Part four of the Project Auckland series looks at 'Prosperity and Profile'
Auckland is at a tipping point. We are about to vote for a new leadership within a governance structure that will surely steer the future of the city in a new direction. But what are the key goals we want this new direction to achieve?
The debates around future Auckland fall into three broad categories - one seeks to lift the economic performance of the city, another seeks to make our city more vibrant and attractive as a place to live, and a third encompasses efforts to make Auckland a more resilient city, better able to better withstand the environmental and oil-price challenges that are sure to confront us.
Of these three areas of debate, the one that should grab the attention of the Government is the economy. Our national leaders are scrutinising New Zealand's economy with a view to lifting economic growth by increasing productivity. Auckland, representing one third of the national economy, can hardly escape this scrutiny, remembering that central government will spend around $8 in Auckland for every $1 to be spent by the new Council. Auckland needs to show a much better return on the money the Government spends here.
New Zealand's low productivity receives regular mention in the media and government statements. For some reason we work as hard, or even harder, than citizens of similar countries, but earn significantly less for our efforts.The Super City is part of an attempt to fix this, especially in its aim to streamline the provision of infrastructure into the greater city. But funds for this are limited, and there needs to be wide debate on just what sort of infrastructure will lead us to better growth and productivity.
Growth in the 21st century comes principally from the so-called "knowledge economy", leaving historically commodity-based economies such as ours at a distinct disadvantage, as prices for our exports gradually reduce. Big cities are the natural home of the knowledge economy, and our only big city is Auckland. Does Auckland's urban environment encourage us to believe it can play its part in New Zealand's economic transformation? The answer is no, and here's why.
The observable fact of big cities fostering a knowledge economy is thought to grow out of the mechanisms by which people, companies and institutions in close proximity interact creatively to achieve more than they would if widely dispersed. Higher levels of productivity, and higher returns to businesses and workers, arise from increasing the concentration of people and economic activity in larger, intensely urban areas. Perhaps ironically, the growth of digital communication has coincided with an accelerating trend toward ever-larger cities around the globe. People want to cluster together.
The benefits of this getting-together are not limited to direct productivity benefits. They embrace the wide range of factors that make cities desirable places to live. This includes the wide range of choices, concentrated cultural activity, social tolerance and the excitement of an intensely urban experience. It is the combination of these diverse factors that attracts talented people, which in turn drives economic activity.
Auckland is on the cusp of becoming a city of size, where these benefits can become increasingly significant. But will they? How do we achieve an urban environment that will drive these benefits, creating a more liveable and attractively built environment that will match the stunning natural setting of the city? What sort of city will help us retain our home-grown talented children and attract the new people that we need to lead an economic transformation?
Over the last 50 years, Auckland has become a city of low-density suburbs, serviced by a transport system based on the private car. The publicly financed infrastructure of motorways and roads, and the planning rules written to support suburban development, have created some very good suburbs, but have likewise stifled the development of truly urban neighbourhoods common in the inner areas of most cities. If you view the city as a place to maximise economic, social and cultural exchanges while minimising travel, then clearly there has to be a balance between urban space devoted to economic, social and cultural activities and the urban space given over to travel. Many would argue that the space allocated to car movement and parking in greater Auckland is making it harder rather than easier to get to the places we want to be. In other words, the good things about the city we want to access are moving too far apart because of all the movement space getting in the way.
Motu Economic and Public Policy Research's 2008 paper on Auckland productivity noted "There is a clear positive relationship between urban density and good economic performance the world over".
And in his recent study "Productivity, Transport and Urban Form: Lessons for Auckland", John Williamson notes "urban areas are characterised as places where multiple activities exist in close proximity and through this provide greater access to people, goods and services, which in turn facilitates higher levels of economic, social, and cultural activity. The reinforcing nature of these relationships suggests that urban areas which are able to maximise the benefits of exchange would be likely to be more attractive and productive locations. Realising these opportunities is heavily dependent on accessibility in the broadest sense".
The key here is that, beyond a certain point, car-based mobility works against this essential accessibility. Auckland has now developed beyond that point, and the key to increasing our productivity therefore involves installing transport and planning systems that will enable an increased urban density through parts of the city. This does not suggest the death of the suburb, which will remain a very attractive lifestyle option for many households. But the make-up of households and the demographics of our population are changing more rapidly than we realise. New housing options to accommodate an expanding population and to support different lifestyles are urgently needed if we are to grow the Auckland economy.
The new Auckland Council must encourage a wide debate on how we can increase living and employment densities in some areas of the city in a way that preserves the aspects of our Kiwi lifestyle we all treasure. Attempts in this general direction over the last 20 years have not been encouraging, but a new start must be made.
To grow our city by continued expansion of low-density suburbs at the city edge will not only condemn us to a low-productivity future. The lack of urban vibrancy resulting from purely suburban-edge development will hasten the departure of our talented children to more exciting cities overseas, and leave us reliant on a car-based transport system vulnerable to oil-price shocks.
The debate has already started. Let's hope the momentum builds, with the Government and the Council views aligned. The possibilities for a new "Kiwi urbanism" that will deliver a more vibrant, resilient and, above all, a more productive city have never been better.
Graeme Scott is an Auckland architect and co-ordinator of the Office for Urban Research, www.our.org.nz
