In Auckland, the council has been running an experiment, and at the heart of it is a bold decision to remove restrictions around zoning — but the New Zealand election could change things.
Most of the houses I would have considered townhouses would not be on shared land, but are subdivided freehold land. I’m going to be a lot more careful with the term in future!
Interesting! It seems it historically refers to housing in dense city areas that aren’t apartments. I don’t think my idea of townhouses as suburban detached houses built on small subdivided backyards really aligns too much with any of the definitions, though you’re right that the historical US definition is sort of similar.
Now I’m wondering what to call detached houses on subdivided sections. The ones where the house almost fills the whole section.
In new builds the houses seem to almost fill full sections as well, half the time. Apparently from an investment point of view it maximises value/returns. Kind of sucks from a liking to play on the lawn point of view though.
Haha I guess the house itself isn’t the differentiating point, it’s the section it’s on, so maybe ‘houses’ is right.
Land is super expensive at the moment (you know, over the last generation or so), so it makes sense that minimising the land use means higher profits for developers. In theory, actions like Auckland have done should make land more available and therefore cheaper (supply and demand), but there is probably a factor of where new builds are going too. It makes sense to build houses where people want to live, but this means higher demand for the space which means higher density housing makes sense.
It totally makes sense in our cities. I think the investment part is sort of warping things a bit outside that. It’s really noticeable in new builds in coastal towns where many of them are holiday homes that sit empty a lot and there’s still plenty of land. I know a town that has under 60% occupancy and all the new parts have that big house to land ratio.
I don’t get out much so I haven’t noticed developments in holiday destinations! Maybe people don’t want a big lawn in a holiday home, because they won’t be around to mow it?
I only notice because I drive through these places on my way to visit family. The area I grew up has sort of turned into a bit of a resort area. It’s kind of sad because a bunch of the family houses are vacant and the area’s locals find it difficult to get housing.
Maybe people don’t want a big lawn, true. It might be a cultural shift because they are less active with boats or outdoor stuff than when we were kids? The lawns and maintenance gets done by contractors and there are also companies that manage your bach if you want to put it on air bnb.
Most of the houses I would have considered townhouses would not be on shared land, but are subdivided freehold land. I’m going to be a lot more careful with the term in future!
Out of curiousity I just looked it up on Wikipedia and it turns out there are regional differences as well!
Your definition seems to be the old North American idea (but now they use it to mean two different things).
In the UK it’s a type of terrace.
My definition is for Australia NZ and South Africa.
Interesting! It seems it historically refers to housing in dense city areas that aren’t apartments. I don’t think my idea of townhouses as suburban detached houses built on small subdivided backyards really aligns too much with any of the definitions, though you’re right that the historical US definition is sort of similar.
Now I’m wondering what to call detached houses on subdivided sections. The ones where the house almost fills the whole section.
Just, houses? Or maybe “infill houses”?
In new builds the houses seem to almost fill full sections as well, half the time. Apparently from an investment point of view it maximises value/returns. Kind of sucks from a liking to play on the lawn point of view though.
Haha I guess the house itself isn’t the differentiating point, it’s the section it’s on, so maybe ‘houses’ is right.
Land is super expensive at the moment (you know, over the last generation or so), so it makes sense that minimising the land use means higher profits for developers. In theory, actions like Auckland have done should make land more available and therefore cheaper (supply and demand), but there is probably a factor of where new builds are going too. It makes sense to build houses where people want to live, but this means higher demand for the space which means higher density housing makes sense.
It totally makes sense in our cities. I think the investment part is sort of warping things a bit outside that. It’s really noticeable in new builds in coastal towns where many of them are holiday homes that sit empty a lot and there’s still plenty of land. I know a town that has under 60% occupancy and all the new parts have that big house to land ratio.
I don’t get out much so I haven’t noticed developments in holiday destinations! Maybe people don’t want a big lawn in a holiday home, because they won’t be around to mow it?
I only notice because I drive through these places on my way to visit family. The area I grew up has sort of turned into a bit of a resort area. It’s kind of sad because a bunch of the family houses are vacant and the area’s locals find it difficult to get housing.
Maybe people don’t want a big lawn, true. It might be a cultural shift because they are less active with boats or outdoor stuff than when we were kids? The lawns and maintenance gets done by contractors and there are also companies that manage your bach if you want to put it on air bnb.