The deputy prime minister didn\u2019t want to be connected to something he sees as putting homes in the wrong places. Namely, his electorate. \u201cTake a suburb like Parnell,\u201d he said. \u201cWe\u2019ve, in the last couple of years, had whole buildings fall into sinkholes because the 120-year-old sewer underneath imploded.\u201d It\u2019s true, a sinkhole the size of a tennis court opened up in Parnell<\/a> after an ageing sewer pipe failed in 2023, though Seymour\u2019s memory of a building falling into it seems to be hallucinatory. He nevertheless argued the phantom house down the crevasse showed the folly of legalising high rises in the suburb. \u201cI\u2019m not sure that is a serious or sensible proposition.\u201d<\/p>\n Seymour\u2019s overarching point was that Parnell, and some other inner-city areas, don\u2019t have the infrastructure needed to support dense new housing. It\u2019s been echoed by a chorus of contenders on the local election trail. At a \u201cmeet the candidates\u201d event at The Surrey in Grey Lynn, nearly all the right-leaning candidates shared the same sentiment. \u201cYou need to make sure the infrastructure is in place before you intensify,\u201d said Muy Chhour. \u201cBefore we intensify, we need the infrastructure in order to do that,\u201d said Genevieve Sage. \u201cI believe we should look at the capacity that we have in our area and intensify where the opportunity is. But infrastructure has to come first,\u201d said Greg Moyle. \u201cInfrastructure first, then housing,\u201d insisted Leo Grachev.<\/p>\n Most of these complaints centre on pipes, but concerns have also been raised about the intensification\u2019s effects on other infrastructure including roads, parking, schools<\/a> and green spaces<\/a>. It\u2019s not just confined to the right. The ostensibly progressive mayoral contender Kerrin Leoni has posted to Facebook praising Seymour for stepping in to oppose the council\u2019s housing ambitions. \u201cThis isn\u2019t about buildings \u2013 it\u2019s about whether our infrastructure can cope,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n Some of these objectors\u2019 examples are a little head-scratching. Leoni\u2019s post was illustrated by a photo of some under-construction apartments in Point Chevalier with a red bar through their middle. But as Albert-Eden-Puket\u0101papa councillor Julie Fairey pointed out in the comments below, those apartments were built by K\u0101inga Ora for people with mobility and health issues. They\u2019re right next to two frequent bus routes and a few metres from two supermarkets, a pharmacy, a physio, and a doctors\u2019 clinic. Leoni later apologised for including the photo and took down her Facebook post.\u00a0<\/p>\n The same goes for Parnell. After the sinkhole opened up in 2023, the council spent $63 million upgrading the sewer system in the area. Its planning committee chair Richard Hills says the suburb now has some of the best infrastructure in Auckland, with three train stations and regular bus services nearby, and around $500 million in Watercare infrastructure either planned or under way to take pressure off its pipes. \u201cAnd it\u2019s walking and cycling distance from universities and hundreds of thousands of jobs. Yet we are being told to replace that capacity with greenfield sprawl, which has no infrastructure. It\u2019s literally just green fields, it\u2019s in the name.\u201d<\/p>\n Hills is right that Seymour has advocated for greenfields growth to make up for allowing less housing in places like Parnell. He\u2019s expressed frustration at the council\u2019s reluctance to zone for new subdivisions on the outskirts of town where he says \u201cpeople want to live\u201d. Housing minister Chris Bishop has also accused council of having a \u201cweird aversion to new greenfield housing\u201d.<\/p>\n But if your objection to density is the lack of appropriate infrastructure, are greenfields the solution? Peter Nunns, strategy manager for the Infrastructure Commission, Te Waihanga, says the answer can be site-specific. Some greenfield areas are relatively easy to service with roading, pipes and power. Some urban ones can be expensive. But generally, the choice is clear. \u201cNew Zealand and international evidence suggests that growth in existing urban areas tends to be cheaper to serve with infrastructure, on average, than growth in greenfield areas.\u201d<\/p>\n The Infrastructure Commission\u2019s\u00a0research from this year<\/a> indicates dense developments that don\u2019t require large increases in\u00a0infrastructure networks are more likely to provide an economic return for councils. Other studies carried out in Wellington<\/a> and Victoria, Australia<\/a>, also show urban infrastructure is more cost-effective.<\/p>\n On the other hand, providing infrastructure for greenfields developments is often ruinously expensive. Te Waihanga\u2019s 2022 analysis<\/a> found enabling development in Drury would come at a cost of almost $100,000 worth of infrastructure per person. Auckland Council has pushed back against a development in Delmore, north of \u014crewa, saying servicing its 1,200 homes with infrastructure would require a $2.4 billion investment<\/a>. All that\u2019s before mention the ongoing cost of maintaining new roads and pipes or the extra congestion caused by commuters from greenfield areas.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/p>\n