a necessity is proven, I would not object to them. Until then, I do.

          7. Kara, I suggest you head out to Manukau, have a wander around, and see what the apartments have done for the place. Just a few years ago the number of people walking around there would have been unthinkable and this will only get better in the next few years with more multi story apartments being built. It did not have the space for low rise terrace housing. Neither do other town centres. The only way to retrofit them is via towers to varying heights. Cast the planning ideaoligies aside. Westgate, on the other hand, will be a new build but I can already envisage that it will have insufficient residential / mixed density to be a true town centre as planned. Time will tell.

          8. Bryce: do you mean the area around the Westfield shopping centre? I know this quite well, and do not consider it an urban design success story, although I have to say it has improved somewhat since I used to work there. I do not favour low-rise terraces, by the way. I am simply not convinced that buildings > 6 storeys provide higher density when considered in context. Seoul – lots of residential high-riser, population density: 17,000 per km2; Paris – very few residential high-risers, population density: 21,000/km2. Again: if there is comparative modelling to prove that high-riser are the only option for high density in Auckland, I change my mind, Adding up floor space is not modelling! There are many ways of achieving high density. I do believe that it is better achieved through medium-rise apartments build to perimeter block configuration than with high-rise buildings, and with far better urban design outcomes for the former. If folks here understand that density has little to do with building heights, and we agree that far more density is required: why is everyone insisting that the only way to get there is by building > 6 storeys? There are difficulties associated with high-rise buildings Please note that in the article it is also made clear that – contrary to what Sailor-Boy claimed- there is no universally accepted definition of high-rise buildings. And while I do not consider proof by Google image search valid: If you only enter “building”, pretty much the same pictures come up. It’s not the if or why density we are debating – it’s the how. I believe there is more than one way, and I prefer the way that enables a linear, accessible urban form, which has been rather successful for centuries all over Europe. I also believe that this vision would get far higher buy-in for what really matters: higher density.

          9. @Kara, if you are angry at the argument being reduced to building heights then this blog is the choir, you can stop preaching.

            This should prove my point regarding towers.

            Ok, so we have the 10 metropolitan centres, and 9 with 8 stories plus Pakuranga, I was out by a total of 2 town centres. What is the issue again with allowing midrise developments in these very few select centres? We will probably end up with the 6 storey terrace types that you want in these areas anyway so what is the problem?

            You just seem to be repeating several things that are individually true in a convoluted order and trying to claim that it substantiates your argument without the middle steps… From memory you were the same on the shapeauckland website.

        3. It does not seem like you are familiar with the content of the Unitary Plan. Buildings over 6 storeys were permitted in very few areas. To take the Isthmus as an example the March draft only allowed 8 storeys in the centres of Glen Innes, Panmure, Royal Oak, and 3 kings, while high rise was only permitted in New market and the CBD.

          The proposed UP only allows 8 storeys in Newmarket, and Glen Innes and high rise is restricted to the CBD as far as the Isthmus goes.

          Developer’s profit margins are not something to be dismissed, because if the margins aren’t there then development won’t happen and we won’t get the housing supply we need.

          It is also not true to say that the same density can be achieved with a 5 storey building as can be achieved with high rise. A 30 storey building has six times the floor space of a five storey building with the same footprint. So for your claim to be true, 5/6ths (or about 85 %) of the building site would need to be given over to yards and setbacks for the density of the high rise to be reduced to that of the 5 storey building.

          I would also prefer to intensify Auckland through medium intensity development in existing suburbs rather than high rise, but the more we limit the extent of areas that can be intensified the higher we will need to build in the few areas that permit height.

          1. Well – modelling cannot be done on the example of a single building. How many 30 storey buildings can you put on a narrow road, you reckon? Mount Street isn’t even 30 storeys, but already quite claustrophobic. I’d rather want a city that works. We know some cities work well. Why do we not emulate these, rather than trying to emulate the failed experiments of 1970 town planning? As for the suburbs: again and again – once we used up the potential of going sideways – within the confines of the urban boundaries – I am happy to consider going beyond 5 storeys. We are not nearly there, yet. In my immediate vicinity, very close to the Harbour, there are square kilometres of underused land available. One third of even the CBD is car space. A perfectly nice, large four storey building next to ours is used for storage – crazy.

          2. “We know some cities work well. Why do we not emulate these, rather than trying to emulate the failed experiments of 1970 town planning?”

            That is almost exactly what the draft Unitary Plan proposed. moderate intensification, largely through 4-6 storey apartments in suburban centres and around transport nodes, with terraced housing along corridors.

  10. There is also a luxury apartment development happening on King Edward Parade, Devonport. It is next to and also incorporates the Masonic Hotel. That is all the info I have at this stage but it may be the last bit of development you will see on the peninsula now the NIMBYs have killed any chnace at progress.

    I noticed on Saturday too that there is a very nice 4 storey apartment block at 18 King Edward Parade, almost opposite the yacht club. It looks really good (if a bit ’80s) and it look slike it is mostly occupied by older people. Of course, the NIMBYs have made sure nothing like that can be built again, just in case there was any affordable housing in the area for young families.

    1. yes on of the irony’s is that in beach locations many of the apartments are often taken up by the same age group as those most opposing them. I have a friend who was living in the Nautilus building in Orewa and when visiting them you notice that the building is almost exclusively occupied by retired people who want to be close to the town centre and beach.

  11. There are a couple more developments in the city, fiore stage 2 on Hobson St an a 15 level
    apartment block on Rutland Sy beside the Aucklander apartments

  12. So the three beautiful buidings on swanson street are being demolished for this piece of S**T , studios at 35m2 more crappy student accommodation “My god what a disgrace” Effing Len Brown and his council allow this!!!!

Leave a Reply