Simplicity Living Buys Queenstown Land For Up To 600 Build-To-Rent Homes
We have been keen to build in Queenstown for a couple of years, and have now found the right site. Its a cracker, said Shane Brealey, Managing Director of Simplicity Living.
Simplicity Living has announced the acquisition of a 6.1-hectare site on Ladies Mile in Queenstown, where it plans to build up to 600 high-quality homes for long-term rent.
Simplicity Living – Queenstown land. Photo/Supplied.
'We have been keen to build in Queenstown for a couple of years, and have now found the right site. It's a cracker,' said Shane Brealey, Managing Director of Simplicity Living.
'As one of the most unaffordable and constrained housing locations in New Zealand, we prioritized bringing our high-quality, secure tenure Build-to-Rent housing solution to the region,' he said.
Located near Remarkables Park, the site is close to planned schools, shops, and transport links. The homes will be built primarily using concrete, brick, and local schist, with an expected lifespan of over 150 years.
The homes will have high thermal and acoustic ratings, solar panels, rainwater harvesting and common use facilities including work-from-home spaces, residents' lounges and outdoor equipment storage. Extensive landscaping will give the property a residential park atmosphere.
There will also be extensive car and bike parking, with direct access to local bike trails and the planned gondola development. The historic Shotover Bridge is a 10-minute walk away, and Queenstown International Airport is just a five-minute drive away.
This is the first Simplicity Living development outside Auckland, and will be its largest to date, with an estimated end value of up to $500 million.
'This is another example of the sort of thing our KiwiSaver scheme can help make possible. We think it's a good long-term investment for our members and helps provide warm, dry homes for Kiwi families, in a region that urgently needs them,' said Sam Stubbs, Managing Director of KiwiSaver default provider Simplicity.
Glyn Lewers, the Mayor of Queenstown welcomed the announcement. 'We're thrilled that Simplicity Living is bringing this much-needed rental product to the Whakatipu housing market. The addition of up to 600 new Build-to-Rent homes will be a game changer for our community, offering secure long-term rentals'.
'It's a tangible step forward in delivering Action 5D of the Joint Housing Action Plan – working with developers to facilitate and deliver diverse housing options, including Build-to-Rent developments,' he said.
Simplicity Living currently has 889 homes under construction across Auckland, including in Remuera, Mt Wellington and Morningside, and announced last week that it will start building another 93 homes in Northcote by the end of the year. Its long-term plan is to build up to 10,000 homes across New Zealand for secure, long-term renting.
Simplicity Living is owned by KiwiSaver and Investment Funds managed by Simplicity NZ Ltd.
Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
9 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Rate-cut reality check - too little, too late: Nick Stewart
Higher starting debt, unfavourable interest rates, adverse growth trends and long-term pressures from aging and climate change are converging into a perfect storm. Despite claims of $44 billion in savings, the Government has reallocated spending rather than shrinking it. It's hard for hope not to fade when our government appears to lack the mettle to take the bull by the horns. The 'price of butter' facade may have fooled some, but not many. Butter is a product that hasn't changed in eons – full cream milk, add salt and churn. No smoke and mirrors or PR spin, just butter. Yet politicians obsess over its retail pricing while avoiding hard decisions on fiscal consolidation that might actually address underlying inflation pressures. The great capital migration Capital flows as freely as people in an interconnected world. Just as 230,000 Kiwis have voted with their feet over two years seeking better opportunities offshore, smart money increasingly looks beyond our borders for superior returns. The recent emigration shows a damning verdict on New Zealand's economic trajectory. These are productive citizens, who see limited prospects in a country determined to tax productivity whilst subsidising speculation. Human capital flight and financial capital mobility share parallels –both respond to incentives and seek the best risk-adjusted returns. Housing market dysfunction remains Our housing market remains in purgatory, with prices stubbornly elevated while transaction volumes are sluggish. Latest data shows 'days to sell' extending and prices slipping nationally for six of the past seven months. Wednesday's modest rate cut is unlikely to break this deadlock. Young Kiwis are emigrating, recognising their homeownership prospects have been systematically destroyed by policies prioritising incumbent wealth over economic dynamism. The social contract promising hard work would lead to homeownership has been broken: 72% of Kiwis without a home believe buying a property is beyond their reach. Yet, many Kiwis remain dangerously over-exposed to residential real estate. Rethinking investment The traditional Kiwi approach of leveraging into property and hoping for the best is dangerous where house prices may stagnate while debt service costs remain higher. Global equity markets continue to climb, with the S&P 500 delivering 5-year annualised returns of 15.71%. Meanwhile, New Zealand's NZX50 has delivered a dismal 1.8% annualised return over the same period. The performance gap is devastating. A $100,000 investment in the S&P 500 over five years would have grown to $208,000, versus approximately $109,000 in the NZX50. This $99,000 difference is a documented reality for investors who remained domestically focused while global opportunities compounded wealth at dramatically higher rates. Complexity extends beyond simple asset allocation. Tax implications vary dramatically between domestic and international investments. Currency hedging decisions can make or break returns. Liquidity needs must account for potential emigration scenarios – a consideration rational investors now embrace. Economic crossroads ahead New Zealand stands at an economic crossroads between fiscal irresponsibility leading to Japanese-style stagnation, or making hard decisions to restore economic dynamism. Next Wednesday's timid rate cut suggests we're choosing the former. For investors, the message is clear: adapt or suffer consequences. Capital, like talent, flows to where it's best treated. The 230,000 Kiwis who've recognised this reality are canaries in the coal mine. Smart investors should ensure their wealth enjoys the same mobility their fellow citizens have embraced. The coming rate cut won't be cause for celebration – it will be a symptom of deeper malaise and policy impotence facing structural decline. - Nick Stewart's iwi affiliations are Ngāi Tahu, Ngāti Huirapa, Ngāti Māmoe, Ngāti Waitaha).
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Scoop
Best Artificial Grass Suppliers In New Zealand: Our Top 3
Press Release: Looking for the best artificial grass in New Zealand but not sure who to trust? This guide breaks down what matters, who does it well, and how to choose the right turf for your space. We focus on suppliers with proven results in Auckland and New Zealand wide, so you can skip the guesswork and get straight to a better lawn. Start by thinking about how the area will be used. For family backyards, look for soft fibres, good drainage, and UV stabilised yarns that handle New Zealand's weather. For pets, choose perforated backing and infill that controls odour. For sport and play, impact layers and line markings improve safety and performance. Installation quality is just as important as the product. The best suppliers specify base prep, edging, and joins properly, then stand behind their work with clear warranties and aftercare. We also suggest checking sample pieces in natural light, asking about pile height and stitch rate, and confirming that the product is tested for UV stability. You will see terms like polyethylene, polypropylene, and nylon. Each yarn type behaves differently for softness, resilience, and heat. A good team will match the product to your use case rather than pushing a one-size-fits-all fake grass. Below are the three suppliers we rate highly for quality, reliability, and service. The top spot goes to Urban Turf Solutions, our best overall choice and by far the strongest option for residential projects across Auckland and New Zealand. Top 3 Artificial Grass Suppliers in New Zealand 1) Urban Turf Solutions — Best Overall, Best for Residential Address: 42b Porana Road, Wairau Valley, Auckland 0627 Phone: 0508 872 268 Email: info@ Website: Why Choose Urban Turf Solutions? Urban Turf Solutions is a New Zealand owned and operated supplier with manufacturing on the Gold Coast. The range covers landscaping lawns, sports fields, playgrounds, rooftops, and commercial spaces, with products designed for local conditions. They are the standout pick for home projects thanks to realistic appearance, dependable installs, and a large approved installer network. From family backyards to Maraetai Tennis Club and even Eden Park, their track record is broad and proven. 2) TigerTurf NZ Ltd Address: 384 Neilson Street, Penrose (Onehunga), Auckland 1061 Phone: 0800 804 134 or +64 9 634 4134 Email: NZinfo@ Why Choose TigerTurf NZ? TigerTurf brings decades of experience across sports, playgrounds, and landscaping. They deliver consistent quality for residential and large commercial projects, with strong technical support and proven systems. 3) SmartGrass NZ Phone: 0800 887 369 Email: hello@ Why Choose SmartGrass NZ? SmartGrass focuses on ultra-realistic landscaping turf that suits Kiwi homes. It is pet friendly, kid safe, and weather ready. With national coverage and solid warranties, they are a reliable pick for tidy, low-maintenance spaces. How to Choose the Right Artificial Grass in NZ Match the turf to the use. For everyday family lawns, a medium pile height, soft polyethylene fibres, and a dense stitch rate feel great underfoot. Busy entertaining areas near decks or pools benefit from shorter, firmer piles that brush up easily and dry fast. For high-traffic paths, look for resilience ratings and consider a shockpad if you want extra comfort. Ask for samples and see them outside. Colours shift in sunlight. Place samples next to natural planting and paving, and check pile direction. A quick brush with a stiff broom will show how the fibres recover. Check UV stabilisation and backing. New Zealand sun is harsh, so UV stabilised yarns are essential. Perforated backings and the right sub-base prevent puddling. For pets, a free-draining base and appropriate infill help manage odour. Installation quality matters. A good installer will confirm base depth and compaction, screed levels for drainage, neat edging, and tight joins. Ask to see recent jobs in Auckland or in a similar climate. Request written warranties for both product and workmanship. Maintenance is simple but important. Artificial lawns are low maintenance, not no maintenance. Plan for periodic brushing to lift fibres, leaf blowing to keep debris off, and occasional rinsing. High-use areas may need infill top ups over time. Environmental notes. Choose suppliers that source high quality, long lasting yarns. Longevity reduces replacement frequency. Some systems support organic or TPE infills. Collecting runoff during cleaning helps keep gardens tidy. Budgeting without surprises. Final cost depends on access, base preparation, edges, and the turf you choose. Ask for an itemised quote that covers excavation, base layers, edging, turf, joins, infill, and clean-up. Comparing like-for-like stops cheap quotes hiding thin bases or light products. Why Urban Turf often wins for homes. For residential work, you want a lawn that looks natural, feels soft, drains quickly, and holds up to everyday life. Urban Turf Solutions pairs a broad product range with local knowledge and an extensive approved installer network New Zealand wide, which makes getting a consistent finish much easier. Their experience across everything from small courtyards to premium sports venues shows in the details that homeowners notice every day. Quick checklist before you buy Have you seen real-world installs, ideally nearby in Auckland or your region Do you have samples viewed in natural light and brushed in both directions Is the product UV stabilised and backed by clear warranty terms Has the installer specified base depth, edging, and joins in writing Do you understand the aftercare plan and maintenance schedule Choosing well means you get a lawn that looks great year round, stays tidy through wet winters and hot summers, and frees up your weekends. If you want the safest pick for homes and rentals, Urban Turf Solutions is our first call. For sport, schools, and large commercial projects, TigerTurf and SmartGrass round out a strong New Zealand wide lineup of artificial grass experts.
NZ Herald
10 hours ago
- NZ Herald
How to create inter-generational family wealth
'The theory is that each time I have a child born, I would invest $22,000. The key is that the investment is not for my children but for my grandchildren. So for example, my child, let's call him Tim. 'When Tim is born I invest $22,000. When Tim turns 65, the investment is worth, say, $1 million. Each of Tim's children (who would be probably 30-40 years old) would be entitled to get a split of the payout. Note Tim does not participate in the investment. 'For Tim's children to receive their share, all they have to do is make an equivalent investment for their children to keep it running. They could make it out of their share of their payment. 'This may sound complicated, but the only difficulty I can see is the initial investment to be made. However, once past that hurdle, the scheme is self-perpetuating and, if you look forward far enough, covers potentially hundreds or thousands of descendants. 'I'm curious if this is a worthwhile idea or not. Considering the opportunity cost, what do you think? Note I have not yet thought through the funds management aspects or the 'trustee' responsibilities in 65 years.' A: I love it – even though your email makes me feel as if I'm back at high school, and I've been conned into helping someone do their homework! Other readers' main objection to doing something similar themselves, I suspect, will be that many couples making babies don't have $22,000 sitting around. But they could start with, say, $5000 or even $1000, and make a point of adding to it as soon as possible. Or in some cases, a grandparent might help. I like that your son isn't committing others in future to putting in money they may not have, given they can use some of their gift to invest for the next generation of recipients. Some issues for your son and others to think about: Your son suggests a return of 6%. That would have to be after fees and tax. It's probably a reasonable assumption if the money is invested in a share fund or a non-KiwiSaver aggressive fund. You would need to stick with it – not switching when the balance falls in a market downturn. If that's likely to be difficult for you, use a lower-risk fund and settle for a lower end balance. As your son acknowledges, inflation will eat into how much a future balance will buy. But it will still be great for the recipient – for perhaps a house deposit, or to repay a chunk of a mortgage. The amount a recipient puts in to keep the scheme running would need to be adjusted for inflation. If you have more than one child, obviously you would want to do the same for all of them. But what if one of your children has more kids than another?Cousins will be treated unequally. Maybe that's okay, but it's worth thinking about. What if one of your children has no offspring? Perhaps you could specify that they give the money to a charity of their choice. As your son notes, this would have to be set up with legal expertise. Basically, he is making the most of the power of a compounding investment over a really long time. I say: 'Go for it!' Small difference becomes big Q: Not a question, but a spectacular example of how a return of 8% versus 6% makes a massive difference after 42 years, is given in an online table I found. The 6% after 42 years provides $597,000. But the 8% provides $986,000, being nearly two-thirds more. A: You're right. Over long periods, a somewhat higher return makes a huge difference. That's why it would be best if the family in the previous Q&A, or anyone who wants to copy the idea, uses a high-risk fund – probably one that holds just shares. Stay with insurance Q: One of the benefits I received at my previous job was fully subsidised Southern Cross health insurance (Wellbeing One plan). Unfortunately, my new role does not include this coverage. I've since been in contact with Southern Cross, and continuing the policy independently would cost around $230 per month. Given that I've made very few claims in the past, I'm considering the alternative of setting that money aside in a dedicated savings account to cover any potential future health expenses. I'm in my late fifties, in good health and maintain a balanced lifestyle with daily exercise and a healthy diet. That said, I'm mindful that health needs can change unexpectedly. My current policy is on hold until the end of August, so I need to make a decision soon. I would really appreciate your thoughts or any guidance you may have on what might be the best course of action. A: There's no clear answer to your question – or the many variations on it that seem to come into my conversations often, now that my friends and I are no longer spring chickens! Let's just say that if I were you, I would keep the health insurance going. You may look back later and say you would have been better off if you had followed your self-insurance plan. But what people often ignore is peace of mind in the meantime. It's worth a lot to know that if you do suddenly develop a serious health issue, you won't have to either wait for perhaps months to get help or find big sums of money for treatment. The last thing you need at that time is money worries as well. And being in good health in your fifties – or sixties or seventies – certainly doesn't come with a guarantee that it will continue. Clearly, leading a healthy lifestyle must help you to fight any health nasties, but it doesn't prevent them. On the other hand, you will be shocked at how quickly health insurance premiums rise as you get older. You can keep costs down to some extent by limiting cover to specialist care, rather than including GP visits, and by increasing your excess – the amount you have to pay before insurance kicks in. How much? Dunno Q: Another health insurance question. My husband and I are both 65 and face the common question of continuing our health insurance or to self-insure. It is hard to make this decision without a ballpark figure for self-insurance. I totally appreciate everyone's health is so variable and I understand the reluctance by brokers to provide a figure, but some guidance would be helpful and appreciated. Can you help? A: Sorry, but no. Or, if you insist, several hundred thousand dollars. Some medical procedures, including scans and surgery, cost thousands. What's more, you can't predict whether you will need several procedures at much the same time, as different parts of your body decide to misbehave. When to switch Q: You often refer to switching funds as locking in your losses. I never fully understood that. It makes sense to me if one switches funds because they are scared during a market drop and switch to a lower-risk fund long term. But in your view: does that apply to all fund switches? What are the risks when switching a fund? If I switch to a higher-risk fund while the market is down, do I still lock in any losses? I know timing the market is futile, but I don't understand what the downsides to switching at any given point are. A: I've been waiting for the markets to wobble again before running this Q&A. Funnily enough, it hasn't really happened for a while. Then again, it could happen between my deadline time and the time you read this. So let's get on with it! First, we'll look at switching to a lower-risk fund during a downturn. Let's say that your account balance falls from $20,000 to $15,000. If you worry it will fall further, and therefore you reduce your risk, you've locked in the $5000 loss. You won't get that money back again when the markets rise, because your new fund doesn't hold many shares, if any. And recovery always happens – although sometimes it takes a while, and occasionally several years. If, however, you had stayed the course, your balance would have returned to $20,000 or higher. You would have lost nothing. In those circumstances I would say, 'Sorry, but if you can't cope with volatility you shouldn't have been in a high-risk fund in the first place. But okay, if you really can't sleep, just take the loss and move to lower risk. And, importantly, stay there'. On other fund switches, it depends. If you move to higher risk during a downturn, that's a pretty good move. You've bought at a relatively low price and will benefit when prices later recover. That's called contrarian investing – moving in the opposite direction to most people. The trouble is it involves market timing which, as you say, is a fool's game. When the market falls, for example, we never know if it might fall a long way further, followed by a slow recovery. So the rule is: reducing risk in a downturn is bad; increasing risk in a downturn may be good – but only if you're lucky. Usually it works far better to just get your money into the correct risk level for you, and leave it there. There are, however, two circumstances in which moving risk makes sense: You're getting nearer to the time you expect to spend the money. In those circumstances, it can work well to move your money in, say, three lots, a month or two apart. That way you avoid happening to make the move at a bad time. You realise you can't tolerate downturns as much as you thought you could. But, as stated above, you must then stay in the lower-risk fund for the long term. Not so possible Q: In regard to your comments on the use of aggressive funds by the elderly or those entering retirement, it is of course possible to do well by transferring money from an aggressive fund to a cash fund or similar when the aggressive fund is showing a peak balance. Over six months to a year, the aggressive fund will rise and fall similar to the Dow or Nasdaq index. Of course it's all about timing, but for those who follow the world indices figures, such as the VOO or similar, it is not too difficult to do. A: It's not just difficult, it's impossible if you want to get it right more than occasionally by luck. As I've said often, it can work well for retired people to hold money they expect to spend in 10 or more years in an aggressive fund – usually a fund that holds shares only. But it's not a good place for shorter-term money. Your balance in such a fund can quite suddenly plunge – occasionally as much as halving. And, as noted above, recovery can sometimes take several years. Meanwhile, the grocery purchases can't wait. You're suggesting we simply watch how the markets are moving and switch to a lower-risk fund at market peaks – in other words, right before a market downturn. The big question – one that every active fund manager in the world would love to be able to answer – is when a market has peaked. Getting that right repeatedly can't be done. Every now and then a fund manager does well, reducing risk right before a crash. Convinced he – or rarely she – has learnt the secret, investors rush into their funds. And once in a golden moon, the fund manager gets it right a second time or third time, and even more investors jump on the wagon. And then, uh oh! If you want to try to do this with a small amount – let's call it play money – go for it. And good luck! But I would never suggest it for others. * Mary Holm, ONZM, is a freelance journalist, a seminar presenter and a bestselling author on personal finance. She is a director of Financial Services Complaints Ltd (FSCL) and a former director of the Financial Markets Authority. Her opinions do not reflect the position of any organisation in which she holds office. Mary's advice is of a general nature, and she is not responsible for any loss that any reader may suffer from following it. Send questions to mary@ Letters should not exceed 200 words. We won't publish your name. Please provide a (preferably daytime) phone number. Unfortunately, Mary cannot answer all questions, correspond directly with readers, or give financial advice.
