A different way of living
Changing our mix of housing may be required if New Zealand is to tackle both isolation and affordability.
‘We are not alone, but there is loneliness,’’ says Shirley King, as she points to her heart.
King, 71, lives in Abbeyfield in Nelson, where older people flat with each other.
Her room is immaculate, decorated just the way she likes it, with a plush blue rug, white lacquered furniture and cream curtains.
The nationwide homes are run by volunteers, apart from a paid live-in housekeeper, and residents pay affordable rent without a capital contribution.
The elderly live independently in their room at the house; they do their own washing for instance, but meals are cooked by the housekeeper.
Ron Wood, 96, says the Nelson Abbeyfield is ‘‘heaven’’ to live in.
‘‘They look after us and feed us plenty. You can do what you like and I certainly don’t feel lonely here.’’
Abbeyfield Nelson chairman Barry Mills says it accommodates 11 people in the Tahunanui house, and 13 in Stoke.
He does not think the idea of intergenerational living would work at Abbeyfield, as the residents often have their own families around for visits.
Research has shown that social isolation and loneliness are associated with a range of health issues: depression, high blood pressure and dementia.
A study from 2010 found social isolation was equivalent to smoking 15 cigarettes a day and drinking six units of alcohol.
Anthony Vile, the built environment manager of Aucklandbased Terra Consultants, says New Zealand ‘‘struggled a little bit’’ with the right mix of housing types and tenures to combat social isolation.
‘‘I think that’s just because our traditional development model is [building on] greenfields and we’ve always traditionally built houses. It has a potential to cause isolation.
‘‘Now, with pressures coming on in terms of land cost and moving away from an automobile-based society, people are wanting to live within walking, cycling, public transport distances [so] we have to think a bit differently.’’
One option is a system in which the Government creates schemes for developers to build housing that would suit a mix of different social economic groups.
‘The Dutch do this really well, where a developer has to provide a certain percentage of a development in terms of social, affordable units. We don’t have that system in New Zealand.’’
Vile says it is up to the councils in different areas to come up with land-use strategies, dictating what can be built where.
The Auckland Unitary Plan, which has changed the zone in big parts of the city, means that more intensive development, including buildings with more storeys, can be constructed instead of single houses.
‘‘That’s a pretty simple tool to enable new types of density, I guess, in what was probably historically lower density areas.’’
He says the Government can either provide ‘‘a carrot’’ to developers, or do the developing itself.
‘‘There’s got to be a reason for a developer to do something. They’re in the business to make money, really.
‘‘Maybe a tax break, maybe a bonus in terms of floor area – you might be able to get an additional [amount of] square metres if you provide certain social infrastructure – or you can build here but 20 per cent of your units have to be affordable."
The crux is to move New Zealand’s culture away from relying on capital gain to futureproofing, he says.
‘‘As a designer, you can talk about this utopian way of thinking but it’s really the developers that are driving projects [and] it’s really tied up with the economics and stuff.
‘‘It’s hard to unpack all that over a short period of time. There’s no silver bullet.’’ – Sarah Meij