Maurice Williamson was right. The census data does contain a surprise “bigger than Ben Hur”. But the real surprise isn’t in the half-baked comments about total population growth. To find it, you need to look at the new “usually resident population” counts for local areas as at 5th March 2013, and see where they have have diverged from what was expected (based on the latest population estimates, which were for 30th June 2012).
And the real surprise is this: the Auckland CBD has a population much larger than what was expected.
Population Estimates vs. Usually Resident Population in the Auckland CBD, 1996-2013
According to the latest census counts, the central city now has a usually resident population of 26,307 people. This is much higher than the latest population estimates suggest – as shown in the graph above. Generally, population estimates are higher than usually resident population counts. They add in an estimate of the number of people who were overseas on census night, and an estimate of the people that were missed (didn’t fill out a census form).
Now, we know that there haven’t been many new CBD apartments completed in the last year, so the obvious conclusion is that the estimates were way too low. Looking back at 2006, the CBD’s usually resident population was adjusted up by 7% to reach the population estimate. Applying a similar ratio here, it’s now likely that the CBD has a population of at least 28,000 people – and this is the kind of estimate Statistics New Zealand will end up with when they re-calculate their estimates next year.
Why is there such a big difference? It’s hard to say for sure – and we should get a better idea when more info comes out, i.e. household numbers – but here are some possibilities:
- More people per household in the CBD – singles are out, couples are in. Perhaps there are even more children?
- Fewer apartments being used as ‘holiday homes’ or serviced apartments, meaning more are available as permanent private dwellings?
- On a similar note, there are fewer international students these days – they don’t get counted as residents if they’re staying for less than a year. Again this frees up more apartments for “residents”.
- Reduced undercount – perhaps Statistics New Zealand have really stepped up their efforts to improve their coverage of the CBD?
Maurice was even correct in saying that some infrastructure plans will need to be reviewed as a result of the latest census data. The case for investment in the CBD just got stronger. The Ministry of Education should be taking a serious look at putting some schools in. The data should also improve the case for Council to invest further in various facilities. As for the City Rail Link, well, this news certainly doesn’t hurt it.
Processing...
That is one hell of a difference. From your graph it looks like the 2012 estimate was around 21,000 and the 2013 actual was 26,307 or 25% above the estimate. We know there has been rental pressure in the CBD so perhaps it is more likely every room is occupied with a flatmate. It helps the CRL case if they then choose to work outside the CBD. I am not sure it will be much use for shorter trips as a distributor system. Over 40% of CBD residents walked to work in 2006 (over 6 times the Auckland City level)and 1% used rail (same as the rest of Auckland City). It certainly makes a strong case to improve facilities and walkability.
Was going to add: 2010-2012 estimates showed around 22,000 people. So, based on the census count, it seems more likely that we’re at 28,000.
It doesn’t really make much difference to the CRL, you’re right, but as I said above, it doesn’t hurt!
Cycle lanes all over the city. Hurrah.
Seems that Ben Hur likes apartments. Even ones that aren’t as big as Maurice’s house.
It is evidence that even in Auckland there is demand for a walkable environment, where householders don’t need to commit large amounts of time and money to car travel.
I’ve always wanted to live in the centre of Auckland ever since I came here 40 years ago. Children made that undesirable plus there really was nowhere to live until relatively recently.
I have now lived in the CBD for about 9 years and my apartment building has a lot of residents considerably older than me (i.e. 65+). So don’t anyone go making ageist assumptions please; that seems to be a kneejerk opinion for many on this otherwise excellent blog.
I actually think that as the ‘baby boomers’ really hit their retirement stride, that the demand for one and two bedroom apartments is going to take off. I also think there is a huge market for low maintenance 1 + 2 brm terrace houses, near town centres, in what have been until now, auto dominated suburbs.
That’s what demographer Erenhalt found in the urbanising populations in the US: dominated by two groups; young people and downsizing baby boomers selling the big family homes and moving into the centre.
Suburbs and exurbs, he found, is increasingly the world of the poor and immigrants.
Us Boomers (1946-64: includes me, just) have never wanted to miss out on a trend!
Also Boomers tend to be a very demanding cohort, and now they have decided Transit and cycling is where it’s at will want only the best. I’m telling ya.
Where did you get the estimate data from? It’s seems strange to suggest the population has been near stagnant for the past 5 years and even stranger to suggest it has declined since 2011.
Try are the official estimates from Statistics New Zealand.
Hi SF, estimates are from Statistics New Zealand, for the Auckland Harbourside, Auckland Central West and Auckland Central East area units.
There’s been very little apartment development completed since 2008, so it’s not surprising that the estimates were flat in recent years: it is surprising that the population kept going up anyway. Well, I was surprised, as someone who works with this kind of data all the time.
As to why there was a slight drop in the estimates from 2011 to 2012, I’m not really sure, but I imagine that drop will be revised out of existence anyway. Estimates at the local level are quite difficult, and Statistics New Zealand explain a bit about the process here: http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/SubnationalPopulationEstimates_HOTPYe30Jun12/Data%20Quality.aspx
It doesn’t help that young populations like the one in the CBD are quite mobile, and a bit hard to track.
Well thats understandable in a way. The growth rate they had that was 75% lower was very pessimistic and a casual observer could tell they were flawed, particularly the reduction.
Well, I keep a pretty close eye on this kind of thing and I was surprised. If you look at Figure 4 of this http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research_and_publications/speeches/2013/5491478.html, you can see how little apartment construction was consented after around 2005, and especially after 2008.
Add to that, if the population increased by over 100% between 2001 and 2006 why would they estimate that in the next 5 year’s it would only go up by less than 50%?
Historically, what Statistics New Zealand have done is look at building consents data to guide their population estimates (adding in a bit of a “lag” between the consent and building completion). And there really haven’t been a lot of new buildings completed since 2008. Stamford Residences, probably a couple in Quay Park, and maybe a couple elsewhere, but not very many.
Looking back, it does seem a bit odd to me that the estimates weren’t showing much growth over 2006-2008 say – there were still quite a lot of new buildings being finished off then. Who knows. I’ll be very interested to see how the estimates get revised to take account of this census data…
Perhaps their estimates are based off house building consents which have a lower lead time that those for apartment buildings?
Wouldn’t have thought so – the consents data they publish separates out houses from apartments (not to mention other non-residential buildings) – I expect they apply different timeframes to different types of construction, and similarly they would probably apply a factor to allow for the fact that a $50 million apartment building usually takes longer to build than a $10 million one…
This is interesting – the city centre seems to be getting into one of those virtuous cycles, where investment leads to growth and in turn warrants more investment. Also interesting that this residential growth has occurred at the same time as employment growth – perhaps they are complementary in these kinds of urban environments?
what is infuriating is that the private sector has been keeping up with demand in the city, for example with new carpakless supermarkets and all the new places to go out. But the council ignores the reality instead continuing to cater only for suburbans and their cars.
That’s not quite true, there has been a lot of council investment over the years. All the shared spaces have transformed the innercity, Wynyard has been a massive success, and the massive changes around Britomart have also been council lead. If anything it’s the property developers that have failed to invest in good quality urban infrastructure and buildings. The supermarkets were really an attempt to get into a market which they have completely ignored until this year. Preferring to build their suburban style supermarkets, their first innercity supermarket was just a rehash of that design and more or less punishes people walking to the Quay street store with an absolutely atrocious pedestrian experience. Not to mention what the developers of the Scenes did to that whole block and the laneway in behind.
Yeah, there’s been very significant council investment, especially around Britomart and Wynyard. The groovy new stuff hasn’t come for free 🙂 but I hope that this data will make the council feel more secure about continuing to invest.
“more or less punishes people walking to the Quay street store with an absolutely atrocious pedestrian experience”
Quay Street is not the supermarket nonsense is referring to – that one is a lot older too. He’s talking about the new supemarket in Queen Street, near Shortland Street, I believe. Old office building foyer transformed into a small-scale supermarket.
I’ve just had a look at the MoE’s property information service, and currently there is plenty of space available at existing schools to cater for students in the short-to-medium term (although Freemans Bay may need to add Years 7 and 8 as Ponsonby Intermediate is at capacity). There won’t be a need for a new central city school in the near future, but it pays to start shopping for land now – an 800-student primary school needs at least 4900 sqm of floor space.
Freemans Bay School has 39 classrooms, while their roll entitles them to 18.
Parnell School has 35 classrooms (26 + 9 under construction), while their roll entitles them to 22.
Newton Central School has 14 classrooms while their roll entitles them to 12.
Secondary education seems to be the more pressing need – the three secondary schools serving the CBD (Auckland Grammar, Auckland Girls Grammar, and Western Springs College) have rolls at or above their current capacity.
Many students for AGGS come from the south, of course, but it’s a fair point about secondary schooling. Where would a new school go? Perhaps Wynyard might be a good spot – fairly close to Britomart and bus routes on the new network, and there’s land that’s ripe for redevelopment.
Tunnels under Albert Park?