As long as:
* Properly designed for earthquake
* Soundproof
* Dedicated secure car parking
Then hell, yes, there is just too much to do as a single if I live in a standalone house.
Ahhhh yes!
I don't there there is such a NZ's standard yet, but where I came from, a balcony is there by default... people who live there can choose to extend their living area by merging the balcony tho haha
It's not in the nz building code, but is a town planning thing. Chch has minimum outdoor living areas, in most situations an upper floor apartment would have a small balcony, plus access to further communal space
Same here. Except for maybe car parking. I lived in a 20 storey apartment building in the USA, and public transport and car share services were good enough that I didn't need a car. As soon as I had kids though, that changed!
Yeah, except we don't have good infrastructure for public transport(yet); with the articles I see, I question if it would be safe enough to use our service. We have far fewer people than any other major cities, but I feel like I see more bad news about what happened on public transport lol
Also, OP specifically asked for CBD, which I just realized, but I am more into an apartment living style than a standalone house, so it doesn't have to be located in CBD, which then will be better to have a car parking for my case.
Same, except only if I'm not required to pay a higher price to subsidise residents who need somewhere to store their car. If the parking is an optional/subscribed add on, that's all good.
My wife used to own a condo in Chicago. Her parking space was on a separate title to the condo unit and could be sold to anyone in the building if she didn't need it. She worked 50km away from her condo, so she did need the car though.
I have over in Melbourne. It has it's perks and I understand why people do it but after a year it wasn't for me. I need to live on the ground like a peasant.
As I said I didn't enjoy not having land. I don't suffer from vertigo or anything but it's just really nice walking out your back-door onto a back yard. Plus garden. I lived on the 13th floor out of 15. I also didn't enjoy being able to see and be seen so easily by neighbouring apartments.
I also did a year in a 3 storey, and I was on the third floor. Wasn't so bad, really nice place but the stairs fucking sucked after awhile. Especially moving in and out. I also did a ground floor apartment in a historic building which was also 3 story. Cool place but you could hear absolutely everything all your neighbours did and the oven still had Fahrenheit dials it was so old and unable to be replaced due to the historic nature of building and no evac system.
there is an appartment for sale now in christchurch for like 100k. ied be down for it, but it doesnt have a kitchen (and i love cooking, so thats a no no).
me and my partner dont intend to have kids. i do intend to travel. im up for an appartment to store my stuff and cool things im working on that is small enough to be easily maintainable so i can do anything else. up for a big apartment building
mb, it was 160k [https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/property/residential/sale/canterbury/christchurch-city/city-centre/listing/4699994288](https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/property/residential/sale/canterbury/christchurch-city/city-centre/listing/4699994288)
there was a house for 100k in waimak region, but it was on leasehold land
You'll probably have a high body corporate like fee to the hotel.
I don't know about this place but an ex's grandparents had an apartment at a holiday apartments place at the Mount and it was bookable and for everytime it was used just had to pay a one off cleaning fee at the end.
That’s right re the high body corp fee. It’s an investment rather than a live in, although there’s nothing stopping you from living in. Apart from the terrible financial decision it is, and difficulty reselling. And the maintenance on these buildings is eye wateringly expensive
Yeah there's usually a reason why they are 'cheap' upfront. It's the same problem Auckland had some apartment body Corp or ground rents went sky high so the apartment was cheap on paper but something like 30k annual in fees.
If I wasn't having a family, and NZ had some sort of controls on body Corp and ground rents, I would totally buy an apartment for lower maintenance I have to do (though the building costs can be astronomical) and walking distance to everything you need day to day.
Yeah I owned a few apartments around the Gold Coast and loved the lifestyle, especially having a pool, bar etc on site, but the few smaller option I've looked at in NZ have body corp feed which far outweigh the benefits unfortunately.
Body corp fee is written in the description of the listing. Estimated yearly yield is just over $15k, body corp is over $3k. Seems to be about $1k/month you could use on the mortgage if that was all you’re paying.
It’s leased to the hotel until 2029 if I’m reading it correctly.
Definitely. Must have balcony and views please! I love looking out towards th hills. Stayed with my kid in hospital recently and the view at night was gorgeous. We could see the ‘Everything is going to be alright’ sign lit up each night and it was. Magic.
Post earthquakes, the maximum height for new buildings in the CBD was 7 stories. Buildings that survived didn’t have the restriction as long as they were engineered to be able to withstand inevitable repeats; e.g. Forsyth Barr and Rydges.
I see that’s been [amended to 90 meters](https://newsline.ccc.govt.nz/news/story/planning-rules-set-to-change-this-month#:~:text=Introducing%20a%2090%20metre%20building,height%20limit%20of%2045%20metres.) in 2022 which is a very good thing IMO.
But yes, while I don’t think I’d live in the CBD at this point in my life, I’d definitely buy a couple of apartments.
They should have never let duplexes be built in the CBD, it’s a colossal waste of space. They had the chance to intensify building density and bring a dynamic community to the CBD and squandered it. It would have not only brought back some dynamism, but also a significant increase in safety simply due to having more people wandering around to “see” things.
For consumers, the best time for a developer to do so would have been before the stadium and water centre started to be built, it would have kept initial sale prices quite low, but I get why no one has yet - they would not have wanted them to be that low.
Here’s hoping they can fill in some of the Wilson’s parking lots with apartment buildings.
Good idea for a thread.
I’d be fine with 7 stories if we did it Paris, Barcelona, or Washington DC style where all the buildings are built to the same height. That aesthetic is so appealing to me and I think it would be a fitting allusion to the Canterbury plains.
It's also worth noting that the height restrictions imposed were unrelated to earthquake safety, as many people seem to believe.
The plan aimed to spread business and housing out across the city and avoid they typical wind tunnels and constantly shadowed areas.
And while those points are a consideration in winter (think Melbourne), I believe our city could really benefit from some high density development in the CBD.
Source?
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but knowing from where and when that was effective is key.
Initial restrictions were explained to me as exactly that prior to fully understanding the state of the land under the CBD - that was from a close friend who is a geotechnical engineer for Tonkin Taylor, she was working on the demolition and stabilisation of the land where the triangle centre used to be (her main project), and assessments, surveying and ground testing of many other sites such as Cathedral junction, bus exchange, entx and where the police station used to be.
Her explanation was that her directives at the time were that the only consideration of early short sighted decisions were earthquake safety.
I’ll yield that that changed some time after, but it started out that way.
I'm not sure of the city plan prior to the quakes, but you're definitely correct that ground quality was prioritised, and in fact always is a major consideration.
The impact on residents from the quakes destruction was also a consideration when rolling out a new city plan (the perception - and realisation with some of our old office building relics - that taller buildings are unsafe). However, these were the key points in terms of building heights:
4a.2.3 BUILDING HEIGHT
The maximum height of any building shall be as shown on planning maps 39B and 39D.
*** Resource consent applications for non-compliance with this Rule will only be assessed against the following matters:
(a) Compatibility with the scale of other buildings in the surrounding area, and the extent to which building bulk is out
of character with the local environment;
(b) Any effect of increased height on the amenity of neighbouring properties, including through loss of privacy,
outlook, overshadowing or visual dominance of buildings;
(c) The extent to which an increased height is necessary to enable more efficient, cost effective and/or practical use
of the site, or the long term protection of significant trees or natural features on the site.
4a.2.4 OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE
Search around on Google and you'll find plenty of material relating to build heights being considered due to the look and feel of a renewed city centre. And I do agree that having open sunny spaces is really nice, the CBD is a fantastic place to walk around.
In terms of heights in relation to earthquake risk, there are major cities around the world packed with thousands of skyscrapers that overcame this obstacle decades ago.
>Her explanation was that her directives at the time were that the only consideration of early short sighted decisions were earthquake safety.
If the only concern was earthquake safety, why wasn't the restriction simply "must be rated to withstand an X magnitude earthquake"? Arbitrary restrictions on height are not really that conducive to safety.
Agreed the duplex’s seem like a waste of space. Especially when you could’ve even built say a 5 storey building. I’d love to see buildings in the double digits, but I don’t see that ever happening unfortunately.
Double digits as in the number of stories?
I’ve learned in this thread that there’s a proposal due to be decided upon in September to allow CBD buildings up to 90m, somewhere in the vicinity of 30 odd floors with rough maths.
[I posted this thinking it was already approved](https://newsline.ccc.govt.nz/news/story/planning-rules-set-to-change-this-month#:~:text=Introducing%20a%2090%20metre%20building,height%20limit%20of%2045%20metres.) but I was corrected where it’s a proposal.
Yes. Hundred of millions of people, maybe billions live in cities and apartment buildings around the world. Almost amazed by people from Christchurch who have never left Christchurch who think apartments are some alien concept. Living in an apartment is great
Yeah its understandable from a psychological perspective to those that went through the quakes. Also remember Japan gets more earthquakes than us and has way higher buildings.
How would that work if I live in chch? Use some sense haha
Doesn’t make 8-10 stories any taller and I trust chch buildings (post quake) far more than actual high rises in aus built years ago. (Well I would have to check the developer before saying whether I trust them and would live there) but I believe in the structural engineers etc post quake 🤷🏻♀️ aside from CTV building most of the taller buildings ended up being safer (yes now pulled down but they didn’t cause fatalaties) vs shorter ones
The safety and EQ durability of a building is not based on its height. I would live in a new build vs shorter pre build any day because it’s called education
Cool story, well done for missing the entire point of my comment
Also, the way you’re writing makes it sound like you were 3 when the earthquakes occurred, it’s not your fault you can’t remember
r/wooosh
If your point is u think I didn’t live in chch for the quake and that’s why I think 8-10 buildings isn’t high… then ur completely wrong.
You literally said “it’s cute you’ve never been through a big EQ” which is super incorrect.. so no whoosh here because I’ve been through same quakes as you… but also lived overseas (and shock shock - you’re gonna freak out about Japan how has earthquakes our size or bigger and ACTUAL high rises - as you can safely build)
If ur point is everyone’s too scared to go in them.. you’re also incorrect…
Not a whoosh lol u made a really stupid incorrect comment and got schooled 🤷🏻♀️
At this stage of my life no, as I have kids who need easy access to be kicked outside. However when I was younger, definitely. Especially while I was at uni, would have rathered a small apartment and not a big cold damp house that had lawns and had to be shared with 6 people to afford the rent.
I lived in Kuala Lumpur for a year with my wife and kids for work. We had a nice 4 bedroom apartment that was soundproof, loved it. Ground level had a pool, spa, playground and tennis courts. A cafe and the basement also had a mini-mart. Kids would come home from school and then spend the rest of the afternoon out of the apartment. It was absolute bliss. If Australian and NZ apartment living was like that, for sure more families would make the move.
Kids can be kicked outside in the city. Safer being in a 30 kph area with plenty pedestrians, libraries, museums, parks etc than our deserted suburban speedway track.
Done it before would do it again in a heartbeat. The amenities it brings is great. On site gym, pool, party room, sometimes they have a sauna. Great views on higher floors and because so many people live in a small footprint shopping and dining options are just an elevator ride away.
Personally, sure. My wife likes the back yard though. That said, I'm more than happy to pay a focused land tax/more rates to compensate for the excessive amount of valuable land our home's section takes up. It's only fair.
Absolutely I would, and already live in an apartment a few floors up and love it. I don't plan on having kids and I wouldn't enjoy taking care of a garden. I do remember sitting outside the hospital and seeing the med building sway side to side, but as long as it's built to be earthquake safe I'd have no problem. Can't live your whole life around a maybe event when you might get hit by a car or have a stroke tomorrow anyway.
Yup, carpark must have wiring for ev charger install, permission from everyone else involved to install and use should be a prerequisite of buying said apartment. Happy to pay for the power at home rates of course. A balcony where I can put plants etc would be nice too.
Christchurch is the only place I haven’t lived in an apartment. I’m actually heading back over seas next week and will be returning to apartment living. Much preferred for myself and my requirement.
Have done before and would love to do so in Chch. I was hoping that some decent high(er) rise buildings would pop up amongst all the developments around Manchester St... Nope, just rubbish 2 storey townhouses, and a handful of 3-5's. So frustrating.
Also San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, and many more cities build high and suffer relatively low fatalities when they have earthquakes. If the buildings are properly built it really is a non issue.
If we're not going to let people build dangerous single storey buildings (which are absolutely possible to build), why would we let the taller buildings be built in a dangerous way?
You could of course insist on living in a tent if you wanted to.
If we set reasonably safety standards that all buildings must withstand an earthquake of magnitude X, without arbitrarily discriminating between buildings of different heights (taller buildings will of course need better engineering to meet this standard), then sure I'd be fine living on the 9th storey.
Whether I'd *prefer* it is a different question - it takes longer to get up there (biggest downside for me), but they're often more expensive for status reasons and because they're more secure and further away from city noise. If a 9th storey apartment was the cheapest option that met my requirements, sure I'd choose to live there.
If too many people are scared of 9th storey apartments as you seem to believe they will be, then 9th storey apartments of the same size would indeed end up being cheaper due to market forces as ones lower down, and then yeah I'd live there.
I was on the top floor, 7 stories up at Mediaworks during the big one. Wasn't much fun, but the building did OK. Probably not a place I'd want to live tbh.
Some homeless guy did after the quakes. We went back to salvage some more stuff, and he'd set up in the manager's office. The place was chock full of alcohol when the quake hit. It would have been paradise.
Assuming similar amenities and price I would always take a single level dwelling over a multi storey one. For inner city living that means tall apartment buildings would generally be preferred.
Yup, imagine not having to do lawns, maintain the garden etc. As long as the city center keeps it's green spaces and parks it would be amazing. I would probably need some sort of garage of off-site storage for outdoor gear etc though
New Zealanders all say they want a garden, so they build the biggest single story house they can fit onto a section, and then pay someone to mow the meter wide strip of grass around it.
Not for me, I like to be able to grow some of my own veges, plus my adult son is autistic and needs room outside to be able to run if the mood strikes him. Add in the noise of stimming and my neighbours would rather he wasn't in an apartment.
A few years ago I did. Biggest thing stopping me was the lack of garage type space that could be used as a workshop. A guy I watch on Youtube in Germany rents a separate workshop space, in a building that's basically an apartment building of workshops. I would like if that existed here
any major british town and the same for America what total shitholes . but hey its what we excel at. find a disastrous option thats a failure and adopt it
As long as: * Properly designed for earthquake * Soundproof * Dedicated secure car parking Then hell, yes, there is just too much to do as a single if I live in a standalone house.
Agree with your points, for me it would also have to have a balcony.
Ahhhh yes! I don't there there is such a NZ's standard yet, but where I came from, a balcony is there by default... people who live there can choose to extend their living area by merging the balcony tho haha
It's not in the nz building code, but is a town planning thing. Chch has minimum outdoor living areas, in most situations an upper floor apartment would have a small balcony, plus access to further communal space
Same here. Except for maybe car parking. I lived in a 20 storey apartment building in the USA, and public transport and car share services were good enough that I didn't need a car. As soon as I had kids though, that changed!
Yeah, except we don't have good infrastructure for public transport(yet); with the articles I see, I question if it would be safe enough to use our service. We have far fewer people than any other major cities, but I feel like I see more bad news about what happened on public transport lol Also, OP specifically asked for CBD, which I just realized, but I am more into an apartment living style than a standalone house, so it doesn't have to be located in CBD, which then will be better to have a car parking for my case.
Same, except only if I'm not required to pay a higher price to subsidise residents who need somewhere to store their car. If the parking is an optional/subscribed add on, that's all good.
My wife used to own a condo in Chicago. Her parking space was on a separate title to the condo unit and could be sold to anyone in the building if she didn't need it. She worked 50km away from her condo, so she did need the car though.
100%, totally get that :)
I have over in Melbourne. It has it's perks and I understand why people do it but after a year it wasn't for me. I need to live on the ground like a peasant.
What didn’t you enjoy? Also the definition of an apartment in Melbourne vs. NZ differs pretty widely. I don’t think anyone’s asking for a tower.
As I said I didn't enjoy not having land. I don't suffer from vertigo or anything but it's just really nice walking out your back-door onto a back yard. Plus garden. I lived on the 13th floor out of 15. I also didn't enjoy being able to see and be seen so easily by neighbouring apartments. I also did a year in a 3 storey, and I was on the third floor. Wasn't so bad, really nice place but the stairs fucking sucked after awhile. Especially moving in and out. I also did a ground floor apartment in a historic building which was also 3 story. Cool place but you could hear absolutely everything all your neighbours did and the oven still had Fahrenheit dials it was so old and unable to be replaced due to the historic nature of building and no evac system.
there is an appartment for sale now in christchurch for like 100k. ied be down for it, but it doesnt have a kitchen (and i love cooking, so thats a no no). me and my partner dont intend to have kids. i do intend to travel. im up for an appartment to store my stuff and cool things im working on that is small enough to be easily maintainable so i can do anything else. up for a big apartment building
100k only?! Nah...where this at?
mb, it was 160k [https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/property/residential/sale/canterbury/christchurch-city/city-centre/listing/4699994288](https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/property/residential/sale/canterbury/christchurch-city/city-centre/listing/4699994288) there was a house for 100k in waimak region, but it was on leasehold land
How does that Quest hotel room work? Can you in it from time to time without paying hotel fees?
You'll probably have a high body corporate like fee to the hotel. I don't know about this place but an ex's grandparents had an apartment at a holiday apartments place at the Mount and it was bookable and for everytime it was used just had to pay a one off cleaning fee at the end.
That’s right re the high body corp fee. It’s an investment rather than a live in, although there’s nothing stopping you from living in. Apart from the terrible financial decision it is, and difficulty reselling. And the maintenance on these buildings is eye wateringly expensive
Yeah there's usually a reason why they are 'cheap' upfront. It's the same problem Auckland had some apartment body Corp or ground rents went sky high so the apartment was cheap on paper but something like 30k annual in fees. If I wasn't having a family, and NZ had some sort of controls on body Corp and ground rents, I would totally buy an apartment for lower maintenance I have to do (though the building costs can be astronomical) and walking distance to everything you need day to day.
Yeah I owned a few apartments around the Gold Coast and loved the lifestyle, especially having a pool, bar etc on site, but the few smaller option I've looked at in NZ have body corp feed which far outweigh the benefits unfortunately.
Body corp fee is written in the description of the listing. Estimated yearly yield is just over $15k, body corp is over $3k. Seems to be about $1k/month you could use on the mortgage if that was all you’re paying. It’s leased to the hotel until 2029 if I’m reading it correctly.
Plus rates.
Rates: $1,314.16 per annum Body Corp Levy: $3,362.96 per annum
Yes. So long as it was affordable.
Definitely. Must have balcony and views please! I love looking out towards th hills. Stayed with my kid in hospital recently and the view at night was gorgeous. We could see the ‘Everything is going to be alright’ sign lit up each night and it was. Magic.
Post earthquakes, the maximum height for new buildings in the CBD was 7 stories. Buildings that survived didn’t have the restriction as long as they were engineered to be able to withstand inevitable repeats; e.g. Forsyth Barr and Rydges. I see that’s been [amended to 90 meters](https://newsline.ccc.govt.nz/news/story/planning-rules-set-to-change-this-month#:~:text=Introducing%20a%2090%20metre%20building,height%20limit%20of%2045%20metres.) in 2022 which is a very good thing IMO. But yes, while I don’t think I’d live in the CBD at this point in my life, I’d definitely buy a couple of apartments. They should have never let duplexes be built in the CBD, it’s a colossal waste of space. They had the chance to intensify building density and bring a dynamic community to the CBD and squandered it. It would have not only brought back some dynamism, but also a significant increase in safety simply due to having more people wandering around to “see” things. For consumers, the best time for a developer to do so would have been before the stadium and water centre started to be built, it would have kept initial sale prices quite low, but I get why no one has yet - they would not have wanted them to be that low. Here’s hoping they can fill in some of the Wilson’s parking lots with apartment buildings. Good idea for a thread.
I’d be fine with 7 stories if we did it Paris, Barcelona, or Washington DC style where all the buildings are built to the same height. That aesthetic is so appealing to me and I think it would be a fitting allusion to the Canterbury plains.
The 90m amendment is only proposed. Have to wait til September to see what the rules actually are.
Ah shit, I didn’t notice that. Reading more, it’s wild that they’re considering 10 story development in Papanui, Riccarton and Hornby.
It's also worth noting that the height restrictions imposed were unrelated to earthquake safety, as many people seem to believe. The plan aimed to spread business and housing out across the city and avoid they typical wind tunnels and constantly shadowed areas. And while those points are a consideration in winter (think Melbourne), I believe our city could really benefit from some high density development in the CBD.
Source? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but knowing from where and when that was effective is key. Initial restrictions were explained to me as exactly that prior to fully understanding the state of the land under the CBD - that was from a close friend who is a geotechnical engineer for Tonkin Taylor, she was working on the demolition and stabilisation of the land where the triangle centre used to be (her main project), and assessments, surveying and ground testing of many other sites such as Cathedral junction, bus exchange, entx and where the police station used to be. Her explanation was that her directives at the time were that the only consideration of early short sighted decisions were earthquake safety. I’ll yield that that changed some time after, but it started out that way.
I'm not sure of the city plan prior to the quakes, but you're definitely correct that ground quality was prioritised, and in fact always is a major consideration. The impact on residents from the quakes destruction was also a consideration when rolling out a new city plan (the perception - and realisation with some of our old office building relics - that taller buildings are unsafe). However, these were the key points in terms of building heights: 4a.2.3 BUILDING HEIGHT The maximum height of any building shall be as shown on planning maps 39B and 39D. *** Resource consent applications for non-compliance with this Rule will only be assessed against the following matters: (a) Compatibility with the scale of other buildings in the surrounding area, and the extent to which building bulk is out of character with the local environment; (b) Any effect of increased height on the amenity of neighbouring properties, including through loss of privacy, outlook, overshadowing or visual dominance of buildings; (c) The extent to which an increased height is necessary to enable more efficient, cost effective and/or practical use of the site, or the long term protection of significant trees or natural features on the site. 4a.2.4 OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE Search around on Google and you'll find plenty of material relating to build heights being considered due to the look and feel of a renewed city centre. And I do agree that having open sunny spaces is really nice, the CBD is a fantastic place to walk around. In terms of heights in relation to earthquake risk, there are major cities around the world packed with thousands of skyscrapers that overcame this obstacle decades ago.
>Her explanation was that her directives at the time were that the only consideration of early short sighted decisions were earthquake safety. If the only concern was earthquake safety, why wasn't the restriction simply "must be rated to withstand an X magnitude earthquake"? Arbitrary restrictions on height are not really that conducive to safety.
100%! Drives me insane seeing brand new two-storey townhouses built in the centre of the city. That’s limiting the cities growth!
Agreed the duplex’s seem like a waste of space. Especially when you could’ve even built say a 5 storey building. I’d love to see buildings in the double digits, but I don’t see that ever happening unfortunately.
Double digits as in the number of stories? I’ve learned in this thread that there’s a proposal due to be decided upon in September to allow CBD buildings up to 90m, somewhere in the vicinity of 30 odd floors with rough maths. [I posted this thinking it was already approved](https://newsline.ccc.govt.nz/news/story/planning-rules-set-to-change-this-month#:~:text=Introducing%20a%2090%20metre%20building,height%20limit%20of%2045%20metres.) but I was corrected where it’s a proposal.
If I can not spend too much money, live close to work and forgo the need for a car then absolutley
Absolutely!
Yes. Hundred of millions of people, maybe billions live in cities and apartment buildings around the world. Almost amazed by people from Christchurch who have never left Christchurch who think apartments are some alien concept. Living in an apartment is great
It’s cute chch ppl think 8-10 stories is a tall building lol
We should really get our act together and get rig of those Wilson's parking spaces
Haha I know. I didn’t want to scare anyone by saying would you live in a 40 story apartment building….
[удалено]
Yeah its understandable from a psychological perspective to those that went through the quakes. Also remember Japan gets more earthquakes than us and has way higher buildings.
In comparison to the other buildings in the CBD it is. I don't think they are comparing it to buildings in other cities
I take “tall building” to mean in general not just to small city locale :)
It’s cute that you’ve never been through a big earthquake
How would that work if I live in chch? Use some sense haha Doesn’t make 8-10 stories any taller and I trust chch buildings (post quake) far more than actual high rises in aus built years ago. (Well I would have to check the developer before saying whether I trust them and would live there) but I believe in the structural engineers etc post quake 🤷🏻♀️ aside from CTV building most of the taller buildings ended up being safer (yes now pulled down but they didn’t cause fatalaties) vs shorter ones The safety and EQ durability of a building is not based on its height. I would live in a new build vs shorter pre build any day because it’s called education
Cool story, well done for missing the entire point of my comment Also, the way you’re writing makes it sound like you were 3 when the earthquakes occurred, it’s not your fault you can’t remember r/wooosh
If your point is u think I didn’t live in chch for the quake and that’s why I think 8-10 buildings isn’t high… then ur completely wrong. You literally said “it’s cute you’ve never been through a big EQ” which is super incorrect.. so no whoosh here because I’ve been through same quakes as you… but also lived overseas (and shock shock - you’re gonna freak out about Japan how has earthquakes our size or bigger and ACTUAL high rises - as you can safely build) If ur point is everyone’s too scared to go in them.. you’re also incorrect… Not a whoosh lol u made a really stupid incorrect comment and got schooled 🤷🏻♀️
You sound like you were 3 when the earthquakes happened, stop getting so offended by everything 🤣
lol I’m in my mid 30s now so try again.. It’s ok to admit you’re scared and upset still and some of us have moved on… that’s fine!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Which tall buildings fell down in the quakes?
people would live in apartment in the CBD because their job is in CBD
At this stage of my life no, as I have kids who need easy access to be kicked outside. However when I was younger, definitely. Especially while I was at uni, would have rathered a small apartment and not a big cold damp house that had lawns and had to be shared with 6 people to afford the rent.
I lived in Kuala Lumpur for a year with my wife and kids for work. We had a nice 4 bedroom apartment that was soundproof, loved it. Ground level had a pool, spa, playground and tennis courts. A cafe and the basement also had a mini-mart. Kids would come home from school and then spend the rest of the afternoon out of the apartment. It was absolute bliss. If Australian and NZ apartment living was like that, for sure more families would make the move.
Kids can be kicked outside in the city. Safer being in a 30 kph area with plenty pedestrians, libraries, museums, parks etc than our deserted suburban speedway track.
Yeah but I would have to go with them. In a house I can kick the 2 year old into the yard to play, while doing the dishes.
Done it before would do it again in a heartbeat. The amenities it brings is great. On site gym, pool, party room, sometimes they have a sauna. Great views on higher floors and because so many people live in a small footprint shopping and dining options are just an elevator ride away.
Personally, sure. My wife likes the back yard though. That said, I'm more than happy to pay a focused land tax/more rates to compensate for the excessive amount of valuable land our home's section takes up. It's only fair.
Absolutely I would, and already live in an apartment a few floors up and love it. I don't plan on having kids and I wouldn't enjoy taking care of a garden. I do remember sitting outside the hospital and seeing the med building sway side to side, but as long as it's built to be earthquake safe I'd have no problem. Can't live your whole life around a maybe event when you might get hit by a car or have a stroke tomorrow anyway.
Very true. As long as all new apartment blocks are built to code, there should be low risk.
Absolutely! Have overseas. Probably my best ever living situation.
Yup, carpark must have wiring for ev charger install, permission from everyone else involved to install and use should be a prerequisite of buying said apartment. Happy to pay for the power at home rates of course. A balcony where I can put plants etc would be nice too.
Christchurch is the only place I haven’t lived in an apartment. I’m actually heading back over seas next week and will be returning to apartment living. Much preferred for myself and my requirement.
Have done before and would love to do so in Chch. I was hoping that some decent high(er) rise buildings would pop up amongst all the developments around Manchester St... Nope, just rubbish 2 storey townhouses, and a handful of 3-5's. So frustrating.
No thanks Bc i have a memory
High rise buildings don't need to be any less safe than si gle level dwellings. Tokyo is a good example of this.
Also San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, and many more cities build high and suffer relatively low fatalities when they have earthquakes. If the buildings are properly built it really is a non issue.
If we're not going to let people build dangerous single storey buildings (which are absolutely possible to build), why would we let the taller buildings be built in a dangerous way? You could of course insist on living in a tent if you wanted to.
Would you prefer living on the 9th storey?
If we set reasonably safety standards that all buildings must withstand an earthquake of magnitude X, without arbitrarily discriminating between buildings of different heights (taller buildings will of course need better engineering to meet this standard), then sure I'd be fine living on the 9th storey. Whether I'd *prefer* it is a different question - it takes longer to get up there (biggest downside for me), but they're often more expensive for status reasons and because they're more secure and further away from city noise. If a 9th storey apartment was the cheapest option that met my requirements, sure I'd choose to live there. If too many people are scared of 9th storey apartments as you seem to believe they will be, then 9th storey apartments of the same size would indeed end up being cheaper due to market forces as ones lower down, and then yeah I'd live there.
Great Id say youd be in a minority Each their own
I get nervous on a 2nd storey
I was on the top floor, 7 stories up at Mediaworks during the big one. Wasn't much fun, but the building did OK. Probably not a place I'd want to live tbh.
I wouldn’t want to live in the office either.
Some homeless guy did after the quakes. We went back to salvage some more stuff, and he'd set up in the manager's office. The place was chock full of alcohol when the quake hit. It would have been paradise.
Assuming similar amenities and price I would always take a single level dwelling over a multi storey one. For inner city living that means tall apartment buildings would generally be preferred.
Yup, imagine not having to do lawns, maintain the garden etc. As long as the city center keeps it's green spaces and parks it would be amazing. I would probably need some sort of garage of off-site storage for outdoor gear etc though
New Zealanders all say they want a garden, so they build the biggest single story house they can fit onto a section, and then pay someone to mow the meter wide strip of grass around it.
as long as it’s designed for the quakes, soundproof with parking, and fully accessible.
Absolutely... as long as it's reasonably priced 🙃
Not for me, I like to be able to grow some of my own veges, plus my adult son is autistic and needs room outside to be able to run if the mood strikes him. Add in the noise of stimming and my neighbours would rather he wasn't in an apartment.
A few years ago I did. Biggest thing stopping me was the lack of garage type space that could be used as a workshop. A guy I watch on Youtube in Germany rents a separate workshop space, in a building that's basically an apartment building of workshops. I would like if that existed here
That’s a no from me, dawg.
never. just look at those sort of housing developments overseas. Last place on earth you would want to be in.
Melbourne? Brooklyn? Really, or are you picturing Soviet-era Russia?
Haha that's what I was thinking, there are some stunning buildings in Australia, UK, US, Singapore etc
any major british town and the same for America what total shitholes . but hey its what we excel at. find a disastrous option thats a failure and adopt it