Search
× Search
Franklin Centre Te Puke Heritage Plaza  Jean Batten Place  Proposed apartments, Wynyard Quarter Proposed apartments, Wynyard Quarter

The Forum:


News and views from our members.
Views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the Urban Design Forum or its supporting institutes.


Working well, cities are engines of economic prosperity

Auckland is not the ‘engine of prosperity’ it should be

  • 10 August 2017
  • Author: Graeme Scott
  • Number of views: 412
  • 6 Comments
Working well, cities are engines of economic prosperity
Last week’s result of the study by NZIER into the cost of Auckland’s traffic congestion brings into focus the economic impact of choices we make about the physical form of our city.  It is good to see the congestion issue now being framed as limiting the productivity of the city, rather than as just an inconvenience to be tolerated as the price of living in Auckland.

Auckland’s productivity is low when we compare ourselves to other cities that, at least on the surface, look and feel a bit like us – Sydney, Melbourne and Vancouver for example.  This affects our standard of living and reduces the amount of money available to implement public works that could make Auckland much more liveable.

The recent OECD Economic Survey (June 2017) lists several probable causes of this, such as low capital investment per worker, low research and development spending and too high company tax.  But it also focuses in on infrastructure investments.  These have been stepped up in Auckland, and have a wider focus on modal choice than in the past, but overall still appear to be lagging behind the requirements of such a rapidly growing population.

Decisions on what type of infrastructure is funded and where it is located are extremely political in New Zealand, and the recent call from Infrastructure NZ for ‘an empowered national body charged with identifying infrastructure needs’, free of political interference, deserves much more attention.  However, given the country’s low productivity, such a body should be specifically charged with identifying those infrastructure projects that can most quickly produce economic benefits while still having a long-term view to urban liveability.

For Auckland, the question surely must be:  “what sort of new infrastructure will most effectively raise Auckland’s productivity?

One of the most interesting statistics around this issue is the use of public transport.  It may seem as though great progress on Auckland’s train, bus and ferry system has been made over the last decade, but it has barely kept ahead of population growth, and user numbers remain at around 45% of those in cities we’d like to emulate.  For the record, the annual number of rides on public transport per urban dweller for Vancouver, Melbourne and Sydney in 2016 were, respectively 156, 128, 119.  Auckland’s comparable tally is just 56.  Such a stark statistical contrast between comparable cities will surely have an economic effect of some description.

Some will say it’s a tenuous proposition to relate public transport usage in a city to its productivity, but without a dedicated public body generating debate around this sort of issue, how do we know?  And given the time wasted in traffic congestion, the socially isolating aspects of driving alone, and the enormous space taken up in the city for roads and parking, it’s not hard to suspect that our car-based transport system is negatively affecting our city’s economy.  That’s why the NZIER study, specifically introducing the issue of productivity into the infrastructure question is so important.

The Urban Design Forum supports Infrastructure NZ’s recent calls, not just for independent research into infrastructure provision, but also for road pricing in the near (rather than the distant) future, and new ways of funding development. 

However, we suggest this is expanded into a broader view of designing the city.  For while urban growth is partly organic, driven by many different players with different agendas, it is also significantly driven by the sort of infrastructure provided.  And that needs conscious, informed decision-making.  A future Auckland that aspires to achieve the level of public transport use enjoyed by our comparator cities will be very different to one where we continue to spend the vast bulk of our infrastructure funds on roads.  There is a need to look proactively to the future, taking a long-term strategic view on infrastructure, land use, productivity and liveability. The people of Auckland, and indeed all New Zealand deserve nothing less. 

We’ve spent the last 60 years building an urban transport system based on the private car.  For a while, it was a successful strategy.  Now, for many reasons, that model is failing to deliver the economic and liveability benefits we should expect from a city of Auckland’s size.  Time to try something different?


Download post as a pdf

 


Print
Categories: Auckland
Tags:
Graeme Scott

Graeme ScottGraeme Scott

Company: ASC Architects Ltd

Core Discipline: Architecture

Professional Affiliations: FNZIA, Chair Urban Design Forum NZ

Qualifications: BArch(Hons) Auckland 1973

Areas of expertise: Architecture and Urban Design

Other posts by Graeme Scott

Full biography

Full biography

Company: ASC Architects Ltd

Core Discipline: Architecture

Professional Affiliations: FNZIA, Chair Urban Design Forum NZ

Qualifications: BArch(Hons) Auckland 1973

Areas of expertise: Architecture and Urban Design

Graeme Scott has been a Director of ASC Architects since 1981, playing a leading role in establishing the company’s design reputation. He has designed numerous public and corporate buildings over that time, and has won awards for many of them, including four from the New Zealand Institute of Architects.

Graeme has a strong interest in design in a New Zealand context and was Convener of the National Awards for Architecture for the New Zealand Institute of Architects in 1994 and 1995. He was a member of the NZIA Council and the Honorary Secretary for four years 1996 to1999, and currently chairs the design panel for Hobsonville Point.​​​

x
Contact author

6 comments on article "Working well, cities are engines of economic prosperity"

Nick Aiken

11/08/2017 2:18 PM

A superb conversation. It may well be time to look at trying something different. Surely an important part of making such a critical decision is a sound foundational understanding of the challenge, and an openness to the options available. That many of the latter may as yet be untried in New Zealand or elsewhere should not preclude their consideration. After all we like to see ourselves as a nation of innovators and few would doubt a correlation between innovation and progress.

Being free from politics may also mean being free from the less obvious politics of 'lobbying'. A collaborative and transparent focus set fair and square on a best-for-city outcome, and not simply captured by the most vocal or best resourced interests seems vital to a solution that must surely be understood, generally supported by, and ultimately used by the wider community.

Last but not least, the urban planner in me suggests that if we fail to address the inextricable two-way connection between land use and mobility - in other words the reasons why and how people/goods move - we will ultimately fail; no matter how innovative and sound a solution might otherwise appear to be.


daver

20/09/2017 7:24 PM

nice article, thanks for sharing


Kester Ko

11/08/2017 8:30 PM

Great article Graeme! Will be exciting to see driverless car in the mix with light rail & heavy rail in Auckland 2030.


stingray

16/08/2017 4:11 PM

"an empowered national body charged with identifying infrastructure needs’, free of political interference, deserves much more attention"

...absolutely! But wonder if our political parties would ever let such a thing happen.


The Real Matthew

26/09/2017 7:47 PM

I think it's fairly tenuous to only consider three other cities in this example. A wider research piece is needed considering both cities with higher and lower productivity than Auckland to see if patterns can be identified.

Also needing consideration is the social cost of living in a chicken coup apartment block and the lack of mobility that non-car use causes. These are factors often overlooked by urban planners.

I believe Auckland's biggest productivity problem will always be it's lack of proximity to another million plus population city.


Graeme Scott

28/09/2017 1:54 PM

True - the comparison with Sydney, Melbourne and Vancouver may be tenuous, but the point is we need more research, as you say.

I don't agree, though, with a suggestion that there's a causal link between chicken-coop apartments and decent public transport. Nor do I see the inhabitants of those cities suffering from a lack of mobility. All three cities are full of cars. Combined with their significantly higher PT use, it may be that their urban mobility is much higher than Auckland's. Again, without some independent research, how do we know?

Leave a comment

Name:
Email:
Comment:
Add comment

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message:
x

Search

Terms Of UsePrivacy StatementCopyright 2017 by Urban Design Forum