Auckland facing Hobson’s Choice: Expansion or Implosion?

Choosing Auckland

In 1840, the first New Zealand Governor, William Hobson, sailed into Waitemata Harbour and chose Auckland as the country’s new capital.  The harbour offered ease of embarkation and disembarkation.  Fertile coastal lands meant that settlers could grow food crops, and the local Maori tribe, Ngati Whatua, welcomed the promise of protection and trade that European settlement offered.

Auckland’s early fortunes fluctuated.  The city could only be reached easily from other early settlements in New Zealand by sea .  It was on an isthmus divided by two harbours, crossed by flood-prone creeks and peppered with swamps.  In addition, tribes to the south resisted the sale and alienation of their fertile Waikato lands, stalling expansion of European settlement until the late 1860s. 

The emergence of New Zealand’s first city

Auckland survived, though, even when New Zealand’s administrative capital was moved to Wellington, 600km south, in 1865.  Rivers were bridged, wetlands drained, waterfronts reclaimed, and a railway pushed into the fertile and now subdued Waikato region, and beyond. 

The city prospered in the 20^th Century, dominating the import and distribution of manufactured goods and exporting regional produce.  Consequently, it developed a substantial import-substitution manufacturing sector, boosted by protectionist policies introduced in the 1930s. 

When the economy was deregulated, starting in the late 1970s,  manufacturing’s role contracted.  However, its presence and the city’s trading heritage set Auckland up as the primary service centre in New Zealand, providing business, professional, trade, and financial services to production (much of it taking place beyond its boundaries), and catering to the needs of a steadily growing population.

Primacy in the 21^st century
The cumulative advantages of scale served Auckland well.  Although still a small city globally (347^th on the UN Population Division’s 2015 city size listing), it accounts for 32% of New Zealand’s population and 34% of its employment. This primacy reflects the importance of consolidating human skills and resources in a small country (population 4.8 million, less than the Sydney metropolitan area’s 5 million 2,000km across the Tasman Sea) and the low density of settlement over the rest of New Zealand.

Auckland remains New Zealand’s centre of disembarkation.  Even as increasing numbers of residents decamp for hinterland towns and smaller cities, New Zealanders returning from overseas, new migrants, and international students tend to make Auckland their first stop (Figure 1).  As a result, the city accounted for 50% of national population growth over the five years to 2016, a period of exceptional migration gains.

Figure 1: Net Long-Term Migration, Auckland and the Rest of New Zealand, 1991-2016

Reaching choke point?

Today Hobson’s site seems unsuited for a city of even 1.5million, let alone the 2+ million projected for the not-too-distant future.  Physical constraints have put the squeeze on housing and transport.  Ageing underground infrastructure struggles to cope.  The city may be approaching – or have already exceeded –Tamaki Makarau’s carrying capacity.  That, though, is not something that Auckland Council seems ready to contemplate.

Unfortunately, an obtuse planning response to the challenge of growth is set to squander the human and physical capital already invested in the city, and to mar its natural qualities.  A plan preoccupied with boosting employment and housing in a confined CBD and to promote increasingly intensive development on the Isthmus looks set to throttle growth. 

Externalities abounding

The outcome for Auckland of a strategy of consolidation and centralisation in is already apparent:

·         Under-capacity public and private transport services and a lack of redundancy in the networks lead to frequent stoppages on road and rail throughout the city, compounding already excessive congestion;

·         Restrictive land use policies create a hopeless backlog of housing demand with severe economic and social impacts (see, for example, the presentation of economic commentator Shamubeel Eaqub in Joel Cayford’s Reflections on Auckland Planning);

·         Increasing costs to business – the costs of employment, congestion, business disruption, and even space for growth raise the spectre of slowing investment, diminishing productivity, and income growth;

·         Grossly inflated land prices feed into high housing costs, distorting the supply chain and generating a new middle-underclass, defined more by frustrated housing aspirations than by educational or family shortcomings;

·         Failures in water, sewage, and stormwater systems threaten the health of the harbours and estuaries which give Auckland its character;

·         A growing likelihood that significant natural events (such as intense low pressure storms) will increasingly bring a congested city, its critical services, and its centre to a halt.

It’s the geography, Stupid

The response to the challenge of growth has been to promote increasing densities in the central city and, latterly, in the inner suburbs, a strategy that is deeply flawed for this city (something I have laboured in earlier postings: e.g., here and here). 

This strategy flies in the face of Auckland’s geography and the natural constraints it imposes.  It raises the prospect of fiscal failure for the council because it requires high cost works with limited if any productivity gains while compounding depreciation, maintenance, capital and servicing liabilities. 

The city will be hard placed to meet its financial commitments if the current crisis of growth accelerates, further lifting ratepayer costs and reducing the affordability of Auckland to business and households alike.  And any slowdown would only compound the city’s fiscal miseries.

Hobson’s choice

So now we are faced with our own Hobson’s choice (Thomas’ not William’s): the city has little option but to find ways to expand.  It is time to embrace new approaches to land and its use in the region, how and where it is developed, and how it is connected.

Given that Auckland Council seems hell-bent on promoting consolidation on a site ill-suited to it and in a culture in which it will work only for a few, this will only happen with a dramatic shift in thinking.  That might come if Government moves quickly to embrace the proposals for revamping urban planning through the rewrite of the Resource Management Act and shake up of the planning establishment proposed by the Productivity Commission.  The choices for Auckland are narrowing.

Down and up or down and out? Confused heritage thinking in city hall

Oh no, not another one
Another overseas expert has been called in to tell us how to do our business here in Auckland.  Peter Marquis-Kyle, a heritage architect, spoke to councillors, officers and heritage advocates about how they protect old houses in Brisbane.  There the default heritage planning position is that all old houses are protected and can only be demolished if owners can successfully argue why that should be allowed.

Now it seems that Auckland Council is seriously considering new rules that would ban the demolition of all pre-World War II houses.  The exceptions would be houses that are damaged beyond repair. Apparently these rules would apply to "23,344 houses in the existing character zones of the inner city suburbs, Devonport, Birkenhead and Northcote, plus thousands more pre-World War II houses being identified in other parts of the city”.

Looking backwards

So much for heritage policy identifying and protecting those markers of the past worthy of preserving and passing through the generations.  We seem to have lost the capacity to discriminate and to balance the needs of multiple generations – past, present, and future.

If all dwellings over seventy years old are worth preserving, no doubt in 20 years time the suburbs of the 1950s will qualify, and then those of the 1960s.  The urban heritage of my generation that will qualify for blanket protection will be the sprawling suburbs that mark the triumph of automobility . 

I might have no problem with such move but I suspect there will be some serious confusion in city hall where such suburbs are anathema to the compact city brigade. 

So, how does this affect the Auckland Plan?

Development expert Martin Udale recently told the Auckland Council that if it wished to achieve its ambitious plans for urban consolidation and medium density residential growth, it needed to rethink its approach.  For starters, the targets set out in the Auckland Plan require the demolition of perhaps 15% of housing stock.  As the Plan calls for consolidation around existing centres and the CBD, demolitions need to be more extensive in these areas, the very areas in which pre-World War II houses are concentrated.  So now the Council is thinking about adopting heritage rules in its proposed Unitary Plan that will frustrate the compact city vision shaping its adopted spatial plan. 

Given the Auckland Plan’s unrealistic emphasis on compacting Auckland, perhaps there is a silver lining in this cloud of confusion!

But the latest proposal certainly doesn’t look like the sort of rethink Martin suggested was needed.  Because now the Council is planning to put a large chunk of the housing stock that has to go if it is to fulfil its vision out of the reach of the bulldozer – or at least substantially lift the cost of pulling it down in favour of multi-unit housing.  And cost is already one of the reasons that the Council’s plans for upping medium density housing are running into downdrafts. 

Is the Council really prepared to further frustrate its recently completed spatial plan in order to follow Brisbane’s indiscriminate approach to heritage?

Some other questions

Before we can take this latest silly idea seriously, we might ask a few more questions.

1. Where is the consultation and analysis that might underpin this particular silver bullet?  The occasional controversy over the odd demolition is not all that unhealthy because it raises awareness and stirs debate.  This move will only stir resentment
2. Is this a make-work plan for under-employed city planners?  Just how much time and money is absorbed in pedantic resource consents processes and opportunities lost to conservative decision-making, and how much more will be lost if this rule is introduced?
3. Or is this initiative a further joining of the legions as planners, already leaning on reinforcements from urban design to justify resisting discretionary resource consent applications, can now add heritage architecture to shore up their resistance to change?
4. Have the protagonists of this approach even considered the state of repair of many of these houses, not yet ready for demolition but already a liability for their owners,  especially now that earthquake risk and readiness are on the public agenda?
5. How far will old houses now be left to deteriorate by their owners until they are beyond repair?  And what will that do for our inner city rental stock?
6. The Council is proposing a sledgehammer to crack a nut.  So what will happen to the sales of sledge hammers that might be more gainfully employed– to shift a pile, bend a beam, or strike a stud?
7. Has the Fire Service been consulted?

No easy answers
It is hard not to be cynical in the face of shallow policy thinking.  But heritage is not easy, and there are no quick fixes.  It inevitably involves the application of subjectivity and exposes conflicting values that need to be worked through.  It requires trade-offs to be made, and sacrifices.  What the public really values it may have to pay for, and not simply shift the burden of preservation onto the private sector. 

There is no silver bullet in this area, and we need to be suspicious of those who tell us that there is. 

Multi-purpose, multi-layered, multi-metaphored

Perhaps the problem of shallow thinking lies in the confusion of goals in a large, multi-layered, multi-purpose behemoth.  Creating a super council in Auckland was not the way to get the region moving forward.   Not only do we now have the poacher as gamekeeper and mountain-making out of molehills in our council, but it also looks rather like the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. 

How confused - and confusing - is that?  And how costly will it prove to be?

 

 

Trans-Tasman Blues – the Housing Crisis and Our Future

Boxed in thinking

While filling in time in the Auckland International Airport waiting hall last Thursday I read about a Property Council discussion of what accommodating  an extra 1.2 million people over the next 30 years might entail. Martin Udale, the development expert heading Essentia Consulting Group, talked about having to push the envelope to meet the challenge posed by the Council’s population growth expectation and its commitment to housing three quarters of that  growth over the next thirty years within the city's boundaries: that's 10,000 new dwellings a year (not counting any catch up from the current  shortfall ).

This is going to need as much as 15% of the current stock to first be demolished, to be replaced with infill housing – apartments and townhouses -- at a ratio of perhaps three or four new for every one knocked down . But for this to happen, Martin said,  Aucklanders -- and that includes planners -- have to first "get over their phobia about height".

Affordable living, Auckland City

Now that’s a challenge. Building medium density housing to a standard and in localities that Aucklanders might like at a price they might afford has so far proven well nigh impossible. New apartments are generally over-priced relative to detached houses because of land prices in preferred locations, consenting and development challenges, and construction costs.  The result has often been cost cutting and poor construction. Consequently, most apartments built over the last 15 years cater for transient populations – students, recent immigrants, solos, non-family groups –often in tight accommodation. 

Outside the box

There are other options for increasing densities – in greenfields, satellite towns, and through selective suburban infill and brownfield redevelopment (including developments modelled on retirement communities and suburban villages).  Going down this path – of decentralised intensification --- would take a serious re-think by the city fathers, though, and their planning advisors. 

But if we take on the challenge  of demolishing 50,000 to 85,000 of our existing housing to build apartments and townhouses, we might inadvertently solve the problem another way: by  stalling population growth. 

Or outside the country
The slowdown is already here.  And intensification along the proposed lines with the congestion and loss of amenity that goes with it will make Auckland that much less liveable and Australia that much more attractive.

Affordable living, Sunshine Coast

Which brings me back to why I was waiting at the airport.  My wife was returning from visiting our three Australian-based children and their families. She’s beginning to think we should move there.  Some of our friends have done just that.  Even though they are not far off retirement age, their skills and experience are transportable if they want to work in Australia and be closer to their families.  

And they are in good company. According to Statistics New Zealand (SNZ) there was a net national loss (an excess of long-term departures over arrivals) to Australia of 486,000 people over the past 30 years, 212,000 of those in the last ten years alone (September years).  The trend has been accelerating (Chart 1).  Add that to the cyclical nature of movements from other countries and we can anticipate more, and more prolonged, net migration losses from all sources in the future.

Chart 1: Net Migration Movements, New Zealand 1991-2012 (September Years)

So how will Auckland fare?

The latest population projections from SNZ suggest that there could be another 480,000 people living in Auckland in 20 years time under a “medium scenario”,  a figure which  more or less lines up with 10,000 new dwellings a year.  Over a third of this  growth is based on assumed migration gains .  Of course, some of the natural increase projected also depends on migration : fewer migrants = fewer babies.

Going down

So I took a look at the assumptions behind the projections. According to SNZ sources, there was a net gain of 66,600 international migrants (arrivals less departures) in the five years ending 2006, but that dropped 56% to 37,700 between 2006 and 2011 (September years).

And the net loss from Auckland to other parts of New Zealand from internal migration has been growing –18,000 estimated between 2001 and 2006.  So, international and internal migration over those boom years contributed around 48,000 new citizens, 9,600 a year.  

Without a 2011 Census subsequent internal movements cannot be calculated.  But since 2005 gains from  international migration  have continued to fall, down to an average  7,000 a year. The trend continued in 2012 with a gain of just 4,100 (Chart 2). 

Chart 2: Net International Migration Gains, Auckland 2002-2012 (September Years)

More hope than history?

The SNZ medium assumptions in fact assume an average 6,000 gain in migration through to 2016 (actually, that’s now closer to 6,500 following the overshoot in 2012), before it is assumed to jump back to boom-time figures of 9,000 a year for the next 15 years.  But the conditions experienced ten years ago are unlikely to be repeated in the foreseeable future.  And our longer history certainly doesn't support a view of such prolonged gains.  And even a modest 6,000 a year through to 2016  looks  out of reach if real house prices cannot be brought down to where they were a decade ago.

So who are we losing?

So what does this mean?  Well, over the past twenty years, more than half of the people who have left Auckland have been aged between 15 and 34 (again, based on SNZ data), mostly educated young adults at the start of their work career and entering the housing chain.  Lose them, and we can trim our housing demand figures. More than that, though, we can reduce our aggregate fertility expectations and lower forecasts of workforce growth 

Some of these young adults  are embarking on the traditional New Zealand passage of rite, the Overseas Experience trip  – rather like my daughter and her partner did ten years ago.  But they are now well settled north of Sydney with an affordable home, pool and yard for the children, great amenities, good friends,  good schools and jobs.  I don’t see them – or many others like them – heading back this way in my lifetime.

In any case, Chart 3 shows a shift over time towards more  family groups leaving, older adults and children. This is worrying because they don't  make such a significant move without  good reason.  Could it be tied up with housing affordability?  Is it associated with the challenges facing the intermediate housing sector – people with good jobs and dual incomes still unable to afford a house in Auckland ? And not wanting to live in ever-more crowded suburbs?  

Chart 3: Age Distribution of People Leaving Auckland for the Long-Term

Of course, there is always the prospect of resurgence in immigration from Asian origins offseting the  loss of young New Zealanders.  Even that is not  assured, though.  The prolonged GFC  and economic uncertainty here changes New Zealand's appeal  relative to other options opening up to them. We cannot count on New Zealand always being a destination of choice, especially if we are busy recreating the sorts of urban densities that many potential immigrants are moving from.

Maybe exporting some of our housing problem to Australia  is positive move – but we are also exporting our future and accelerating the ageing of our city as a result.  It would be a shame if by going along with the urban design consequences of consolidation that the advocates of a compact city are bestowing on us  the Property Council somehow legitimises the dogma that risks the undoing of our city.

It is time, instead, to begin to think about quality not quantity in our urban planning.  And that means really thinking outside the compact city box.

Why compact cities aren't so smart

More advocacy for a compact city

I was interested to read the views of Rick Boven of the New Zealand Institute about central and local government needing to resolve their differences about the future of Auckland.  Well, they have worked on that since the establishment of GUEDO in 2005 (now the Auckland Policy Office). 

But that’s not what the article was really about.  Under the pretext of calling for “new ways of working together” Rick promotes urban containment and greater train travel for Auckland’s future. Well, we’ve heard all that before.

What Rick may have noticed by way of differences is not a failure of cooperation, but growing realisation that the old prescription for a compact Auckland is not working.  And while it may pain me to say so, in this instance the centre may be looking ahead, while the city continues to look to the past.  Any differences, Rick, arise from diverging views, not from a failure to work together.

Fallacies and frailties

And in this case I’m on the side of the centre.

I’ve picked away at the frailties of urban consolidation planning previously.  I can’t put it all together in one blog. But consider the following propositions about the compact city:

• A focus on centralisation guarantees congestion;
• A focus on centralisation reduces green space and concentrates urban pollution;
• Consolidation prejudices old infrastructure, increasing overload and the risk of failure;
• A focus on rail transit escalates costs, reduces flexibility, and caters for only a minority of trips among even those (relatively few) households that have ready access to it;
• A focus on rail transit commits us to developing unattractive brownfield sites with high remediation costs if we intend to increase residential densities nearby;
• A commitment to centralisation and higher densities increases vulnerability to extreme climatic events, rising sea levels, and other natural disasters;
• Medium to high density living is socially flawed, as it is associated with transience, increased urban crime, diminished quality of life, and loss of a sense of community, especially for households in middle to lower income brackets (and, ultimately, razing of failed apartment blocks);
• The market does not favour medium to high density housing unless well located, well appointed, and therefore out of the price range of most households;
• Refurbishment and restoration of inner city suburbs for higher density living leads to gentrification that displaces lower income households;
• Mixed use developments reduce the amount and push up the price of land for business while lowering the quality of life of residents;
• Limiting new business land and expecting to take up new employment by increasing densities on existing sites forces up business costs, reducing the attractiveness of investment and competitiveness of business.

None of this makes compact city policies look very smart.

Pushing for alternatives

The current council vision is for Auckland to be the world’s most liveable city.  Well, we won’t achieve that by “me-too” urban consolidation.  Don’t forget, in the corporate world consolidation is a defensive strategy, associated with stagnation not growth, holding the line, not forging ahead.

A better answer may be to take advantage of our distinctive physical environment and make sure that our urban form complements and takes advantage of it as we move ahead.

Here are some very broad ideas.

Allow decentralisation to continue.  It’s happening, don’t fight it.  Provide for it.  That means ensuring that people can meet most of their needs close to where they live.  A sustainable city won’t work without sustainable suburbs.  These should be at the heart of our plans.  And some of them might just have to spill over the urban limits.  Now there’s a real opportunity to practice some innovative urban design.

Let the city breathe:   We want a CBD which stands out among cities.  Well, by promoting sustainable suburbs we can lay off simply playing with structures and instead seize the opportunity to restore a green (and blue) heart to our city.  A timid but worthy start was made to Queen Street with the (re)introduction of Nikau palms, but we can go a lot further than that.  Barry Lett had great idea for the radical conversion of mid-Queen Street and Myers Park into an urban garden.  What a great place to visit!

If we take the pressure off forcing housing into the CBD, among other things, we could do a lot more of that.  We could think seriously about creating a pedestrian precinct the length of Queen Street. I would also push for my hot spots to be green – and forge walkways and cycle ways among them.  We could better Integrate the CBD with the quality areas around it.  On the harbour front we need to find ways to cross Quay Street, for example, to merge water and land.  We might start by taking note of Lambton Harbour in Wellington, and how it blends hard and soft surfaces, restores the harbour edge, and creates a place for all people. 

Develop Smart Sub-Urbs:  Forget Jane Jacobs’ nostalgia for the lost American city.  Those images belong to another age and another place.  Our life, our cultures, and our communities are in the suburbs.  Let’s ensure that strong communities can develop and thrive around urban villages and suburban centres throughout Auckland. 

If we are serious about sustainability, the suburbs are where it must happen. Here we can deliver smart urban design, strengthen social relationships, and provide capacity for improving the quality of life at all levels.  It’s also at a sub-regional if not suburban level that labour markets operate most efficiently, and employment opportunities might best be promoted.

And while we’re at it, we need to make sure that the suburbs are well interconnected by generous arterial corridors. This call for some difficult retrofitting.  It may mean reviewing how we use motor-ways; thinking more creatively about buses and bus-ways; and getting over an all-consuming desire to focus everything on the CBD, turning it into a giant interchange instead of a great destination.

Launch the Satellites: Some of the best places to live in Auckland are beyond the bounds.  We seem so desperate to cling to urban limits that we ignore the fact that people like Auckland because of what lies beyond them. Let’s see if we can encourage smart growth in places like Warkworth, Bombay, Pokeno, Wellsford and Drury, Beachlands, Pukekohe, and others.  Let our rural villages prosper, too. These are all places where we could do some exciting planning and design.  And let’s make sure that we have wide, green corridors linking them, corridors that can cater for whatever modes of transport the future might throw at them – electric cars, light rail, and the like.

There’s more, but I’m over my word limit.  If nothing else, let’s lift the discourse so that our ideas begin to match our aspirations.  The last thing we need to do, Rick, is to get together to recycle the old stuff.

Where do the children play?

   Well you’ve cracked the sky, scrapers fill the air

                              But will you keep building higher, till there’s no room up there

Will you make us laugh, will you make us cry

                    Will you tell us when to live, will you tell us when to die?

Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam (1970)

Are compact cities healthy cities?

One argument for compact cities is that they are good for our health.  The New Zealand Public Health Advisory Committee in 2008, for example, cited four principles for healthy urban planning based on the density of development: urban regeneration; compact growth; focused decentralisation; and linear concentration.  The aim is less time in cars and more use of active transport.

One objective of Auckland’s Regional Growth Strategy, with its emphasis on CBD and centre-focused residential growth is “safe and healthy communities”.  But how far can that be achieved through residential intensification?  Does regulating for a compact city work for everyone?  Everywhere? 

Kids and consolidation
Research by Penelope Carroll and Karen Witten of Massey University, summarised here and in a recent article in The Aucklander, highlights the disadvantages for children in the inner city. 

Witten and Carroll suggest that traffic volumes, strangers on the street, and lack of outdoor play space mean that children in central city environments are likely to be confined indoors.  And that raises the disadvantages of high density dwellings: insufficient space, internal noise, lack of natural light, lack of privacy, inadequate parking, inadequate indoor play space, and the potentially hazardous nature of balconies.  Poor health outcomes is a major concern.

A key issue for children in compact parts of the compact city is lack of opportunity for outdoor activity.  Heavily trafficked streets are not good for bike riding, or even walking alone.  Auckland’s centre is devoid of segregated cycleways or play areas.  Getting to school or the park is a major mission, and may well need a car trip. 

Even the Auckland Domain, a splendid sprawling park on the CBD fringe, is surrounded by high intensity streets, remote from most central apartments, and is hardly child-friendly.  The much smaller Victoria Park is similarly difficult to access, isolated by major arterial roads.  Albert Park is about the only central green space of note, but this is a throughway between university and town, not an ideal area for children to play. 

Auckland CBD Green Space

Perhaps the well-being of children is not a major issue here, because only around 600 (aged under 15) lived in the CBD in 2006.  But it was up 130% over a decade.  And they do count.

Anyway, the limits of central city living for children – and families – flag more general issues:

• The need to think seriously about how we cater for families in higher density living generally, in the CBD, in other centres, and in suburbs targeted for intensification;
• How we provide safe, public green space, areas for play, and ease of movement in high density, mixed use environments; and
• Just how healthy is the inner city residential for living generally?

CBD living – not so healthy?
The factors potentially stressing children in the CBD impact on adults too.  Research for Auckland City in 2003 (CBD Metadata Analysis by No Doubt Research) suggested dissatisfaction with inner city apartment living came from a diminished sense of security and safety, noise nuisance, small units, absence of outdoor living spaces, and lack of a sense of community. 

In the absence of outdoor recreation space adult residents may get some exercise in the burgeoning gymnasium sector (for between $1,000 and $2,500 a year).  But for many recreational and social activities a car is a necessity.  Simply to take advantage of the key benefits cited for living in Auckland – access to outdoor recreation opportunities, organised sports, beaches, bush and countryside – residential Intensification around centres means more time- and fuel-consuming car trips.

On top of a lack of open useable space the latest State of the Region Report documents the heaviest concentration of air pollutants in and around central Auckland, hardly a healthy living environment.

 

Central Auckland Haze

 Source: Auckland Regional Council, State of the Region, 2010

Community in the central city
Research by Larry Murphy of the University of Auckland (“Third-wave gentrification in New Zealand: the case of Auckland” Urban Studies 2008, Volume 45) described different communities in the CBD: the well-to-do with their spacious harbour edge apartments (and quite possibly a second home – a beach cottage or lifestyle block – outside the city); the student-dominated quarter to the east; and the low income population to the west.  Families may end up in the latter area, in cramped apartments in featureless apartment blocks, simply for reasons of affordability.

These are transient populations, some 52% of residents in the Central East and Central West Census Area Units had been in their current dwellings for less than a year in 2006.  This compares with 23% in Auckland as a whole.  These particularly high residential mobility figures contradict any suggestion that high density living might create a strong sense of community cohesion.

Okay for some, for some of the time
The CBD works for some people.  The proliferation of downtown bars and entertainment caters particularly for the young and well-to-do.  Gentrification of the harbour-edge works for the professional couple, the wealthy, and out-of-towners.  But the central city is not right for middle or low income households, or families. 

Two key ingredients of a compact city strategy are increasing residential densities and boosting inner city living.  But these raise health and equity issues.  At the least, they call for investment in the quantity and quality of public space in areas targeted for intensification, making potentially big demands on the public purse given the value of land in the CBD and other commercial centres. 

We may just have to acknowledge the benefits of suburban living for some time to come.  And seek opportunities for sustainable development that don’t oblige less well-off families to dwell in small apartments and featureless blocks around busy commercial areas for lack of affordable alternatives.