Sunday Star Times business columnist Rod Oram wrote an excellent piece in yesterday’s paper about the Auckland Spatial Plan, which – in the form of a discussion document – is due for release this coming Wednesday.
Looking first at the importance of the Spatial Plan, I have had discussions with a number of people who wonder whether this will be “just another policy document” that ends up as a door-stop – much like many previous plans and policies. I disagree with that idea. I think the Spatial Plan will be critical to Auckland’s future. Oram picks up on its importance:
The paper will look at the region in a new way. For the first time, it will bring together data, analysis and insights on the human, economic, environmental, social, cultural and other factors that make Auckland what it is today.
Crucially, though, it will use this new analysis to show us options for the region’s future. It’s up to Aucklanders to consider, debate, agree and act with the new powers the region gained through the creation of the super city.
It’s a big challenge. Auckland will gain 600,000 people in the next 20 years to make a population of 2 million, according to current projections.
But of course, questions about how Auckland should grow and how Aucklanders should get around the region are always controversial. At its core, the Spatial Plan will need to look at these messy and debatable matters. Things like:
- do we want Auckland to grow as a compact or sprawling city?
- should we have a metropolitan urban limit or not?
- where should growth be focused?
- what transport projects are necessary to support Auckland as it grows?
- what transport projects are priorities in the near term to support our vision for Auckland?
- what transport projects would work against our vision for Auckland and therefore shouldn’t go ahead?
Over the past couple of weeks it has emerged that the government’s “vision for Auckland” appears to be quite different to the Auckland Council’s vision. Sure, there are some similarities on banal topics like “yes, we do want Auckland’s economy to grow”. But when it comes to the messy, controversial and debatable stuff, it would seem as though there may well be a significant gap between central and local government. Oram picks up on this matter:
Last week, the cabinet released a set of eight papers giving its very entrenched positions on Auckland’s future.
What a miserable view it was. When Hide and his ministerial colleagues think of Auckland they imagine only more of the same, warts and all. In their view, Auckland has to ooze out across the landscape in low-value, low-growth ways.
They believe this is the only way to deliver enough cheap land for housing and businesses; and roads are the only way to link people.
Three flaws make nonsense of the government’s view:
First, it fails to consider what Auckland can and has to be if it’s to meet its people’s aspirations.
Second, it asks the wrong questions and thus comes to the wrong conclusions about why past efforts such as the previous regional growth strategy didn’t work as well as expected.
Finally, as a result, it concludes that Auckland can only keep growing the inadequate way it has, though hopefully somewhat more efficiently.
I strongly agree with Oram that this is a miserable vision for Auckland. We have a once in 50 year opportunity to make some big decisions about how Auckland should grow and develop over the next few decades and the entirety of the government’s vision is more 1950s auto-dependent urban sprawl? Crikey, how depressing.
In just a few paragraphs, Oram then succinctly points out the huge gaping hole in the government’s vision for Auckland – that it just doesn’t make sense. What’s worst, it doesn’t make sense on the very matter the government should be most concerned about: boosting economic growth and productivity:
But the government’s desire to perpetuate low-density growth flies in the face of international studies. These show that higher-density (with the right transport to serve it) improves the network effect of the economy and thus generates higher-value activity.
Indeed, the government argues in part against its own position by pointing out that the CBD has attracted more residents and most new office jobs. These are the sort of high-value service jobs which are one of the best hopes for internationalising the Auckland economy and lifting incomes.
The government hasn’t asked itself a crucial question. If it had invested more in public transport over the past 15 years and given local government effective tools for turning strategy into action, would Auckland have achieved less traffic congestion, higher (yet attractive) urban density and more valuable jobs?
Thankfully, the Auckland Council has asked. Its studies show that investing in the CBD rail loop can deliver those benefits.
This is what I’ve always found so bizarre about the government’s extremely lukewarm reaction to the CBD Tunnel business case. The tunnel’s most significant benefit will come from encouraging a greater concentration of employees in the city centre, which is shown internationally to increase productivity, wages and economic development. I always thought that was exactly what this government was most concerned about achieving? Perhaps not when such a project would compete against pet motorway projects for funding.
It will be interesting to see the details of Auckland Council’s spatial plan on Wednesday. I’m very much hoping the council can ‘stick to its guns’ when it comes to the need for a forward-looking vision for Auckland, rather than one that repeats the mistakes of the past 60 years. The government certainly hasn’t made any compromises when it comes to articulating its (1960s) vision for Auckland, I hope the council can be as bold (just in a more 21st century direction).
Processing...
This is getting ridiculous. Auckland has an idea of how it wants to grow and it has ratioanle backed by statistics and international examples to back this up. The government on the other hand has “we’re right just because we are”. That’s ideologues for you I suppose.
ideologues with mates to help….
I penned a similar (but more transport focused) opinion piece and submitted it to the Herald last week, hopefully they will print it but my guess is they will ignore it. My guess is that if you talked to people on the street, should Auckland keep doing what it has already done for the last 60 years or try something different then 99% would say do something different. My biggest hope with the spatial plan is that the council manages to effectively engage with the population and clearly articulate the various options with advantages and disadvantages of each one. If they can do that and get a decent response it will be pretty hard for the government to ignore.
The problem is that we have done a very poor job engaging and educating the wider public. Whilst I agree with Matt L, the vast majority would want something different to happen, when you explain this might mean driving less, having to walk more, having less car parks, especially right outside the front door, paying for parking, more town centre retail and less shopping mall, smaller houses built closer together, slightly higher rates – most people are not prepared to make these sacrifices, partly because they cannot understand the benefits that occur as a result of these “sacrifices”.
We must find a way of communicating the true benefits and disbenefits of our current model and potential models, so that the people will start to vote against ridiculous old fashioned attitudes, and start to demand a smarter, more up to date politician.
Sting, the simple thing to communicate is that this government despises Auckland: all of those roads, even Vic Park, are about getting the hell out of town or around it. It is hard to tell how aware these dimwits are of the outcomes of their own actions but every cell in their bodies says Country good: City bad. Even the smiling and waving ‘relaxed’ inhabitant of the grey Parnell fortress isn’t really here in his heart. These are anti-cosmopolitan provincial hicks and the sooner Auckland wakes up to this fact and at least throws them out of our electorates the better.
I really thought this country was growing up as this really is an outdated attitude:
“‘I wouldn’t recommend it. It’s terribly urban, so urban,’ with her feelings centred on the word urban.’ -Janet Frame An Angel at my Table
The Herald editorial is almost a polar opposite to piece from Rod Oram. In it they basically say the council is full of dreamers out of touch with reality but the government know more about what to do because they are focused on ecomomic improvement and overall they spend more money on the city. I basically read it as “Auckland should just do what the government says”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10714045
Funny that they also blocked commenting on it, perhaps knowing that most people would disagree with them.
The Herald’s editorial effort has a lot of room for improvement. It should be in tune with what their readers want, as well as being generally aspirational and demanding of government and other organisations to keep them on their toes and focussed on serving us better. I’d say the Herald with their, let’s say, less-than-visionary stance and constant blushing at government policy fails on all these counts.
The unusual thing is that as the Auckland-based NZ Herald shows no vision for its home city, the more national-focussed Sunday Star Times is left to defend our interests. It gets attention for it too, as demonstrated by Mr Joyce getting into a direct debate with Rod Oram last time.
Dead hand of John Roughan all over that editorial- why aren’t they brave enough to admit whose opinion it is? And yes it’s extraordinary that they don’t see it as in the paper’s interests to ask questions of government on behalf of the readership but rather see their role as explaining and spreading the genius of government policy. What is their model here Soviet era Pravda?
It seems that the editorial group in there are starstruck by Key and are flattering themselves with thoughts of being part of this government’s mean little world.
Oh and the writer of the editorial couldn’t even get the date for the spatial plan release right, they are starting it tomorrow not Thursday.
As a corollary to the Herald editorial today, the front page article on one traffic accident becomes a vote of approval for the Puhoi-Wellsford highway, the thrust is the new road WILL save lives. And page two has John Key saying rebuilding Chch must not affect the economy of Auckland, yet the inset box shows the only project that can deliver the economic lubrication, the CBD rail loop, is deferred. Tellingly, the CBR rates showing the ten-fold increase for the CBD project over Puhoi, are not listed. It’s all weird stuff. Maybe the govt will only listen to the CCO’s, ‘cos they think the pollies in Council are all pinko liberals. However, I think Auckland Transport, ACPL (Property) and the Waterfront will endorse the Council thinking in the end, but deliver it in an economics-based, PPP way that Central Govt finds a bit palatable? The Spatial Plan must require some form of poly-centric city, that has to deal with traffic that doesn’t rip through each centre, with a high-quality walkable heart that excludes a lot of cars, served by trains under expensive CBD land.
@Patrick that editorial is without doubt Roughan. The man who hailed the four lane car only harbour bridge as a triumph of vision. He is the most anti PT of the Herald’s “stable of professional idiots” as one blogger dubbed them. Him and Jim Hopkins although you would know if Hopkins had written it as it would read like stream of consiousness written by a dyslexic person.
We have visionless yokels running the country people, it’s official.
I’m surprised the NZ govt are getting involved in this. They are playing with fire. When people feel they are being abandoned by governments who promise to make their lives better then can’t deliver they get very angry. Ask Kristine Keneally what people say to her in Outer Sydney about their inadequate transport choices. As fuel prices go up and and up they will only get grumpier. Will be inetersting when the Nat Auckland candidates get out to their electorates later this year.