Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

BUILDING YEAR

'GREATER AUCKLAND AREA I SLIGHT DECLINE SHOWN / (INCREASES IN SOME PARTS. THE SUPPLY OF DWELLINGS < Building statistics for the past year compiled over the larger part of tho greater Auckland area, do not show the very sharp decline of tho two previous yeais. They are indeed practically* stationary, and would appear to indicate that the decline has been arrested and a period of stability readied. Residential construction throughout the Dominion remains practically at a standstill, but there has been a considerable amount of repair and alteration work done; and reports como from some districts that the available accommodation is being fully utilised and that the erection of new houses cannot be delayed much longer. The total of £365,660 for the local bodies that have made their returns available is only £7668, or about 2 per cent, less than the corresponding total for last year. Comparison of Values The following table shows tho value Of the work during the past two years for which building permits wero issued in the city and in the suburbs named: — '/ 1932 1931 [Auckland City »„■ £264,247 £231,265 Northcote ~ „. 3,573 3,004 Takapuna * . i i 10,666 • 16,892 Devonport . • 14,58(3 6,640 Mount Albert »* 16,136 24,731 Mount Edeii Newmarket t a 4 5,286 25,156 Onehunga * 1 * 1 9,014 8.323 Henderson / ■ > 2,513 * 2,902 Glen Eden it »» 700 1,250 Papatoetoe .. n 1,340 6,547 Mount Roskill «* 17,403 13,305 Mount Wellington . 7,385 14,474 Totals t. £365,660 £373,328 1932 1931 Manurewa . ■> s £1343 £1,043 Papakura .. • t 2,320 2,900 Manukau County ~ 32,000 28,535 Totals i. .. £35,663 £32,478 It will be seen that the city itself shows a substantial increase of almost £33,000. This is largely accounted for by the contract for the Farmers' Freezing Company's new cool store near King's Wharf, which was valued at over £6os&o. The next largest contract of the year was one of £II,OOO for the new Roman Catholic church at Remuera. Mount Boskill's Increase The large boroughs of Mount Eden and Mount Albert each show a marked decline in building activity, and in Newmarket and in Papatoetoe the figures have fallen away to only about one-fifth of the 1931 total. In Mount Wellington there has been aboujt a 50 per cent, decline. In Devonport, on the other hand, "the figures have more than doubled, and Mount Roskill shows ja substantial increase of over £4OOO in the value of its building permits. In Onehunga also there has been an appreciable increase, as there has been in the outer'country area included in Manurewa, Papakura and the Manukau county. The "following is a comparative return of permits for new dwellings in the metropolitan area:— 1932 1931 . Auckland City ■ *. 63 91 Northcote .. • ■ s s 5 1 Takapuna . w m m H 8 Devonport ... vu >t 10 . 4 . Mount- Albert w u u. 15 17 Mount Eden . «■ v * 8 9 Newmarket . s ». 1 Onehunga u a. 9 10 Henderson . ■ u * 3 Glen Eden .. u v •• v 1 3 Papatoetoe . . . 2 7 ; Mount/Roskill .a »» 39 20 Mount Wellington a . 3 12 . Totals . . .. ■*. 171 185 . Helped chiefly by the large increase in Mount Roskill, which jumped up from 20 .to 39. these figures show a decline of less than 8 per cent. In the city the number of house permits fell by about a third, but in Devonport and in Takapuna there was a notable increase. In most of the other suburbs the position was practically unchanged. In the' Manukau county, out of a total iof 185 permits 70 were for houses, as compared with 51 last year. In Papakura two shops and one dwelling were erected, and 'in ManUrewa there were two house permits.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19330105.2.141

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21382, 5 January 1933, Page 10

Word Count
599

BUILDING YEAR New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21382, 5 January 1933, Page 10

BUILDING YEAR New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21382, 5 January 1933, Page 10