Developers take over, Heritage crushed

[Lilith7]

It started happening here after the quakes & now it seems everywhere across the country, developers are keen to bowl older houses so they can cram as many tiny dwellings as possible onto the same area.
 There's no doubt that we do definitely need more housing thanks to successive idiotic govts who couldn't or wouldn't take a long term view, but it also seems that greed speaks loudly.


https://www.thepress.co.nz/a/nz-news/350...uff_skybox


"It was a snapshot of the city’s past.

A son walked out the front door to go to war and never returned and his grieving father, who would go on to become a prominent city councillor, used the family home to help those with influenza during the 1918 pandemic.
But the large villa at 132 Tancred St in Linwood has recently been unceremoniously flattened in just two days by hulking steel machines not even conceived when it was built around 1910.

It’s the confronting sight residents of a 500m stretch of the street on the north side of Linwood Ave are getting used to, with three large apartment developments and social housing flats taking shape in under 12 months.
Now some residents fear what 60 to 100 more residents could do to the quiet neighbourhood they prized, including Rachael Delahunty, who lives in a renovated villa of a similar age.
“I’m really sad about some of these houses being pulled down,” she says. “It seems to me that [heritage] areas are protected in wealthy parts of town like Fendalton and Merivale but here they are demolished for no reason … they don’t even try to relocate them. They just crush them.”





And the worry for Delahunty is just how many more villas will be taken down and replaced with large apartment complexes. She, like all residents of the street, have been flooded with offers to sell to developers over the past year. They have seemingly been attracted to the street for the same reasons as the current residents - its quietness and safety.

Once white-collar area of the city, the character villas on Tancred St mark a prosperous time on the back of booming farm returns.
Built after the depression of the 1890s and World War I, the homes were constructed with quality materials, according to historian Geoff Rice, and were occupied largely by clerks and office workers.
Rice doesn’t mince his words about the loss of these houses.
“The hasty demolition by greedy developers is absolutely deplorable,” he says. “It shows no respect for the city’s history and no respect for the sense of community.”

[nzoomed]

Starting to happen here too, nice solid homes getting bowled down or removed and cramming in 3 story townhouses in our neighborhood.

[Zurdo]

And there is no attempt at recycling the quality materials and fittings - all just smashed and dumped into a truck and off to the landfill.

[Lilith7]

And there is no attempt at recycling the quality materials and fittings - all just smashed and dumped into a truck and off to the landfill.

There really should be laws to prevent that - everything which can be recycled should have to be recycled, rather than wasting it. 
We seem to be slow learners.

[R2x1]

It is a little sad to be lamenting the lack of recycling in the same thread that is attempting to quash the highly praiseworthy efforts to achieve a site for recycling not only "ticky-tacky', but also finding a home for (low) quality fittings. For goodness' sake, the developers have doubtless gone to some considerable effort to ensure that every stick in their development is rapidly biodegradable.
Would you suggest that stuff wind up in your street?

[alpha111]

Over 30 years ago I was a committee member of the Merivale Precinct Society and I noticed that the City Council responded more quickly to its concerns than they did to other Resident's Associations. However the 1881 villa that I lived in has long been bowled over. So it was not protected. (It even had a hand pump for artesian water in the washhouse).
Now resident in Upper Hutt where the council has encouraged slums of the future to been built in Wallaceville adjacent to the Trentham Army Camp.
Terraced houses and duplexes aka row houses are everywhere. A great enviroment (not).

[jim157]

housing shortage they say....dont demolish the old houses to make way for new houses they say

[dken31]

I love old character homes on big sections and it is always a little sad to see yet another one removed to make way for 3+ houses in its place. However, if an ever increasing number of people want to live in the same area, it is impossible to both not intensify and not have prices sky-rocket. So, if you're wanting government to step in and prohibit the demolition or removal of old homes, you're only preserving them for the rich that will be able to afford them.

The recycling of old materials is a side issue that also makes me a little sad. A block of old flats next door to me were demo'd a couple of months ago and they were full of old native timber (including a lot of kauri) but it all got ripped to shreds by a digger and taken to landfill. However, if regulation required the developers to recycle it, that would add time and cost to the development, ultimately pushing up the cost of housing. And, although most of us want to see old kauri timber re-used, very few of us are actually willing to pay for it.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

I agree. We watched a sinilar waste of treasures when the two state house duplexes nextdoor were bulldozed for a twelve unit KO development as transitional homes. The wooden windows were a particular loss, similar were being trade at the time for hundreds each, it was just throwing away ready money.

[Kenj]

I agree. We watched a similar waste of treasures when the two state house duplexes next door were bulldozed for a twelve unit KO development as transitional homes. The wooden windows were a particular loss, similar were being trade at the time for hundreds each, it was just throwing away ready money.

Don't expect intelligence from govt. departments. It's not coming out of their pockets. Just comes from the bottomless bucket of cash that every civil servant thinks is theirs to spend.

[Lilith7]

It just makes no sense to jettison things which are able to be re used in various ways & it surely doesn't have to be so highly priced that virtually no one can afford it.

[dken31]

I agree. We watched a sinilar waste of treasures when the two state house duplexes nextdoor were bulldozed for a twelve unit KO development as transitional homes. The wooden windows were a particular loss, similar were being trade at the time for hundreds each, it was just throwing away ready money.

It isn't economical for a developer (including KO) to hold up a development for the sake of even a few thousand dollars from selling the windows or timber.  Although it seems like ready money, the delays will impose more cost than the proceeds from sale of recycled materials.  Not everything should be purely about money, however there is currently a lot of public appetite for bringing lowering housing costs, whereas forcing developers to recycle will increase costs.  It's also worth pointing out that although a lot of developers have enjoyed periods of high profitability over the past 10 years or so, they're currently struggling as they're caught between the massive increase in build costs and decrease in property values.  So, imposing an additional compulsory recycling cost is going to dissuade even more developers from building the houses that we need.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

There are architectural recycing companies all over the country. I suppose letting them have first dibs on demolition is too hard?

Interesting little snippet I came across recently. Apparently wood framed windows (with double glazing) are more energy efficient because wood doesn't conduct heat or cold the way aluminium does...

[harm_less]

There are architectural recycing companies all over the country. I suppose letting them have first dibs on demolition is too hard?

Interesting little snippet I came across recently. Apparently wood framed windows (with double glazing) are more energy efficient because wood doesn't conduct heat or cold the way aluminium does...

From our experience aluminium joinery manufacturers here in New Zealand are pretty much oblivious to 'thermally broken' double glazed products. There's limited point in having two sheets of glass with a air/gas barrier between them when they are mounted in aluminium frames that are contiguous inside to out. The reason is probably because our climate here is so benign that the resulting lack of insulative efficiency largely goes unnoticed, and so long as the house spec's get a ticket from the paper pushers in the local Council's building inspectors' office all is good.

[SueDonim]

housing shortage they say....dont demolish the old houses to  make way for new houses they say

Exactly. The conundrum.....

---

I love old character homes on big sections and it is always a little sad to see yet another one removed to make way for 3+ houses in its place.  However, if an ever increasing number of people want to live in the same area, it is impossible to both not intensify and not have prices sky-rocket.  So, if you're wanting government to step in and prohibit the demolition or removal of old homes, you're only preserving them for the rich that will be able to afford them.

The recycling of old materials is a side issue that also makes me a little sad.  A block of old flats next door to me were demo'd a couple of months ago and they were full of old native timber (including a lot of kauri) but it all got ripped to shreds by a digger and taken to landfill.  However, if regulation required the developers to recycle it, that would add time and cost to the development, ultimately pushing up the cost of housing.  And, although most of us want to see old kauri timber re-used, very few of us are actually willing to pay for it.

Exactly. The conundrum....

[SueDonim]

It isn't economical for a developer (including KO) to hold up a development for the sake of even a few thousand dollars from selling the windows or timber.  Although it seems like ready money, the delays will impose more cost than the proceeds from sale of recycled materials.  Not everything should be purely about money, however there is currently a lot of public appetite for bringing lowering housing costs, whereas forcing developers to recycle will increase costs.  It's also worth pointing out that although a lot of developers have enjoyed periods of high profitability over the past 10 years or so, they're currently struggling as they're caught between the massive increase in build costs and decrease in property values.  So, imposing an additional compulsory recycling cost is going to dissuade even more developers from building the houses that we need.

Exactly.


Overall, I love old things but we have to be reasonable. sometimes an outwardly beautiful old house is as rotten as a rusty classic car. The last couple of paragraphs in the article are key.

"... another important aspect of the debate, having inspected the inside of many character villas - the health of the occupants.

While many villas look postcard perfect on the outside, Robertson commonly sees wet houses with dripping windows and black mould from poor insulation. Many walls are soft, some with holes where the damp has rotted wood.
In his mind, creating modern, warm, efficient housing with a thoughtful design is a win-win.
There is a demand from younger people for an economically attractive home as they try to get on the property ladder, and he is fulfilling that need.
“Unfortunately developers get a bad reputation which I think is unjust.”
Robertson said he tried to relocate the old villa, but its height meant it would have to be cut in two - and that wasn’t financially feasible."

People love to criticise developers but it's the owner who chose to sell to the developer and the developer who takes the biggest risk. Just because they win big time sometimes doesn't mean they always win and when they lose a lot of people get dragged down with them. So they need to be reasonable in how they operate.

For those who would keep the house, what do they do with it? Spend more than it's worth bringing it up to a standard where it is liveable? To rent it out they would have to. To live in in themselves they either have to spend huge money or suffer ongoing heating bills etc. Some people choose/can afford either of these options, but most people want to enjoy a house that's comfortable and economical to live in without having to over-capitalise on maintenance alone.

It's very sad to see old houses with history "go", but if we're going to keep increasing our population at the rate we are, and make travel to work, shopping and leisure viable whilst also maintaining rural and natural areas, we do need to accept intensification.

At the end of the day it's up to owners. They do what they need to do.

[Zurdo]

He was probably lounging in his claw foot bath as he wrote that....

[Zurdo]

It isn't economical for a developer (including KO) to hold up a development for the sake of even a few thousand dollars from selling the windows or timber. 

Money, it's always back to the money in this neoliberal world. It costs too much MONEY to strip a house of recyclable fittings....it costs too much MONEY to clear up the slash in forestry, we just want to make more MONEY - NOW !!!

I bought a new battery for my car a couple of weeks ago...a Hankook, made in Korea. A couple of days later the guy turns up to collect our old batteries for recycling. I know we don't recycle batteries in NZ anymore, so asked him what they did with them. They go to Korea - so maybe a few molecules of our old batteries ended up in my new one. How about we fix the world instead of being obsessed with money.

[king1]

There was talk at some point of requiring manufacturers to take back items for recycling when end of life, and presumably build in the cost of the recycling their products - not sure if anything came from it.

[SueDonim]

It isn't economical for a developer (including KO) to hold up a development for the sake of even a few thousand dollars from selling the windows or timber. 

Money, it's always back to the money in this neoliberal world. It costs too much MONEY to strip a house of recyclable fittings....it costs too much MONEY to clear up the slash in forestry, we just want to make more MONEY - NOW !!! 

I bought a new battery for my car a couple of weeks ago...a Hankook, made in Korea.  A couple of days later the guy turns up to collect our old batteries for recycling.  I know we don't recycle batteries in NZ anymore, so asked him what they did with them.  They go to Korea - so maybe a few molecules of our old batteries ended up in my new one. How about we fix the world instead of being obsessed with money.

Yes, everything comes back to the money that so many people don't have enough of. If the economy was working correctly then maybe other factors could take precedence - like buying local instead of cheap rubbish from China. But while we are heading down the slippery slope to socialism the government is giving more and more to people who won't contribute (instead of just supporting those who can't) and the rest of our economy is in trouble - health, education,crime, roading, etc. It's not neo-liberalism that's the problem, it's the unproductive part of our society that takes without giving.

If everyone did their bit we might not have to send batteries offshore for recycling but could deal with them here like we should. And tyres. And plastic bottles. And ....