The Bad Guys Are Winning
THERE WAS A TIME when property developers were very definitely the bad guys. Back in the 1980s, especially, when they came to stand for all that was wrong with the brash new society Roger Douglas was letting them build. They had friends in the council bureaucracy, friends in the media, friends in the government. Yeah, property developers had it made – easy for them.
Which is why the first most people heard about their “developments” was when the lovely old villa next door was bulldozed flat and some ghastly excuse for a human dwelling took its place. No more weatherboard. No more eaves, No more window-sills. Just flat planes of beige. Hideous.
The walls surrounding these monstrosities were apt symbols of the property developer’s “art”. They looked solid, But they were hollow. Nothing but cheap cladding, made to look like solid stucco. Within a very few years they, just like the houses they surrounded, were leaking, rotting, disintegrating. Not that the property developers cared. They were long gone. Laughing all the way to the bank – or bankruptcy.
Definitely the bad guys.
Not anymore. To read Hayden Donnell’s “The Character Protection Racket” (Metro No. 435 Winter 2022) is to be introduced to the Property Developer as urban super-hero. A sort of caped-crusader swooping in to level the “character housing” suburbs that are all that now remains of what used to be one of the most beautiful cities in Australasia. What the developers’ wrecking-balls did to the magnificent public and commercial buildings of Auckland in the 1980s, their children’s bulldozers will soon be doing to the century-plus-old homes that the people responsible for all that style and beauty built and lived in.
Suburb-smashers as super-heroes? Doesn’t that sound just the teeniest bit upside-down and back-to-front? Not at all. Because, you see, out of all that Kauri and stained-glass ruin, will rise the multi-storied, can’t-swing-a-cat-in-‘em – but affordable – apartments that Donnell and his generation have been longing for ever since the “FIRE” (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) brigade drove the humble Kiwi bungalow out of the entitled precariat’s price-range.
It’s a class war, masquerading as an intergenerational struggle, dressed up as a battle for the poor folks living in cars and motels. A class war fuelled by envy and rage.
Since the homes of the inner-city suburbs are gracious and spacious, shaded by leafy exotics, and superbly situated among sweeping, well-manicured lawns, it should come as no real surprise that only the very rich can afford them. What’s more, in a country with no Capital Gains Tax and no Inheritance Tax, these homes can be kept “in the family”. Deferred gratification not being the millennial generations’ strong suit, it would seem that they have decided that if they can’t have the sort of homes depicted in Peter Stillwell’s paintings (which, with exquisite irony, Metro chose to illustrate Donnell’s article) then nobody can. Bowl the lot!
Apparently, like Milton’s Lucifer, Donnell’s generation prefers to rule in architectural Hell, than serve in Auckland’s leafy Heaven. The same people who weep for a natural environment fast succumbing to climate change, haven’t the slightest compunction in laying waste the fragile urban ecologies that preserve cities as both living places and liveable spaces. The cityscape bequeathed to us by these hell-raisers will look nothing like Stillwell’s paintings. It will resemble the dark urban jungles of Japanese manga comics. A world run by ruthless corporations, corrupt politicians, and gangsters – with blank, angular, and essentially soulless architecture to match.
Which, if one is able to put aside the sick horror of the image, is actually a perfect reflection of the forces driving the demolition of Old Auckland. Remember the description of the 1980s property developer as someone with friends in the council bureaucracy, friends in the media, friends in the government? Well, isn’t that a pretty good description of the people who are out to destroy the “character protection racket”?
Donnell’s allies aren’t the members of grass-roots pressure groups (the grass-roots pressure-groups are all fighting to preserve the inner suburbs!) they are ambitious council bureaucrats, journalists employed by a mainstream media utterly dependent upon the advertising of the FIRE brigade, and members of a Labour Government eerily possessed by the spirit of the Eighties. A neoliberal decade that laid waste one of the most decent societies on earth – a society whose only tangible legacy are the homes its people used to be able to afford.
How strange that this is where we’ve ended up. With a government of property developers, by property developers, for property developers. A government which has actually made it illegal to protect character housing.
Not because this Labour Government wants to build the sort of Auckland envisaged 80 years ago by the Housing Division of the Ministry of Works. An Auckland of public housing for the poor, and the young, and families saving for a home of their own. No.
When the character housing suburbs Donnell so despises are flattened, what rises from the ruins will not be for the poor, it will be for the ten-percent. The professionals and managers whose mission it is to keep the world safe for the one-percent. The super-rich who will, long since, have abandoned the doomed leafy suburbs for vast penthouses at the summit of Auckland’s proudest towers. Or sprawling mansions in the countryside, up long driveways, safe from prying eyes – and clawing hands.
No, this Labour Government isn’t building houses for the poor. This Labour Government hates the poor! Why else would it leave them to rot in mouldy houses, squalid motels, and cheap imported cars? No, this Labour Government is building boxes – tool boxes – for its ever-helpful mouthpieces and apologists.
Not to put too fine a point on it, this Labour Government is building houses for people like Hayden Donnell.







Not fair saying the Labour government hates the poor
When the National Party hates them more.
Who cares about Aucklands leafy suburbs. My Queen has died.
Its the councils, especially signing off designs the leak as well as looking like shit.
Major developements here in Grey Lynn, many look like total crap.
They should never be approved.
Ockham Residential are expensive and body corps are ridiculous but they are great design and sturdy. I have land in Grey Lynn that I wish to develop and yes I will make sure it will be admired and praised too.
No easy solution when successive governments have embraced population growth as a faux mechanism to ensure capitalism’s equally false demand for infinite growth.
Sooner or later the strain on infrastructure that was never designed for the higher load, lifestyle degradation and decline in housing availability and housing standards will demand that the bill be paid.
I’m amazed we’ve deferred for so long on truly starting the payment of the bill for the neoliberal experiment, I still think 99% of the iceberg remains ahead.
No amount of bickering over aesthetics, nimbyism, middle-class entitlement vs homeless addresses the root cause: over population and the myth of obtainable eternal growth.
Totally agree Richard
According to sensus data about 40% of western woman are passing away single and childless so how does an almost below replacement birth rate fit in with your overpopulation theory?
It’s the imported cheap labour that’s overpopulating us. 4mil to 5 mil in a decade.
I don’t think hospitality is the same as migration.
The big issue is to many intelligent people not having enough babies.
Maybe we should cut cigarette taxes and let them smoke themselves to death.
Chris, you made so many good points there, I don’t know where to start!
Firstly, none of this need happen. As usual with NZ, it’s total own-goal. We live in an underpopulated country with vast tracts of empty land surrounding our largest city that has minimal agricultural value and could be covered in houses. For those that don’t like the idea of building out rather than up, we zone new suburbs for residential/industrial/commercial so as to take the jobs to the people. Furthermore, it is FAR less expensive and less disruptive to build new subdivisions than it is to infill because of the enormous cost of ripping up the roads to overlay services in existing suburbs and the ease of access for construction in greenfield construction. So why haven’t we done this?
Just as Chris says, it’s the fault of the middle class ‘Karens’ who run Auckland Council. Most are just bureaucratic drones whose role is to prevent things being done. There’s a regulation for everything! To fix the problem we need a few simple things done:
1. Central government must legislate to force local government to release land. Scrap the rural/urban boundary and open up land for development. This was Labour policy right up until they were elected in 2017, then it was dropped. One wonders which Labour Party power broker didn’t want his lifestyle block surrounded by houses…
2. Central government must legislate to force local government to accept building products made to internationally recognized standards. It is complete bullshit to demand local brand names on building designs. Drywall is drywall. Not Gib.
3. In order stop councils from pleading poverty when it comes to extending infrastructure, allocate a small portion of GST revenue to fund local infrastructure projects. This would need oversight to prevent willful councils spending it on sports stadia, bucket fountains and wind wands.
4. Limit the scope of liability of local government when it comes to building consent. The main reason building consents are slow is because they’re terrified of approving a leaky building and getting sued. Central government could just as easily cut the legs out from under the building consent people by getting the entire portfolios of the major contractors approved by BRANZ.
Under Key, National investigated this and gained an understanding of the issues but lacked the balls to trespass into the affairs of local government, whereas the current Labour government is just especially clueless: None of the current cabinet could hammer a nail or dig a hole without injuring themselves.
Isn’t every city’s redesign resisted? Georges-Eugène Haussmann is feted internationally for transforming the French capital with an audacious programme of urban planning. Yet his legacy at home remains controversial.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/mar/31/story-cities-12-paris-baron-haussmann-france-urban-planner-napoleon