I like my house.
My house consists of a 50sqm, one-bedroom apartment located in the “Brooklyn Building” on Emily Place in Auckland’s city centre. The Brooklyn Building is almost 100 years old and I understand it was designed by an American architect who originated from Chicago. My building has no balconies and no car-parks. Shock, horror, destined for squalor?
Maybe.
What a terrible investment, you might think? Well, in the 8 years since I’ve owned my house the value has approximately doubled and it currently rents for more than if I sold up and put the money in the bank. The economic side of me is at a happy equilibrium.
And, after 12 months of renovations (and a fair whack of dosh) my house now looks like this. The aesthetic side of me is pleased.
“Kiwis” don’t like apartments, you might opine. Well, my house was recently listed to rent on TradeMe and in 2 weeks it had been viewed by 2,000 people. Some might say all of these people were Chinese and we should restrict immigration, but TradeMe doesn’t tell me surnames so the issue is unsubstantiated at this point.
My house was ultimately rented to a doctor of 30-ish years who recently emigrated to New Zealand from the U.K. He arrived in NZ with a backpack and a guitar. Despite his relaxed nature, he works night shifts at Auckland City Hospital where he cares for sick children. I think my tenant deserves a house. He seems to like having a house that is warm and dry all year round, and which is 10 minutes walk to his work (if he has to work at Middlemore he’ll use the train). He doesn’t have a car, has no need for parking, and enjoys cycling/walking.
I don’t understand why some people try to stop intensification in Auckland.
Why do people think it’s beneficial to prevent levels of intensification which were perfectly normal in Auckland 100 years ago, when my building (and others nearby) were developed? Levels of intensification which are perfectly normal in cities overseas, like Sydney?
Why do politicians like Denise Krum feel it’s appropriate to describe the draft Unitary Plan as “perverse” and intensification as something which will “break-up and disperse communities”?
Why does Denise and others think it’s acceptable to imply, essentially, that people like me (and my tenants) are socio-economic pathogens who, by inhabiting houses like that shown above, will bring a wave of plague and pestilence to the communities in which we live?
Am I being a tad hyperbolic? Perhaps. Although it’s worth remembering that NZ’s Finance Minister recently used the word “ebola” to describe the strength of views held by people who oppose intensification. While restricting intensification may not be fatal biologically, everything I’ve read suggests it’s fatal to urban socio-economic performance. I don’t think I’m guilty of hubris to say that people like me bring skills, ideas, and money into a city. And maybe some slightly strange clothes and habits. Like coffee habits. Every morning I would stumble 200m to Espresso Workshop down by Britomart to get an excellent coffee served to me by people like me. Only younger and better dressed. Thank you Espresso Workshop.
I’d like to think that if opponents of intensification knew me and my tenants, then they might stop trying to prevent houses like mine from being built. They might even start to accept that it would be a good idea to let people like me to live in the types of houses that *we* prefer. Rather than force us to live in houses that *they* prefer. Houses like the ones which they live in, which have balconies, car-parks, and all manner of expensive bells and whistles.
I hope that by the time I return to Auckland the debate on intensification will have progressed. To be perfectly honest here’s what the debate looks like right now: A bunch of relatively old, wealthy, and scared people have successfully pressured Auckland Council into implementing restrictions on the development of houses designed to accommodate people who have different preferences. What the debate looks like is the opponents of intensification trying to decide how other people should live, with no evidence supporting their positions.
Some might suggest this is “modus operandi” for Auckland, and New Zealand. That we have for many decades allowed the short-term preferences of select suburbs to steamroll the long-term needs of the city. If true, then this might be one explanation for why NZ has developed a systematic “demographic deficit“. As the researchers as the excellent NIDEA (University of Waikato) commented recently (emphasis added):
As elsewhere, New Zealand’s population is ageing. As elsewhere, this ageing has two main drivers: increasing longevity, and declining birth rates, both outcomes of the Demographic Transition. In New Zealand’s case, however, the population is also ageing ‘prematurely’ from another cause, the legacy of net migration loss at young adult ages (typically 20-24 years) which New Zealand experiences in most years, and at 15-19 and 25-29 years in many other years as well. The loss, compounded by the falling birth rates at the time each cohort was born, has created a deep bite in today’s age structure across ages 25-39 years. This bite is not only driving up the median age faster than would otherwise be the case, given that New Zealand has the highest birth rate in the developed world, but has enormous implications for the country as it faces the retirement of its baby boomer generation.
I’m soon moving overseas, where excessive rents from my apartment in Auckland will help fund my lifestyle. Ironic? Yes. Sad? A bit. Unusual? Apparently not.
I can’t help shake the nagging feeling that New Zealand’s most valuable export is not dairy or tourism, but young people. Problem is we don’t get paid for exporting young people. In fact, we invest in them – only for them to live, love, and pay taxes somewhere else. Some come back of course, but what of those who don’t? I know of many people my age who fall into the latter category – indeed I may end up being one. Sorry Mum.
Notwithstanding all this I do like my house, and I actually quite like Auckland. If Auckland is able to move beyond the naysayers and allow intensification in a big way, then in a few years it might be enough to bring me home. If it doesn’t, well in the words of the His Royal Highness, the Prince of Bel Air, “smell ya’ later”.
P.s. Love you Mum.
Processing...
The reason why people have a negative attitude about apartments is because the apartments built in the last decade is very poor quality.
Many of the 1990-2000s apartment are either leaky, poor sound insulation, damp, little sun light, expensive body corp, poorly managed, looks like a jail cell, leasehold, or the all of the above.
People who bought leaky leasehold lose a lot of money.
Because the quality of those apartment are so bad, they have a very bad reputation.
Also public schooling for young children is also lacking, many young families who has kid will tend to move out to suburb for better schools and space for their kids.
Ironically during the same period, there were plenty of “leaky” or cookie-cutter-style houses also built, but this doesn’t seem to have put people off house-buying. In both cases, it just means that the buyers (hopefully) pay a bit more attention to these details before signing on the dotted line.
P.S: All the best in Europe, Stuart! There’s certainly a lot to like over there…
Definitely – the only bad part is that it is so hard to come back!!
I moved here FROM (an urban part of) Europe, and I am never going to go back.
Of course I am also working to make (parts of) Auckland more LIKE Europe, so you can say that I do miss some elements of Europe.
Which has (thankfully relatively rarely) led to others to tell me I should buzz back off if I didn’t like it here. Fact is I bloody do. Auckland is awesome, and it’s going to get even better.
Many NZers really bristle at anything that sounds like criticism of the country. It’s one reason it’s so far behind what has become best practice in urban development and design. You know what I say to them….
Keep pushing the envelope, Max. It’s what we are all here for.
Nice looking apartment.
We own an apartment in ‘The Met’/SoHo building, that was converted in the late 1990’s/2000 period as a (partial) apartment conversion from an old department store building.
Smaller than the Brooklyn apartment, (no bedroom, just a loft+ladder), no balcony, no car park. But high stud, and located between Queen and High street off a car-free alley, and relatively cheap at under $300/week rent (for now).
We rent it out, with tenants tending to be people working in town who stay for a year or so. Typically when we advertise on TradeMe, we get over 1000 views within a few days, and multiple people lined up wanting to rent.
So yeah, the kind of home that people like the PM think people don’t want. But the overwhelming demand we get for it, provides very clear evidence that people want/need this kind of option for living. Not for everybody obviously (no pets, and the ladder means you have to be somewhat physically able), but just perfect for others.
Makes me sad that restrictive building practises means that apartments like the Met/Soho or Brooklyn, simply cannot be built right now, despite the obvious demand and calls for affordable housing.
Why no pets? Is that necessary? I think it’s reasonable to say the common no pets policy is part of the problem with renting in NZ. A dog is different from a fish; a small dog is different from a big dog etc. Are your stipulations part of the problem?
Good move Stu, we left Auckland in April 2014 for Melbourne, it was the best move we have ever made. We have been car-free for 16 months and we have never required a car. Everything is cheaper here – free trams in the CBD, groceries from chains like Aldis, electricity, water, haircuts, awesome choice for clothes shopping … I can go on and on. Then there’s the fact that Melburnians adore their city and the positivity is contagious – I feel so alive here. It is also extremely adventurous and progressive. I felt as if I was trapped in an old age home when I lived in Auckland, the geriatric gestapo is really killing the city’s spirit and my advice is – if you are young or young at heart and want to experience all the things that a great city like Melbourne can offer – get out of Auckland. Good luck Stu and congratulations.
Great article
Can’t help but wonder if this is a chicken and egg type problem – not enough young professionals here to vote for the kind of things that attract young professionals.
It would be nice to have a government or council who tried to fix this exact problem even if just for economic reasons and not just votes. National doesn’t care because you are not a farmer and apparently the only way NZ can make money is by running dairy farms – or not…
I hope all the people who want to keep Auckland as boring and old fashioned as possible don’t expect any young people to pay out their pensions when they retire!
Young people don’t vote. Just 49% of 18-29 yr olds voted last year. 87% of over 60s voted.via @BernardCHickey https://twitter.com/bernardchickey/status/629406960769630208
Different folks, different strokes, suits you, probably not a family. Same as transport, different folks, different strokes. So long as we’re all happy.
Not quite that simple. Guess you skipped the bit on the demographic deficit? If everyone like me leaves, then there’s fewer people to pay your super.
ouch, not all baby boomers are anti-apartments/intensification, i’m dying to leave the family home and find a great apartment in my own suburb (Birkenhead – imagine rows of 4 -5 storey apartments set back from the pretty main street buildings across the ridge) or the city. WE’re even looking for city flat for my 83 yr old mum – way better lifestyle and makes better financial sense than those rip-off retirement village arrangements with MetLife, Ryman etc. Walk to gallery, library, arts precinct but her preference is for something near St Pats for daily mass that doesn’t require her killing herself crossing Hobson St ‘motorway’ or living with CRL construction. tips welcome!
Because of big families with lots of things. My family for instant needs a 5 bedroom house due to the amount of things we have kept. But even then I think we could do with a townhouse either 3-4 bedrooms the garage for storing things and one family car for necessary trips, all others can be done by PT as long as its cheaper to move around all 7 by PT
> New Zealand’s most valuable export is not dairy or tourism, but young people
This is the hidden cost of NZ’s anti-urbanism – you won’t live in the same country as your children and grandchildren.
Stainless steel sink bench = tenant-proof.
Smart move.
(They tend to ruin formica by using it as a chopping-board or place to put hot frying-pans on.)
You’ve got a really nice apartment. I’d love to live there
My view is that we shouldn’t stop people doing what they want for themselves, but when their actions harm/effect others, we should intervene
Let’s consider a street – Early Commuter Road. It’s a beautiful little cul de sac with 50 houses, 150 residents, and a lovely little park at the end. A small park of say 300m^2
Let’s sat that each resident generates 10 units of noise every day. So 1500 units of noise per day. Now given a normal distribution of noise, that means that between 9-11pm there is a certain amount of noise.
Now let’s say that the owner of 58 Early Commuter Road replaces her house with a 20 storey apartment block (exaggeration deliberate for effect) that houses 200 people.
Now, instead of 2m^2 of park for everyone, there’s only .9! That means a more crowded park. And what about the noise? Now there are 3500 units of noise per day! Noise between 9 and 11 has doubled.
So, intensification has now HARMED the people who lived there! Their utility has declined.
Now, it would be entirely fair if the new residents *compensated* the existing residents for the loss of utility their presence has caused.
So, intensification IS good but there needs to be compensation from property developers to existing residents for the loss of utility caused. Property rights are legal fictions; we exist in a networked system of systems and we should do as Hippocrates said: first, do no harm
Early Commuter Road used to be a farm. When it became 50 houses it really HARMED the farmers next door. Maybe Auckland should have just stayed as a bunch of farms so everyone would be happy?
I don’t think residents’ noise can be treated as cumulative like that. Many will make no noise at all that is audible outside their dwelling. Therefore upping the number of residents will not necessarily up the street-noise in proportion. Typically, noise problems are created by one or two problem-people who don’t show consideration for the community. These people need to be dealt with by other methods than disallowing intensification.
The 300m² park I can agree will become better-used, but is this such a bad thing?. Apportioning 2m² or 0.9m² per-resident is a bit meaningless unless everyone is there at the same time. Often suburban parks will be completely empty, in some cases to the point of feeling unsettling to be alone in. I suggest that it would take a lot to “congest” the average suburban park. And bear in mind that many homes in outer sprawl-land may have no park nearby at all. And often when areas intensify, a larger amount of land is intentionally assigned as reserve.
What does tend to be both cumulative and harmful are residents’ vehicle movements and it is likely that if you double the number of residents you will double the number of daily vehicle-movements which certainly will affect a quiet street. But intensification done properly – i.e. with walkable local amenities and public transport nearby – should act to reduce per-resident vehicle use
Intensification isn’t necessarily the bogey that scaremongers make it out to be.
You had to use 20 storeys as an example to get your point across? Says everything really.
How about you try 3 storeys, you know, the monstrosities that Krum rallied against. But then they make little impact and in fact add to the cul de sac. Not so good for the arguments by you or Krum though.
And yes, did you compensate the farmers? Or you just chose arbitrarily to shut the intensification gate once you arrived…
It sounds like you need to move to the country if you are worried about urban parks in Auckland getting crowded. Most suburban parks of that size in Auckland are completely empty most of the time apart from the odd person using it as a shortcut, and they feel particularly unsafe at night because of it. Such parks would be greatly improved by a little more use.
One of Auckland 2040’s submitters spoke against intensification in front of the Hearings Panel saying that it would bring undesirables like “transients” into their neighbourhood. Agh.
We must protect our suburbs from being polluted with visitors. We need to manage this pollution like you would industrial pollution. The Soviets had it right with their internal passports.
Politicians like Denise Krum feel that way because either, 1, they have no idea what is happening in Auckland because they have a very narrow image of NZ and can’t conceive that people from all over the world want to live in Auckland, or 2, they don’t want it to happen.
The most important thing you said about your house is that you like it. If “the market” provided an assortment of styles so that everyone could choose what they liked, part of the housing “problem” would be solved, but “the market” in this case – housing in general – means what developers build, not what people want. The recent study by council and someone else that tried to gauge what kind of house people wanted was woefully inadequate in its analysis. There are way more kinds of house types than they looked at. I was really disappointed when I read it.
Politicians like Denise Krum opinions are irrelevant to their political positions. They base their position on what will most likely get them into power.
PS: Stu, your flat is awesome.
What’s the first rule of any politician – to get back into power at the next election. So it stands to reason that any politician that doesn’t put their constituents views forward would soon find themselves looking for another job after the following election. It’s called democracy, although I have heard it called dictatorship by the majority.
No. Politicians often get voted back in because of a lack of suitable candidates standing against them. If no one better is standing then your choices tend to be a) Vote again for the person you no longer want, or b) don’t vote. Either way, the cretin gets back in.
Why does Denise and others think it’s acceptable to imply, essentially, that people like me (and my tenants) are socio-economic pathogens who, by inhabiting houses like that shown above, will bring a wave of plague and pestilence to the communities in which we live?
Same reason Penny Hulse thinks its acceptable to label anyone who wants to intensify 5 lifestyle blocks into 70 houses as a polluting destroyer of nature.
It wins them votes from the fearful masses who will be swayed to a political side.
In defense of Denise Krum, that pamphlet quotes “a resident” & not her own words regarding the “Perverse” description of the Unitary Plan. I live in her electorate and actually voted for her because at the time I agreed with what I saw her main push was to “SLOW” down the whole thing. I thought too much change too quicker will potentially pull the city apart. Intensifying too quickly without transport and other infrastructure keeping & speed of cultural shift that is too quick up is what I had in mind. Non immigrant Kiwi’s (particularly the older ones) by and large I think do like the quarter acre section mentality…but this is changing, and I do think we need intensification and lot of what the blog supports and not endless sprawl. I don’t agree with all that she says. Her main points are community engagement, slowing it down, not necessarily against it. It’s all a matter of balance in my opinion.
True, but where’s the intensification balance? Theres hardly any of it. I had to move into the city to get me some.
Cool post. We have two young kids and have looked into apartments as a way of getting closer to the city for the lifestyle that we enjoy, in addition to cutting down on our 15 hr weekly commute. We have a reasonable amount of equity in our home in Glen Eden (55%) but have found a number of barriers for this move. 1) All of the apartments that I’ve looked at have conflicts within the body corps-mostly between the divergent views held by owner-occupiers and landlords, in many cases lawyers are involved and mandatory charges have been imposed on owners by the body corps to cover legal issues . 2) Body corp fees are really high, and more so in apartments that are older/with more character. 3) It is hard to actually find 3 bed apartments in AK that wouldn’t be a big setback for us financially. Most 3 freehold 3 beds in interesting areas are at least $750k plus, which is huge for what you get. 4) Insurance is an issue with earthquake readiness, esp in the case of older apartments.5) Most apartments that are sub $1 mill, are actually pretty shit.
If it was the case that you could buy a reasonable apartment in AK, for a family of 3 for $600-650k (still a shit load of cash IMO) with security over body corp, insurance etc, then we’d be in, but unfortunately this is just not the case.
Body corporate fees have a bad name for some reason but are in general the reasonable running costs, both now and an allowance towards future costs such as reroofing and new lifts.
When you buy a standalone house its up to the individual owner to do this maintainace and often it isn’t properly done or accounted for. Just about any building report you get when purchasing a (used) house will have some reference to deferred maintainace and a potential figure against it, sometimes very large.
If nz moved (like other parts of the world) to having exclusive owner occupied apartments then much of the problems would be solved.
Body corps have a justifiably bad rep IMO, and in the few occasions where I’ve viewed a few years of BC minutes, this bad rep has been confirmed.
Yeah there is a ‘missing middle’ in the apartment market in AKL too. Either small and cheap on the Hobson/Nelson traffic sewers, or big and luxurious on the harbour. Hopefully this current apartment building boom will start to add more diversity to the current range. More three bedders on less prime real estate with unbundled carparks would be ideal… hopefully the UP makes this typology more viable.
Nice article. I’d just like to point out that you don’t need to flee nz to find some of the well designed higher density you’re after. Wellington city is surprisingly good – and I’ve lived London, Melbourne and Auckland. Can’t beat Europe for travel and the experience however, so enjoy!
I am currently in a suburb of greater San Francisco called Atherton. I’m staying in the street next to where Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg lives. All the houses in this area are large suburban dwellings. Often a couple of properties are bought together with the existing houses knocked down to make way for a bigger home.
Mr Zuckerberg is a young man, at 31 his amassed fortune is worth 34.8 Billion (real dollars) which is more than a billion for every year he has been on the planet. Clearly your argument that only the old want urban living and that young people move to Europe to live in small apartments is wrong.
Come to Atherton, it is a very nice part of the world where the residents all drive $100’000 Tesla cars and their maids live in bigger rooms than Stu Donavan’s house. Aspiring to an economy lifestyle while complaining that others experiencing first class are holding you back is typical of society today. Atlas shrugged 🙁
http://www.zillow.com/atherton-ca/
lol comment of the week. expecially the maids part. love it
Solid logic. Shouldn’t complain about old biased politicians preventing Aucklanders getting the housing they want because the billionaire founder of Facebook lives in a huge mansion in California. Clearly we all need huge mansions in California.
…and to all be billionaires, of course.
Sorry mate but the suburb that Mark Zuckerberg lives in is called Palo Alto. Our friends live next-door to him and can confirm that they don’t live in Atherton. Atherton is north-west of Palo Alto
So what you’re saying is that people with no budget constraint tend to buy big houses? What a novel concept!
Meanwhile, the rest of us commoners will be engaging in constrained optimisation, which in some cases mean living in a smaller home than your average billionaire.
What I am saying is it is grossly incorrect to say all young people want to live in cities. In fact when Stu gets to Europe, he will find many people, young and old, that don’t want to live in tiny apartments in the city. Whole countries in Europe have people living an urban life.
Back in Atherton, the third most expensive zip code in the USA the life is nice and quiet. You can almost hear the money grow while the Tesla’s glide silently past my friends mansion.
Local moron. Zuckerberg’s housing problems are typical of exactly one person.
Meanwhile, in LA, some attempts at dealing with housing access for the worst affected and urban renewal is being addressed by grown-ups. Note this quote, which refers to the exact problem AKL is facing with NIMBYs closing down dwelling supply growth; same problem in San Francisco is contrasted with LA’s more vigorous ‘overwriting’. Of course LA does have much more poorly developed re-purposable space:
‘San Francisco is a utopia gone wrong, while Los Angeles is a dystopia gone right’
Or perhaps; ‘going right’?
http://www.architectural-review.com/buildings/this-is-the-dirty-magical-realism-future-of-los-angeles/8686180.article?blocktitle=North-America&contentID=7844
Sadly we have Patrick attacking the person and not the points. I am simply stating that it is grossly incorrect to assume the young and talented all want to live in inner city apartments when people like Zuckerberg has chosen to live in suburbia.
The post from Patrick sounds like a political commentary from the left. Perhaps he should just write that he doesn’t like rich people being able to decide where and how they live. Intensification is not the solution, realism is.
“Intensification is not the solution, realism is.”
I don’t understand why you think “intensification” and “realism” are in opposition to each other. It seems obvious to me that enabling people to develop land more intensively is a key part of any realistic solution to housing market issues.
“What I am saying is it is grossly incorrect to say all young people want to live in cities.”
It is generally grossly incorrect to make sweeping generalisations about any demographic group. My starting assumption (and Stu’s) is that people want a variety of different things. We have traditionally regulated to _prevent_ some people from fulfilling their desires for apartments and mixed-use urban living, while subsidising or directly providing for the suburban lifestyles preferred by others. In this context, it is entirely appropriate to focus on enabling the choices that have been excluded.
‘Realism’ is people understanding that Auckland housing prices are undervalued. Look at any global city and it is clear that there is a big premium to live in the city. The solution is either very high rise or excepting that Aucklanders will have to face longer commutes to the CBD. With few developers wanting to turn Auckland central into Hong Kong it is going to be more urban sprawl and more motorways.
Of course some of you will scoff at this and think that turning every 1/4 acre section into town houses is the solution but living on top of each other is not the Kiwi lifestyle most people aspire too. If you want to live like that then move overseas. There are plenty of people in the Bronx, Tower Hamlets and Bangkok that would love to swap your Kiwi bungalow for a tiny apartment or terraced house.
Most people that emigrate to NZ do so because of our open spaces and lack of living on top of each other. I think the problem with too many readers here is they have no clue at all about life outside of Nul zulund and think that living in London, catching the tube every day is dolca vita. The reality couldn’t be further from the truth. Rich people prefer to live in leafy suburbs (like Atherton) because it is nice to not live in a rat hole. Thankfully most of NZ share the same values.
You present a false duality between hong kong high rises, or quarter acre sprawl. Look at half of Europe, high density 3, 4, 5, 6 stories high. Rich people can choose to live in a mansion in the suburbs, no one is stopping them. Do you suggest that we should stop average income people from living in places like Stus? The non rich should be confined to high rise towers or outer suburb squalor?
If kiwis don’t aspire to town houses on small sections, can you explain why the vast bulk of large sections in Auckland have been subdivided into smaller sections? If Aucklanders did not want such housing they would not buy it. But it turns out a lot of Aucklanders are willing to trade a bit of space for a more central location. If Aucklanders wanted only high rises or low density sprawl, then that is all that would sell. If the kiwi lifestyle is a quarter acre, why are the new outer suburb greenfield developments not supplying them? In fact there is strong demand for all sorts of housing options. If you don’t like this Auckland lifestyle then why don’t you move overseas… oh wait that’s right you already have.
Dan C, Peter, Patrick – I’d suggest not feeding the troll.
Trolls can be useful when they rush in where others fear to tread and voice widely held but repugnant views. In this case we’re getting the perspective of the smug hierarchicalists who refuse to acknowledge the luck and/or callousness involved in achieving their positions. They observe with a lack of empathy as the rest of us work through constraints and compromises, only getting involved to resist any rebalancing efforts that might ameliorate these challenges.
The lifestyle choices available to lottery winners and other 1%ers are hardly typical and not useful for city planning purposes. Most people are forced to seek affordable accommodation a reasonable travel time from the places they work, shop and socialise. On balance the tube is brilliant, but it’s not for anyone committed to sealing themselves off from real life grit in a hermetic suburban existence or avoiding any form of commuting exertion.
I’d live in an apartment in a second. So would my partner. But she wants at least two children and space for family – that instantly prices me out.
The reactionary right wing. Whenever social change is in the air you’ll always find the right wing complaining in the corner. Always the last one to the party.
Nice apartment, I love apartment living myself, the thought of a house in the burbs is a depressing one to me.
I have a small shady balcony that gets no sun whatsoever and although I dont use it for much at all is nice to have but logically I could do without one.
Sweet digs Stu. Would make living in Auckland bearable.
Cute apartment space.
I don’t understand the requirement for apartments to have balconies. I’d much rather have usable interior space than a token gesture balcony. So many balconies are built because they’re required to meet the minimum standard – that they’re actually useful for nothing – except perhaps having a cigarette.
Do away with ’em!
Nice complex – I lived there my last year of Uni. 1 minute walk to law school was fantastic. Lived in 2 other complexes when I started working. Now live in the ‘burbs with the family but would love to be back in an apartment. When the kids are a bit older, we will probably look at the ones overlooking the Domain, or hopefully HIghbury has graduated by then and become a fully gentrified suburb. Once the kids leave home, an apartment is definitely where we will live, provided there are nice ones at a reasonable price (not sure I could afford Wynyard).