Bigger High-Density Housing Recommended

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 29067, 2 December 1959, Page 8

Bigger High-Density Housing Recommended

(From Our Own Reporter) WELLINGTON, December 1. In the next 20 years another 223,440 dwellings will be needed to house the expected increase in population in New Zealand. What is the most economical way of providing this housing?

Mr H. C. Holden, senior advisory officer to the Department of Industries and Commerce, gave a very definite answer to this question in a paper read today to the conference of the New Zealand Association of Economists. His estimate of 223.440 dwellings is based on official estimates of the population increase from 1956 to 1976 and on the housing figures of the 1956 census. He considers two alternative methods of providing this number of additional dwellings:— (1) A continuation of the present form of housing (i.e. 11 per cent, of urban dwellings in the form of flats and the remainder in the form of de-

tached houses each on its own section of a fifth of an acre. (2) The provision of a greatly increased proportion (32 per . cent.) of flats, mainly in central urban sites which would first be cleared of existing buildings. Mr Holden’s first cdftclusion is: “Central high density housing is cheaper than low density housing on the outskirts of urban areas." He continues: “This proportion of small-size households in the community justifies a much higher proportion of flats in urban areas than we have at present. High density housing has personal advantages for many people. “Home vegetable gardens do not produce a very large Quantity of the country’s vegetable output. Urban sprawl is not a serious threat to the national economy through taking farmland out of production, but it increases the cost of our arterial road and rail routes, besides causing costly traffic congestion and raising the accident toll.” Advantages claimed by Mr Holden for a larger proportion of high density dwellings include: Removal of old and degraded buildings from desirable city sites. Consumers’ preference in the type of housing would be given more scope. Parking problems and congestion in city streets would be eased. City amenities would be more fully used and duplication of them avoided or reduced. Rate revenues from renewed areas and adjacent ‘ areas would rise. Comparison of Costs Mr Holden has estimated the direct costs of providing the estimated 223,440 extra dwellings under two headings—“proposition 1” (present form of housing) and “proposition 2” (increased provision of central flats). Comparisons are as follows: — P. 1 P.2 £m £m Purchase, devel. of peripheral land .. 83.9 25.6 Purchase of cent, land 9.4 52.7 Devel. of cent, land 4.4 24.6 Constr. on periphery 576.1 271.6 Constr. in centre .. 65.0 363.4 Services on periphery 19.1 5.8 Services in centre .. 1.9 10.6 759.8 754.5 In addition to these direct costs Mr Holden considers various indirect. hidden and social costs involved in each proposition. First of these is the “home garden controversy”—the argument that the value of the product from home gardens might exceed the value of the product from an equivalent area of farmland. He concludes that “an acre of market gardening land would produce at least nine times the amount of vegetables it would produce if it were taken for housing.”

Other indirect costs include the loss of farm land, the cost of commuting, roading and traffic problems, provision of facilities and amenities and valuations, rating and local body revenue. The loss of farm land (but not market gardening land) was a comparatively minor problem, but the other aspects strongly favoured the high density proposals implicit in the second proposition, Mr Holden said. Financing of high density housing would depend largely on state and local authority resources rather than .on private enterprise. High density housing should be for rental rather than for purchase.

Mr Holden's paper was basen on an M.A. thesis he wrote while he was an officer of the Ministry of Works. He concluded his thesis with several recommendations, the first of which was that the Government should immediately seek the co-operation of one or

two of the larger city councils to take over an appropriate area under the Housing Improvement Act. The Government should then go ahead with a mixed high density development. “The units should be let at an economic rental (the term is used in the popular sense) to households of a suitable size and comparison. The development should be regarded as a test case and costed as carefully as possible.”