Much of the debate over the Unitary Plan should be over the question of how should Auckland grow. However, this debate has been somewhat derailed by a reasonable number of people questioning whether Auckland should grow at all – or whether it should grow as much. I think it mainly comes out of selfishness and shows a complete lack of understanding from where the growth is coming and something we’ve tackled on the blog before. As a theoretical question, there are perhaps pros and cons of New Zealand’s future population growth being focused so much in Auckland and perhaps there is an argument that central government should do more to encourage people to settle elsewhere in the country.
Of course the next, related, question is whether such an approach would work. Or how nasty you’d have to actually get in order to make a difference as – after all – Auckland’s comparatively high house prices are already a pretty huge incentive to live elsewhere in New Zealand. In yesterday’s NZ Herald, an opinion piece by Warkworth resident Bryan Jackson looked at this issue:
The debate should firstly be about the need or wish to increase Auckland’s population by one million. The UP looks at an Auckland population of 2.5 million by 2043. This would mean 600 more Aucklanders each week for the next 30 years. Is that what you want? Is this population imbalance good for the rest of New Zealand?
There seems to be a fixation in some quarters on growth. And in order to have growth you have to have more people in Auckland. But bigger is not always better.
What are the reasons for not wanting 1 million more people in Auckland? A major reason is the congestion they would cause in our schools, hospitals, parks, on our roads plus the cost of accommodation. At present Auckland’s infrastructure in relation to transport is not coping.
The lack of sufficient houses being built is only making the future look bleaker. So where are the additional people to live? One of the aims of the UP is to allow the building of 35sq m apartments. Will you be rushing to buy one? Increased congestion, pollution, noise and crime are definite consequences of another million people living in Auckland.
I have no issue with small apartments, and clearly the fact that most apartment buildings in downtown Auckland are full suggests that people are happy to live in them. But I can see where Mr Jackson is coming from generally – if there’s spare infrastructure capacity elsewhere in the country why not utilise that rather than pumping most people into Auckland where infrastructure is often bursting at the seams.
But then the opinion piece starts to get into the more curly question of “how”:
But why not limit the population growth? Of Auckland’s population increase, 33 per cent is derived from immigration and 66 per cent from births.
Reducing the number of migrants coming to New Zealand each year would be a first step. Short-term visas for migrant workers should be abolished. The number of foreign students should be reduced and they should not be able to receive residency while studying here. If the Government wants 80,000 students a year then it should direct a large number to study outside of Auckland. Over the past 10 years NZ has taken in 7500 refugees. We should have a hiatus period of taking none or they could be directed to live in the South Island. Compounding the position is that both immigrants and refugees then bring family members to New Zealand to settle. This reunification should be abandoned.
Redirecting people away from settling or living in Auckland would be a positive step. A good example is in Invercargill where students pay no fees. The fees at Auckland learning institutes should be increased and those elsewhere removed or reduced significantly.
Another group who could be redirected out of Auckland are those who wish to live in retirement homes. Banning the building of any more in Auckland could be followed by rate or compliance cost reductions to developers who build their retirement homes further afield.
It is interesting how migration tends to get picked on, even though the bulk of population growth is from natural increase. As New Zealand’s population ages I think it’s actually really important we have a steady flow of well educated young migrants coming into the country – after all them and their children are the ones who will end up paying for my pension one day! Sure we could perhaps encourage migrants to settle somewhere other than Auckland, but that seems pretty harsh as often the migrant communities are best established in Auckland, making the settlement process easier and more pleasant. Cutting refugee numbers or disallowing family reunions just seems nasty and unlikely to reduce the growth by more than a drop in the bucket. Further it would impact on our international commitments and regardless, I believe quite a few refugees are settled outside of Auckland anyway.
And how about natural increase – where the bulk of population growth comes from?
As so much of the population increase is likely to come from an increase in births, a decrease is urgent. Incentives need to be provided such as free contraception, especially to those under 20 years of age. The provision of family benefits regardless of whether you have two or 10 children should be looked at.
I’m pretty sure there already is free contraception for under 20s, but it starts to seem like we’re going to some pretty ugly and extreme ends to avoid Auckland growing by quite so much. Is the pain really worth the gain – I’m not quite so sure as it seems pretty easy to end up on a slippery slope to some pretty nasty policies in order to battle against the overwhelming attractiveness of Auckland as a place for people to live.
Processing...
We could become another Detroit, noone wanting to live here. That would stop growth, give people plenty of space and bring house prices crashing down. Joy.
There is a naivety to these comments… about one a day in letters to the Herald: People seem to think that by not planning for a likely eventuality it can be prevented. A failure to plan much beyond ‘she’ll be right’ is why there is no alternative corridor through SE Auckland than the bloated Pak Highway. Planners and the Unitary Plan are attacked as if they are the cause of this fearful thing; growth, when all they are is a reasonably intelligent attempt to prepare for the likely future of our city.
Growth certainly comes with problems, but they are good problems, as they give us the opportunity, the money and the urgency, to improve things from where they are now. I suggest people look at Detroit or other stagnating and declining cities if they think the fairly gentle growth Auckland is experiencing is so bad.
The other little fantasy gaining traction is that there is some conspiracy of planners determined to force evil on current Auckland residents, and they must be stopped by 1. not planning for anything, and 2. letting locals decide everything.
I don’t for a second think that all planners or planning is perfect but in general I feel it is safe to say that it is usually better than no planning [not always: yes Minimum Parking Regulations I’m looking at you] and that while city planners may not know every detail of every area as the locals do they do have the interests of the whole city in mind and not just their own personal interest.
It is important to have the involvement of local communities but that this needs balancing by the more disinterested professionals from City Hall. In my experience too much localism leads to capture by local interest; whether in the form of that rabid genus NIMBYius Geriatricus, or simply the loudest, richest, and most self-entitled local power base, or local developers or land-bankers with a quick buck to chase…
So by all means criticise the UP, but not the idea of planning.
BTW the idea of of Warkworth growing ten fold or whatever is a disaster for the great joy of country living, and i oppose it. But we all know why that is in the plan; to justify a vast and stupid road chosen on Ministerial Whim: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/09/03/can-these-rons-make-a-right/
Also, the two things (planning/restricting population growth) arent mutually exclusive. If we want to restrict population growth (which I think is both bad and unrealistic) we can and in that scenario the new intensification growth wont be needed and the multi storey buildings wont be built. We can just 30/40% of new greenfields development allowed under the UP (remember the available greenfield land is actually being increased under the UP) and everyone is happy. Because that is what people like Bryan Jackson want, to stop the intensification – everything else is just fluff.
But if we just say that we will try and stop population growth but have no planning, and the restriction on population growth is unsuccessful, then we are screwed as we havent planned for growth. It is the old Boy Scout motto “Be Prepared”.
Even if we do stop immigration (a disaster politically and economically), Bryan Jackson himself admits that 3/4 of growth will come from natural increase. So OK, we dont have million more people in Auckland, only 750,000 – does that solve our problem? I highly doubt it.
I dont know about Bryan Jackson, but many of the people railing against the UP and population growth seem to be of the libertarian/neo-lib persuasion. They appeal to “property rights” being trampled by the UP but they seem to be quite happy to restrict other people’s even more fundmental rights – freedom of movement and freedom of employment – by imposing controls on where people live and work.
That seems to me to be some inexcusable hypocrisy.
But anyway this is wrong headed; intensification in the existing urban areas is the way to PROTECT Warkworth… it’s the anti-UP sprawlers that Jackson ought to be worried about. That and making a submission about how the sprawl plans for Warkworth are a disaster.
The UP is very sprawly but only because of huge and emotional lobbying by the likes of the MP for Nelson and others with a barrow to push feeding fear and untruth to the people.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW/countries/NZ-SE-GB-US-DK-FI-DE?display=graph
New Zealand still appears to have a much higher percentage growth rate than a lot of other OECD nations, bar Australia which has mineral wealth. The linkage between economic growth and population growth is in most cases a fallacy, so not so sure that population growth problems are “good problems”. Sure you can have more money for infrastructure but it is also costly (e.g. second harbour crossing). The Population Party in Australia seems to have some pretty good evidence for example that rapid population growth is not so great for most.
The opinion piece does not seem to say we should not plan for growth but makes a fair point, that the rate of growth is partly controllable through immigration. 40 – 60% of Auckland’s growth has been and will most likely be through migration, and in turn a large part is from immigration, as people may move to say Wellington from overseas and then migrate to Auckland. The rapid immigration levels experienced during the early 2000s are clearly reflected in the World Bank data.
There is a big difference between negative growth in say Detroit and controlled growth in say the Scandinavian countries. That would appear to be what the writer was getting at which seems quite reasonable.
33% is not 40-60%. Two thirds of growth is natural births, you’re exaggerating. But anyway, sure argue against immigration if that’s the country you want to live in [but remember it cuts both ways- NZers like to leave too, do you want to stop that as well?], but not against planning well for the most likely looking future.
Growth problems of the scale that AK currently have are good problems, it isn’t rapid, a little over 1% pa, and it certainly gives us the opportunity to fix what we have been doing so badly. Our traffic and movement problems are the result of poor decisions and investemnt over the last 60 years and are fixable, but not if we stagnate. Especially as it looks like we still have to fund other underperforming cities here; stupid big highway out of a flatlining Wellington for example. Also there is no need for a 5bil highway across the harbour if we plan well and especially if we don’t sprawl forever north.
Historically migration has been 40 – 60% (40% of Aucklanders were born overseas for example). Given the incompetence of planners to accurately forecast in the past, would say this is a fairer measure. Yes New Zealanders like to leave but is that not also partly due to a wider failing of economic and immigration policy? Remember the wage rate driver of labour supply – so if New Zealanders are being replaced by people from say developing countries, wages will always be low and the reason to leave will be high! There is also evidence a number of those who leave are people who gained their New Zealand residency to use it as a stepping stone to Australia btw.
Of course there is a need for good planning, but as you yourself state, poor decisions over the last 60 years have impacted Auckland. Therefore people have little faith in current and future planners/politicians to fix things in the future and an obvious idea is to have a maximum/ceiling on immigration, until your holy grail of good planning “catches up”. In the past the population growth rate has been rapid compared to other OECD nations (refer World Bank data) and so is the opinion piece not entitled to start to question the great New Zealand ponzi scheme?
Feedback that’s still no good as that’s a gross figure and must be balanced against all those leaving, unless of course you’re just a xenophobe, and dislike anyone from anywhere else?
Lots of kiwis leave and we are ALL immigrants or decendants of immigrants. I certainly prefer to live in a vibrant and alive community but if you don’t there’s plenty of sleepy and declining small towns in NZ that are desperate for new denizens, houses are real cheap too…
The poor planning of the past was caused by specific issues not least of which this one which is still happening: central government control and dictation of transport investment. As well as a fractured local polity and a lack of city-wide planning…. especially coordinated movement and land use planning. We can change this, with a fight.
As to predictions, of course they’re all flawed, currently we are growing (pop) at a slower rate than expected, because of lower net migration. But that doesn’t invalidate the principles of the UP, though it certainly means any changes will be slower, if this trend continues….?
As an immigrant myself I do not think so, but nice try 🙂 You seem to miss the point though, witness the cap on non-EU immigrants to the UK for example, following the mess that country is in infrastructure wise.
“We can change this, with a fight.” Good luck with that – sixty years of ingrained views to change. Think the suggestion of a visa cap makes a lot of sense in the interim until that utopian world of decent developers and competent politicians arrives.
They make a few interesting points btw, http://www.populationparty.org.au/templates/pop/page/page_html_standard.php?secID=204 , especially on the ageing issue http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44578.html.
Ah, so you’re a ‘I’m in Jack; close the door’ type.
What controls do Scandinavian countries have? I mean beyond the difficulties of getting permission to work or live in the EU, which, from personal experience, is very difficult.
Scandinavian countries accept a lot of refugess every year. Do they have specific population controls? I have never heard that before.
Type?
The only way to stop Auckland growing is to make it so crap to live in that everyone leaves. How about electing Williamson or that Italian guy mayor, for building more motorways and more soulless sprawl housing?…. holy crap, I think I’ve figured out their master plan.
I am myself one of these well-educated migrants. And honestly where else in NZ should these people get a job here in NZ than Auckland. I am actually shocked, that exactly those who always pledge for independence, low rates, and the free market, and cry “stalinism” whenever a bit left policy is made, would cut personal freedom of people who choose to come here. It is a fundamentally right, if you get allowed to migrate to a country that you decide where to move to. Migrants pay also taxes. Isn’t this wonderful: we get a well educated person here, who makes like 100k a year, we are happy to take their taxes and rates (sum up to around 30% of my income e.g.) but then condemn them to accept that someone else decide where to live. Also the argument for the retirement homes is ridiculous. Elderly people need to be integrated in a community. Where is the point to get them out of the city, everyone who reaches a certain age is just not capable to care for a house and garden and so on, and what shall people in a retirement home far away do all the day?
+1
Actually, as a born and bred Aucklander, i have much more time for overseas migrants who have choosen to make Auckland their home rather than those from other parts of NZ who moan continually about how awful Auckland is yet rarely seem to want to return to the “heartland” from whence they came.
I was talking to a cafe owner (50yr old Kiwi guy) on K Road the other day when I suggested that I thought Auckland/NZ could do with another 2 million people. He turned around and suggested I add a zero to that number and then we’d have a deal.
Now, turning to the matter at hand. It is true that population growth does not necessarily lead to economic growth. But there’s two specific caveats to place on that finding which are relevant to NZ:
1. We are starting from an extremely small population base, as such our economy is more dominated by the presence of fixed costs (economies of scale) than countries elsewhere; and
2. We are located a long way from other major markets, such that the transport cost barriers our businesses face are higher than most. This reduces the market potential that can be gained from trading.
Both of these factors would suggest that NZ should probably aim for higher population growth than many countries.
The other thing to keep in mind is that it’s not just about the size of the population, but the underlying demographic make-up. Right now, NZ is staring down the tunnel of a major ageing in our population, which will see a relative reduction in the proportion of people of working age. Population growth is one way of mitigating the issue of population ageing and ensure there are enough taxpayers to maintain everyone’s standard’s of living over the next few decades.
Preventing population growth would just exacerbate issues with population ageing to the point that they were economically unbearable (they already pose a major fiscal/economic challenge).
“population growth does not necessarily lead to economic growth” – well yes it does actually, but what you and Mr Feedback presumably mean is “growth per capita”, which of course may not necessarily eventuate.
That slight distinction aside, I agree with everything you’re saying Stu.
The economic growth per capita is a bit of a fallacy as this article shows quite clearly http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10084&page=2
There may be a benefit in reduced freight costs, but as Australia shows the cost of living does not necessarily come down with rapid population growth. Also a Keynesian Multiplier effect is often argued as a benefit of population growth due to the increased infrastructure spending – but with globalisation this is greatly reduced these days. A recent Auckland example shows this, e.g the EMUs will be from CAF in Spain, ticketing from Thales of France etc, which might involve a few local contractors but nothing near the full cost of the project goes into the local economy.
Well said Stu. Regarding economies of scale there are two ways to achieve better EoS. (1) divide them by more heads so everyones burden gets less. (2) avoid building up new fixed costs. The really interesting thing is that those who are against more Aucklanders and are for even more sprawl do exactly the opposite. I am also just wondering if people realize why the costs of living here are that high. It is not only about building roads and basic infrastructure. Also banks, shops etc. must be build in the sprawling areas what adds again to the prices, as these companies of course also need money to survive. It is actually like a deadly cycle, so the UP is probably one of the only solutions. Although it is necessary to discuss if really all proposed zones are good. What would be good would be more dedicated visual building regulations. Referring to my country we are building apartment blocks which are in the same style like the sourrounding buildings. An e.g. in Mt. Eden i can imagine having decent 3 storey blocks in a villa style. I think if that would be integrated that would reduce a lot of reactance.
Patrick you place too much faith in the planners. having worked with them, against them and despite them over 30 years their efforts are a dismal failure. The best example of this is the Manukau City planning disaster. A perfect chance to get it right but what happened ???. I agree with your comments about local neighbourhood politics also and I have had my fair share of that as well.
I have actively engaged with the unitary planners on many issues surrounding intensification especially relating to apartments ( mainly because I sell apartments for a living and I am also an architect ) I have first hand experience of living in apartments and have been involved in Body corps for 5 years. The biggest problem I see is poor design, which limits apartments being a viable lifestyle.The planners do not have the knowledge or experience to deal with these issues and frankly nor do a lot of architects or developers. So I can see the unitary plan being a disaster in its current form mostly because of lack of awareness and research around design of high density. 18 or more levels is fine however the issue is more about wind .sun privacy and dominance. All the nimbys concerns can be distilled down to those 4 items or variations of them. Now rather than disparage them how about addressing their concerns. View it as just a problem to fix, not brush their concerns aside as just self interest.
My personal view is that the inherited lot sizes and existing housing causes most of the concern. If your house is right in the middle of a block zoned for 4 levels or more then your house is going to be affected no two ways about it. So either you sell or get used to it. This can be very unsettling, so dont go and attack them and get personal. Instead work out how to reduce the anxiety. The transition period for many homeowners is going to be difficult as they see their neighbourhood go through a transformation. A big problem will be that a lot of it will be very poor mostly because of the existing lot sizes.Developers especially will build to the max and within the rules aided and abbetted by unskilled architects. ( I have done it myself and regretted it )
My view is that rather than leave such important redevelopment to adhoc development that urban development councils (UDC ) are set up within each community that have the sole task of carrying out development. Properly funded they could buy up a whole street block and replan services,remove some streets provide public facilites such as parks,creches,shops,cafes etc. These UDC could engage top architects experienced in urbam design who will engage with the local communities to provide the type of housing they want and need.
What the unitary plan proposes will lead to intense infill as the default option not redevelopment as is intended. The reality is that in most mixed housing zones the council are giving a windfall to the quick flick builders focussed on profit. I am already hearing it now . ” Find me a 1200 sqm lot and I will jam in as many as I can.” The unitary plan will lead to an ugly city, unless we find a better way to manage the development.
Great ideas Robert. If it’s ok to buy up a block of houses to build a motorway then buying up a block to recreate a piece of town is much better.
I tend to agree that NZ would be a better place if the growth was more spread out.
The only ideal way I can see to do this however would be to make it more attractive to operate businesses in other centres through tax cuts or increases. For instance a targeted tax on the Auckland CBD would both create income to both pay for the CRL as well as subsidise growth in other centres that have the space to plan their transport better.
Why penalise Auckland for being successful? Isnt that the same as taxing the rich more because they are successful (actually I am not against that but I assume from some of your comments that you would be – sorry if that is a mistake).
Isnt it, as SteveC has said below, up to the provinces to attract new business and young people/families? Otherwise we are just asking businesses/people to choose a place to reside which has less amenities but is cheaper. Or are you sugegsting that somehow the higher taxes will be directed to the provinces? How?
I think my hometown of Chch has an amazing opportunity to differentiate itself and create an attractive city by building the proposed cycle network and putting in place a Curitiba/Bogota style bus network. If that happened I would be sorely tempted to move back. That is an example of something positive that could be done in the provinces rather than slamming the Auckland CBD for its success in attracting business and talent.
Unfortunately this myopic government is likely to just build more roads.
The issue is that cities are much like companies in that once you get so much larger than the competition that you get a monopoly of power giving you an unfair advantage. In the cases of Auckland people keep moving there as it has the largest mass and therefore the greatest number of opportunities.
It is similar to taxing the wealthy as well which I have nothing against. Once you get into the mega wealthy bracket you almost don’t have to work yet your wealth just keeps sucking the wealth off others to feed yourself.
I would agree with you if I thought Auckland was the city equivalent of Microsoft Windows. Unfortunately, because of our crap infrastructure, especially transport, I think Auckland is more Linux Ubuntu – great potential but needs a lot more work done to make it easy to use and therefore really successful and appealing to the masses (and before any software geeks jump on me, I love Ubuntu and use it almost exclusively :)).
In my opinion, Auckland has huge potential to be realised before we need to start artifically strangling its growth. Keep in mind that international urban experts (other than maybe the Demographia inspired) label Auckland as a transport and planning disaster.
Actually that is a great analogy but for the reverse of what you implied.
Just like Microsoft Auckland attracts people because it’s the biggest and most wildly known. It didn’t even come to be this way through any real merit of its own but more that a bunch of cites developed in close proximity merging into one.
If you look at it Auckland doesn’t really have anything overly special going for it in a New Zealand context other than its size. Back in the day it’s proximity was ideal for shipping but that’s a rather minor benefit today.
Wow – I dont know where to start. Are you just trolling?
“a bunch of cites developed in close proximity merging into one” – What? Auckland spread out from around the port and as areas population went up, they were given separate administration. Just like London, Paris, New York – any major city you can name. They werent disparate cities founded separately that somehow merged. Where do you get that from?
“Auckland doesn’t really have anything overly special going for it in a New Zealand context other than its size” – daying other than its size, is like saying Jonah Lomu had nothing unique going for him other than his size. Maybe true but damn how important was his size!
Do you think people from the rest of NZ are lured here by some false image of Auckland? Of course not, they come here because there are better jobs and they get those jobs. Do you think ASB have their HQ here because they were blinded by the marketing department at Auckland Council? No they chose Auckland and the CBD (despite high rents and all the difficulties with staff transport) for damn good reasons – benefits of agglomeration.
Immigrants come here for the same reason they choose New York over Buffalo or London over Exeter – big cities are a lot more welcoming to immigrants, especially ones with a minority ethnicity and language. I know because I have lived in other countries in smaller cities and the biggest cities and the difference is huge.
Anyway, most of Auckland’s growth is about natural increase by births, so I dont know how you intend to control that.
Goosoid, you have headed off on a wild tangent here. Created some imaginary argument that I made some claim about marketing, and now you have taken what was my side of the argument to argue against this fictional claim you imagined that I said.
I don’t even know how I’m meant to respond given you appear to agree with me..
OK so you ahve chosen not to answer any of my other points because you think one point is a tangent – fair enough.
Its simple. You said that Auckland had nothing going for it other than size.
ASB could put its HQ in Hamilton and who would notice. So therefore why do major companies locate here and not only here but in the CBD? Is it because they are blinded by some amazing marketing drive by ACC or are they only here for the size or are there other reasons (agglomeration benefits)? Simple question.
Many people seem to be very confused as to why major companies locate their offices in the Auckland CBD. When someone says “agglomeration benefits”, the usual answer (which I have seen you give) is that agglomeration benefits are a myth or massively overstated. So, if it is so logical for companies to move out of the Auckland CBD, why dont they? My answer, agglomeration benefits.
Regarding the growth of Auckland, the way you talk about the other centres would be no different from claiming Pukekohe or Hamilton never existed if Auckland were to grow to include them.
Certainly if you look at the historical maps you can see the growth of Auckland and it’s surrounding communities.
Goosoid, if Auckland has the largest employment market why would ASB put its HQ in Hamilton? My very point is that now that Auckland is so much bigger it now has a monopoly and can suck most of the wealth out of the rest of the country.
If Auckland, Wellington, Hamilton, Christchurch, Dunedin and Tauranga were all the same size ASB would of had a choice. They didn’t however and so here they are feeding the cycle.
I suspect the main reason companies locate themselves in the CBD is that the need large amounts of office space in a location that their staff can both get to work and enjoy to work.
That’s was certainly the main reason why our company of 6000 built ourselves a building here and in various other CBDs throughout the world.
@snowflake “If you look at it Auckland doesn’t really have anything overly special going for it in a New Zealand context other than its size”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
That’s right, I flew half way across the world, left my family and friends behind and chose to live in Auckland because of its size 🙂
Actually, the things that really annoy me are the Harbour, the Waitakeres, Waiheke Island and Rangitoto Island, the urban parks like the Domain and Albert Park, the variety and quality of the food (especially Asian), my basketball team mates, my football team mates, the beachside cafes that are a short bike ride from my flat in the CBD, the Blues and the Breakers, Takapuna beach, the Auckland Art Gallery, the Wynyard Quarter, the shared spaces in the CBD, the random little shops in Kingsland and K’Rd, the fact I work in a team made up of 26 different nationalities at last count, the surf beaches on the west coast, Remedy and Expresso Workshop’s flat whites, the warm weather, the city skyline from the Shore, the vineyards, the markets in Matakana and Otara and the overall friendliness and hospitality of the Aucklander’s I’m lucky to have met so far (both new and old).
If only there were a city the size of Auckland without all these drawbacks I could get the hell out…
Benidom, you just listed a bunch of things that are unique to New Zealand, not Auckland. You also listed a few things that are only in Auckland due to its size
Pretty much you just supported my point.
Hi Robert, thanks for your thorough comment.
I too regret the polarised fight over the plan. I feel like I am being forced into supporting it even though I have many concerns about it because of the lack of engagement from those who want the whole thing thrown out rather than submitting and engaging with it.
The vital question then is where to from here? First though I do not share your pessimistic view so much. Anyone owning a house in an area getting seriously up zoned (and there’s not much of that in practice, especially because of heritage controls) will be faced with a choice of accepting a serious windfall on their newly more value able property, hardly the end of the world.
Apartment as well as terrace house and detached houses have gone through an appalling phase since the deregulation of the building industry (thanks Maurice) as well as (I agree) a systemic planning failure at council level. Especially in Manukau and the CBD, but also Waitakere. I am more optimistic that these problems are being addressed.
However I am very interested in your UDC proposal, I hope you will make a submission on this. And I would love to see examples of this in practice elsewhere?
One of my main concerns about the the likely result of the hysteria being wiped up especially around heritage and building height is that we end up with a set of controls that make for a flat ‘dense sprawl’ model with crumbling unimproveable areas (Onehunga, Morningside) where there is enormous market pressure for ‘garden grabbing’ infill but not well planned upscaling in places needing improvement. Perhaps the UDC model is a way around this. But won’t the shrill neo- liberals attack this as ‘socialist’?
Hi Patrick,
Sorry about the long delay in replying. Re ‘garden grabbing ‘ thats the biggest fear I have. A prime example of what can happen is developers attitudes to rezoning.Look at the Anzac quarter which had an enlightened plan change just finished when the UT came out. Have a look at it if you are not familar with it. Basically the whole quarter was scoped as one urban design project and a theoretical model was developed of the ideal building forms ,heights,linkages and open spaces.Great planning and reversed some of my jaded opinion of planners. Now what was interesting about this plan change was the process of consultation with the owners within the block. As far as I am aware there was little or minimal resistance ( however I only became aware of this project quite late in the process )
Any way getting back to where I am going with this, despite haveing an enlightened zoning for the anzac quarter the developers I have pitched this to have looked at the whole zone and find much of it too difficult.Why.???… well a good deal of the sites already have multiple dwellings on them and the zone rules require the developer to almalgamate 3 sites ( a good idea ) so potentially the developer has to buy at least 6 homes and more to have a clean slate to work with. From a real estate point of view you have 6 to 9 offers on the table at the same time (no developer will land bank they have all been burnt ) and the whole process gets bogged down with objections and greed. Then you will get the spoiler who will not sell and kill the whole thing off. So for the developer the whole thing gets too hard. Far easier to buy a commercial site (bigger, less hassles with residential rules etc ) which will lead to a whole lot of our commercial space being eaten up in the next 3 years before the UT kicks in with its protection of commercial space ( we need jobs as well as apartments
within walking distance ). If the UT residential rules as set out now go through we are screwed for a long time because every guy with a ute and a dog will strap on his builders apron and infill to the max which will make it impossible for many decades to do any serious urban design redevelopment.Where now you could buy one house on a 1200 m2 site .After the quick flick builders have washed across a suburb the urban developer will have to buy at least 4 possibly 8 titles to get 1200 m2. For 3600m2 buy 12 to 24 titles.
If there is a minimum lot size as is sort of proposed in the anzac quarter plan then there may be still a chance to stop micro infill. However the developers as I said before are not keen. Developers are focused on cash flow now and want straightforward development opportunities and will not invest time herding cats ( ie 6 to 9 buyers ) over 3 to 6 months when any one of them can pull out and sink the deal.
So expect to see slow progress in the Anzac quarter . We need a circuit breaker to get things moving.
Which brings me back to the UDC. ( urban development council ).
Lets take the Anzac quarter. The owners largely accepted the plan change probably on the basis ( if I owned one ) that their houses could be sold for a tidy profit or a massive profit for those inclined to hold out. fair enough. However for the aforementioned reasons the developers are not playing ball or if they are are playing hard ball on prices so there could be quite big gaps between expectations and reality.
So the circuit breaker could be an approach to the owners to participate in their own urban development as stake holders in a master plan for their area. Ie they share the profits ( the neo liberals would be happy ) as shareholders and the UDC would be the legal entity to develop the precinct. Shareholders would have first right of refusal to buy back in to the new project if they wish to remain in the community or just cash up when their house is needed for the development.
The UDC could be purely an owners entity or have council either partly or fully involved. The key is to run it properly with the right design and financial skills to carry it off. Housing associations exist all over the world as do urban authorities charged with redevelopment of the south bank in Brisbane and lately the wynard and britomart quarters.
The key is that the community gets involved in the redevelopment of their neighbourhood. Leaving it to the developers scares the pants of the locals. Ask the community to come along and help design their neighbourhood . I am working with a group now who are involving the community in design workshops to redesign their local shopping centre and town square. The community loves it and the design ideas coming through are inspiring. The deputy mayor suggested to the milford objectors to get together and come up with a proposal for their community. Thats the sort of thing that could be encouraged because out of the woodwork the silent majority will turn up and want to improve their neighbourhood and their values. Thats the thing about self interest it is a great motivator if you can swing the debate around so that it works for them as well as the community.
I don’t think that it’s up to Auckland to “push” people out, really, it’s up to the regions to make themselves attractive and “pull” people to them!
Well said, if regions want more growth in their area, then they need to do something to encourage it.
Just on the immigration question. Immigration NZ already has a policy under the points system where people get additional points for employment outside of Auckland. I’m not sure whether any studies have been done on it but anecdotally it doesn’t work.
Immigration to Auckland is not just international so just because somebody starts out in the regions it doesn’t mean they stay there. People might be working for Fonterra in Waikato but then move to head office after a couple of years. Doctors might start in a regional hospital but then move to Auckland to work in their specialty. Plus, I’ve spoken to a couple of employers who have employed people in the regions only to have them pick up and move to Auckland as soon as their residence comes through because it means they can be closer to family and community ties or for their kids to go to a major university. Short of putting checkpoints at Warkworth and the Bombay Hills I don’t think you can control where people choose to settle long term…
Exactly – if you want to know how you restrict internal immigration, I can ask for some recommendations from my Romanian father in law. The system there was very effective pre-1989 but maybe not the model we want to replicate!
There’s an interesting analysis from Australia, where politicians have tended to invest in more infrastructure per capita in low-growth regions than high-growth regions. The result – a poor return on investment. It fails to increase the attractiveness of the low-growth regions, and leaves the high-growth regions with overloaded infrastructure. New Zealand politicians don’t seem to be any wiser, with investments like Transmission Gully and Puhoi to Wellsford being paid for by a high-growth region.
http://grattan.edu.au/static/files/assets/2ad32ac6/086_report_regional_development.pdf
There’s also a good analysis of how cities work, as innovation by specialists mainly in CBD’s. Tax Auckland too hard to support the regions, or fail to provide it with the infrastructure to grow its CBD, and the knowledge industries could gradually move to Sydney, Melbourne Brisbane and Perth where there are deep labour markets for specialists in their CBD’s. Even Adelaide is regarded as a “lagging” region in their analysis. It has a poorly developed CBD, and the bright young knowledge workers often move to the other centres to pursue their careers. Could Auckland risk becoming another Adelaide ?
http://grattan.edu.au/publications/reports/post/productive-cities-opportunity-in-a-changing-economy/
Australia’s fever of chasing growth has resulted in them pricing themselves out of the global market. Now that their mining boom is over they are stuck on their high wages with no work and hence are on their way into recession.
We work on Australian projects here in NZ and can deliver them for 1/3 of the of Australia based workers.
Yes we are a low wage economy. Yay.
That would only be an issue if you worked here and then commuted home to Australia each day. Given that is not the case however you can work on Australian projects over here, charge a massive margin and live like a king.
That seems to be the thing that people don’t get, yes you get paid 10-20 more over there, if you can get a job, but then everything is at least 20% more.
Indeed, lots of people like to point to the higher wages and stronger dollar, but neglect that the costs are also higher and paid in those same dollars. And furthermore once you factor in the total tax structure differences, it’s not so rosy (especially if you are trying to put kids through school or have healthcare to worry about, or if you are buying a house with stamp duties and CGT, etc).
The only real bonus I found was international travel, and international purchases.
Yep, it actually cheaper for me to fly back to NZ every 3 month’s just to go to the doctor to pick up my high cholesterol meds.
This recent book ‘The New Geography of Jobs’ by Enrico Moretti is good on the agglomeration benefits thing, in particular on how much of it is about the difference between thick and thin labour markets. Basically talented young people (or immigrants for that matter) need to be in places with a high diversity of employment options. Small places just don’t cut it. And it’s hard to artificially generate those benefits – ‘if you build it they will come’ just doesn’t really work in most cases. New Zealand should embrace the fact that it has a place that seems to be growing of its own accord, and do what it can to encourage it more. The alternative is not that everywhere else will grow if Auckland doesn’t. The alternative is that nowhere will grow, and hence New Zealand will not grow.
Obviously a country that only hit a population of 4 million about 10 years ago (and took around 50 years to get there from 2 million) is going to have a hard time coming to terms with adding the next 2 much more quickly, never mind having a single city with 2 or more million on its own. But it’s important to keep this in perspective – even with (say) 7 or 8 million people NZ would remain a profoundly low population density place – especially if half those people live in Auckland!
This book ‘The New Geography of Jobs’, is a great read. A portion of it is available to read for free in the internet.
Snowflake said, ” The only ideal way I can see to do this however would be to make it more attractive to operate businesses in other centres through tax cuts or increases”.
What if we offer electricity at about one cent a unit so that someone can operate an aluminium smelter near Invercargill and employ about 500 people? How much do you want to chip in in higher power costs.
Leave it alone Snowflake. We have tried your proposal and it has failed over and over. Those of us with a sense of history will remember sheep retention; the Think Big Projects; the local car industry; and Tiwai. .
Auckland will grow, as it has continued to grow and with smarter planning we will manage; just as other cities far bigger than us manage. People will have to change, but they always have. The dream used to be a quarter acre section, but they seldom come that big any more; and yet most of us move on. You should too.
We already are effectively paying a premium to live in a big city, the thing is that rather than sending money away to give other people jobs we are spending it on large amounts of concrete and steel building extremely expensive infrastructure.
Of course people like myself make a bit of money along the way with such things, however 90% of the cost is just the raw materials.
historically Auckland’s drivers sitting in queues burning fuel to pay excise on have subsidised other region’s transport investment
Quite right, if said person had been living and working in a smaller city they could have very well walked or cycled in from their spacious house along a quiet little road. Just like I used to in Hamilton.
NZ is infesting itself with anti-growth nutcases.
But funny how these nutjobs (many of whom are empty-nesters) are allowed to have their own children while moaning about growth.
Well where are your kids, presumably not tied up in the basement, so housing had to be created *somewhere* for them.
Yup, funny how the people who scream where will the children play don’t actually have children living with them either.
As the parent of school age children I can confidently assert that their preferred option for play is inside with an electronic device. Having a back yard to force them out into occasionally is useful but we could get by with a section substantially smaller than the one we have and still have room for outside play. As for the “good old days”, I grew up in a house with a large section, in a cul de sac. As I recall, the kids in the street played mostly out on the road or in the local bush reserve, not in our parents’ back yards.
I’ll be honest, it is nice having a garden as a kid, but the marginal utiliy increase from a 300m to a 500 is almost 0, you don’t strat seeing real gains til you get over 100m and have a forest to play in like I used to. But frankly you shouldn’t be allowed that in a city anyway.
Also a lot of Auckland sections are way bigger than they need to be for a useable backyard because of the setback from the road, which wastes space they never use. If our house was 8 metres nearer the street, we could lose a couple of hundred square metres from our section and not even notice the difference.
One of the great benefits of terraces. If you cut out the front and side setbacks, you get twice as many houses and back yards in the same area without losing any usable space.