Growth essential to sustain quality of life

More houses and more land zoned for residential development are required in Dunedin, the writer...
More houses and more land zoned for residential development are required in Dunedin, the writer argues. PHOTO: ODT FILES
Dunedin must address its lack of population growth if it wants to attract jobs and retain its young people, writes Judd de la Roche.

The front-page article (ODT, 16.1.17) made for sad reading where it stated that Dunedin had lost its fifth-largest New Zealand city status to Tauranga.

We are very much aware of what Dunedin, our amazing wee city in the south, offers to all who also choose to live here and this lifestyle that we all enjoy is a secret which is now well and truly out.

Numerous phone calls from outside buyers come into our office daily inquiring about buying or renting a home in Dunedin.

What I found interesting about this article was the commentators argued Dunedin's lack of population growth compared to Tauranga (6200 people v 48,400 respectively during the past 20 years) was not a problem as our smaller growth has allowed us to maintain a quality of life which is indeed enviable compared to New Zealand's busier cities.

The lack of population growth is, of course, going to preserve all the facets that Dunedin offers its residents and indeed, we must do all we can to preserve what Dunedin offers, but a perception by our council of a stagnant population is a dangerous viewpoint to have.

There is very real demand from outsiders wanting to live in our utopia and this is increasing by the month.

The cost of housing and the cost of servicing the associated mortgages is going to be a burden for generations into the future. Our Dunedin house prices have increased over 30% in the last two years due simply to a lack of supply. This lack of supply must be addressed and the only way we can increase supply is to build more houses.

We cannot and must not turn those away who wish to live here and of course we won't, but as a city, we must accept we need to grow our population as growth means jobs and jobs mean retention of our young people - the city's future.

Essentially we need vastly more land zoned for residential development in the new Dunedin District Plan and sadly, it has not allowed for any real growth for the extra land needed over the next 10 years. Without more land available, few homes will be built and house prices will be constantly under upward pressure.

The council's aim of making Dunedin ``one of the world's great small cities'' is all very good, but if residents now and in the future struggle to service their mortgages due to the high price they paid for their home, no amount of art galleries and museums will improve their lot.

More land zoned for building is needed immediately in Dunedin City - I invite a response from the DCC.

- Judd de la Roche is a Dunedin real estate company owner.

[Dunedin City Council City Development Manager Dr Anna Johnson replies: ``The zoning of land for future housing is the subject of submissions on the Proposed Second Generation District Plan (2GP). Submissions on this topic will be heard at the Urban Land Supply hearing scheduled to begin on March 15. There are a range of submitters on this topic, some of whom have expressed views similar to those of Mr de la Roche. At the hearing, the 2GP Hearings Panel will hear from submitters and any expert witnesses they call. They will also hear recommendations and revised evidence on housing demand and supply from DCC planners. This information is still being worked on and will be publicly released closer to the time. One of the 2GP's strategic objectives is that ``Dunedin has quality housing choices and adequate urban land supply''. This is an important topic for the city and one that the 2GP Hearings Panel will no doubt give serious attention to.''


 

Comments

Judd de la Roche is not the only person to hold the view that " as a city, we must accept we need to grow our population..."
But in a world groaning under that weight of 7 billion people, in a nation that has most of its native animals threatened, endangered or extinct, and in a region that has already lost 90% of its lowland forest to farming and development; who in their right mind would suggest continued and continuous growth as a solution to any problem?!
At some point, we must accept that stasis is the only viable, long-term option. I'd much prefer that point to be where the hills are not entirely covered with houses, where you can still walk along the beach and see dunes instead of buildings and where a 10 minute drive or 30 minute run will get you out of the city and into the bush with bird life and clear streams and trees reaching skyward a 100 or a 1000 years old.