A new report comparing Auckland with 30 other international cities by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) paints a grim picture in many of the categories we talk about. Titled “A City of Opportunity”, the report released last year compared 30 cities from around the world. Following the 2012 version of the report a separate study was done to see how Auckland compared and the same thing has happened again with the 2014 version. This gives Auckland a useful tool for comparison. The results were given at an Auckland Conversations event last week and you can watch the presentation here while the presentation itself is here.

While many of the other reports that rank cities do so as a metric for assessing what to pay staff posted overseas, the PWC report appears more focused on the economic opportunity from cities working together. However like other reports, it is based on how a city scores across a number of criteria. In this case there are 59 variables spread across 10 categories which themselves combined into three high level groups with the report taking both a quantitative and qualitative look at city life. One of the things they mention is that while not all variables are under a cities direct control e.g. education, that it doesn’t mean a local council should just ignore the impact they have and should be active in trying to get the government to continue to improve the system. The groups, categories and variables are

PWC - Cities of Opportunity - Ranking Critera

The 30 comparator cities are shown below and were picked so there was a mix of cities from all regions of the world and with different attributes. The map below shows the cities along with their overall ranking (the higher the number the better).

PWC - Cities of Opportunity - Cities

One of the interesting outcomes that was noted was when the result of the rankings was compared with GDP data.  As you can see there is a correlation between cities that score well and those that perform better economically. It was also mentioned that in some cases – such as a study of 15 Swedish cities using the same methodology – this relationship is even stronger.

PWC - Cities of Opportunity - Economic Impact

Moving on to Auckland, the results below show how the city compared against the 30 other cities in 2012. As you can see we were doing ok in some areas but others we really lagged behind. It is noted that our main weaknesses are:

  • Transport and Infrastructure
  • Economic Clout
  • City Gateway

PWC - Cities of Opportunity - 2012 results

Some metrics aren’t expected to have changed much so not all measures have (yet?) been reviewed in 2015 but the results of four were given.

  • Technology Readiness
  • Transportation and Infrastructure
  • Economic clout
  • Demographics and livability

Here are some the comparisons for these areas. It’s important to remember that the rankings below are how Auckland compares to the other cites, not the scores that it achieved for each segment. PWC say Auckland has been improving but the issue is that in some cases other cities are improving at a faster rate meaning we’re falling down the rankings.

In technology and readiness the governments fibre roll-out initiative is paying off and Auckland is improving and so to is it’s ranking in Software development and multi-media design however other metrics are falling. In the case of Internet access in schools PWC said it wasn’t just about having access to the Internet but also how schools are adapting to it and making the most use of technology.

PWC - Cities of Opportunity - Technology Readiness 2

For Demographics & livability Auckland continues to do well for quality of living but slips down the rankings on the other metrics. Of interest, we’re still ranked fairly well for traffic congestion as while many locals think things are bad, congestion is considered nowhere near as bad as many other cities. One aspect in the discussion on traffic congestion that I found interesting was that the example of prioritising walking and cycling in Amsterdam was highlighted. It was said how contrary to what many people and car drivers assumed, walkers and cyclists spent more in city shops than those who drove did and on that basis it was better for the economy to remove the cars.

The very low score for demographics relates to the large ageing population we have which presents both an opportunity (if people work longer) as well as a challenge for the future once they start leaving the workforce.

PWC - Cities of Opportunity - Demographics & livability

The transport and infrastructure results are particularly interesting and concerning. As you can see Auckland ranks very poorly for its public transport system, especially the coverage and cost of it. This is something that electrification, the new bus network and integrated fares help improve but even with those it’s likely we’ll still be very far down the list. The housing result will probably raise a few eyebrows however it was described as being not just a cost to buy measure but also how easy/hard it is to get into a house (regardless of whether you’re buying it).

PWC - Cities of Opportunity - Transport and Infrastructure

And lastly economic clout where we’re doing well in some areas but very poorly in others. This is in part because other cities have been much more affected by the economic conditions in recent years than Auckland/NZ has. The question is if Auckland can sustain the rate of growth it’s been achieving in the last few years because if it can’t, it would likely fall down the rankings.

PWC - Cities of Opportunity - Economic Clout

These are summed up to the following strengths and weaknesses.

PWC - Cities of Opportunity - Strengths and Weaknesses

All up Auckland remains a city with a huge amount of potential, especially thanks to the natural environment we have and it’s clear we’ve been doing some things right. It’s also said that some of the plans we have are good too but one major issue is making sure we get the execution right.

Share this

20 comments

  1. Wow 10 out of 31 cities have worse public transport than Auckland! Is that possible? Public horse and carts?

  2. (Not completely sure I understand those charts that compare a city to itself or one city to another, and how AKL relates to them.)

    AKL’s Achilles heal is the inability to attract foreign investment and “global corporate presence.” NZ has a distinct disadvantage in its remote location, said lack of FDI and global corporations, and a small domestic market. If a company needs a presence this far away from, say, San Francisco or London, it makes more sense to go to Sydney. It is not appreciably farther away from global business centres than AKL, orcloser depending upon which way you’re coming from. Even if AKL has a big cost advantage (and I’m not sure it does), does that advantage make up for the remoteness of the location vis a vis other global centres that that particular company needs to interact with directly?

    The job of fixing this issue (can’t do anything about geography, of course) falls into Ateed’s lap, and they haven’t made it much of a priority. Or at least, haven’t had much success. Too busy planning fireworks and concerts. It is also the responsibility of council to provide attractive financial incentives for companies to invest here, in something other than housing, dairy, and greenfield. The internet is a great business tool and all that, but it doesn’t seem to have had any effect on slowing corporate agglomeration in large cities. AKL has a tough row to hoe in getting into this game, or figure out how to make the best of its current situation.

    1. Left side of the chart is the 2012 ranking (orange), right side is the 2015 ranking (red). Cities listed at the top are the #1 in 2012 versus #1 in 2015. The orange and red lollipops sticking out the side show Auckland’s relative ranking in 2012 and 2015.

  3. I remember one of the big promises that the Prime Minister made before winning his first time in 2008 was that he would turn New Zealand into the back office for financial services – which would be provide high paying jobs and bring a global presence to NZ. I haven’t heard any more about this and the media attention span doesn’t go past 24 hours so it seem nothing more will be said about it.

    1. I also remember this government saying we had very well-educated workers that worked more cheaply than elsewhere. How’s that bargain pricing attitude working out for us?

  4. ranks highly in ease of doing business, govt wants less regulations on business.
    ranks poorly on public transport, govt wants more roads.

  5. Auckland scores highly on natural attributes, but poorly on human made ones. This is the great opportunity: The former can’t be changed but the later can. We just have to free ourselves from thinking there is no alternative to the wrongheadedness of the late 20Cth priorities.

    ‘The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones.’

    -Keynes

  6. The correlation of score vs GDP/employment is interesting. Rather than a straight line it looks like a threshold at a score of 800. There would be a flat line above and a flat line below. If that is the case the interpretation has to be different. It suggests a bottleneck for cities rather than a simple cause and effect. ie you need certain things to move to the top group as a necessary condition for growth.

  7. I’m so not surprised with the poor public transport stats. The spread out city that is Auckland has so little mass PT and is instead reliant on relatively small buses over long routes to carry the vast burden of ordinary PT. AT cannot carry the cost to change this if things are to move on from this late 50’s way of thinking, central government must get involved and yet they blindly hold this city back though their intransigence and ignorance.

    1. “The spread out city that is Auckland” – The second densest city in Australasia? This is a myth that has to be put to bed. Auckland isn’t that spread out.

  8. I wouldn’t have much faith at all in a PWC report – I’d rate them as fairly clueless about most things. But particularly – Auckland is number 1 in Housing? That’s not just “raising a few eyebrows” but I’d say it is totally, ludicrously wrong by any metric to say that Auckland is number 1 at that. Which then goes back to my first point – that PWC are fairly useless. Not sure I would go quite so far as to say “not worth the paper it is written on” but it’s close.

    1. Well done, Guy. Pick the outlier, make a patronising remark and shoot the messenger. Yes, reports like this have their faults as do the writers but I think we should consider it as Dennis Denuto said: It’s the vibe of the thing, your Honour. And the vibe tells me as Patrick has pointed out that it is largely the things in our control that are holding us back.

        1. You haven’t seen the Australian cinematic legal masterpiece The Castle?

          One of the few movies to actually make law interesting.

      1. How well would you rate a paper that does not cite it’s source material, submit itself to peer review or detail it’s methodology so it can be reviewed properly? Pretty darn shoddy. In fact aside from the handshaking and waving this report carried little substance. Oh and the pretty pictures, don’t forget those because maths is hard for business and local governance.

    2. I got into a flat in six days after being given notice on the old place. It’s insulated large and heated in an area with lpw crime. Doubt I could manage that for the same price in any of the other cities

  9. Goosoid, you say ‘Auckland isn’t all that spread out’ – well when it takes me almost two hours to get from Meadowlands to Ponsonby by PT on a weekend or two hours to go from Mangere to Meadowlands on a week night then Auckland sure as hell feels spread out to me…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *