Bo-Jangles

Interactive Deprivation Map might be useful to drill down to suburbs and see which ones to avoid.

Seems like a pretty reasonable guide for Auckland; there's a lot (most) at Level 6 in palest blue that I wouldn't want to touch and I'd certainly pass on all that are Level 7 and above.

scrubbedexpat094

Despite being soulless Gulf Harbour is at Level 3

barnsleymat

When we lived in Auckland we lived in a 9 zone, the second most deprived zone, there was no way on earth we could have afforded to buy a house in that area unless we had have bought a run down dump and lived on bread and water. We now live in a 2 zone, the second least deprived zone in a lovely big house over looking the sea in Dunedin and it didn't break the bank.

Anyone reading this thinking about moving to Auckland please have a good long think it.

Justcol

not sure how they've worked it out.
There are areas I know are littered with $1m+ homes and horse studs yet they are coming up as 3's while other areas
that are 5 to 10 year old subdivisions with 450 to 550k homes are listed as 1's

Bo-Jangles

Because it is based on the people that live in the area rather than the value of properties; their income, levels of education, whether they're on benefits, own their own home or renting.

It suggests that the older subdivisions with level one that you mention are occupied largely by working families that own their own homes. The level 3 might have a larger percentage out of work, on lower incomes, or on benefits and renting. Appearances in rural areas can be deceptive and places can look quite nice, yet show higher levels of deprivation due to the lack of job opportunities, or reflect high numbers of people in relatively low paid work.

The Weezer

Thanks for posting this, Bo-Jangles. I saw it earlier today and thought it could be useful.

My child attends a decile 10 school in East Auckland, in an area that is Level 1, least deprived. There are a smattering of run down homes there, and most arent't very good, anyway. The houses are perhaps bigger, but not significantly nicer than in my neighborhood, which is in a higher level, more deprived area.

I wonder if something like this will only feed into the rabid suburban snobbery of Aucklanders?

Anyway, the only places in Auckland I would definately avoid at all costs is Otara and parts of Manurewa. As the map shows very well, a great big chunk of Auckland is at a somewhat deprived level, at least by these estimations.

I think a young couple with no children would be wise to buy a house near train and motorway, with a nice backyard, such as you see in parts of South Auckland. In fact, SA is full of small bungalows on generous sections and you can find houses well under $600k. I predict that sometime within the next decade these houses will be quite desirable, as they're within 20km of the CBD. It would be a good investment, as all you need to do to modernise a house in NZ is put on a new coat of paint (rotten weatherboards? just paint over it!). Get a new kitchen and bathroom and decorate the inside. After that, your house is worth considerably more. Believe me, I've learned how it's down after seeing many houses "modernised" like this in expensive Central Auckland suburbs.

As I've said before in other posts, lots of South Auckland is not very different than more expensive areas. Apart from the schools, of course.

Justcol

Nah, I'm talking big houses, acres of land, lawyers, doctors...etc etc.
How can that be less than the old subdivision I lived on? I couldnt even have afforded
the rates bill on most of the propertys

Dandy du2

Thanks Bo-Jangles, it certainly helps when looking at potential areas to live.

Persephone

I'd say it's reasonably accurate for Palmerston North and Christchurch which are the only places I've lived in and can comment on.

However I'd only really consider avoiding those areas that are 9 or 10 and even then I'd say not to discount them necessarily. The problem is that it gives a general overview and there can be some good parts within each area.

Our current house is fairly new and in a newish subdivision but the rest of the area is much more rundown. It is assessed as a 7 but if you were to assess our part separately it would probably be rated much higher.

BEVS

We are in a level 3 but I can quite see that close to us would be a level of 5 to 7.

I'd feel that when we first arrive our area would not have been at a level 3 at all. It is the encroachment of new sub-divisions as the rural community sell off land that has perhaps altered the demographics for here.

suspect zero

I might be wrong but it doesn't look good for the north island LOL
I wouldn't take these figures too much to heart .. i thought Oamaru was a bit deprived in places but it could be down to the scottish heritage don't look bad on the map though.
Rocket Scientists are only on $15 an hour here but housing is good value though if i had a choice i'd head for the Nelson area for warmer weather.

jmh

Yes, it's a bit of a broad brush. I have been looking at property in Red Hill, in South Auckland. The area is identified as a 10 but if you are above a certain part of the hill you transition into a posh area. Looking at the map might put people off except for those of us who know the area.

Same with Manurewa. There are certain parts that I would consider living in even though it is considered a bad area. You have to have the inside info though.