Originally Posted by
elZorro
No, I'm not worried, the policy does seem to require the completion of one house every 1.2 hours (10,000 houses a year or 833 houses a month) but on the other hand there were consents issued for 1762 dwellings in NZ last month alone, the best since 2008. Maybe 1200 building teams would be needed on sites, with many others in the wings supplying materials. How strong would the economy be with this sort of 10-year project? Would it enable people living in garages on the backs of sections to be housed properly for once? Not to mention the taxes flowing to govt from the enterprise, and the amount of unemployed who would be given trades training and employment in many different areas.
The other question is whether the all-powerful private sector would do this sort of thing under its own volition. No, we wouldn't, not enough profit, but the govt, and only the govt, will be able to see the other side of the returns.
I agree that to get lower cost sections near Auckland will be the hardest part, but with such a large project with a big capital base, surely some stable land can be reclaimed from somewhere. Good planning would ensure these houses didn't impact on other real estate overly much, and that they didn't become run-down areas in later years. In any case, everything's relative. No doubt our older state housing areas look palatial in the eyes of slum-dwellers worldwide. New housing would be built to much better insulating standards for example.