Investor, business commentator and friend of the blog, Lance Wiggs, has written an excellent post on 20 obvious things to remember for Auckland, especially with local body elections coming up. Most of it relates to topics we’ve talked about before.


We can easily forget that most people don’t read Transport Blog, find The High Cost of Free Parking obvious or understand that great cities are great to walk in – and lousy to drive in. Many of us have lived overseas though, and we just tend to forget just how things worked over there and what is missing here.

So here are 20 (not so) obvious things about cities, and Auckland in particular, that we should all remember.

1: Many people living in a small area makes for a better life for all. It’s more efficient, more fun and increases business, and that’s why people choose to live in big dense cities.

2: Large roads create moats that block parts of cities from each other and we risk losing the benefits of urbanism. Many of the motorways that carved up cities overseas are now being removed, and the same applies to ports.

3: Parking spaces not only take up valuable land, but they also reduce the positive effects of urbanism. They are expensive and should be removed or charged for accordingly.

4: All the great cities of the world are horrible places to find and pay for a car park. That’s a design feature, as they prioritize walking and public transport to cope with the demand for moving people.

5: Public transport takes cars off the road and increases, dramatically, the ability of a city to deliver people to and from work and shops, and with very limited use of land. It is far cheaper, based on both marginal and capital costs, to move people with public transport than cars.

6: An empty rail line or bus lane is a good thing – the point is to make their lanes congestion-free so that riders can get to their destination faster.

7: Removing cars and car parks, broadening footpaths and installing shared spaces increases business (significantly) to the local merchants, and makes for higher value commercial buildings as well. People want to be in spaces that are friendly to people.

8: Apartments can be awesome places to live – and they should come in all shapes and sizes to cater for all stages of life. They are also intrinsically cheaper to build, supply with services and, with urban density, commute and shop from. You can generally survive without a car.

9: Driving to work is a horrible experience versus walking, riding and public transport – in that order. If you have the other options then take them.

10: To get people out of cars and onto cycleways and walking we need to provide pleasant and safe environments for walkers and cyclists. It’s not enough to do big projects – we need a network from homes to school, shops and work.

11: Driving kids to school is a confidence trick – switching back to kids walking and cycling will make everybody safer by removing cars from the streets, making kids healthier and providing critical mass of kids to react to and prevent any low probability but newsworthy predators. But we need to switch entire schools at a time to make this work. We also need to be smarter about buses for schools.

12: We make personal choices for transport that are not our own best interests, such as choosing to drive (and be traffic) rather than, say, walk. The right economics, such as variable tolls and parking charges and cross-subsidization of public transport nudge us into making better choices and save money for everyone.

13: New Zealand has one of the world’s most efficient domestic airline systems. Getting from the airport to Auckand city though is embarrassingly poor – great cities offer rail or light rail.

14: Autonomous cars are still cars, and risk clogging the roads even more as they reverse commute after dropping passengers. Autonomous taxis are still taxis. Neither takes cars off the roads – people will still want their Toyotas, Fords, BMWs and Mercedes Benzes with their stuff inside, while those shared cars will need constant cleaning.

15: Auckland has the potential to be one of the world’s great cities. We are rapidly building in population, especially downtown, and we need to invest to grow. That means increasing our debt funding, making sure the rates are set at the right level (they are amongst the lowest in NZ), building smart infrastructure to allow for density, removing trucks and cars by providing better alternatives and unleashing bigger buildings in and around downtown.

16: Allowing bigger buildings in your property zone will increase the value of your property – a lot. That’s free money. You may even find a developer who will buy your place for a lot of cash and give you a free apartment in their new development.

17: In large cities the houses with backyards, as we have in the leafy inner city suburbs, belong to a few extremely wealthy families. In Auckland the pressure is building to convert those houses to much higher value apartments.

18: Global warming will make beach front property more marginal – but property overlooking the coast will always be valuable.

19: Induced demand, where if you build it they will come, applies not just for roads, where new roads rapidly get clogged, but also for rail, light rail and bike lanes. The latter also increase the value of surrounding property. Build the bike lanes and they get used, and the evidence is clear to see.

20: In short Auckland needs to maintain or increase rates as a percentage of home value, borrow more, unleash the ability to build bigger commercial and residential buildings, invest heavily in public transport including rail, light rail and bus lanes, expand the walkable areas and cycle lanes, look to move the port within 10 years, say, increase the cost and reduce the supply of parking and work with schools and businesses to acelerate the transition to walking, cycling and public transport. And they can use an abundance of evidence from Auckland and offshore to make these decisions.

The reason Auckland is doing so well is that the current CEO and people that work for Auckland Council and aligned organizations as well as the private sector are working hard to achieve these goals. The central government is also largely aligned. The results, like the crowds in Britomart and Wynyard Quarter, the number of cranes downtown, the rapid rise in public transport, walking and cycling and increase in collective prosperity and delight in the inner city are clear for all to see.

However we need a Mayor and Council that support growth, that support investment and that support rather than constantly undermines the largely excellent work done by Auckland Council. We need Councillors who not only read their papers (and many don’t I’m told), but who also read and understand the vast body of work and international experience on urban and transport planning. We need Councillors who use, as National MP Simon O’Connor recently said to Parliament, reason, evidence and experts inform and make decisions. We need a Mayor and Councillors who are positive about the future of Auckland, who are inspiring and who have the skills and experience to do the work.

We don’t need Councilors who are sports or media celebrities with no real qualifications for the role. We don’t need Councillors who say no to every proposal without reading or turning up to resident events. We don’t need Councillors who undermine the CEO and Auckland Council, such as those who voted against he Unitary Plan submission.

It’s time to professionalise Auckland Council. Let’s make sure that there are enough high quality independent and party aligned candidates for all electorates. And if you are considering standing on the sort of platform outlined above – then please do so. I’m willing to help.

Share this


    1. Yeah, he should have stopped at 17 but the temptation to round up to 20 was clearly too much to resist!

      Top list from Lance though, and I like his point 17 in particular, where we have a generation of kids being driven to school for safety reasons, when ironically it is that increased number of vehicles that is creating the danger in the first place.

      1. The safety aspect to kids being driven to school is overblown. Kids are being driven to school because large numbers of them no longer attend their longer school.

  1. How do we persuade people “who are inspiring and who have the skills and experience to do the work” to become candidates?

    1. We don’t. People who are inspiring and who have skills and experience all go and do something useful. Being a Councillor is extremely dull. They deal with incredibly dull issues by reading very very long dull reports. Most skip the reading part.

  2. That was a nice read. The local elections will hopefully be very interesting and I’m looking forward to hearing potential candidate’s debates.

  3. 9. “Driving to work is a horrible experience versus walking, riding and public transport – in that order”. Yes, try walking, riding or taking public transport to take your child to daycare on the way to work. Horrible. Driving to work is a much better experience. Or, try waiting for a bus in the heavy rain. Also a horrible experience. Much better to drive. (Actually, working from home is a much better experience than any of those 🙂 )

    1. I took my child to childcare on the bus today. It was fun, it meant that we spent extra 30 minutes together. We discussed things happening outside, and he was so excited to have caught the double decker and sat on the top that he’s been telling all his friends and teachers at daycare from the moment we arrived. Today is just an example. We catch the bus in the rain too and yes, it’s rather rare to see other kids going to kindy by bus, but it’s nowhere as bad as you make it sound! 😉

  4. My partner and I walk our child to daycare everyday rain or shine. We then jump on our bikes and are at work within 20 minutes rain or shine. Its delightful.

  5. What we desperately need is a council who will stand up to council officers.

    A council who, if required, continuously remind those officers that they are servants, not drivers!

    1. Why should the council be so antagonistic to ‘council officers’? Many of them have years of experience studying and working in urban planning. If they recommend something I expect my councillor to at least listen to them. Councillors come and go and often care more about re-election than making a lasting difference. Many will sell their soul to get another three years. Are you suggesting someone with such a short term view of the world should be making long term decisions in isolation?

      1. Sorry james but good in theory and very idealistic but when it comes to actually getting good design built the urban designers do not have a clue. Having dealt with planners for 35 odd years I can only think of a very few examples where the city has got a good result. Just look at the mess created in ORMISTON east tamaki. Planners should just pack up their bags and leave town if east Tamaki is all they are capable of.
        Next reality check is the wastewater and stormwater engineers that are a huge bottleneck in getting housing through consents because of their stupid rules that make no sense and their general incompetence in getting consents passed.
        Recently an experienced officer who I respect said to me that he would personally fire a lot of the staff for incompetence and inefficiency.
        Another experienced officer also recently said on radio that senior management are 80 to 90 % incompetent. From my own personal experience I would have to agree.
        It seems the public agree with only a 15 % approval rate for council
        20 years ago I gave council a 100 % approval but unfortunately through no fault of their own Council were betrayed by Government when they created the leaky building crisis by deregulating BRANZ, approving untreated timber, and allowing major manufacturers to supply untested products to the market which couldnt help but leak. We all know which company I am talking about.
        The death gong for council finally came with Sandra Lee local government act which took power away from councillors and gave it to the officers. That is the main reason that mindless bureaucracy has become the norm in local government. I have friends who are officers and friends who are councillors and each side has privately confirmed the reality of this nightmare.
        Until government steps in and sorts it out ,you are wasting your time voting for councillors as they have very little power.

        1. Most of the Auckland public only know what Bernard Orsman at the Herald tells them. He’d make Santa Claus sound like a half-wit loser if it suited him to do it….and it suits him far too often.

    2. completely disagree: Blaming officers is a cop out.

      We need Councillors who understand that their democratic duties extend beyond representing vocal locals.

      We need Councillors who respect technical expertise, but who incorporate it within a broad strategic perspective of community needs.

      We need Councillors who don’t vote along petty Party lines, and who don’t needlessly politicize each and every issue.

      Most of Auckland’s problems lie not with the Council officers, who are among the best I’ve worked with in NZ and Australia, but with the low quality of the Councillors who are elected by 40% of the population. If we could get that towards 60%, then we might see higher quality representatives (some are good, but there’s a lot of chaff there too).

      1. I thought you had left auckland to live in another country. Are your comments now as worthless as Phil Haywards?

  6. Great read! When do nominations close? We need to move the port intensify living spaces and get cars off the roads all valid points. interested to read your views on driverless technology won’t solve congestion etc

  7. 1. No it doesn’t. If living in small spaces made for a better life the rich and famous would be doing it. Instead they build sprawling mansions in peaceful locations away from the throng of humanity.

    2. No they don’t. Large roads enable connections from one side of a city to another. Not everyone can afford central city real estate and it is important we create cities for everyone, not just the rich, urban save the planet brigade. It is also important we recognise we can mitigate any perceived negative effects by building complimentary infrastructure. As revealed by this blog earlier this year Auckland’s motorway network is smaller than other liveable cities so this isn’t an Auckland issue anyway!

    3. Parking spaces play an important role in opening up the city to all people. I’m generally against on road parking but elevated or underground parking compliments other modes.

    Do I need to continue? I can’t believe such a silly list would make this fine blog.

      1. Or even Monte Carlo…no shortage of multimillionaires living it large in apartments there! And who buys all those penthouses in Auckland CBD, in Takapuna and along Tamaki Drive??

    1. “1. No it doesn’t. If living in small spaces made for a better life the rich and famous would be doing it. Instead they build sprawling mansions in peaceful locations away from the throng of humanity.”

      SOME people build sprawling mansions away from the throng, and planning laws then force all others to emulate them in a badly compromised mimickry, no matter whether they want to.

      Its amusing how the people most loudly arguing for “What people REALLY want” are so willingly blind to how the system constrains choice.

  8. I like to see new ways to pay for these projects other than just rate hikes, if rate hikes are the only solution then there is a limit to what people want to pay, and they are leaving in part for this reason – if the report of a brain drain from Auckland is correct. A city firstly is about people, people who live in not just about projects on the high end of construction price. I like to see a change here from spending to raising the money to pay for these through a contribution to development – a development paying for infrastructure, $50000 is a reasonable figure to consider.
    Of course, apartments by rail stations should be in the mix along high density housing developments like Stonefields, within a 500 metres radius of any rail station. We have 57 stations currently, and if we target 5000 homes into each area. Rail is a good option to move people around.
    Our roads are currently overloaded at peak time with dangerously impatient drivers wanting to get from A to B. Overseas they also put in place underpasses and air-bridges for pedestrians and cyclists. Proper use of Motorways by education and penalty needs to be in place, too many drivers decide to cut across two or more lanes to go into the one they want. Parking in bus lanes is a no brainer in some cities oversea helped with a reward and a towing company eager to deal with the offender. Overbridges for through places like Greenlane to turn left or right might help.
    On a matter of road safety the busiest road in the world, which is in India has 16 lanes, no Traffic lights, and almost no incidents. Drivers learn quickly how to courteous and pedestrians of all ages cross it with out injury.

    1. “On a matter of road safety the busiest road in the world, which is in India has 16 lanes, no Traffic lights, and almost no incidents. Drivers learn quickly how to courteous and pedestrians of all ages cross it with out injury”

      Sorry, but that’s Tui Ad material. Some marginal truth maybe – *if* the road is congested chocker-block so vehicle speeds are close to walking anyway.

      There’s a reason why India has ~16.6 fatalities / 100,000 people when Sweden has 2.8, and New Zealand 6.0 / 100,000 (Word Health Organisation data). And that’s deaths across all categories. Pedestrian fatalities might even be worse as a sub-group.

      As for pedestrian bridges and underpasses, they are the ultimate statement that “you don’t belong here” – death for the city, if that is the statement you give to pedestrians. Forcing them to go around / up / under, and generally blocking them from crossing and disturbing the cars as a “trade-off” for all the money invested into that bridge/underpass. Pedestrian bridges and underpasses should be limited to horses-for courses situations: i.e. mainly for motorways.

        1. London is spending a great deal of money ripping out footbridges and underpasses, and they’re generally seen as a relic of the 1960s. They tend to feel unsafe, no matter how well-designed; look unattractive; take up a lot of space; have maintenance issues; require lengthy diversions (and extra energy) on the part of pedestrians; and people often avoid using them and cross at surface level anyway (even jumping over guardrailing to do so). You can engineer the roads how you want but you can’t re-engineer human nature: people prefer generally to walk in a straight line to get to their destination.

      1. Horses for courses Damian. The new underpasses on the North Western Cycleway are beaut! And we desperately need one at St Lukes Rd and at the Lincoln Rd and Royal Rd rebuilds.
        A much older ‘pass’ for pedestrians is the one on the South side of the Green Lane roundabout. It gets lots of people across the motorway sewer well separated from the loons on the roundabout.
        And for an underpass not much used was the one out the front of Britomart Station that crossed under Queen St. Horrible thing and sensibly hardly used.
        So I’m with WJT on this one, in places.

    2. If you pay $100 in rates and get $200 in services back, isn’t that better than paying $50 in rates and getting $50 in services?

      1. The argument is we are now paying $100 in rates and getting $75 worth of services back due to excessive council wastage. The current council has doubled debt, you would expect substantial improvements, which from talking to other ratepayers people can’t really notice.

  9. but its the little things that Auckland Council continually stuff up that takes the edge off. Case in point I was in Elliot Street a couple of Sundays back, beautiful day, but the place stunk and looked like a bomb site as all of the commercial premises had their garbage bins out lining the street in the middle of the afternoon. We couldn’t get out of there fast enough.

    Why does the council allow businesses to do this as it makes the place disgusting on a day when lots of people should have been using it for al fresco food and drinks. I would imagine that the bin wagons don’t pick up on an afternoon so why are the bins out all day in the street?

    Now I understand the necessity to put your bins out and the cities are always busy but they need to plan this better and should have though about this when they designed the place.

  10. Right (back with a real email address this time!)

    My 10 points when considering who to vote for

    1. Transport is a vital part of cities, but it isn’t the only role of local government

    2. What policies on land use do the different politicians have? Who favours intensification? What are different attitudes to property rights (public vs private)? How many of the “landed gentry” are standing and will they protect their own niche?

    3. Where do the politicians stand in regards to the key “enabling” services, building and resource consents? Do they want faster processing times (while retaining quality) and are they willing to provide the necessary resourcing?

    4. What are their views on water supply and waste water provision? Do they accept current levels of service, or do they want more?

    5. Linking 2. and 4, what are their views on stormwater networks? If they support intensification do they also support the necessary improvements in stormwater networks given the loss of permeable/green surfaces?

    6. What are their views on regulatory services? Are they happy with standards in Auckland’s bars and restaurants (and suntan places, and tatto places, and brothels)? Do they believe in a proactive or reactive approach? How do they feel about regulation of alcohol and its links with the livelihood of the city?

    7. What about nuisance? Are they happy with current response times to noise complaints and dog attacks, or do they want faster responses? Do they want a more proactive, prevention-focused approach? Do they think that punishments actually match what is possible under the law?

    8 How do they feel about libraries? Are libraries simply community centres with books, or centres of learning? Do they want more, fewer, or the same number?

    9. How do they feel about our parks network? Do they want more, fewer, or the same number of parks? Do they want more all-weather provision?

    10. Last but not least, community, arts, and culture. Do they see this as a core council role? Do they privilege particular classes in their provision?

    Those 10 qs should help you vote.

    1. Point 4 on water supply there is new technology that produces it own power Desalinate Sea Water: and its green – enables to meet our reduction agreements on pollutants. Is another one I saw producing power via small pods charged by lapping of the waves (looks cheaper). I don’t like the slime in the water we had a filter machine and we still get green slime building up in the filtered part. I use the hot water from the tap and boil this for drinks instead now, misses the chlorine too.

  11. “Increasing debt funding”, there’s a problem. The super city council has taken borrowing to the point where there is a risk of credit downgrade.
    What the council needs to do is prioritise spending, get staff numbers and salaries under control and eliminate waste. There are many examples of waste.

    1. Hi Anthony
      What is Council wasting money on? Do you want
      – Fewer dog control officers?
      – Fewer libraries?
      – Less maintenance on stormwater assets?
      – Longer waiting times for resource consents?

      1. Focus on core council services, get rid of stupidity like rainbow committees, upgrades to council offices, entering city competitions, duplicating government roles like with ATEED etc… My understanding from talking with people who are working within the Council is there is plenty of wastage there that could be removed by some efficient management. The bigger the Council gets harder it is to manage. It would be better for it to focus on what it actually needs to focus on, which are largely the sort of things you have on your list. It does a lot more than that though that could be easily removed.

      2. No need to reduce spending just find another to do it. Get more creative than rate rises or additional levies. For example take Phil Goff’s ideal for a stadium on the wharf to replace Eden Park, one solution to pay for it is to redevelop Eden Park into a new shopping centre with apartments and/or new office complexes above or adjacent to it. Kingsland is still a good distance to other malls. Use this to pay for the new stadium, and presell Kingsland off the plans. One could also add a new library to go with the new Stadium and Council Chambers (add by selling the old one). I don’t think Queens Wharf is suitable as its too narrow though and expanding into the harbour is a no-no.
        Or on the Airport Rail Link move the Airport to Papakura, rail link already there.

        1. Building a new airport would cost several billion dollars. Building a rail line to the airport is 1.3b.

          You’re idea of finding new ways to fund stuff is great, but I notice that no one who says that ever has a firm way of doing it. Their idea always seems to be finding ideas.

          1. There are a few ideas I have including:
            -High density developments around Rail connections,
            -Development Fees to offset costs.
            There was some talk about a second airport being needed at sometime, I believe we require to start discussions on this.
            We could also do a trade off with Whenuapai and Ardmore Airports, using the old airport instead.
            Using Whenuapai for future housing.
            Or it could develop the current airport as new industrial properties which are at premium – returning a sustainable amount.
            The current airport is limited where it is perhaps downgrading it to a Domestic one or making it the sole International one.
            Recouping the cost of the airport wouldn’t take too much and the figure I would imagine $2 billion as the figure myself, could be offset by leasing and associated building of industrial premises, office complexes and tourist accommodations,
            rentals etc; these premises could be on sold or leased. All in all we have a very modern airport. Able to expand without the current setup.
            The site: possibly on the way to Clevedon (requires a line to be built through farmland) or west of Drury (line upgrade required).
            The current airport is plagued with issues like fog, as cities enlarge the trend is to put airports further out.

          2. “Development Fees to offset costs” We already do this.
            “Using Whenuapai for future housing” This is already planned.
            “The current airport is limited where it is” No it isn’t. They have consented plans to expand significantly.
            “-High density developments around Rail connections” We are already doing this. Merchant Quarter at New Lynn for example and literally everything that Panuku are doing.

          3. $50000 is just over $32 per week over a 30 year term loan and is roughly less than one-tenth of a home on the new builds at $540k. You should be paying for all the infrastructure and impact this has on a community, whether it is a city, town or village, its not just roads, plumbing, and waste. I would be happy to pay my share, even paying this on $320000 home, I prefer the facilities, road improvements city wide, transport initiatives, libraries, swimming pools, etc. In 10 years $32 will be like spending $20, 20 yrs $10 – buying a home starts off dear at first and cheaper later and like money in the bank.

            More on the airport – should the Port go out towards Kawakawa Bay then a rail link out there would definitely be required. Both could compliment the development and each other.

        2. Development fees need to increase, they need to be at least $50000 per new apartment/new home. The fee we charge now on the DC Estimor is coming in short by over $6 million on what should be acceptable in modern times, although it fails to consider waste water management. Should this be applied with 20000 homes this equates to $1 billion dollars for infrastructure, this includes new transport initiatives.

          1. So, at a time of housing crisis we should increase the cost to get a house to market? Or should we ask the owner to pay it off yearly afterwards (higher rates)?

          2. $50000 per unit isn’t that much. We are unable to control the way people finance their homes or other developments, but we need to develop fees for incoming additions and reduce the stresses on those living here, we cannot continue the way we are, unless you want continuing rate increases, Property Value Hikes, Loans. I like to see a Zero rated system and I think it could be achieved. Building a new airport, rail connection and expanding both housing, industry, offices, tourism only helps us arrive there. Another option is a new rating system more than double the present to get ahead of what we know we need in the future with an extra million or so people in the future. Why should we pay for the increase on structural demands, for this many? I am working with Government to reduce the 20% deposit to a guarantee (guarantor) for resident low income earners, should this happen with a thirty year loan this could make it a possible for them to buy a quality home at less than market rental rates (about $400 p.w.). By the moving the airport you also may be able to increase height restrictions to make developing more variable of property affected by the current airport.

          3. $50,000 is 70% of average household income. It does, massively increase the cost of housing.

            Also, if you want to densify around the airport, you will still need to build that rail line which you are moving the airport to avoid building.

  12. Well for start, young people, and people renting need to be more engaged and come out to vote.

    Otherwise the Councillors will be work for older wealthy people who’s agenda is to protect the statue of quo.

  13. What planet is Lance on if he believes that government and council are largely aligned. On almost every front the government has been unhelpful (e.g. cancelling the regional petrol tax that was all set to go when they came to power and refusing to facilitate any reasonable alternative) or positively dangerous (constantly watering down the RMA and threatening to meddle with our planning rules).

  14. Rates in Auckland are actually very low, though maybe not compared to incomes (which does matter). Neo-liberalism has flattened wages like a steam roller over the past 40 years.

    Rates in cities like Toronto are literally 300% to 400% higher than in Auckland for a house of the same value. My father’s rates in Toronto an a $1million house were almost $9,000 / year (in 2013 – he paid $75,000 for it in 1975). My sister in Ottawa pays rates double what I pay in Auckland for a house that (now) is worth 1/3 as much as mine.

    1. Be careful comparing rates to other cities. It depends what services the rates fund. In some locations they fund schools etc.

        1. What does this prove? Housing costs more in Auckland too. People’s incomes aren’t infinite and they won’t appreciate Council largesse if they feel they are doing it tough.

  15. “Many of us have lived overseas though, and we just tend to forget just how things worked over there and what is missing here”………”Auckland has the potential to be one of the world’s great cities”.

    Auckland is the 4th most livable city in the world as it is right now. Perhaps your claim is just your perspective, rather than objective reality?

    “Many people living in a small area makes for a better life for all”

    Within limits. The concept of towns and cities brings people together with benefits. But when you start stacking them into small boxes, surrounded by bright lights, noise and pollution, and through manipulation of employment location to benefit business over people forcing housing prices up massively within that small area, you end up with a perverse living arrangement that goes against what most human beings value. I often ask city dwellers “do you miss the stars?”, only to find they never valued them in the first place. They look down and inward, not up and outward. Hiding away in cafes, surrounded by busy people, lights and noise. I think city dwellers are a new breed of human. One that rejects the natural world that created them. Almost living in fear of it. When I walk along the ridges of the Waitakere Ranges at 2am, in the peace and quiet, watching the stars and meteorites, I find myself looking at the distant city and feeling pity for the inhabitants of the zoo. Captivity is one thing, but to choose captivity, closing yourself into the concrete jungle willingly, and paying ten times as much for the pleasure, quite possibly requires a level of mental illness.

  16. I thought this Lance Wiggs chap was being serious until I saw his comment with the sort of housing he see’s for Auckland – a US$16M apartment in Monaco. He is right – all those policies being forced on Auckland as supposed “smart growth” have been proved to have awful consequences for anyone trying to buy a house or even pay the rent.

    Hopefully any candidates use the list for what NOT to do.

    1. What incredibly poor faith to argue within. You take a comment responding to the idea that the wealthy don’t choose apartments as a comment on ideal typologies?

  17. Over 90% of driving commuters transport themselves alone or with only one passenger is side by side seated cars. Auckland public transportation providers could provide more road space by supporting a single-width, tandem seated, highway-capable electric vehicle build and lease program.

  18. The reason Auckland is doing so well is that the current CEO and people that work for Auckland Council and aligned organizations as well as the private sector are working hard to achieve these goals.

    Doing so well compared to where? The only comparable cities that have a slower apartment build rate per capita than Auckland are place suffering population loss and/or full blown recession.

    The small city of Tauranga builds apartments faster per capita than Auckland. That should not be possible.

  19. It isn’t cheaper to build apartments. The square metre rate is considerably higher than single storey timber frame construction, and apartments have approx.7-10 gross floor area for common circulation stairs & lifts. They are cheaper if land costs are high enough, and the height limits allow economies of scale to kick in.

Leave a Reply