If we keep sprawling to Hamilton, what happens to the heart of Auckland? – Opinion

The Government supports high-density housing near key City Rail Link sites. Photo / City Rail Link

THE FACTS

• The Government will enable higher housing density around key City Rail Link stations.
• Central intensification is encouraged to utilise existing infrastructure and reduce urban sprawl.
• Aligning housing with transport investments aims to create sustainable, long-term urban growth.

Auckland is finally starting to confront one of its most important housing challenges: not just how much we build, but where we build.

The Government’s recent announcement to enable higher-housing density around key City Rail Link (CRL) stations is a welcome step. It is encouraging to see policy that connects housing delivery to the transport infrastructure we have already invested in. The decision to require intensification near CRL stations like Maungawhau, Kingsland and Morningside reflects what many in the private sector have been advocating: location matters and proximity supports productivity.

However, if this logic applies to those stations, it must also apply across Auckland’s urban core. The highest levels of connectivity, amenity, employment and culture sit not only at our new train stations but throughout the central city, from the Aotea Arts Quarter (Midtown) through to the waterfront and beyond.

The Symphony Centre, which I have the privilege of leading, sits directly above Te Waihorotiu Station in the heart of the Aotea Arts Quarter. It reflects the ambition of transit-oriented development: well-located, well-designed and built for people who want to live and contribute to the life of the city. But the truth is that delivering these kinds of homes remains unnecessarily complex. In many ways, it is still easier to build at the fringe than in the centre. That remains one of Auckland’s core growth challenges.

The appeal of greenfield development is easy to understand. A single house on a single section can be staged, financed and sold with less upfront exposure than a high-density urban build. But the long-term cost of sprawl is substantial and growing.

New subdivisions require more than roads and pipes. They need schools, healthcare, emergency services, power, and public transport.

These infrastructure extensions are expensive and they commit future Governments and councils to decades of maintenance and upgrade obligations. The further out we build, the more we dilute the investment we have already made in our urban centres.

We are also losing productive rural land in the process. Once it is gone, it is gone, and with it, the potential to grow food, support horticulture and sustain export industries.

Meanwhile, the city centre already holds significant infrastructure. The pipes are in the ground. The stations are built. The jobs are close. And yet many of these areas remain underused. The delivery model for high-density housing is still not fully supported by planning, financing or risk frameworks.

Something as simple as a sewer pipe illustrates the issue. A 15cm-wide pipe in the city can service 250 to 300 homes. That same pipe on the fringe might serve just a few dozen at a much higher per dwelling cost.

There are reasons why central intensification remains difficult: cultural preference for standalone homes, the complexity and capital exposure of multi-unit development, and a planning system that still favours the path of least resistance.

But we can do better.

Compact cities are not a lifestyle restriction. They are an economic engine. Proximity is productivity. They also provide greater safety. More people living, working and spending time in the same area means more eyes on the street, stronger communities and public spaces that feel lived in and looked after. For many people, urban living is now a preferred option, not a compromise.

The Government’s recent direction is positive. Aligning housing with our $5 billion investment in the City Rail Link is a smart and necessary shift. It acknowledges that growth is not just about numbers, it is about location, infrastructure, and long-term outcomes.

At the same time, we must mitigate the risks of overcommitting to fringe development. That means aligning our delivery tools, infrastructure strategy and incentive structures to make central living more viable.

This is not about saying no to growth. It is about saying yes to growth that lasts. Let us build up. Let us build out. But let us not build in risk.