Is decent housing a human right?

[Oldfellah]

And if dwellings are built just as rentals, 3 dwellings on a section 3 stories high, Im afraid I wouldn't want to live next door to one of those would you?

[Lilith7]

I think they should be limited to two storeys, but tenants are just people so obviously it depends on what kind of people - as with all neighbours.

[TygerTung]

They have gangs in Berlin too.

[Olive]

And if dwellings are built just as rentals, 3 dwellings on a section 3 stories high, Im afraid I wouldn't want to live next door to one of those would you?

Are you objecting to the idea of the property being a rental, or to it being 3 storeys high?   They are different issues.

[Oldfellah]

And if dwellings are built just as rentals, 3 dwellings on a section 3 stories high, Im afraid I wouldn't want to live next door to one of those would you?

Are you objecting to the idea of the property being a rental, or to it being 3 storeys high?   They are different issues.

Not objecting to any property being a rental, have lived in many in my time so no issue there, but 3 on a section and 3 stories high is a bit much im afraid.

[Lilith7]

Are you objecting to the idea of the property being a rental, or to it being 3 storeys high?   They are different issues.

Not objecting to any property being a rental, have lived in many in my time so no issue there, but 3 on a section and 3 stories high is a bit much im afraid.

 Yeah, agreed - tiny dwellings all squeezed onto a small area are not a good idea, imo.
People need a bit of space both inside & outside; you really have to wonder at the mentality of architects who consistently design houses/flats which are too small & don't have enough light - they seem to think that poorer people don't need as much light & space as those who are well off.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Are you objecting to the idea of the property being a rental, or to it being 3 storeys high?   They are different issues.

Not objecting to any property being a rental, have lived in many in my time so no issue there, but 3 on a section and 3 stories high is a bit much im afraid.

The duplex next door was knocked down and replaced by a three storied block of nine units. Transitional housing apparently, took three years to build with many design changes over those months. Now all the units are occupied, and the same design is being cloned in a number of big developments in the neighbourhood.
I guess it is only a matter of time before my pretty little flat is bulldozed and replaced by several of the same kind of housing.

With luck I'll be well dead before that happens to my little bit of paradise.

---

Not objecting to any property being a rental, have lived in many in my time so no issue there, but 3 on a section and 3 stories high is a bit much im afraid.

 Yeah, agreed - tiny dwellings all squeezed onto a small area are not a good idea, imo.
People need a bit of space both inside & outside; you really have to wonder at the mentality of architects who consistently design houses/flats which are too small & don't have enough light - they seem to think that poorer people don't need as much light & space as those who are well off.

Common complaint around here, when maintenance issues are ignored, upgrades delayed endlessly, contractors repeatedly swapped out for cheaper ones, and much touted management initiatives allowed to slide into abeyance.
But there are compensations. The fewer nosy LL types inspecting the place the more guerilla gardening I can get away with! 

[Lilith7]

Not objecting to any property being a rental, have lived in many in my time so no issue there, but 3 on a section and 3 stories high is a bit much im afraid.

The duplex next door was knocked down and replaced by a three storied block of nine units. Transitional housing apparently, took three years to build with many design changes over those months. Now all the units are occupied, and the same design is being cloned in a number of big developments in the neighbourhood.
I guess it is only a matter of time before my pretty little flat is bulldozed and replaced by several of the same kind of housing.

With luck I'll be well dead before that happens to my little bit of paradise.

---

 Yeah, agreed - tiny dwellings all squeezed onto a small area are not a good idea, imo.
People need a bit of space both inside & outside; you really have to wonder at the mentality of architects who consistently design houses/flats which are too small & don't have enough light - they seem to think that poorer people don't need as much light & space as those who are well off.

Common complaint around here, when maintenance issues are ignored, upgrades delayed endlessly, contractors repeatedly swapped out for cheaper ones, and much touted management initiatives allowed to slide into abeyance.
But there are compensations. The fewer nosy LL types inspecting the place the more guerilla gardening I can get away with! 

There have to be some benefits. Guerilla gardening is big in the USA & Europe apparently.

[TygerTung]

Christchurch house prices went up 40% last year apparently.

[Lilith7]

And that's another thing - how can we get house prices down without it causing other problems. Probably in the future we may see some very different building methods come into use, so perhaps that might help but it could also increase costs - maybe it needs looking at & perhaps if needed bring laws to prevent inflating of costs somehow.

[Magoo]

And that's another thing - how can we get house prices down without it causing other problems. Probably in the future we may see some very different building methods come into use, so perhaps that might help but it could also increase costs - maybe it needs looking at & perhaps if needed bring laws to prevent inflating of costs somehow.

yes, thats what we need lil, more laws.

[Lilith7]

I'm not especially a fan of more laws - but what we're doing now isn't working all that well, as you may have noticed.

[Magoo]

I'm not especially a fan of more laws - but what we're doing now isn't working all that well, as you may have noticed.

over regulation brought us to this point.
i think things would speed up markedly if we had less laws.

[Lilith7]

I'm not especially a fan of more laws - but what we're doing now isn't working all that well, as you may have noticed.

over regulation brought us to this point.
i think things would speed up markedly if we had less laws.

I'm not a fan of deregulation either - which also helped bring us to this point.

[Olive]

An interesting article in Newsroom today.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/as-far-from-t...1642098207

[Lilith7]

What a good way to do housing; I like that idea, it could work here too surely. I like the idea that they're very 'green', its likely to be the way of the future.

[Olive]

I particularly like the concept that "ownership" is not regarded as a central virtue, with the associated Calvinist ideas of wealth being an indication of piety.

[Wainuiguy]

I suppose if you take out the homeless by choice, then the rest wished they had a home.
is it our responsibility to provide one? i dont think so.
there is a difference between shelter and a home.
i think its our responsibility to provide shelter until that home is found.

we already provide significant accommodation subsidiaries to renters on benefits, even to some that arent.
this has not helped the market. an external catalyst unbalances the value at the bottom end
this inflates the rents over time as the pool of renters better enabled to pay, increases.

the law of decreasing marginal returns states the the more available something is the cheaper it becomes.
the answer seems blatantly simple. build more houses.

we have made that process such quagmire that even a government backed plan with billions of dollars at its disposal only managed to build a few hundred. if an organisation as well funded as a government cant do it, how are construction companies and developers supposed to make it happen?  we are seeing construction companies going belly up during a housing shortage.  so much is time and money is being absorbed by regulation, permits, inspections, health and safety, tax and insurance there is little room for margin.  more is spent on peripheral shit with no tangible return than is spent on the materials to build. 

the entire process needs simplifying, speeding up and costing less. overhaul it. make the process more inclusive rather than exclusive as it is now. take it out of the hands of councils, its a national issue not a provincial one.
standardise it and legislate to capitalise the bottom end of the market. (interest free loans, first home subsidy etc). this has to be better than the indefinite, unending reliance on welfare to bandaid the problem.

That is a whole lot of common sense right there.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Whoa, he's back again! And agreeing with Magoo. This might not be a good thing...

[Lilith7]

Whoa, he's back again! And agreeing with Magoo. This might not be a good thing...

Could be interesting though....