An interesting article in Stuff a few weeks ago asked a couple of interesting questions in it’s headline, “How big can Auckland get? And how big is too big?“. Unfortunately, the article doesn’t really answer those questions, instead focusing on current growth projections, but there were a few aspects to the article I wanted to highlight.
With Auckland’s population projected to hit 2.5 million by 2050, the city faces an uphill battle to balance growth with liveability.
More people are choosing to make Auckland their home than anywhere else in New Zealand, but how long will it be before it reaches saturation point? And is it damaging the rest of the country to have one city becoming increasingly dominant?
…..
Auckland’s population recently hit the 1.8 million mark, with New Zealand’s biggest city getting bigger and increasing disproportionately to the rest of the country.
New Zealand’s population grew from 5.12 million in 2021 to 5.35 million in 2023, according to Stats NZ. For Auckland over that period it jumped from 1,694,400 to 1,798,300.
So for the 231,500 net gain in population in New Zealand in that time, 45% of that gain was in Auckland.
Projections have been made by Auckland Council for what the city’s population might be in the years ahead and the medium figure for 2050 is 2.5 million, the highest prediction is 2.68 million.
Even if it’s at that medium figure, accommodating an extra 700,000 people (twice the current population of Christchurch) takes planning and Wayne Brown says a key to this is putting people in the right places.
“The Government are wanting us to plan for having enough land for 30 years, and we’ve easily got that,” he said.
“We don’t disagree with what Minister (Chris) Bishop is trying to do.
“We want to have densifying in the city and in certain areas, but we don’t want to densify areas that are flooding.
“We don’t want to densify areas that have got particular character as well, but there’s still miles of room and particularly we want to do it down the transport corridors.
“But we’re in a bit of disagreement (with Government) on the idea you can have a three-story house, anywhere because we’ve got some nice areas in Herne Bay and Ponsonby and they don’t really want that, and we don’t want the city to become ugly.”
Let’s target even higher
We focus our planning on some levels of expected growth and then trying to accommodate that but I think it would interesting to look at this from a different perspective, ie what level of population and density is ideal? What is a more effective city scale: the sweet spot between too small to be unable to afford desirable amenity and too big to enjoy that amenity (including the natural environment)?
For example Auckland is often (including by us!) described a a teenager; sort of half provincial town, half city. Too big to function well with everyone driving to the general store, but still small enough to struggle to afford the full suite of urban infrastructure. 1-2m feels awkward by this measure.
Too be fair in some areas little Tāmaki punches above its weight, we arguably have the country’s best Museum and best Art Gallery, we are on the way towards getting a big city wastewater system, for much of the city at least. But i think we can all agree transport is certainly an area where the city is stuck awkwardly between these two realms. And, as urban form and transport are essentially two sides on the one coin it really is these two issues that need to be front and centre in any population discussion.
To be clear. A city of 1.8m needs a full rapid transit system to function efficiently and to support a higher quality of life, for its widespread driving system to work better, one of 2.5m even more so. The question is at what scale and importantly in what form, is this likely to be more efficient, effective, and fundable?
I suspect that population level is higher than the 2.5 million we currently expect in 2050, say, intuitively 3m?, and if so, the question could then become how we change things like our immigration settings to get to that ‘target’.
In addition, I imagine many people’s reaction to population growth is to object to it or complain about it. We as a city (and country) also need to do better at taking about the benefits that having more people bring, such as more businesses so more job opportunities, business also have more customers, both the public and private sector being able to better invest in services and amenities, more vibrancy from things like more and better events, as well as many other benefits.
Bishop shouldn’t trust the council
There are suggestions here as well as in other articles I’ve seen that indicate Chris Bishop doesn’t fully trust the council when it comes to housing and I think he’s right to be wary. Wayne Brown has asked that the council be allowed to withdraw the Unitary Plan changes still going through the approval process and resubmit new plans.
However, as we saw last time, council planners effectively took the view that the original Unitary Plan was perfect (it wasn’t) and so tried to avoid change, at least to wealthier areas. Even when given very clear requirements about upzoning, the council spent all of it’s time trying walking the streets of inner suburbs (in person and digitally) to come up with excuses as to why they shouldn’t have to be changed. They did this at the expense of things like ensuring that areas being upzoned also had zoning to ensure enough amenities and services could be added to support all of those potential new residents.
Put another way, they had the time to individually assess thousands of properties for special character protection – but not enough time to make the areas that will have to pick up the housing slack more liveable for the people who will be living there.
Not to mention they just completely ignored a huge swathe of the isthmus just in case Light Rail might be built, even when some of the areas are around existing train stations
Given most of the people involved in making decisions like this are still working at the council and would be involved in any further changes, it’s hard to have faith they’ll do any better this time.
Ugly is for the poor?
The mayors comments come off quite NIMBYish but also quite uniformed and come off as “put ugly density where the poor(er) people are”.
There’s nothing inherently ugly about density. It can be done well and beautifully as we’ve seen time and time again from developers like Ockham.
If the mayor and council are worried about the city looking ugly, the question they should be focused on is how they can get more developers to build beautifully. For example, what policy/planning rules could be changed, or incentives added to encourage good design. Not all developers will respond to that though so in addition, how can design rules be strengthened to ensure better outcomes.
I noted it was quite uninformed too, there was actually very little upzoning that actually occurred in Herne Bay or Ponsonby.
The mayor is right about one thing
In talking about the cost of infrastructure, the mayor does get one thing right.
Wayne Brown is worried that as Auckland grows, it puts more financial pressure on those already living in the city and he wants growth to pay for growth.
“Everyone arrives here and they expect to have a library, a park, power, sewage, water and all that other stuff,” he said.
…..
The Mayor also believes there is room to fit more people in the city centre, which works out cheaper.
“The more people that live in the city is good because they don’t need a car, they don’t need a bus. They’re here, they will walk around the city,” he said.
“We could fit another 40,000 people in without any trouble at all. All the infrastructure is there. So it’s having growth that doesn’t cause paid for-infrastructure, that’s the issue.
Not only is it cheaper because the infrastructure exists, more people in the city centre also means they’re more likely to walk, cycle or catch public transport which is also better for health and emissions outcome.
But he also repeats some failed ideas.
As more people come to Auckland, Wayne Brown wants them to be able to work in the areas where they live, rather than commuting to other parts of the city.
That requires more than just building houses, but also establishing new commercial and industrial areas.
“If there’s new growth in Beachlands or Drury, the people will get jobs in Beachlands or Drury,” he said.
“With the old style, they just had houses [built], there’s a bloody great problem and we have to build an Eastern Busway, because they don’t have the jobs out there.
“We’ve got to think about it differently, so making provision for growth with jobs in the places where the growth is, is a good idea.”
The idea of putting more jobs in the suburbs in the hope that it will reduce commuting has often been presented as new thinking but has been the policy of Auckland for around 50 years, if not longer and it’s been a huge failure that has actually made the problem worse.
The idea is why we have office and industrial parks dotted all around in region and it often leads to more vehicle travel, not less. That’s because of a few factors, such as:
- People will often take a better job opportunity even if it means more travel. This is more of an issue in industries/roles where specialist knowledge is required.
- People move jobs more than they move homes.
- Not everyone can afford a home close to where they work.
- Even if you manage to find a job close to home, your partner may not so long travel might still be involved.
All of these office/industrial parks jobs all over the region mean we have lots of people travelling in many different directions and that makes it incredibly hard to serve with public transport or active modes meaning more people drive and congestion is worse.
I happen to work in one such office park (Smales Farm) and of my immediate team of 10 people only three also live on the North Shore, with one person coming from as far away as Manurewa. With the exception of myself, they all drive because public transport options take a lot longer than driving and there’s very little that can be done to change that.
If even just all of office jobs dotted around Auckland were instead in the city centre or nearby in the city-fringe areas, it would have been much easier to justify investment in high-quality public transport projects like the City Rail Link earlier, that can make public transport truly compete with driving.
The idea of spreading jobs out also reminded me of an article I came across a while ago that my late grandmother had saved. It’s from an Auckland Regional Authority publication in December 1976 and titled “Blueprint for transport“.
The CTS Review report offers a combined land use and transport strategy to ease the requirement for capital works, particularly in roading. In essence the objective is to put more jobs nearer to where people live. And that’s in the suburbs.
“If we are to make more efficient use of our transport resources we have to develop a land use pattern with advantages for transport,” said Mt Pringle.
Getting jobs into the suburbs is the reports main conclusion on how urban development should occur from a transport point of view. Otherwise large new capital works will be needed to cope with heavy commuting into the central isthmus. These cannot be provided without such unpleasant side effects as the removal of homes, general street widening and increased noise and air pollution.
…..
The preferred land use strategy from a transport viewpoint would therefore promote a high level of job self-sufficiency in outer sectors, limit the employment growth on the isthmus and develop outer sectors in a way which will promote more use of non-radial transport corridors.
“Transport prefers dispersal of jobs to avoid expenses like the central motorway system and Harbour Bridge,” said M Pringle
“Transport prefers dispersal” sounds exactly like the kind of quote made up to justify plan made up of biased reckons.
The whole thing is fascinating in highlighting just how little the conversation has changed in 50 years. Most of it feels just like the kind of thing we still see today, especially from some business/road lobby groups, especially the broad dismissal of public transport as an option.
Processing...
City Nerd’s recent video about traffic in New York makes the observation that working from home increases driving. He finds it counter intuitive but if you’re working from home and you want a barista made coffee you’re probably going to drive to get it. And then if you want to have lunch but don’t feel like making it, you’re either going to drive to lunch or have lunch driven to you. In an office building scenario, you probably just walk to maybe even the same cafe. Hell, your barista made coffee might be bought outside a PT stop and drunk whilst walking to work.
Ages ago I read part of a book that was by this Australian dude and while I can’t remember the name of it, he discussed what happened to the trams here in Auckland at some length. Apparently there was this geography professor that was either tight with a Wellington imposed planning board or the Minister that made it and was on the board himself. Now, you’d think that this wouldn’t be so bad but this geography professor must’ve been Simeon Brown’s grandfather or something because he was rabidly pro motorway. And he gave intellectual credibility to the notion that the motorways would be good for the environment because they’d develop a polycentric city where instead of everyone moving to the jobs, the jobs could move to them.
Obviously this idea was proven to be insane by subsequent history but it was too late by then. No trams! Lots of motorways! But it should also have been seen as insane when it was proposed. Obviously the jobs that are already in the centre are mostly going to stay there because it’s costly for businesses to relocate. And if people can smoothly and rapidly drive to a job, they’re not going to care if they don’t live close to it. Hence Manurewa to the North Shore like Matt’s colleague.
City Nerd’s video reminded me a lot about that book. Working from Home is just the new polycentricity. Superficially gives a reason for why car use should decline. In practice, it’s just a reason for more driving. Polycentricity did a lot of damage to Auckland before and it stands to do so once again. Yay!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rM6NoYyG-Ro
ps sorry for mobile link to video
Auckland dumped trams in 1956 because Auckland City Councillors went to LA and couldn’t believe the motorway system. The council hired American “experts” to recommend Auckland’s transport future and adopted the report recommending motorways and diesel buses and suggesting trams were old fashioned and hard to maintain. Car became king. You had to apply toget an imported car so the car became a much sort after treasured object.
The American experts also recommended commuter rail. That was, of course, ignored.
I suspect you read Paul Mees’ “Transport for Suburbia”, which is an enlightening book.
That sounds right. (And I want to stress that I didn’t manage to read all of it.)
When I work from home I walk or use public transport, I normally only use the car during the weekend, and many I know with long commutes will also have significantly less driving when WFH. While I appreciate some might drive when WFH it is a very big generalisation to assume a lot will!
There is a number of other lifestyle issues that don’t relate directly to this site that a city of 2.5 million has big implications. For instance, as someone with a long interest in matters watery the fishing and harvesting pressure of 2.5 million people engaging in almost totally unregulated fishing in the area Ruakaka – Bayley’s in the North and Port Waikato – Miranda in the south will be completely unsustainable (it already is, but there is zero political will to address the fact). Expect really unpopular stuff like boat registration and fishing licences. Ditto with allowing road vehicles drive on beaches, an anachronism in general already but a completely ridiculous concept in a region of 2.5 million people. pressure on open spaces – the new rabbit warren housing in the peripheral sleeper suburbs have very poor access to public spaces and that’ll lead to a) increasing enforcement of private property restrictions on open land adjacent and b) a spill over into much greater pressure onto large, established open spaces in the city proper. These sorts of things will contribute to the general “lifestyle appeal” of the city and probably account for significant push factors to leave, especially for Pakeha – who are already part of a big net migration outflow from Auckland as an ethnic group.
Overall, the problems of, and responses to, of increased urbanisation on a native population that is accustomed to a much smaller population pressure on natural resources is almost never discussed in NZ.
Never mind driving on the beach, getting anywhere near them is a minefield at current population levels; adding another 50% on top of that is going to lead to community amenity being oversubscribed even more than it is now.
This is already happening – owning a boat is now less expensive than the piece of land you need to be able to park it on when it’s not in use, and boats are money pits. Activities that involve a trailer, or camper, either mean expensive third party storage or having enough land to store it yourself, and that’s getting further and further out of reach, even for a lot of well-heeled professionals.
We really need to have a think about what we want to offer people who are living in Auckland as a lifestyle before we go deciding how big it should get.
Exactly. For example – the assault on late night nightlife by assorted wowsers, boomer dominated councils and unquestioning acceptance of police advice over the last twenty years in Auckland has IMHO significantly reduced Auckland’s appeal to young people. Not everyone wants to drink over-priced lager and eat over priced and rather average food in waterfront tourist traps before getting an uber back to their relatively close house all before 10.30pm, and political parties seem to have deified the nuclear suburban family as the upstanding moral norm to be catered for with tax breaks, etc.
If you want young people to flock to your city to start careers, you focus on providing what they want in their 20s – central apartment locations at affordable rents, decent nightlife (AKA urban culture) and good PT. At the moment, we actively conspire against all of three of these things in Auckland and then wonder why we need to talk to our 20-somethings online from other cities of the world which offer at least two of the three above. We don’t even cater particularly well to the (admittedly often insufferable) next stage latte sipping urbanista DINKY types in their 30s.
This is bang on the money. Young people are fleeing the country and to just write it off as better wages is as ignorant as they come.
“If you want young people to flock to your city to start careers, you focus on providing what they want in their 20s – central apartment locations at affordable rents, decent nightlife (AKA urban culture) and good PT“
Bang on Sanctury
100%, the line that young people are leaving in droves to London and Sydney for a better salary is a lie. It’s because there’s stuff to do and the stuff is easy to get to.
As (some of) us boomers said in the 70s, before we escaped the dominant suburbanist mentality of Muldoonism for the urban cultures of inter alia Sydney, Melbourne, New York and London. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
I hope Bishop continues to reflect a free market, value for money, tendency in National, rather than a conservative National tendency that aims to protect the perceived interests of existing homeowners. Upzoning everywhere will allow better use of existing infrastructure on the isthmus, and make infrastructure improvements viable. The character of existing neighbourhoods will change a bit, often for the better as shopping improves, school rolls stop declining, and better public transport becomes possible.
I think Wayne Brown is trying to pander to those in wealthier suburbs who are most likely to vote. Or perhaps he simply doesn’t understand how labour markets work.
Most cities are defined by apartments. This is what differentiates them from towns, and this is what allows for fairer population growth. Not all apartments are built alike, but as you note, there are some present day developers building very liveable, and quite architecturally appealing apartments, with many that cost less than a house in the suburbs.
We live in a backwards dream, stuck in some “Paradise in the Pacific” from the 1950s, where everyone has a lawn, and a garage, and all the other awful things associated with USA influenced suburban living.
Having lived all of my adult life in an apartment of some description, I am more comfortable living in the centre of the city, than anywhere else in suburbia. And the more people that live in an area, that breathe in an area, the more safe that area becomes.
I moved back into the city centre after a few years attempting the suburban family fantasy, and it was considered dangerous. But this was the aftermath of COVID-19 lockdowns, when we were encouraged to stay at home. With the internet so prevalent, it is hard to move past that, since life has become so convenient because other people are employed to drive to deliver food to you. But this is not healthy, for society or personal wellbeing.
The leafy suburbs may look like fancy houses, but they are cold, damp, and cost endless millions to the owners. A relatively new apartment build has decades of guarantees, controllable maintenance costs, and the security of having other people around your property, when you are not there, or alone.
My two kids live with their mother, but when they are with me, they ask me, why do you live in an apartment? I personally cannot understand why you would want to live in a house.
bah humbug
“Why would you want to live in a house?”
Well maybe because of this..
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/owners-of-kingsland-apartments-get-36m-829m-repairrebuilding-choices/TBCEW4VSHFFZZA4XNY5AFOX6OU/
Add to that: an apartment with four bedrooms is going to cost me a multiple of what a townhouse with four bedrooms is. It simply represents poor value.
This is one of the elephants in the room as far as intensification goes. Apartments are often put forward as an ‘affordable’ housing option, but in reality in Auckland unless you are after a shoebox, they are much more expensive than the equivalent house. I grew up living in an apartment overseas, and would have no aversion to living in one again, but looking at those being built in my suburb it would require topping up the sale price of my suburban house by hundreds of thousands to get a family sized apartment, and even then it would be considerably smaller and without anything much in the way of extra communal facilities to compensate.
@Jane: Plus the potential for huge, life-changing repair bills and fire remediation in the event something has gone wrong. The legal and construction environment for apartments in NZ needs a lot of work before you even consider the actual dollar-for-dollar value.
It’s a real shame tbh. I’d love to live in a four bedroom townhouse over a large workshop with a decent stud-height, but a) no one builds such a thing and b) the legal and financial risk of something going wrong with one of them is simply too high.
Your only real option is to take the tedious lifestyle block option and endure a mega-commute, and even that is getting less and less realistic.
Apartments – another thing that thrives overseas and has done for 100yrs, but which NZ seems to always f**K up.
Along with terrace housing and leasehold land, it surely doesn’t need to be this hard
Yes, the missing middle housing.
“Instead of focusing on the number of units in a structure, density can also be increased by building types such as duplexes, rowhouses, and courtyard apartments.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_middle_housing
For children, it is an ENORMOUS improvement in lifestyle to live in a house with a garden instead of an apartment.
As an adult, you are free to go out of your apartment and go to a park, or to a shop, cafe, etc.
As a child, you are not. You are dependent on having some adult available to go with you. So as a child, having only an apartment is really limiting.
Another part of my bug bear with apartments in Auckland currently, where many blocks do nothing to compensate for more compact individual living in terms of having communal facilities available.
This isn’t necessarily true many places overseas – growing up, we lived in a 21-story block, but there was a reasonable sized balcony for every flat, plus a large communal playground (and tennis and basketball courts) in the complex, accessible without crossing roads and overlooked by many of the apartments. As a result, from a very young age, we were able to meet friends and play at the playground without adult help, or walk ourselves to a friends apartment.
My kids, on the other hand, could play on their own in our garden, but were considerably older before they could get themselves to a park or a friends place without an adult, thanks to the roads involved……
I lived in apartments, aged 5-7, and although I couldn’t take myself across the absolute death trap of a main road to the beach, I could walk and cycle around the local streets inland.
The shaded understory made a pretty good area to learn to bike and skate.
The problem is not apartments, it’s the streetscape they are set in.
Have to remember as well we as kiwis see housing as an investment/ asset that we can pass on to our children so family wealth will not decrease. People that own houses and have something to give to their children will have a much easier life then people who buy apartments with little capital gain.
I’m of the opinion that in order for Auckland to grow well, the number one thing is public transport.
If I could turn back time & change things, I would have invested alot more into our rail system as well as building more transport modes across the harbour bridge, this would allow things like (e.g. North – south rail line (Albany to Papakura, east west rail line – Botany to Swanson as well as a very decent crosstown rail network.)
Imagine that, travel times with modern infrastructure on such a network would be seriously efficient (and affordable)
With some investment in upgrading our PT network (which is being done) our city will thrive.
I guess this Thomas Nash op-ed might be relevant
https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/01/22/why-some-are-working-against-public-transport-and-rail/
Speaking of big cities, discovered Sao Paulo in Brazil. Not really noticed it before but we all know about Rio de Janeiro (1hr by plane away). “… the most populous city in Brazil, the Americas, and both the Western and Southern Hemisphere….It is the largest urban area by population outside Asia and the most populous Portuguese-speaking city in the world.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A3o_Paulo
Not the best example necessary of density, but an interesting case study.
“São Paulo’s population has grown rapidly. By 1960 it had surpassed that of Rio de Janeiro,…”
Population:
~12m in the Municipality.
“The city’s metropolitan area, Greater São Paulo, is home to more than 20 million inhabitants and ranks as the most populous in Brazil and one of the most populous in the world. The process of conurbation between the metropolitan areas around Greater São Paulo also created the São Paulo Macrometropolis, the first megalopolis in the Southern Hemisphere, with more than 30 million inhabitants.”
Density 7,819.86/km2
Metro density 2,714.45/km2
I always find it funny how NIMBY-types are usually capitalists when it comes to most other parts of our economy, yet when their property value and “neighbourhood character” is under threat they suddenly become central planners. Do they seriously want the council to intervene in the job market to achieve selfish housing outcomes?
Liberalise zoning, enable mixed use by right, and let’s see what happens…
NIMBYs DO NOT CARE about property values.
If you cared about property values, you’d want to upzone the land
. Upzoning increases the price of land enormously.
NIMBYs really do just want things to remain the way they are. They’re not lying to you. There’s no secret self interest you can pat yourself on the back (other than, maybe, racism). Why people (a) keep trying to figure out what the quiet part is and (b) keep settling on the one thing it’s definitely not escapes me.
NIMBYs do have a point, as said by Whirlsler. A lot of people want to live in a nice place, and they don’t particularly want it to change for the worse. (most don’t have an ulterior motive)
You find a nice house, townhouse in a nice area, that is quiet, you don’t necesarily want development. That does bring noise, removes trees, adds traffic.
Their concerns are in fact valid in our urban planning and city form. What we need to do is show that we can increase density without decreasing quality of life. The issue is literally that cars are the main source of our cities noise and pollution, but people don’t see that. See Japan for reference, Tokyo is quieter than most small towns in New Zealand.
We are trying to to argue with NIMBYs logically with the arguments they present, the issue is that the arguments presented by NIMBYs are mostly whataboutisms and the best argument they can come up with. We need to employ charity and actually find the core issue, and solve for that.
Yes, traffic is what makes cities noisy, not the number people or density.
Depends how those people behave.
🙂
The challenge is we do density badly in Auckland. Most of it is too small with insufficient storage, ugly, badly oriented for the sun, badly designed (eg heat issues), lack of outdoor area, suspect quality, and with insufficient parking. I live in an older apartment and it is much better than most of the new alternatives.
For most people, having a car is necessary, the ideal would be to have good alternatives so they don’t use it often. I normally walk or use public transport, but with family scattered across Auckland I need a car and offstreet parking for it. Too many developments don’t have parking or have insufficient parking. It cloggs up city streets and sometimes footpaths, which actually makes it more dangerous for cyclists.
Having more density in inner city suburbs where public transport and walking are common means of transport reduces the number of cars people need. If your family members lived closer you would have less need for a car. And not everyone has family members in outer suburbs. I live in Wellington, where many people don’t have a car. And many of the cars parked on the side of the street or encroaching on parks never seem to move. More user pays for parking together with enforcement of parking laws would reduce the number of cars parked on footpaths.
New housing is often needed just to maintain the population of a suburb. Devonport and many other wealthier suburbs are going to need more housing just to maintain rolls at primary schools.
My parents live in an area of Hamilton where urban intensification has been high. The amenity has changed as the local shopping has improved, the bus service has become more frequent, and the schools have grown. There are some problems, such as people parking on grass verges, but more people now have affordable housing. I think the changes have been for the better for established residents- without population growth my parents would have to go a lot further to buy groceries or get a haircut and the council would probably have cut local services.
So you happen to work in one such office park (Smales Farm), but almost everyone drives a car anyway.
Smales Farm sits next to a rapid transit station. That is actually a pretty savage dismissal of public transport.
“Bishop shouldn’t trust the Council”.
That isn’t true. He can trust the Council to make a dog’s dinner out of any change he proposes. They will use any leeway or discretion he leaves them to create a long and drawn out process to stymie any real change. Council managers are masters of using process to complicate and deny. If Bishop wants change he has to write new objectives, policies and standards and force them onto the Council as a done deal. Don’t leave them any ‘qualifying matters’ or fine print.
Classic Bureaucratic Resistance to change by delay.
A counter anecdote to Matt’s Smales Farm example. I work in Rosedale. Roughly 100 staff. The overwhelming majority live in Albany or East Coast Bays. Probably 15% in the lower North Shore. Most of the rest in Greenhithe Hobsonville Henderson or the Hibiscus Coast.
A handful commute across the bridge.
In the early 90’s less than 10% of Shore residents worked on the Shore. Today it’s over 2/3’s.
I’m not disagreeing with the need for intensification and for it to apply equally to the ‘leafy suburbs’ just giving a different example.
I wonder if Commuter Waka will be updated based on latest census – will be interesting to see changes over time https://commuter.waka.app/
Transport data hasn’t been released yet
https://www.stats.govt.nz/2023-census/2023-census-release-schedule/
Some of the tables have already been released. You can get the Journey to work by origin or destination but I haven’t seen it available by both origin and destination yet on their website. I have heard a few people already have it though. I hope the cost cutting doesn’t affect Commuter Waka. They tend to drop the previous census when they do the graphics for the next though so comparison isn’t easy. Commuter View was originally released on CD, then the next census it was on the web and then Commuter Waka for 2018 data. I tried using the old CD recently but it needs something that the current Windows cant do.
Yep, my experience also. In areas that already have the housing, at least give people the option of working closer to home. Biggest problem in the NW for example is the vast majority need to commute for work and education. High traffic volumes is the result. Shouldn’t have put more housing there in the first place, but hey, its there…
Please don’t forget that the Unitary Plan requires a public consultation process with right of appeal to the Environment Court to make changes. AC need to review the AUP, so now is a good time to look for the changes that you want and share them through your elected members.
Fear of appeal, which delays adoption of changes, is justified by past experience.
The current Libertarian “I don’t want any rules” policy encourages opposition to planned development, seeking market free-for-all. Epsom may not have noticed that “I can do anything I want with my own land” means “Them next door can do anything I don’t want with their own land.”
Until ‘someone’ revokes the AUP completely, let’s try to get it improved to enable Auckland to grow in an affordable and effective way.
Poly-centric or mono-centric depends on both scale and density. London is a mix of both – a conglomeration of adjoining small towns with a huge regional commuter belt servicing a compact city centre. But dense.
Low density sprawl in Auckland makes public transport to employment and to local services inefficient.
Access to employment and to services are key issues to address in planning rules.
Also, population limit needs to be considered with reference to potable/industrial/agricultural water supply, energy consumption and supply, food supply and distribution/reticulation infrastructure for these.
By the early 2040’s our water take from the Waikato River will be maxed out and there wont be any capacity for additional growth. As we don’t have anywhere viable left to dam, to enable 2.5 million+ we will be forced to change our current approach to just take more – reducing water use, capturing more rainwater from roofs and investing in water recycling.
Watercare owns a large chunk of Riverhead forest that is planned to be eventually turned into a water storage dam. This will also aid in reducing flooding around Kumeu valley by removing some of the flow into the Kaipara River.
But yes water is an issue otherwise.
Trying to bring the jobs closer to where the people are is a poor strategy that has failed. We need to bring the people closer to where the jobs are.
Ockham is very much the (expensive) exception rather than the rule. Thus far, relaxation of density requirements has given rise to hundreds of what can only be described as shit-boxes throughout the region.
It’s not a case of people choosing to live in cramped, overheated and poorly made new developments; they have no choice.
How many people banging the drum for intensification actually have to live in one of these modern crap-shacks?
We ought to be looking at reducing demand for housing in Auckland. That inevitably requires reducing the massive levels immigration that we’re currently experiencing.
Unless of course, the proponents of intensification are so keen for mass transit that they’re willing to see large parts of the City turned into something resembling the slums of the countries from which most of our migrants originate.
Tom you missed the bit where your Children and Grandchildren will be moving to places (like Sydney/Melbourne) that has the density more importantly the opportunities.
We have plenty of towns and cities in New Zealand with low density and relatively low home prices. Those places are not growing much because they don’t offer opportunities for young people.
We only have one option for a city that can compete against the other cities of the world.
But most Kiwis in Australia live in Queensland. A state dominated by cities with low density.
They’re leaving New Zealand because of the obscene cost in living.
That’s being driven by immigration induced demand on housing and the downward pressure it applies to wages.
Too many people treat density as a means in and of itself.
Clearly there is more going on.
As one of those kiwis living permanently overseas I feel I can comment.
Two issues drove me away, car dependancy and maorification. There was no party against either of these and it left me feeling alienated from the electorate.
Salary and climate were just bonus factors.
As an Immigrant in multiple countries, I find perplexed every time a native says immigration is the main reason economy is down? and NZ people are getting low wages? NZ immigration is not all low skill workers. I can’t understand economies.
As a top tier tax paying immigrant , with no dependency on government for health, finance or any other needs, I feel ripped off. But at the same time ,I am happy that government accommodated me and I feel proud that my tax dollars are helping the economy and helping people in need.
can you point me to some quality research article about how immigration is driving economy down.
According to 2021 MBIE article , majority are in Healthcare 21%. Low skilled workers are less than 10%.
NZ population is ageing at a very rapid pace. If there’s no immigration, just be mentally prepared to have slow extinction.
Coming back to the topic, I believe Auckland should encourage intensification and attract young population. Old people should move out of Auckland. We can house them in Hamilton or Hawkes bay. (of Course Government needs to spend on infrastructure)
NZ and Australia is so much heavily dependent on property investments with no capital gains tax, they have reduced other forms of investment and innovation.
“maorification”
So you don’t think Maori culture should be seen or heard? Only yours?
I don’t really get this line, because despite the obvious resurrection in Maori culture over the last 25yrs, I don’t think anyone mistakes NZ for anything but European-dominated (while at the same time being multi-cultural)
“But most Kiwis in Australia live in Queensland. A state dominated by cities with low density”
Most Kiwis in Queensland live in Brisbane City or the Gold Coast. Both relatively dense.
“ But most Kiwis in Australia live in Queensland. A state dominated by cities with low density.”
Umm, they move to SE Queensland (Briabane, the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast) which are both urbanising frighteningly fast. Brisbane has outgrown the phase Auckland is finding itself in (now Brisbane’s population is 2.6 million) and entering the ranks of big cities even on a world scale. Like it or not, Auckland will be stepping in Brisbane’s shoes in time.
“ But most Kiwis in Australia live in Queensland. A state dominated by cities with low density.”
Umm, they move to SE Queensland (Brisbane, the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast) which are urbanising frighteningly fast. Brisbane has outgrown the phase Auckland is finding itself in (now Brisbane’s population is 2.6 million) and entering the ranks of big cities even on a world scale.
Like it or not, Auckland will be stepping into Brisbane’s shoes in time.
Replying to KLK, “So you don’t think Maori culture should be seen or heard? Only yours?”
No, I much prefer multi cultural to an over emphasis on one minority in particular.
Heya Luke – seeing as NZ is the only country in the world where Māori heritage exists.
I’d say a fundamental part of multiculturalism is respecting and uplifting our indigenous cultures. “Multiculturalism” is pretty empty if we can’t even preserve what we have at home.
– From a non-Māori NZer
That’s why I think it’s foolish to rely on the market to deliver high quality and affordable houses. Saying that the quality of a lot of built single family houses isn’t anything to write home about either.
Eke Panuku has done some good work (in between tripping over itself and thumbing its nose at rate payers).
Will it continue following the organisation’s absorption into AC generally?
Quite a lot of the dense developments are multi-story, typically two or three stories. With our aging population how will they cope with all the stairs? More apartments are being built, but they are often more suitable for people that haven’t accumulated much “stuff” given the lack of storage in most of them.
Hopefully there are some ground level options or the elderly can afford the ones with lifts. It works overseas somehow I’m sure.
I think it is quite good therapy for my parents, despite their balance problems, to live in a 2 storey house, most of which is used to store “stuff”. If they remain in a 2 storey house, they will get a stair lift.
Three storeys is not really very high. Friends who own houses complain about having to mow even small lawns. My flatmate finds even watering a few houseplants onerous.
I’d say some of the largest amounts of multi-story developments going on at the moment are retirement/elderly homes – so it can be done.
I always find it odd that on the one hand density is seen as ” slum dwellings like overseas” and on the other we have flash adverts suggesting putting our nearest and dearest into dense housing is the only kind thing to do!
One thing that tends to get forgotten is that our extreme housing prices are in turn the reason for poor build quality – if purchasers (especially owner-occupiers) have to beggar themselves to even afford the initial deposit, then of course the market will struggle to provide quality, because quality is another cost markup on top of insane land prices making things unaffordable. So the better apartments indeed become limited to the top 10-20% of the buyers, while the rest get cramped townhouses where the distance to the next house close enough to lean out of the window and touch, or shoebox apartments – all with cut-rate minimum standards building work.
While it’s an issue with a hundred reasons, allowing more density will in my view help with quality too. If you aren’t limited to 1-2 options that max out your budget anyway, buyers can select better quality options too, and drive those standards up.
So much of this is a product of the ingrained way of life for practically all of NZ’s history. A young country, lots of space, low population, with only very recent big increases in population without the corresponding infrastructure.
But you have generations growing up thinking a 1/4 or at least now a single detached house is the way to live. And presumably immigrants often come here for that lifestyle too. Whereas overseas where density is apparently done well – the big cities have had apartments for 100+ years – amenities (subways, parks, museums, theatre, etc) close by. So young people grow up seeing that as normal and something they will do when grown.
Here we have this resistance to any sort of development, cycle way, PT, etc because it changes the status quo. Weirdly though there never seems to be much resistance to car oriented projects – likely just a result of our huge car dependence for all facets of life.
So same thing with biking really, kids just don’t grow up seeing their parents do it. We are making progress but will take time
That’s not entirely correct. NZ previously had denser housing (slums), progressively they were demolished with working class populations moved into new state-built housing developments (the Te Aro slums were cleared and most inhabitants moved to places like the Hutt Valley for example).
The reason these areas of high density were broken up was because they were unsanitary and had insufficient infrastructure to meet the needs of the resident population.
While it brought its own set of issues, this represented a very real increase in the quality of life for poor urban New Zealanders.
There is a real madness behind some commentator’s obsession with density in New Zealand. While NZ can (and should) aim to sensibly increase our housing density, we have to be realistic in our aims.
Those pointing at Europe’s apparent example, ought to think about the state of the high-density neighbourhoods that are located outside of the areas visited by tourists …
“Those pointing at Europe’s apparent example, ought to think about the state of the high-density neighbourhoods that are located outside of the areas visited by tourists …”
Uhm…. yeah, but as an European I can tell you that they have little to do with DENSITY. They have to do with things like concentrating all the “poors” and the subsidised housing in clusters, and then following that up with politicians and decisionmakers not providing good services for those areas either (who gets money for schools libraries and transport repair first? the places where the local politicians and rich people live…) – there’s densely populated places in Europe of 2-3 stories average that are bad places to live in, and others (think of Paris boulevards) where the buildings are regularly 4-8 storeys yet are very expensive and pleasant places to live.
I guess my long-winded point is: Doing density WELL is important, and a key to that is good local infrastructure and services. And in an equitable society, those ARE much more easily able to be financed if your developed area has a couple thousand people per square kilometres instead of a few hundred.
Sydney/Melbourne are twice as dense as Houston/Phoenix, and yet Copenhagen is twice as dense again (very roughly, based on m2 per person, and a dozen caveats apply – but clearly density alone doesn’t hurt for quality of life).
I don’t think we’re totally on different pages here – I agree that it might benefit NZ if we were more open to Apartment living.
However I think that proponents of greater density need to treat it as more than a self-evident good and go to the effort of understanding why Kiwis remain reluctant to embrace it.
As mentioned, we retain a cultural memory of places like the Te Aro slums.
More recently, the leaky homes debacle and our propensity for earthquakes; has highlighted the large financial risk associated with purchasing an apartment.
More immediately, overheating issues and general quality issues (tiny slivers of outdoor space, lack of storage and poor quality workmanship) have made older (mostly detached) housing much more appealing to Kiwi home buyers (just look at all the half-finished chicken coops for sale on TradeMe at the moment).
Unless you could afford an Ockham (and their massive annual service fees) or a Crosson – you’d have to be pretty keen or pretty desperate to want to purchase (let alone live in) a modern new-build apartment or multi-unit.
If we want a better city – with density increased in a way that is beneficial to its inhabitants – then the government (central and local) need to do something different than simply reduce the consenting threshold for multiple unit dwellings.
Much of Auckland is defined by car-centric neighbourhood design. These neighbourhoods stay car-centric irrespective of the amount of crap-shacks property speculators can bang on plots of land formerly occupied by Villas, Bungalows etc.
Residents of these newly mutilated suburbs are just as far from parks, hospitals, shops and schools in geographic terms; however now they’re competing with even more drivers to get and park at these places.
It is the worst of both worlds. Little personal space, close proximity to neighbours and the same crap supply of public services.
Te Aro and Thorndon have experienced significant population growth since the 1990s. Better heating and insulation and a desire for people to live near the central city have made them attractive suburbs. I’ve been working in the Hutt recently and it has lots of 2 storey houses from the 1950s or earlier. In fact, I suspect densification to 3 storeys and more 2 storey houses is easy in the Hutt because people are used to 2 storey houses and the public transport is good. The Auckland isthmus also has a long history of high public transport use for those going to work. And in my 1960s suburb in Wellington everyone catches the bus to work for fear of losing their roadside parking place.
I suspect most of those in Rotorua who want otherwise homeless people out of motels there would have a tantrum if their children got denied a place in a hostel at Otago, or if the police arrested their chldren during a street party there.
I agree the problem with polycentrism is that it’s unlikely any person would live close to work their whole life, much less any couple or family.
If we accept that people will need to move around, then we need both good rapid transit and good roads. I like the tartan model, where the good transit is offset from the good motorways. It seems to me that the logical place for industry is clustered along the motorway route, while the logical place for commerce, retail and dense housing is along the rapid transit routes.
That should reduce the big trucks time on local roads while putting work close enough to rapid transit to make it viable for commuters.