Retirement village alternative: HouseMe answers new residential demand
HouseMe places are being sold as alternatives to retirement villages. Photo / NZME
'It's not only far more economical, but being nearer to family does wonders for people's wellbeing,' Glover said.
But Graham Wilkinson, owner of national retirement village business Generus Living, called the places 'shacks' and said they were no real alternative.
'No companionship or engagement - think loneliness and dementia, no certainty of cost, no pathway to care and at the end, assuming you can sell a relocatable shack, you are likely to incur a loss. You get what you pay for,' Wilkinson said.
Glover said the trend was not dominant in any one city, region or area but throughout New Zealand.
Most retirement villages keep 25% to 30% of people's money, give no capital gain and charge weekly fees.
The tiny house owned by Diane Wood in Warkworth, bought from HouseMe. Photo / Dean Purcell
Ryman Healthcare, Metlifecare, Summerset Group, Oceania Healthcare, Bupa and Arvida Group are the dominant businesses in the sector.
The JLL annual retirement study estimated that 53,444 people lived in retirement villages by December 2023.
That is only a fraction of the over-75 population, ageing in their own homes.
Even with a village population of 53,000, that is only 13% of the estimated 383,000 New Zealanders aged 75-plus.
JLL says New Zealand has 41,111 village units in 470 villages.
HouseMe makes transportable homes at its Takanini factory. It has enjoyed considerable growth since being founded 18 years ago. Photo / House Me
JLL found Auckland had the most villages: 12,613 units in 106 villages, which are homes to an estimated 16,397 people. The city also has larger villages compared with the rest of the country: 119 units per village.
Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson wants documents simplified, chattel responsibility clarified, a better complaints system and exit provisions to be fairer.
Labour MP Ingrid Leary has drafted a bill to force retirement villages to pay capital sums to residents moving to higher care levels, or to families once a resident dies.
Ingrid Leary wants to reform retirement village law. Photo / Mark Mitchell
HouseMe has quickly become a New Zealand housing market success story.
It was founded 18 years ago but was reported last year as recording 143 per cent growth between 2021 and 2024.
HouseMe built 17 homes in the year to October 2021. In the March 2024 year, it built 285 homes valued at approximately $33m.
Bryce Glover inside one of the show homes at House Me's headquarters in Takanini. Photo / Michael Craig
That is according to BCI, which tracks 152 house-building companies.
HouseMe is now New Zealand's sixth busiest housebuilder, creating 287 residences valued at $36m in the April 2025 year.
While a string of off-site prefabricated home companies have failed in the last few years, HouseMe has built more than 5000 homes.
Diane Wood in 2022 with dog Brandy outside her tiny house in Warkworth. Photo / Dean Purcell
Six of its seven offices are in the North Island. In Christchurch, it has a showhome at Wigram.
Its best-seller is a 42sq m two-bedroom $125,000 house. That does not include land, earthworks or delivery, but does include code compliance certification.
A 15sq m studio with no kitchenette or ensuite is $49,500. A 15sq m place with a kitchen and end bathroom is $55,000.
In 2021, a HouseMe client featured in Herald publicity about prefabricated homes, headlined Home truths: Are prefab homes the answer to high house-building prices?
Diane Wood featured in publicity about tiny homes in 2021. Photo / Dean Purcell
Diane Wood realised she needed a change after her partner died, and maintaining her motor home became too much for her.
Encouraged by her son-in-law, she bought a tiny home from HouseMe for $75,000 and was enjoying living in it on her section north of Auckland.
Glover said demand from families for homes for their parents was evenly spread geographically.
'No one region is standing out and that's because the ageing population issue is nationwide. It's not just a housing crisis any more, it's an aged-care crisis too.'
Retirement Village Residents Association president Brian Peat.
Older people did not want to be 'shipped off to another town just to get a bed in a retirement or lifestyle village. So instead, we deliver the home to them, straight onto the family's existing property," Glover said.
Retirement Village Residents Association president Brian Peat said he knew people buying transportable homes in Auckland to avoid retirement villages.
'People are uncomfortable about the retirement village law in New Zealand. They worry about financial stress, losing capital, not getting capital gains and waiting months or even years to be paid out once residents die.'
Anne Gibson has been the Herald's property editor for 25 years, written books and covered property extensively here and overseas.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
The Government says it's fixing the cost of living, so what happens if voters don't believe it?
It was clearly designed to assuage fears, fanned by the Opposition, that the Government had put the entire Crown infrastructure build on ice, leading to the mass exodus of construction labour to Australia. The tactic isn't an unfair one. All Governments indulge in the vice of reannouncing things to focus attention on them. A billion or so dollars spent on a road earns the Government a few hundred bites of the PR cherry, or so the political arithmetic goes. So no, the tactic wasn't unfair or even ridiculous - but nor was Labour's criticism that a fair whack of the projects were funded by the last Government. (Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop's riposte that Labour might have funded some of the projects, but it certainly didn't do a good job of delivering them, was equally true.) This early success evaporated on Monday, when Luxon held one of the most bizarre press conferences since taking office. Alongside Finance Minister Nicola Willis, he spoke for more than 10 minutes to mark the first anniversary of the Government's tax package coming into effect. He listed every other cost-of-living policy the Government had implemented since taking office. Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Trade Minister Todd McClay spoke about US tariffs yesterday. Photo / Mark Mitchell Again, there's nothing inherently wrong with reannouncing something old. Former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern liked to mark anniversaries too. Some years, she'd put out a press release celebrating the fact that superannuation payments were increasing in line with wages - despite the fact that this annual increase is written into primary legislation. But Monday's announcement, coming as voters' economic sentiment bounces along the bottom and the country seems on the verge of rioting over the butter price, seemed vacuous. There was something ever so faintly Soviet about a Government thinking that, simply by telling voters it had a policy to fix their problems, they'd believe those problems were being fixed. There are two obvious pathways for how the next few months might pan out. The Government is clinging to several good forward economic indicators: business confidence surveys report okay-ish vibes from firms and suggest something of a recovery next year; the primary sector, far from being the villain of the butter crisis, is driving an export-led recovery in the regions; the Reserve Bank is likely to continue cutting interest rates, spurring investment and growth in 2026, giving Luxon an economic tailwind of good vibes and rising house prices in election year. The snow will soon melt, the ground will thaw, and New Zealanders may spend their summer holidays contemplating having endured the worst of it. Luxon and his colleagues may return to work in January, set the election date and wonder what on earth they were so worried about in winter. That's one scenario, sure. There's another. For every positive data point, there is an equally negative one. The Reserve Bank's GDP tracker suggests what every New Zealander feels in their bones: the economy has been shrinking, and could shrink further. A small recession, measured by the glib but powerful two-negative-quarters definition, could be on the cards. The most recent ANZ business confidence survey showed residential construction intentions tanking, to use the words of the bank's economists. If things continue to follow that negative trajectory, another scenario opens up: one of panic, as the once-distant prospect of a first-term defeat becomes more plausible. If the economy continues to worsen, and National's polling materialises into gloomy party vote numbers, don't entirely rule out a leadership change. A change is not 'on' - you'd be a fool to put money on it — but you'd also be a fool to bet against it. There's no real affection for Luxon in the caucus room, and National has little patience for underperformance, particularly from its leaders. Luxon's intense self-belief could count against him. He does not seem to observe that, of all his frontbenchers, he is the one who is struggling the most. Despite the whole Cabinet fighting fires on every front, National's ministers do a decent job of rebuffing their Labour opposite numbers during Question Time. Health Minister Simeon Brown has come under the most pressure, but has so far survived in the House. Chris Bishop seems unbothered by Kieran McAnulty and seemed to be enjoying himself on Thursday when he answered finance questions on behalf of Willis, who was away (the caucus enjoyed it too). Willis herself never breaks a sweat debating her opposite number, Barbara Edmonds. FBI director Kash Patel visited Wellington to open a new office. Photo / Ola Thorsen Luxon is the most challenged of the lot and was devoured, degustation-style, by Chris Hipkins in the debating chamber this week. Hipkins, who can excel in the House when he wants to, wasn't even trying a particularly sophisticated line of questioning. He resorted to a past Luxon tactic of using each supplementary question to list another case of something going terribly wrong in the economy - migration to Australia, construction jobs, board director remuneration - and then asking the Prime Minister what he thinks about it. Luxon should be able to answer questions like that easily, but could not. His belief in the power of political marketing is so fundamental that he undervalues the importance of backing up that marketing with substance; even more than most prime ministers, he's too quick to answer every question with a canned line and not quick enough to respond by substantively dismantling the question and defending himself. He seems to think this doesn't matter. He's disdainful of Question Time, or of anything that happens in Wellington. But it does matter - and you could tell from the ashen faces behind Luxon as he answered Hipkins' questions that the backbench is worried. If the economy doesn't turn around meaningfully, there's a chance the Government could be in serious trouble, however scary they think a Labour-Green-Te Pāti Māori Government might be. Slumps such as this one are difficult for centre-right governments. They're instinctively anti-intervention. When the public demands 'something must be done', centre-left governments have no shortage of ideas for that 'something'. The National benches regularly look despondent during Question Time - as pictured here in March. Photo / Mark Mitchell For the right, recovery comes from automatic stabilisers like benefits doing their job, before the fiscal part of the Government gets out of the way of the monetary side, allowing the reduction of interest rates to encourage firms to borrow and invest. It's a less politically attractive recovery because it involves substantially less ribbon-cutting, but that doesn't make it any less sensible a strategy. Ultimately, however much a government tries to pump-prime an economy back to life with fiscal policy, eventually private firms will need to pick up some slack too - and that means low interest rates. Luxon, to his credit, has been explicitly articulating this as his vision for the economic recovery. Last month, he successfully rebuffed one of Hipkins' questions, noting that the construction sector was 'hit hard because of high interest rates. High interest rates happened because Government spending was out of control, and you let inflation get out of control'. Not bad. Grim economic times will always be tough for a government, but they needn't be as tough as these. Back in 2012, net migration to Australia was even higher than it is now and the unemployment rate, in September of that year, was higher than at any point in the past 25 years. Yet that economic malaise failed to find its way into politics. National's party vote polling peaked at 48.8% in October 2012, rising - strangely - in tandem with the unemployment rate. Prime Minister John Key's popularity was unassailable. A government can be popular when an economy is under strain. But that appears to require the public to have faith that the government has a plan to make things better. Voters don't have that faith currently and, after this week, who could blame them?
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Offshore oil ban repeal: Coalition seeks consensus amid opposition
However, in a statement on Thursday, Jones said the ban was 'ill-fated' and 'has exacerbated shortages in our domestic gas supply by obliterating new investment in the exploration and development needed to meet our future gas needs'. 'New Zealanders are bearing the brunt of this constrained gas supply, and energy security concerns are impacting investor sentiment ... we are seeing businesses in the regions closing as a result with Kiwis losing their jobs, and we're importing hundreds of tonnes of Indonesian coal to meet peak energy demand. 'This legislation is just one of many actions we are taking to get the right settings in place to resuscitate sector confidence, shore up energy supply, and protect electricity affordability.' He was absent from Parliament on Thursday, leaving the main Government speech to the National Party's Simon Watts – the Minister for Energy and Climate Change. Watts said the opposition's argument that reversing the ban would not yield new gas for a decade was 'a distraction'. 'The immediate signal that this bill sends to investors is critical now. It encourages immediate investment in long-term exploration and in maximising production from our existing fields, which can deliver benefits far sooner. 'New Zealand is committed to a clean-energy transition and meeting our emissions targets. We have committed to deliver net zero by 2050, including by doubling renewable electricity, and removing consenting barriers. Natural gas remains critical to our energy security. Without gas, we would need to either rely on more coal, which results in around twice the carbon dioxide emissions than natural gas, or face energy insecurity and higher prices.' His Labour Party counterpart Megan Woods, however, said the evidence showed record investment in existing fields after 2018. Labour MP Megan Woods has slammed the Government's offshore exploration push. Photo / Mark Mitchell 'For this Government to claim that it had a chilling effect on investment is simply wrong. What we had was those offshore oil and gas operators looking for every last bit they could eke out of the existing fields, and it is not there. 'Then we had Shane Jones saying that this will open up opportunities off the East Coast of the South Island. Well, news flash: billions of dollars have been spent looking for that particular El Dorado ... this Government is going to give $200 million to offshore companies to go and have a look again where they've already decided there are not commercial finds available.' She pointed to official analysis showing reversing the ban would add 14.2 million tonnes of emissions, and 'a bit that should have been redacted from the regulatory impact statement' showing it could affect trade. 'Let me read from that: 'Legally privileged: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade assessed that reversing the 2018 ban would likely be inconsistent with the obligations in several of New Zealand's free-trade agreements' – so farmers need to be worried, our access to the EU and the UK are being put at risk.' The Green Party spokesman for just transitions, Steve Abel, was also sceptical the oil industry could be attracted back. He was part of the Oil-Free Seas Flotilla in 2011 that harried Petrobras' surveying ship for 42 days, welcomed to the area by a 500-strong haka 'said by Te Whānau-a-Apanui, the iwi greeting us, to be the biggest haka since James Cook had arrived in that part of the country – I'm hoping we were more worthy of it than he was', Abel said. The Green Party's Steve Abel says the 2018 ban simply sealed the fate of an oil industry already in decline. Photo / Marty Melville He listed off a series of oil companies that exited New Zealand before the ban came into place: Exxon Mobil abandoning its southern oil and gas hunt in November 2010 after three years, Petrobras in December 2012, Texan driller Anadarko exiting its permit on the North Island's west coast in May 2014, Statoil quitting its Northland permit in October 2016, and Shell selling its remaining assets to OMV in March 2018. He said the ban was the 'final nail in the coffin of an industry that was already declaring its own demise in this country, because they came, they prospected, they found nothing, and they found nothing but overwhelming public opposition from the people of this country'. Echelon Resources – the company formerly known as New Zealand Oil and Gas, last month told RNZ the best wells are typically drilled first, so new drilling will be more difficult and expensive. Its managing director, Andrew Jeffries, said other countries had more political consensus, making New Zealand an even more unattractive option for investment. Act Party MP Simon Court said the repeal would restore certainty, credibility and confidence, but called on Labour not to reimpose the ban if it won power. 'Today marks the end of an era – a really bad one. It marks the end of a six-year reign of economic vandalism and energy illiteracy by the previous New Zealand Labour Government. 'Even the Honourable Shane Jones said at the time – bless his soul – that ending oil and gas exploration 'is the only scenario'. When he stood at that podium, I was shocked, but I'm pleased that minister has come to his senses – but profoundly disappointed that the Labour Party still has not.' Court's leader, David Seymour, said it was 'very possible that they won't find the gas, but the impediment to people getting cheaper energy should not be our own Government, and that's why I say if New Zealand First can change their mind then Labour should be able to do that too'.
The Spinoff
a day ago
- The Spinoff
The cost of being: An administrator who is ‘uncontrollable around a bougie food truck'
As part of our series exploring how New Zealanders live and our relationship with money, an administrator who who has spent most of their life on welfare explains what they spend their money on. Want to be part of The Cost of Being? Fill out the questionnaire here. Gender: Lady-coded. Age: 33. Ethnicity: Pākehā. Role: Administration. Salary/income/assets: $62,196 pa. My living location is: Rural. Rent/mortgage per week: $480 rent, split between myself and my partner. Student loan or other debt payments per week: $87.42 student loan, recently completely paid off a personal loan. Typical weekly food costs Groceries: Around $150 per week for two people according to my spreadsheets! I have a very well stocked pantry of staples. Eating out: $25 per person, weekly buffet dinner at a local cafe, then maybe $30 per person beer and kai on a Saturday or Sunday. Takeaways: Probably also around $25 per person, we do it a lot less since we moved way out of town! Workday lunches: $6 on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays for the $4 lunch at Otago Uni (the extra $2 is for a samosa for afternoon tea). Cafe coffees/snacks: $20 max – only go to cafes fairly rarely and when I do, I'm getting a lil treat. Savings: Try for between $200-300 a fortnight, but life finds a way. I worry about money: Sometimes. Three words to describe my financial situation: Safe – for now. My biggest edible indulgence would be: I am uncontrollable around a bougie food truck. In a typical week my alcohol expenditure would be: $20 (ya girl drinkin' top shelf). In a typical week my transport expenditure would be: My partner recently got a work vehicle so we're saving heeeaps. I put $10 on my Bee Card once a month. I estimate in the past year the ballpark amount I spent on my personal clothing (including sleepwear and underwear) was: Conservative estimate around $2000. Since getting a Real Job, I have decided to buy ethically made and well built clothing that will last a lifetime, either new or secondhand. Shit's expensive. My most expensive clothing in the past year was: Bought an incredibly sick matching jacket and jeans (black, contrast stitching) for around $550 all up. But buying a co-ord is actually like buying three new outfits so…. My last pair of shoes cost: $200 Allbirds, all black. Needed some nondescript shoes that can handle wet weather. My grooming/beauty expenditure in a year is about: I bought a $15 eyebrow gel and powder set five years ago that I am still using. I probably spend $50 total on Cetaphil face wash and moisturiser, then my shampoo and conditioner are $30 each, but only once a year-ish. I am very lucky that I never got into wearing makeup and have decent skin. My exercise expenditure in a year is about: $780 for gym membership, and I bought $60 Vans for lifting (flat shoes better) 2.5 years ago. My last Friday night cost: $30, a mere two pints and a soda. Most regrettable purchase in the last 12 months was: A pair of shorts that are borderline transparent. Most indulgent purchase (that I don't regret) in the last 12 months was: Aforementioned jacket/pant co-ord. One area where I'm a bit of a tightwad is: I'm not really in any area, sure I buy on sale/in bulk or whatever but I think quality is quality and generosity is its own reward. Five words to describe my financial personality would be: Should think more long term. I grew up in a house where money was: Scarce, mostly. I have spent most of my life on welfare, including the vast majority of my childhood. My mother never shielded us from the reality of the situation, only in the sense that I learned a lot of pragmatism and resilience from her. She told me often when I was young that you always pay your rent first – you can go to a food bank, and you can sit in darkness but you need to have a roof above all else. I grew up in a very supportive community, we were all mostly in the same situation, everyone watched each other's kids, you ate at whichever house you happened to be in at that time. Money was loaned without an expectation of exact repayment or on any time scale. When I went to uni and met rich people I was really shocked at how miserly they are! The last time my Eftpos card was declined was: Six months ago, at the dentist. It was the day before payday so my account was dry. In five years, in financial terms, I see myself: I am going back to school next year to train as a teacher, so I see myself as being stable and secure, probably not wealthy. My partner has a good job getting better, but hopefully in five years that'll all be going right down the drain to kids and a mortgage :) I would love to have more money for: The kind of clothing that they sell in shops where they kick you out if you ask what the price is. Describe your financial low: At one point I was supporting myself, my mother and my brother on just one person's sickness benefit due to immigration stuff.
