Peter’s recent post explains why apartments, even expensive ones, make an important contribution to housing affordability.
Expensive apartments improve housing affordability by taking wealthy households out of the market for the existing housing stock, thereby freeing it up for other households on lower incomes. In this way, expansions in the supply of housing – even in the form of expensive apartments – will generally improve housing affordability for everyone (NB: Provided they result in an absolute increase in housing supply).
A corollary is that regulatory barriers to apartment developments will tend to drive up the cost of housing for everyone.
Peter also presented some high-level data to suggest that during the last decade or so Auckland has become more spatially stratified by income, with low-income households increasingly concentrated on the urban periphery. If true, then this is concerning news. It implies Auckland is creating ghettos for the rich and poor alike. Such outcomes would seem likely to reduce equality of opportunity, exacerbate inequality in wealth/income, and ultimately reduce social connection and cohesion. I think these kinds of outcomes would concern most New Zealanders.
What’s also interesting is that Auckland’s city centre bucks the trend towards increased spatial stratification based on income; in among its glitz and glamour Auckland’s city centre continues to meet the needs of a relatively high proportion of low-income households, as evident in the figure below.
It is perhaps no coincidence that the city centre has hitherto avoided the trend towards increased spatial stratification by income-levels, because it is in the city centre that the development of apartments encounters the fewest regulatory barriers. No minimum car-park requirements and higher height limits, for example.
My motivations for writing this post are similar to the issues which prompted Peter’s recent post, but I take a slightly different tack. That is, I love small apartments. As a consequence, I would like to encourage the planning profession in New Zealand to allow my preferred choice of accommodation to be brought to market.
While the list of regulatory barriers to apartment development is relatively long and sordid, my primary concern is with provisions controlling 1) the minimum size of apartments and 2) the requirement for all apartments to have balconies. My back of the envelope estimates are that these regulations collectively add between $100k – $200k to the cost of developing an apartment. That’s a 50% – 100% increase in the cost of developing apartments. Ka pow take that poor people. But I want to leave the price effects of regulation to another post …
Instead, in this post I want to push back on these regulations in a different way, by arguing that small apartments can be beautiful to those who live in them. In my experience, the aforementioned regulatory barriers to apartment development overlook that the quality of an apartment (from the occupant’s perspective) is much less a function of floor area, balconies, or car-parks and more a function of the effectiveness of the design and the quality of the materials used.
To provide an example, consider my apartment (Brooklyn Building, Emily Place) shown below.
No apartments in my building have balconies, and many are less than the minimum apartment size proscribed in the Unitary Plan.
I know what you’re thinking – shock, horror, sure-fire squalor. Not quite. Instead of sitting on a 8 sqm balcony, I prefer to go outside. My apartment has its own green space at the back, as well as a park out the front – which seem to be much more effective ways of meeting the desire of people to be outside. I also rely on the common laundry in the basement and avoid the need for a washing machine and a dryer in my apartment. I’m happy; I’ve owned my apartment for 8 years and don’t intend to sell.
The importance of design and quality when dealing with small spaces comes through more generally in the following video from IKEA, which is titled “Small spaces – Small ideas”. IKEA has an entire YouTube channel dedicated to discussing these issues. So much for “market failure”!
If you walk into an IKEA store then you are likely to find kit-set fit-outs for apartments of between 20-25 sqm. Yes you read that correctly: IKEA sells decent kit-sets for apartments of 20-25 sqm, i.e. much less than the minimum apartment size in Auckland. Are Kiwis really such clumsy elephants that we can’t navigate apartments that are entirely appropriate in Europe?
My (kiwi) friend in Amsterdam, for example, lived in an 18 sqm studio and was perfectly happy, especially with the low rent. Of course this is anecdotal evidence and further research is required, but you get the drift: If you can live in 18 sqm in Amsterdam (where you spend much more time inside), why do we need 40 sqm in Auckland? Who wins from the latter arrangement? Landlords like me of course … who loses? Tenants like him, naturally (Callan’s not actually a loser; he’s a bright Nelsonian completing his Phd in Neurobiology). Intuitively, regulatory barriers to apartment development seem likely to transfer wealth from those who rent property to those who own it. Regressive much? But again, I’m diverging from the primary point of this post.
That is, small apartments are beautiful. And that instead of presuming their occupants are unhappy, why is there so little robust research asking them how happy they are? People postulate all sorts of things about small apartments, so why doesn’t someone go ask people how happy they are and whether they’d prefer if their home was vapourised by a regulatory laser pen?
The development shown below has used shipping containers to provide compact, cost-effective student accommodation (source). Yes there’s balconies, but they’re more like 3 sqm rather than the 8 sqm currently required in the Unitary Plan (and are formed from the container doors). Again, innovative use of cost-effective and durable materials has enabled people to live at moderate densities with moderate amenity and at an affordable price. Good news.
For a slightly different take, here’s an article from the New Zealand Herald on Tiny Houses.
Do architecture/planning professionals at Auckland Council really know more about appropriate apartment design than say, IKEA? Or the people who will ultimately occupy the apartments? I mean, if we trust people to rent a house with the number of rooms that best suits their needs and budget, can we not trust them to rent an apartment that is sufficiently large to accommodate them? What exactly is the market failure that leads to too many small apartments being produced? Why do they think that small apartments are not beautiful?
A case could be made that the small apartments in Auckland that are frequently criticised as being “shoeboxes” actually made a major contribution to improving the density and vibrancy of Auckland’s city centre. Thanks very much low-income households; please now disappear!
In short, small apartments are beautiful in a social sense. They’re beautiful for two reasons: They make an essential contribution to affordable housing, while also reducing spatial stratification by income. Moreover, companies around the world, like IKEA, are increasingly helping to improve the efficiency of spaces. I realise we don’t yet have an IKEA in New Zealand, but perhaps that’s because one of their key market segments (small apartments) are difficult to build here?
Postscript: If you’re interested in an alternative (favourable) take on minimum apartment regulations then you may want to consider reading this conference paper. I consider the arguments advanced in this paper to be rather weak, but will leave that discussion for another post …
Processing...
The “shoebox/chicken coop” descriptions to small apartments are a moral panic response to different types of houses from people who aren’t the target market. One of the dumber planning rules of recent times.
The problem with Nelson/Hobson St apartments isn’t the size of the units, it’s that the buildings are so darn ugly.
dear sir I concur!
And I should say that external aesthetics and frontage to the street are things I would support managing, possibly by way of an independent urban design/architectural panel.
It is not only the externals. A real problem of apartments here is also the lack of understanding the layout of the apartment themselves. I live in a 2 bedroom 60m2 one and one room is a 3×10 meter long room and literally you are in the kitchen when you enter the apartment. These kind of simple designs do not make apartments welcoming, every piece of furniture is somehow not integrated in the living space and feels rather as an obstacle. Even newer developments (mine is from 2011) rarely have anything with corners or partial areas, hallways etc. So still a lot to learn for Kiwi architects.
would it be fair to say:
1. That’s a professional failure rather than a regulatory failure? And
2. You are still happy living there all things considered?
I also want to ask why this is such a focus for apartments? We don’t, for example, regulate against detached houses that have poorly-designed internal configurations, and there’s many of those in New Zealand. Should we not collectively as a society 1) stop relying planning regulations to solve our ills and 2) challenge our professionals to step up to the plate?
You are right, it has nothing to do with a regulatory focus, and I would not suggest to regulate that in this detail as some of the planning here does. I am coming from Austria and we have really intense regulations for buildings but the majority related to the exterior that they match their surroundings, all the internal stuff you can basically do what you want as long as you have wide enough doors, and fire exit options etc. and you fit within the environmental standards and insulation standards. So you can build inside however you like, but you need to achieve the thresholds. But things like minimum size or parking is not included there thats regulated by the demand of the buyers.
I believe most developers think still apartments are for investment (renting out) thus don’t spend too much efforts in.
Was just something that is really annoying and I believe contributes to bad reputation of apartments as I know how comfy well designed apartments can be.
agree – we have a relatively new apartment market and there’s been some teething problems. I think the regulatory kick-back is an over-reaction, through.
As you note, professionals need to do better. And also let’s not forget our rights as consumers – if you don’t like where you are living, ask your landlord to change it before you move in, or rent somewhere else.
Unfortunately, if architects and builders are unable to make a quality house/apartment, then there must be regulations in place so that the effects of their mistakes are minimised. I’m sorry to say, but a 10m x 3m room seems really weird in an apartment. Although NZ doesn’t regulate interior plans, a bad interior plan is likely to have a larger effect on apartments than a standalone house these days, especially as a lot of the newer properties are being bought just for land-banking.
Stu, you said that if there are issues with the home you are renting, you should ask the landlord to fix it, or move out. Sadly, with house prices the way they are, there would be an ever increasing demand for rental houses. As that happens, rental homes would increase in price. A booming rental market, as well as absent landlords means that it is not possible for everyone to move to a different place, or to tell the landlord to fix it up (the landlord might increase the rent by $50 per week just to cover the costs of fixing the home up). Note: all of my analysis is based on Level 3 Economics and Stu, or any other economist is likely to know the housing market better than me haha
I got told off for calling those apartments slums in the previous post but I think all will agree on ugly.
My issue is not so much that they are ugly (in the eye of the beholder etc) but the fact that all apartments are the same. The lack of diversity creates undesirable consequences, especially when you are trying to attract the lower end of the market.
I have lived in 5 different complexes in the city and all had a good mix of studio, small and large 1 and 2 bedrooms and three bedroom apartments.
Exactly, the rules seem a direct response to the poor construction, design and aesthetics of the rubbish they built quickly on Hobson and Nelson. Size and Quality are not mutually exclusive..
Agreed – quality, not quantity matters. Unfortunately, many of the small apartments built on the cheap in the 90s-00s are also poor quality living environments, with little regard to acoustic privacy, access to daylight, structural columns in front of the windows etc. Prescribing minimum apartment or balcony sizes, however, will do sod all to eliminate these short-comings. As it happens so often in NZ, a cure to a perceived problem is instigated with a) no clear identification of cause and effect, and b) no means of testing the effectiveness of the prescribed medication.
Agreed. I think many of these issues would be best resolved by regulating the external qualities of a building (i.e. aesthetics/materials), rather than its internal configuration. The latter seems to be less subject to the presence of externalities and more complex. Again, I would support establishing an independent urban design/archiectural panel for apartment buldings to check such matters. Make it attractive/easy for developers to engage with this panel so as to head-off issues before consent applications are lodged.
Just taking the example of the minimum balcony size – if you removed it, what happens to the quality of a dwelling in a complex that doesn’t have a green space out the back and/or is located right next to a park? Balconies also serve other purposes such as providing space to grow food or plants, or a (semi)-private area for clothes drying (for people like me who hate using dryers as they waste energy and can ruin clothes). If you’ve also made the apartment size smaller how can you dry a load of washing? Some lower level balconies can also help activate the street edge and improve the pedestrian environment.
There seems to be a couple of issues at play – one is a constant call for increased certainty in planning controls. This has been generally interpreted (through development controls etc.) as needing to set out minimum (and quantifiable) acceptable standards of development. Developers are free to seek modifications to the minimum controls which can be justified through various means to seek the outcomes you have set out within the post – in the case of not providing balconies, being located next to a park or the provision of a communal terrace/ garden etc. The problem is that this exposes the development to increased levels of uncertainty in decision-making as nothing in the plan specifically states this is ok. Therefore this increases risk (usually in the form of public/ limited notification of an application) and cost (incl. time) which people prefer to avoid.
I generally agree with your position within the post but it is still site and context specific and might not be appropriate in all circumstances. An alternative might be to set some different options rather than the blanket 8m2 control. A simple example of this would be: every apartment must have access to a private 8m2 balcony; or communal terrace/ garden Xm2 in size.
I dry my clothes inside my apartment by putting the clothes horse on my bed.
Basically, I think there’s too many adaptive ways to use space to be able to proscribe how small/large apartments should be.
There’s also a lot of heterogeneity in demand, which may mean that apartments which are too small to dry clothes in are OK for some people (e.g. those who live on Waiheke and work in the city and just want a small nook to sleep in from time to time when they miss the last ferry).
Basically, I think it’s an example where complexity/heterogeneity is best left to the market. Occupants are best-placed to judge whether an apartment works for them, not you or me.
ARE YOU MAAAAAD? You can’t hang clothes on your balcony in many apartments, the view of your freshly washed clothes might offend eastern suburbs commuters!
A couple of thoughts from my experience with renting an apartment in Auckland (Docks apartments on quay st)
1- Gestapo style building management: residents are treated like prison inmates, fined for the smallest infringement (like drying clothes on balcony or putting a bicycle on balcony.
2- Lack or desolation of communal spaces, I have seen better prison courtyards.
3- Terrible entrances for pedestrians, no wheelchair/pram access, no bicycle parking and this is a new (2006?) build.
4- Intrusive building wi-fi.
5- inhouse power and water companies, no free electricity market for apartment inmates.
6- fire doors to the stairs locked (!) and no choice but to use the lift at all times
and it’s a pity because the apartment itself was very good, right size and nice views of the harbor, pity it was just run as a factory for quick ROI and capital gains.
Small apartments are good as they cater usually cater for a variety of dwelling e.g. single person, a couple, or as Stu pointed out, a place to sleep if your primary home is far away from the cbd. However, I do see some potential issues with these apartments. If there is a lack of supply of apartments in general, those who want apartments would bid up the price of them. This could have some unintentional consequences e.g. overcrowding, as large, low income families are forced to purchase ‘small apartments’. The other issue is professional workmanship. The quality of the materials, and the design of houses in general these days seem pretty piss poor. These issues obviously need to be fixed before the regulations get watered down, or disappear, as NZ designers have no idea how to maximise space in an area where space is limited.
I don’t mind living in a smallish 12-15m2 apartment in Auckland when I move up for uni next year, however, even they seem relatively expensive compared to a hostel (as food, power, internet, water and laundry services are free), and I don’t want to risk ending up in a leaky apartment. Overall, we should be building more apartments and higher density housing of all shapes and sizes, so that there is enough housing supply for homes to be priced reasonably.
Hi Richard,
Thanks for commenting and yes I think we’re generally thinking along similar lines. I thought you might be interested in the following clarifications:
– In my opinion over-crowding seems more likely to result in the current situation where minimum apartment sizes are applied. This is because these regulations will increase housing costs and average apartment size, i.e. the incentives and opportunities for crowding are higher.
– The reason small apartments are currently expensive in Auckland is largely because they can no longer be built. So I wouldn’t look at the price now as an indication of what they would cost in the alternative future I am proposing. Apartments used to be much cheaper …
Go well,
Stuart.
Correction: Small apartments are good as they usually cater for a variety of dwellings e.g. single person, couples … I think I need to proofread before submitting comments.
The building standard in nz in the 00 era tend to be very low. Not only the design is poor, but the material used is also poor and many of them are leaky and expensive to maintain.
Investor who bought into those apartment lose a lot of money.
Prehaps the developer needs to legally provide a minimum 20 years structural and maintenance guarantee and the structure can last at least 50 years with easy maintenance.
Also the apartments needs to be graded by design quality from architect authorities (like hotel stars) and the grading must be included in the sales documents.
I dont know why more apartment buildings dont make more use of the rooftops for common outdoor areas. If my building had an outdoor area id not bother about having a balcony.
good point – although I think you’ll find several new apartment buildings do make use of the roof-top, e.g. Isaac developed by Ockham.
I assume a roof garden is more difficult/expensive to water proof? Plus the ugly aircon units and elevator equipment is normally put up there along with the window cleaning structure.
Heritage has a nice pool on the room of the old building and H42 has a roof garden from memory too.
Stu, I’m delighted to see that you have included a link to my paper in your article – agree that it may have weak arguments in parts, but as you would agree, it’s a complex subject. My point was, I think, that the market cannot and should not be trusted. While, undoubtably, some architects can design good, small apartments, the drive to the bottom is being pushed by greedy developers – such as those who did the proto-slum apartments in Auckland in the 90s and 00s.
Hi Guy,
Thanks for commenting, and yes I think we can agree that it’s a complex issue. The main problem I have with your paper is 1) I think it conflates multiple issues when demonizing apartments built in the 90s and 00s and 2) as a consequence, a unnecessarily broad intervention logic is used to justify blunt/simplistic regulatory intervention(s), such as minimum apartment sizes.
In terms of point #1, my understanding of the apartment market in Auckland in the 1990s and 00s is that it was shaped by a convergence of powerful forces, c.f.:
– De-regulation of the building industry (both materials, construction, and QA).
– Large influx of tertiary students, partly in response to NZ’s burgeoning education sector.
– Removal of historical restrictions on residential development and the removal of minimum parking requirements (which meant there was pent-up demand for inner-city living).
The net result is that there was a boom of low-quality apartments designed for the student market. But quality has multiple dimensions. In my opinion, the primary market failures were not with regards to the small size of the apartments – indeed older student apartments in Grafton, e.g. Huia Flats, are also small but they are of much higher-quality. Instead, the primary market failures was in the quality of the materials (especially cladding) and (more arguably) their architectural quality and urban design.
Fast forward 10 years and Central Government’s of both left and right have been progressively taking steps to re-regulate the building industry to better protect consumers. They have also reformed legislation pertaining to body corporates, to stop some of the shady practises going on there. While further changes may be warranted, in general the regulatory worm seems to have turned and we are progressively getting on the front foot with regards to market failure in apartment development. Auckland Council no doubt deserves some credit here.
But in the process, many people are conflating the above issues with the perceived issue of small apartments. Correlation is not causation, and evidence of systematic failure in one part of the apartment market doesn’t mean the entire market is failing on all fronts.
I suggest the market can be trusted with regards to things like apartment size, purely because there is little robust evidence of asymmetric/imperfect information existing between developers/owners/occupants: All parties enter into whatever buy/lease arrangements are relevant with full knowledge of the size of the apartment. It has been suggested that occupants are not aware of the health/productivity effects of small apartments, but evidence for this connection is, from what I can tell, rather tenuous (cross-sectional studies at best). And even if small apartments are found to negatively impact on health/productivity, there’s no evidence to suggest this costs exceeds the benefits associated with small apartments (affordability).
Therein lies the primary weakness of your paper, and most others which advocate for regulations on apartment size: 1) specific market failures are conflated with other perceived issues and 2) the preferences and experiences of the occupants are systematically ignored, or at least not studied to any degree of rigour.
In my opinion, a robust justification for regulations on apartment sizes would include detailed analysis of how occupants of small apartments view the suitability of their accommodation, and include analysis of their next best alternative in the event that small apartments are not brought to market (staying at home with parents? Sharing rooms? Sleeping vans? Living in sub-standard detached dwellings with small rooms? Moving to the urban periphery? Leaving Auckland?). That is, we need to approach questions of quality from the perspective of the occupants.
In many cases, I think you will find that the next best alternative for current occupants of small apartments has health/productivity effects which exceed any that follow from living in a small apartment. So, I think the market can and should be trusted with setting the size of apartments. That’s not necessarily true of other quality attributes, which are more subject to asymmetric information.
Feel free to email me if you’d like to submit a guest post to put forward a different view; I can then response to your points in a more structured way, and we can all become more enlightened! Myself included of course …
Very well put Stu. Your comment about dodgy apartments reminded me of those on GNR behind Unitec. I wonder if they’re still there. On the bigger issue of small apartments, there are a couple of elephants in the (ahem) apartment.
First, demographics. There’s no question that small city apartments suit students, young professionals (single or a couple), some retired people, and business people/companies who may have multiple apartments in different cities. However, at any given time these groups will represent only a small proportion of the total population.
Secondly, investment. Like it or not, it’s hard to beat property investment for retirement savings. Sure, there are other forms of retirement planning, including Kiwisaver, but many people don’t have the skills to manage them, so take the easy option. And new apartments tend to be awfully expensive, while perversely appreciating at a lower rate than “conventional” housing.
But overall it’s the market that decides, and the market responds to quality first and foremost.
And now the facts:
“The average size of New Zealand households is projected to decrease from 2.6 people in 2006 to 2.4 people in 2031. Declining average household size is projected for all regional council areas and territorial authority areas, and reflects an increasing proportion of one-person households and a decrease in the average size of family households. Average family size is projected to decline largely because of an increase in the proportion of couple-without-children families (which contain two people) and a decrease in the proportion of two-parent families (which contain about four people, on average). These trends are driven mainly by the general ageing of the population.”
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/demographic-trends-2012/subnational%20demographic%20projections.aspx
and:
“Almost half (48.0%) of all households in Auckland were one or two person households”
Source: Auckland Dwellings and Households, Initial results from the 2013 Census
And your point is what Kent? Demographics covers more than just average household size. My wife and I live in a 3-storey townhouse, we entertain a lot and frequently host house-guests in our several spare bedrooms. An entirely different demographic.
Jonno, you said this- “However, at any given time these groups will represent only a small proportion of the total population.”
Just checking the facts and pointing out that this is a growing market segment.
Precisely Kent. And the groups I suggested were: “…students, young professionals (single or a couple), some retired people, and business people/companies who may have multiple apartments in different cities.” Which does not embrace all one and two person households by any stretch of the imagination.
However, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are suggesting that some of these latter households could potentially occupy smaller dwellings, should they choose to do so. 🙂
Hello Kent – 49% for Hamilton. Just posted on http://hamiltonurbanblog.co.nz/
Let me explain a bit more about my idea on quality control without restricting freedom of choice.
If independent architectural authority and engineering authority could grade the new development when it is on sale. Buyers would immediately knows what quality they are paying for.
That will encourage developers to build higher quality apartment and sell for premium. Buyer can compare not just size and price, but also quality.
That will also punish greedy developers who take corners on quality.
The advantage of this way is it is still a market driven regulation and it does not restrict the freedom of choice.
Kelvin, nice idea, but the world doesn’t work like that. Developers will always try and put the best spin on everything they sell, to get the best dollar for their boring box. There is no magic independent panel of experts who will visit your development and put an official grading on the house you want to sell. Some people like blue walls, others like green, or grey. It’s subjective. All we can do is go on hard and fast numbers. Square meter sizes are one such number (and even there, estate agents will often try to cheat the size up a little).
Good ol’ Ikea. http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_GB/rooms_ideas/small_spaces/index.html
I think it’s time to stop using the term affordable housing in respect of any Auckland housing developments. They just don’t exist in this region. Affordable housing is a $40,000 house on a 500sqm section in Taumarunui.
Next door to me here in Swanson they are building what is billed an “affordable housing project” – starting price $425,000! That makes a mockery of the term. Even worse is the size of the sections, each being around 200sqm, meaning you get very little for that massive price. And that’s way out in Swanson.
A brand new $40k house? In Waihi they are selling sections for $100k with new house builds at $200K +.
affordable doesn’t just mean cheap Geoff. For a start the median household income in Ruapehu District is just $44k a year, while in Auckland it is close to double at $76k a year. What’s affordable in Auckland is much higher because aucklanders have more income and have to spend a lesser proportion of their income on basic necessities.
Furthermore a full third of homes in Ruapehu are unoccupied. Yep, every third house is empty and abandoned. You can’t give them away for love nor money, that’s why they are so cheap. But why? Well 9% unemployment is a good indicator, as are the really low incomes. There is no work, so claiming a collapsed housing market represents affordability is ridiculous, I doubt particularly many of the residents find themselves flush with cash just because their homes are almost worthless.
so would you take on a 450000$ mortgage with an HOUSEHOLD income of 76k or less? That means that half of akl population can’t afford (on my personal belief that taking on a mortgage in those conditions is madness) an affordable house. Sometimes I think a lot of you guys commenting here from the height of your “economist” or “consultant” job have lost connection with reality.
Nick, lack of interest in buying houses in the Ruapehu District may be largely down to lack of towns in which to find a job, no? No jobs available = no reason to live in the area… The rural manual labouring jobs have largely disappeared as farming has become more mechanised, and so there is a corresponding reduction in the amount of townspeople needed to service the remaining farming community. Plus, there is also the whole seasonal thing – half (or more) of places like Ohakune and Raetihi are empty as they are just used as occasional ski lodges for rich Aucklanders…
Hi Geoff,
Few comments:
– It’s close to useless to draw conclusions on housing costs across large spatial scales, e.g. Auckland to Waihi. Wages and amenities differ too greatly over such a distance …
– I wouldn’t define “affordable housing” by looking at the price of new builds. What matters is affordability across the wider housing market, and expensive new builds can improve housing affordability across the wider market
– Occupants of small houses are the arbitrator of value, not you. So while you perceive a small house to be less valuable, your preferences are not shared universally.
The people most interested in minimum standard housing of people in safe, secure and humane containment is the prison service.
Let’s say the minimum standard for living should be set by the prison service and housing for the free should simply be no less than.
http://www.corrections.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/708195/Doublebunking_research_report_combined_phases_1_and_2.pdf
“Lack of physical space meant that simply being able to move around the cell required more patience and effort.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20130210002731/http://corrections.govt.nz/news-and-publications/magazines-and-newsletters/corrections-news/2011/corrections_news_nov-dec/quick-smart_boost_to_prison_beds_double_bunking.html
“Custodial Systems Manager at Otago Corrections Facility, ….. says they have had double bunking for about eight months and that it is working well”
“Some prisoners requested they be doubled bunked with others they feel are role models to them or that they can get along well with. It has made some of them less aggressive and less contentious”
Peter H – you’re joking, right? Except that you seem to have put a lot of research into your answer, which makes me think you might not be joking. Which really is a worry…
Just in case the bleeding obvious needs explaining – a prison cell is not the same as a house. In any way. Including size. Don’t even go there….
Guy
This is exactly where we need to look; prison staffs are experts in identifying problems with overcrowding.
So if the room size for double bunking is not harmful to prisoners, then why would it be harmful to a free person.
Note: the post talks about allowing small dwelling, I am suggesting regulation kick in to prevent dwellings being built that are harmful to a person’s health and well being.
“if the room size for double bunking is not harmful to prisoners, then why would it be harmful to a free person”
Yikes. There’s a line between “not harmful” and “pleasant to live in”. Prisons tend not be designed for prisoner enjoyment. Hopefully, they are designed for rehabilitation – but by their nature they incorporate severe loss of freedom of movement and privacy.
Thanks Guy and Peter for your replies – Two points I would like to flag
1. The G Marriage report tells us there is a limited market for 15m2 flats, with larger apartment being more popular.
2. The Prisoner double-bunking report tells us. “The majority of prisoners interviewed preferred single cell accommodation in prison.” Also “no evidence was found to support an hypothesis that double bunking is associated with, or predictive of, increased incident rates.”
Interesting the reason for setting minimum dwelling size looks to be based on the idea people must have storage ”for all of today’s modern living detritus”
Thanks for this post Stu
Table II. House size comparison: Europe. 2010 Australasian Housing Researcher’s Conference.
Sourced from http://www.swingacat.info/facts_figures.php
The IKEA design is below what the table implies is minimum standards for housing in Scandinavia.
http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/archives/uploads-space-standards.pdf
page 38. Give more real standards for Scandinavia
Take away the garage, and our family of 3 is very comfortably living in a 2 brm, 2 bathroom, 72 sqm apartment. It could comfortably be smaller.
I’m quite proud of my ‘shoebox’ – 54sqm for me and a lady is plenty.
http://imgur.com/a/n8IKD
Not visible in the pictures is the ceiling mounted, pulley operated washing line (rope visible in #4). It’s life changing for apartments and if you have any high ceiling area I strongly recommend it.
Quite a beautiful flat!
I agree. Nicely done David.
I miss it! Back in a year to bask in it 😀
Where in Auckland are these small apartments planned to be built?
Everywhere there is good transit hopefully. I want one in Milford
Well, you would think you could easily take the bus from Milford to Smales Farm. But off-peak there’s only one bus per hour. During peak there are more services but at irregular intervals. And no regular service to Takapuna either. This area definitely could use a “new network”.
edit: Meant to reply Sailor Boy.
Might want to look st the rptp hun. 804 and 858 both do trip btw.
Meanwhile, in Belgium, a few years ago in the newspaper:
Couple laments the increase in minimum apartment size to 18m². Because they are happily renting a 17m² size apartment, and now they will have to move because their landlord can no longer to rent out their apartment.
Does the 40m² minimum also apply to studio apartments?
“Does the 40m² minimum also apply to studio apartments?”
Yes unfortunately in the proposed Unitary Plan it does. 40 m2 is so big that it wouldn’t really be worth building as a studio – you might as well make it a one or 2 bedroom at that size. So in practice this rule will be like a ban on studio apartments.
That’s damn silly.
Frank, your comment “40m2 is so big….” is just plain silly. 40m2 is not comfortably big enough for a two bedroom apartment – as you may know if you ever have to design apartments for a living, as I do. And if you do design 40m2 two bedroom apartments for a living, then I wouldn’t touch any design of yours with a barge pole.
40m2 is not silly. Why do you link size to quality? Our current place is the same size as our first house but feels much bigger due to layout. Design is everything. If you want to transfer all of your furniture from a stand alone house to a small apartment, you’ll have issues. Head on down the route that say, Ikea have shown, and there is huge potential to make small spaces absolutely liveable.
Bryce, I’ve lived in apartments for the last 30 years or so, and designed quite a few. What I’m saying is that size relates to quality of life – not in that “bigger must be better”, but in terms of “too small does not let you achieve a minimum standard of enjoyment”. Things like room size and storage are important – when i say that 40m2 for a two bedroom apartment is just silly, it is because it is. I have a book beside me here that goes through a couple of hundred years of apartment living, and the smallest 2 bedroom place i can find in that is about 52m2. I have actually lived in a 2-bed flat that was only about 32m2, in London, but that didn’t have a living room. Just kitchen, bathroom, and 2 skinny bedrooms. Not really a good solution.
“And if you do design 40m2 two bedroom apartments for a living, then I wouldn’t touch any design of yours with a barge pole.”
Guy –
Spoken with all the condescension and detachment from the needs of people that the worst of your profession are renowned for.
Your designs can’t make floor space appear that doesn’t exist, and they can’t make people wealthier than they are. A good designer however can make the best of a given set of constraints.
I did not say 40 m2 is big for a 2 bedroom, I said it is way too big as a minimum size for studios. The whole point of studios is to make the most of small spaces, often less than 30 m2, by keeping most of that space as a single multi-purpose room. Once the minimum is set at 40 m2 that purpose is somewhat eroded.
And yes 40 m2 is small for a 2 bedroom, but it can be done and with good design done well. If someone can only afford 40 m2 of space and would prefer to trade off space in the lounge or bedroom for a small guest room / study they should be free to make that choice.
“Spoken with all the condescension and detachment from the needs of people that the worst of your profession are renowned for.” I really object to that comment – if you knew me, you would know it does not apply to me, nor do I believe you could seriously say that architects are “detached from the needs of people”. Yes, architects may be condescending at times, but I’d say primarily only when having to argue with people who do not know what they are talking about. For instance, I can be quite dismissive of someone who argues that the size of a prison cell should set the standard for minimum size of living accommodation in a home…. Everyone is allowed their opinion here, but some people are just plain out of their depth…
“And yes 40 m2 is small for a 2 bedroom, but it can be done and with good design done well.” Please show me. I honestly do not believe that to be true. If you can find an example of a 2 bedroom unit that is done well in 40m2, then let’s have a look at it, and debate its merits. Till then however, I think you’re just making things up.
Book – Homes people can afford, How to improve housing in New Zealand.
By Sarah Bierre, Philippa Howden-Chapman & Lisa Early
“a reasonable minimum area for multi-person households is 18-25 square metres per person”
The Book also makes reference to prison conditions in the same way Lewis Mumford wrote a century ago.
Peter H – well, exactly. So using those figures, a one-bedroom flat (ie 2 people, a couple), should be a minimum of about 36-50m2 in size, and if those 2 people have a child (as two people sharing a bed often tend to do) then the flat needs to be in the region of up to 75m2 ie for a reasonable minimal 2-bedroom apartment.
To equate house size with prison-cell size is just being stupid. A cell is designed as punishment, and only has to deal with sleeping arrangements. It has no kitchen, no dining room, no living room, no private bathroom, no shower, and generally no great sense of joy in life, typified by no outlook, no storage for any belongings, and pretty much a foregone conclusion of no external balcony. So, a cell size of 2m x 3m ie 6m2 total, is achievable only because it is so NOT a house. It is also not very desirable. That’s why the awful shitty little sub-standard housing built in Auckland a dozen or more years ago, is turning into slums – because the housing is there as a place of last resort, a place for those who have no alternative, and pretty much no hope.
I had a couple with a baby live in my 50sqm 1 bedroom apartment for 3 years. Bit cramped by my standard but they loved it. They enjoyed a good lifestyle in the city (where he worked) and they were able to save for a house in the ‘burbs which they wanted for their family as the kid got older.
The issue with the small apartments on Hobson ridge is not that they are small (they serve their purpose), its that the concentration of only small apartments turns them into slums. Same with Housing NZ estates which is why they are trying to put new housing NZ houses dispersed into the community.
Harvey – exactly. One bedroom, 50m2, complies with the new Unitary Plan guidelines. But when the baby grew up a little, and they wanted to give the child its own room, they moved out, right? If we design apartments in a range of adequate sizes, then people don’t need to move out to the suburbs.
Harvey I would say that the problem with the Hobson/Nelson apartments is nothing at all to do with size but everything to do with poor design; both architectural, the buildings themselves, and urban design, the context, placement, and street amenity. Size, as they say, is a matter of choice. Plenty of people do not wish to or are unable to spend much on their dwelling, but they still don’t deserve sub standard structures and places.
Agree – you want to leave your apartment and be somewhere instantly (shops, cafes, restaurants). Hobson ridge doesn’t have these features hence the ‘slum’ reference. That is why I think diversity of tenants is important as well as good design (no breeze ways!). Put cheap apartments on the lower floors (studios, 1 and 2 beddies) and get gradually nicer and bigger (still a mix of 1 and bigger bedrooms) as you go up, with a nice big penthouse at the top to pay more than its fair share of the bodycorp. 1 Hobson is an example with lots of small hotel/studios on the bottom 4 floors with a good mix as you go up with big double story penthouses at the top – can (just) justify a restaurant at the bottom, with good facilities and close to external facilities.
They would be fine as student accommodation but they are across town from the uni’s so you dont have the uni facilities on your doorstep (not easy to go home for a quick lunch or to change in and out of gym gear/pub clothes etc.
Really? I re-measured our place and it comes to 85m2. That includes 2brms, 2 bthrms, laundry etc. We could easily loose 20m2 and be hugely comfy.
You may be surprised how many 2 person households that share a bed never get past the ‘practice’ stage, at least for a few years. More and more are leaving it into their (late) thirties and the average number of kids is falling from memory.
If both are income earners, the second bedroom my just be for storage/study/guests in which case the apartment doesn’t have to be big (predominately for 2 people). You will often see this were the lower cost 2 beddies have equal size bedrooms (meant for co tenants) and the more executive 2 beddies have a large master (with ensuite) and a smaller second bedroom or study (designed for for DINKs).
If small apartments worked people would be buying them to live in.
As someone who has taken an interest in the apartment market I categorise them into two categories. Rentals and Liveables. The determining factor is size, period. People are not buying small apartments to live in because they don’t work from that perspective.
You can polish a turd and call it something else, it’s still a turd. Likewise you can call small apartments beautiful all you like. They are still chicken coup’s.
And that’s the entire point. Small apartments offer a dwelling, in the city, for lower rent. Whether you like them or not is irrelevant. The fact is that they can be made comfortable.
Bollocks. Smallapartments are awesome. Don’t try force your choices down my throat
And the proof is in the pudding; prices of small dwellings rises faster than larger dwellings:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11385752
Funny how when you constrain the development of small apartments, their prices rise and low-income households end up being significantly worse off than they would be otherwise.
The reason why small dwelling prices are increasing is because rent’s are increasing having previously lagged behind property prices.
It has nothing to do with small apartments being “beautiful” or any of the other so called benefits mentioned in this opinion piece.
Matthew for rents to increase there must be demand; so they are ‘beautiful’ on some level to enough people, no?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11386025
Not necessarily. Demand is increasing as population increases and also as rents increase, access to lower rent places reduce. On the other side of the equation is that supply has not increased due to building regulations.
Apartments at the lower end don’t have to be ‘beautiful’, they just have to be practical and well laid out. That doesn’t necessarily mean big.
I think we’re saying the same thing, my quotation marks are meant to imply an expanded sense of the word, after all to the cash-strapped affordable IS beautiful.
Yes rents are increasing, but not for the reasons you note. It has little to do with property values; rents have been disconnected from movements in property values for about the last decade. That’s one of the more interesting/concerning facts about NZ’s property markets: Capital values do not in general reflect rental returns, or vice versa.
Also worth pointing out:
– Rents have lagged property values in general, but less so for small apartments. For example, the discounted sum of annual net cashflows on my apartment (and many others are the same) is approximately equivalent to the capital value. Or more specifically, my cashflows are higher than the interest I would receive from selling apartment and investing the proceeds in a bank deposit.
– Rents for apartments are increasing not because capital values are so high. Rents are increasing because of underlying fundamentals: 1) High demand for rental stock due to net migration and 2) relatively high income growth, or willingness-to-pay.
– If the rents of small apartments are increasing faster than other sectors of the market then this suggests either 1) demand is growing faster and/or 2) supply is more constrained. I suspect it’s a bit of both …
It is interesting that the price of smaller dwelling increased at a faster rate than larger dwelling. The issue I have is how do you define a “small dwelling”. Is it anything under 40m2, 100m2 or 1000m2? Or it is determined by something else?
Unsurprisingly, if AC restricts supply of ‘small dwellings’ and the demand for them increases, the market would react in the form of higher prices. This would negatively affect consumers, especially low and middle income households. Anyway, I think I’ve learnt something from NCEA Economics lol
Unfortunately there’s not a good way to link to the article – but (IMHO) this topic is also linked to our obsession with overstating issues of poverty in New Zealand:
EG http://manukaucourier.realviewdigital.com/?iid=110514# (Overcrowding stats reveal disparity)
Note how at some point our definition of *overcrowding* became:
…state there should be no more than two people living in a bedroom.
And only if they are parents or couples, children under 5 years, or children under 18 years of the same sex.
Also a child aged 5 to 17 years should not share a bedroom with one under 5 of the opposite sex.
Why is it suddenly so wrong to have 5-10 kids in a 3 bedroom house like our parents/grand-parents?
And this type of media coverage assists in the creation of public perception towards a much higher need for space and housing than has ever previously existed – take your 40 sqm studio apartment example.
It is overcrowded when you have parents and a baby.