New Zealand Housing Minister Chris Bishop has reversed course on a housing development in Parnell, one of Auckland's wealthiest suburbs, after local opposition - a backtrack that undermines the government's claims to be serious about housing density reform.
The reversal, analyzed by The Spinoff's Hayden Donnell, is what he calls a "hollow victory" for Parnell residents - hollow because it exposes the limits of Bishop's reform agenda when it collides with powerful, wealthy communities.
Mate, this is the classic NIMBY problem writ large. Everyone agrees New Zealand needs more housing. Everyone supports density reform - in theory. But when it comes time to actually build apartments in leafy, expensive neighborhoods? Suddenly there are concerns about "character," "heritage," and "community consultation."
Bishop has been talking a big game about fixing New Zealand's housing crisis through intensification - building more homes in existing urban areas rather than endless sprawl. It's good policy. Most urbanists agree. Auckland can't keep expanding outward forever while the city center remains dominated by single-family homes.
The government passed legislation allowing more density across New Zealand's cities. Three-story homes as of right. Apartments near transport hubs. The works. It was supposed to override local NIMBY councils and force cities to build up, not out.
But policy meets politics when it hits wealthy suburbs. Parnell residents mobilized. They wrote submissions. They organized. They used the language of heritage protection and community character - the respectable face of opposition to change.
And Bishop folded.
Now, Donnell at The Spinoff argues this is actually a hollow victory for Parnell because it reveals a deeper truth: if the Housing Minister won't stand up to wealthy suburbs, his entire reform agenda is compromised. What's the point of passing laws to increase density if you'll carve out exemptions for every neighborhood with political clout?
Across the ditch in Australia, we're watching similar battles play out. Sydney and Melbourne desperately need more housing, but try building apartments in Mosman or Toorak and watch the resistance materialize. Wealthy suburbs have lawyers, connections, and political capital.
The result? Housing gets built in working-class suburbs that lack the resources to fight back, while affluent areas stay frozen in amber. Inequality gets baked into the physical landscape of the city.
New Zealand's housing crisis is severe. Auckland home prices remain among the highest in the world relative to incomes. Rents are crushing young families. People are leaving for Australia in record numbers, partly because they can't afford to live in their own country.
Solving that requires building a lot more housing, and building it where people actually want to live - near jobs, transport, and amenities. That means inner suburbs like Parnell.
But it also requires political courage to tell wealthy homeowners that their suburb can't stay frozen in 1950. That the city needs to evolve. That their property values, while important, aren't more important than housing an entire generation.
Bishop failed that test in Parnell. And that failure sends a signal to every other affluent suburb in New Zealand: organize hard enough, and you can get an exemption.
The government still has time to prove it's serious about housing reform. There will be other tests, other developments, other opportunities to show that density rules apply everywhere, not just in neighborhoods without political power.
But right now, Donnell has it right. This is a hollow victory for Parnell and a revealing defeat for Bishop. Because if you can't build housing in wealthy suburbs with excellent transit access and proximity to jobs, where exactly are you planning to build it?
New Zealand's housing crisis won't be solved by building in places people don't want to live. It requires confronting the hard political reality that cities change, suburbs densify, and not everyone gets to preserve their neighborhood exactly as it was when they bought in.
The question is whether Chris Bishop is willing to make that argument, or whether he'll keep folding when the opposition gets loud and well-connected.
