Am I being paranoid if I have a suspicion that this will lead to a monkey's paw curling and the poor being stuffed into tiny pods instead of real apartments?
Woke PMC Karens: "I won't live in a pod! I need room for my antique clock collection and my specialty mops!"
excited to live in an airtight casket so that when i need to go to my job theyll just shove me into a vacuum tube like im george jetson. no choice but to show up on time as i crash through the office ceiling still jerking off and brushing my teeth
This is a lib strategy to let the market sort out housing problems, framing it as an issue of zoning. If only these anti-density zoning laws were changed, we could have cheap and high-quality housing for all, they think.
While SFH zoning helps to protect property values and restrict density, there's a lot more to the issue than mere zoning. The elephant in the room is the financialization of homeownership, which both depends on and creates a system in which housing prices increase faster than incomes.
Yes, of course. I was joking about a recent post where an article called the NZ PM "Lenin with hair".
Now, I'm not saying this is a definite solution, nor that I expect a sucdem government to actually deliver the real solution, but it's a nice step forward, sadly they will never reach the goal cuz they are sucdems.
quick question: does no more min lot sizes mean no min home sizes? I feel like min lot/min residence sizes are an important protection to ensure that slumlords aren't cramming people into closets--as well as more broadly to protect the right of people to live with comfort and dignity.
occupiable space minimums and lot sizes are usually separate parts of the code
lot size minimums are often written to explicitly require yards
I think stormwater runoff concerns are generally unserious. Any large and dense city should have a robust drainage system, and if it doesn't, the concerns over street flooding or sewer backflow a few times per year pale in comparison to the environmental damage inflicted by sprawl. Especially auto-centric sprawl, which covers more area with impervious surfaces (roads) than simply building dense housing. There's a reason that everyone in Houston has a yard, but storm runoff is still a problem.
There are typically separate codes for stormwater that stipulate maximum flows which can come off a property under certain assumptions about storms that would likely still be maintained. Moving toward this denser housing would be a net positive for a larger area since it would decrease the amount of parking and roads that are necessary for a population although it could slightly increase flooding within developments without adequate planning.
isn't it more for setback? unit sizes are (relatively) independent of building sizes
It's more meant to force the development of suburbs over dense urban mixed purpose properties
I used to think the English language was cursed and all Anglos were death cultists, but NZ continues to impress.
NZ still has a substantial Maori population (like 20%) that keeps them in check.
We've mostly just got a good marketing department. But this, covid handling and the fair pay agreements have been pretty good.
The average house price in New Zealand is over a million dollars. It’s more if you want to live in a city. It’s entirely unsustainable from a social stability perspective. To give one example, NZ’s zero covid approach failed because it got into overcrowded houses, emergency motel housing, and marginalised communities.
This puts NZ’s housing development on the same sort of trajectory as Melbourne. It was passed with support of both major parties. The opposition leader, our blue party, explicitly said this was a measure to stave off more radical change.
The opposition leader, our blue party, explicitly said this was a measure to stave off more radical change.
Do you have a place where he said that? I've never heard a politician explicitly say that quiet part out loud.
