Essay: Auckland Transport & Land Use Planning

This post contains an essay submitted as part of student course work for the Planning 100 "Introduction to Planning" course taught by me this year at Planning School, University of Auckland. The topic for the essay is: Comment on the influence of different forms of transport in shaping urban form and the way people live in an urban environment. Investigate and explain the key transport issues facing those responsible for planning Auckland's future. The essay is by Sarah Heritage, who has kindly given permission for it to be published here. (There are two figures which are not included below - however the text provides some explanation.)

Transport is a critical factor in shaping an urban environment and the way people, goods and services interact within it. In the Auckland region, key transportation modes can be seen to have underpinned the resultant urban form of Auckland. Key transport technologies throughout history, and influences of transport developments, have played a significant role in the outcome of urban form, which has had considerable impacts on the way people live in that environment. Today, issues are arising for transport planners as a result of significant transport choices made in the past. To understand these though, the historical development of transport must first be analysed, which can be compared to an international example of London, to see relationships and decisive differences that have created fundamental disparities between them.

Auckland and London experienced transport technologies on completely different temporal and spatial scales. As Auckland is located on an isthmus, and is dominated by volcanic cones it had various geographical restrictions (Social and economic research and monitoring team (SERMT), 2010); evolving around the Waitemata Harbour on the east, and a smaller establishment around the Manukau Harbour. London, on the other hand, developed around the Thames River as an initial access point, and had a much vaster area to expand in to. As England was one of the pioneers in the industrial era, the discovery of coal’s potential for energy and the subsequent development of the steam train in 1830 (Hall, 2002), marked the beginning of a new transport era; and as England was the coloniser of New Zealand, Auckland’s transport developed later than London’s, but caught up by the turn of the twentieth century (Dahms, 1980).

Whilst Auckland could be classed as a ‘mature pedestrian city’ in 1881 (Dahms, 1980), London had already developed an underground steam rail system in 1865, and the electric tube was developed by 1890 (Hall, 2002), whereas Auckland received the electric tram in 1902 (Dahms, 1980), just over a decade later. The provision of railways, and the consequential impacts of the incentives for use, or the inefficiency of them, can be seen to have played a huge part in the use of public transport, and the urban patterns between them. In Auckland, by 1877 issues were being raised by the Government about the fares and use of rail; establishing the Royal Commission, which made the underlining statement that, “no comparison [can] be made between the easy rapid travelling on English Railways at forty or fifty miles per hour, and shaking along New Zealand’s narrow gauge at fifteen miles per hour” (Dahms, 1980, pp2). This is affirmed by Hall, who also agrees that in London “steam trains gave fairly easy and rapid access to middle class commuters and working class, at distances up to fifteen miles from the centre” (Hall, 2002, pp19).

Both cities initially developed as walking cities, with dense small centres around transport lines or employment, allowing expansion up to five kilometres and linear, grid like street patterns from coal trams (Arbury, 2011). Horse- drawn buses and trams were important to both cities to allow dispersal of populations outside of the inner city, as well as links across the city. Electric trams generated a considerably similar pattern, in Auckland and London, and had a vital impact on further expansion of cities outwards; though Auckland’s physical geography had some influence on where lines could develop. The development of the electric tram brought Auckland up to speed with England, after a late and slow adoption of horse-drawn bus and tram, but overall, Auckland grew rapidly in its first 62 years of existence (Dahms, 1980). Arbury (2011) sees the tram and the train as major shapers as they permitted further expansion to thirty kilometres and created commercial and residential subcentres at large stations. Auckland’s present day form is considered as sprawl as a result of extensive motorway network projects between 1950 and 1969, over better public transport systems (SERMT, 2010). Also being referred to as the ‘take-over of the automobile’, expansion up to fifty kilometres saw dispersion of populations to the fringes (Arbury, 2011).

However, London’s city expansion, which is “typical of the later public transport city: was not all a creation of private cars” (Hall, 2002, pp21), but rather speculative flooding that followed main transport lines (Hall). Essentially London and Auckland differ because of the adoption of public transport services in London, versus the development of private car networks in Auckland. The different approaches to transport provision have created distinct patterns and have ultimately determined urban form and have created the issues that planners today are facing.The effects of each of these transport phases have determined where people live, but a big factor to consider is the influences of these transport modes and where they were developed.

Auckland city developed around the Waitemata Harbour as the port was the main site for employment and trade. It was the main transport access to international and local settlements, also requiring road infrastructure to move goods locally, for example the development of roads along Commercial Bay, Shortland Street and Queen Street (SERMT, 2010). Houses were built around the city centre such as in Princes Street, where they are today part of the university; as well as areas of Parnell, being of easy access to the city centre. In the 1860’s, a large portion of transport infrastructure was established in fear of Māori rebellion from the south, due to Māori land sales. These included the construction of Great South Road up to Franklin, accompanied by military redoubts through Franklin District, as well as the train to Drury (Carter, 2006), that later became a hub for farming communities. In addition, townships of Howick, Onehunga, Panmure and Otahuhu were developed as defence posts, to make up a defensive line from east to west, and the excavation of Point Britomart to house troops (SERMT, 2010). These were made available by horse-bus and coach, and allowed people to move to the outskirts because they were more readily accessible. Passenger railway development from 1870 (SERMT), had two main lines; one towards Helensville and one towards Waikato that had a separate line to Onehunga. These created patterns of highly dispersed pockets of development (Arbury, 2011), allowing outlying towns of Onehunga, Otahuhu, Papakura, Pukekohe, Henderson, New Lynn and Glen Eden to develop (SERMT 2010), all of which today are now important transport centres for buses and trains.

The relationship between Auckland and its tram lines is strong and has shaped Auckland and many cities abroad (Arbury, 2011, Carter, 2004,). It can be seen that the electric tram posed a key shaper in Aucklands history, but as time progressed the lure of the car took over the city. The electric tram “began the transformation of Auckland from a relatively compact settlement on the Waitemata foreshore, into a sprawling metropolis, spreading across the Tamaki isthmus and beyond” (Dahms, 1980, pp5). This is paralleled in FIGURE 1, which sees a huge expansion of the urban area into the isthmus. (Figure 1 Auckland built up area from1871-1987 (SERMT, 2010, pp6-24)

It enabled a ‘new style of development’, creating linear grid patterns which can be noticed in central areas such as Dominion, Manukau, New North and Mt Eden Roads (SERMT 2010); likewise in Avondale, Meadowbank, Takapuna and Devenport (Carter, 2004). Many of today’s main roads in central Auckland were originally extensive tram networks, which were disregarded and upheaved after the adoption of motorways and highway systems beginning in the 1930’s, but more extensively in the 1950’s. This is said to have had “a fundamental influence on the shape and the nature of the area. The increasing reliance on personal vehicles, along with lenient government lending policies, allowed people to fulfil their desire of detached houses on large lots leading to rapid suburban expansion and a dispersed urban form” (SERMT, 2010, pp15). The harbour bridge construction in 1959, and the development of spaghetti junction, connecting the north, west, and south, also in the 1950’s, created the dependency on cars we are influenced by today. Ian Carter makes the assertion that “road transport ruled Auckland” (Carter, 2004, pp48), which is still typical of today.

It has also been described as an “exceptional dominance of cars and roads in Auckland and elsewhere; a dominance that accelerated with the rejection of the planning model of urban development in the 1950’s” (Chapman, Howden & Stuart, 2010). The Auckland Council also sees the issue of cars the same way, claiming that “the primacy of cars, roads, and prioritising vehicles over cycling or pedestrians reflects Auckland’s physical form” (Auckland Council, 2011, pp163).This has had impacts on urban form, where people live, the destinations they choose and the mode of transport they use. The overall end result is urban sprawl. Arbury (2011) claims that it was” the development and popularisation of cars in the early twentieth century that made urban sprawl possible” (pp21), and that it is the “direct result of a number of policies that conspired powerfully to encourage urban dispersal” (pp22), such as zoning.

The consequences of these urban layouts can be seen in the way people interact, where they live, and what transport mode they use. The cost of transport modes, the price of houses, the place of employment and the income they make, are huge contributions to the outcome of where people live. A prime example is given by SERMT, where they explain how between 1900-1929 “the more affluent headed for the eastern suburbs of Epsom and Remuera, and the North Shore; middle-class earners built new suburbs to the south and west, such as Mount Albert” (SERMT, 2011, pp11) to get away from the more compact inner city. Earlier than this, when the port was the main employment area, merchant traders lived in Parnell to have easier access to work (Carter, 2006). Carter also mentions how local-body politicians were sucked into the idea of a road based solution to transport issues, and urged people on to the roads, including poorer households whom have to devote large portions of their wages into transport (Carter, 2006). The wealth of households and their employment largely reflect where people live, which can be seen in FIGURE2. (Figure 2 Median income of employed people in Auckland 1991-2006 (www.stats.govt.nz)) The increased provision of state housing, infrastructure, roads and tramlines caused increasing suburbanisation in the 1930’s (SERMT, 2010), which can explain the location of many poorer communities, and their set locations throughout Auckland. All of these interactions and transport developments have created various issues and critiques related to the future of Auckland transport, and mistakes made in the past.

Various issues have arisen from Auckland’s transport systems, and the biggest complaint is usually around the inadequacy of public transport. Carter (2006) provides a bold critique of Auckland’s transport system and its providers, pointing to the deficiency of motorway systems as well exceeding planned capacity, and accusing government and councils of forcing people into driving, as roads and motorways create an incentive to use private cars, as the fastest way to a destination. He argues how they had the option to create “more elaborate suburban railways to link the city with outlying suburbs” (Carter, 2006, pp60), but chose highways, and continue to do so as a “preferred major solution for the regions traffic woes, both for the socially-comfortable CitRat majority on Auckland City Council and for that happy-clappy, holyroller United Future Party with which Labour Party climbed into bed with after the 2002 general election” (Carter, pp61). Within this he also notes, “to ensure speed competitiveness of public transport in any city is to develop a quality rail system” (Carter, 2006,pp61) and buses are also key to support rail systems.

The Auckland Council also acknowledges these issues and agrees that motorways and roads are neither sustainable, or possible for the future (Auckland Council, 2011). This is also confirmed in the Auckland Regional Land Transport Strategy, as seeing need of “an effective and reliable transport system and addressing Auckland’s long-standing transport infrastructure deficit [as] critically important to the region’s and New Zealand’s economy, and to the well-being of Aucklanders”( Auckland Regional Council(ARC), 2010, pp7). They also note that citizens are constantly bemoaning about traffic congestion, poor public transport and air pollution (ARC, 2010). If Auckland were to continue with its rapid expansion of roads and motorways, the risk of vulnerability to oil prices and climate change could prove to be detrimental to the quality of life and restrict access for many people. Carter (2006) also mentions the fact that citizens have been telling their councils for years that traffic and a lack of quality public transport should be the council’s main concern. It seems now that the council has finally listened, by addressing the transport issues in the Auckland draft Plan 2011. They have created four key priorities for Auckland’s transport. The first is to develop a single system approach, to provide a better balance of transport services and encourage other modes of transport through tolls, plans and intensification. The second relates to the increase of integration between transport infrastructure and land use development, to create better access and reliable journey times, and contribute to place shaping. It is crucial for Auckland’s future growth to invest in a city rail link and second harbour bridge crossing. Thirdly, the use of management to better prioritise and optimise investment across different transport modes, by seeing transport as a shaper and enabler; and finally , to find new ways of funding projects through the use of tolls, parking increases, road pricing and passenger fees, despite the chances that these will only move congestion to other areas.

Auckland City has been heavily shaped by trams and trains from the late 1800s, as well as private vehicles later in the early twentieth century. Distinct patterns can be related to key transport development phases and have produced our urban layout. The extensive dependency on cars and motorways has been a trend enforced by government policy and has influenced the way we interact. Although trams played a key role in the initial establishment of Auckland City, it has largely been the car that has dominated our history. Issues concerning public transport are common for this reason and may finally be acknowledged and reformed to produce a more liveable city with the Auckland Plan 2011.

REFERENCES

Arbury, Joshua. (2011). The rise of urban sprawl. From urban sprawl to compact city- An analysis of urban growth management in Auckland (pp 19-29). New Zealand.

Auckland Council. (2011). Aucklands Transport, Draft Auckland Plan (pp163-171). Auckland Carter, Ian. (2004). Moving targets: Auckland transport, in I. Carter, D. Craig & S. Matthewman, Almighty Auckland (pp48-66) Dunmore Press Ltd. New Zealand.

Hall. P. (2002). The origins: urban growth from 1800 to 1940. In P.Hall (ed), Urban and Regional Planning (4th ed. Pp13-25) London: Routledge.

Social and Economic Research and Monitoring Team. (2010). A brief history of Auckland’s urban form (pp3-26) Auckland Regional Council. Auckland.

Dahms, Fred. (1980). Urban passenger transport and population distribution in Auckland 1860-1961. New Zealand Geographer. 36(1), (pp2-10)

Chapman, Howden & Stuart. (2010). Urban form and transport- the transition to resilient cities. In Editors Chapman, Howden & Stuarts, Sizing up the city. New Zealand Centre for Sustainable Cities, Wellington.

Auckland Regional Council. (2010) Auckland regional land transport strategy 2010-2040.(pp7)

Essay: Economic Progress and GDP

This post contains an essay submitted as part of student course work for the Planning 100 "Introduction to Planning" course taught by me this year at Planning School, University of Auckland. The topic for the essay is: What is meant by economic growth and how and why has economic growth changed in the past two centuries? Explain the use of GDP as a measure of economic activity and discuss its usefulness. The essay is by Nicholas West, who has kindly given permission for it to be published here.

Economic growth is when there is an increase in the amount of goods and services produced by a nation or economy over time (Stonecash, Gans, King, & Mankiw, 2009). It is usually induced by an increase in the productive capacity of a nation, which encompasses the factors of physical capital, human capital and natural resources. An increase in one or a combination of these factors will bring about economic growth, which is historically associated with increases in infrastructure, standards of living and quality of life.

An example of extreme economic growth occurred in 17th century Britain during the Industrial Revolution. The socio-technological developments in this period brought about not only an industrial revolution but perhaps the largest change in human activity since the beginnings of agriculture; until this point the human condition remained relatively stagnant, with small, incremental improvements only mildly increasing the number of people who lived in subsistence. The advancements in this era were to become the basis of modern western civilisation.

In the 1700’s human quiescence was vanquished when the accumulated knowledge of mechanics and mathematicians in Europe reached a crucial tipping point, upon which a plethora of technical innovations flourished. Combined with the prevailing spirit of change and acquisitiveness this technical innovation led to massive economic growth. As consequence, the majority experienced drastic increases in quality of life.

The driving force behind this explosive growth is widely believed to be due solely to technical innovations; improved iron production, the use of coal as fuel, textile machinery and James Watts’ combustion engine. However, contrary views are expressed by “The Road to Riches” (1999) which posits that values, politics and economic institutions were just as integral to this economic growth. Civilisations prior to this period, such as the Roman or the Chinese empires, showed similar milieus of technical innovation, however shared no other similar traits and ultimately no explosive economic growth. Hence, technical innovations were not the sole force behind the economic boom of the industrial period. The Industrial Revolution was also not quite the explosive change it it is purported to be. It was actually a longer period of gradual revolution. Popular thought dictates the Industrial Revolution abruptly began between 1770 and 1830 however, it has been contested that the revolution actually began a hundred years earlier (“Workshop of a New Society”, 1999). Circa 1670 CE there was a flourishing of rural industries which resulted in a skilled labour force (increased human capital) as well as, most crucially, the creation of a middle class with disposable income - increasing the demand for textiles and other commodities. Thus, the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution can be marked with the creation of this skilled middle class.

However, as technological advancement reached the point where skilled labour was replaced by the unskilled, workforces began to migrate to urban areas. Here, they were jammed into purpose-built, worker towns by factory owners and landlords. These towns were constructed quickly, with little consideration of sanitation, health or safety courtesy of nonexistent regulation. As consequence, while the revolution burgeoned, quality of life began to plummet and disease became rife. Cholera outbreaks stemmed epidemics in 1831-32, 1848 and 1854-55. It has thus been argued that it was the efforts to better these substandard conditions and stem the aforementioned outbreaks which actually resulted in the widespread societal transformation that benefited Western civilisation (“Workshop of a New Society”,1999).

The 350 years post the Industrial Revolution has seen exponential growth of human population, wealth and resource use which has brought about unprecedented increase in quality of life. It has logically followed that today economic growth has become synonymous with quality of life and achieving it has become almost the sole ambition of nations. In order to quantify economic growth, its measure has been standardised into a single figure called the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and is defined as the market value of all officially recognised products and services produced in an economy in a year. GDP is not only used to measure growth within a nation but also to compare said growth between nations, resulting in the revelation that the effect of economic growth is far from uniform (Chang, 2003).

Economic growth and its boons has been experienced differentially amongst regions and nations, preferentially gracing Western Europe and its tributaries. This is usually attributed to the advanced technology and resources available to western or ‘More Economically Developed Countries’ (MEDCs). However, scholars such as Ha- Joon Chang (2007) argue that this differential has been exacerbated and even designed by preferential and insidious free-trade policies meant to ‘kick away the ladder’ and in effect, halt ‘Less Economically Developed Countries’ (LEDCs) from enjoying the same successes that developed nations themselves enjoyed in the past (Chang, H, 2003). This is done through the use of large international organisations such as The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which preach and enforce ‘free trade’ policies that necessitate liberalization of international trade and investment, privatisation, and deregulation (Chang, H, 2003). These policies have the effect of prohibiting LEDC governments from fostering their own industries and workforces (called protectionism) which historically are the exact methods used by MEDCs to gain their economic advantages in the first place. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act introduced by America in 1930 is an example of western protectionism designed to protect American jobs and farmers from foreign competition during the great depression. A similar tariff enacted by an LEDC today would result in harsh condemnation and serious trade penalties from MEDC trade partners (Chang, 2003).

Additionally, facilitated by international organisations like The World Bank and IMF, less economically developed countries are often persuaded to accept large loans with high interest rates in order to build expensive infrastructure projects. These projects rarely benefit the majority of the indebted nations population and historically have not left these nations with an increased economic ability to repay these loans. Instead of providing the indebted country with jobs and what should be significant economic stimuli, these loans are passed directly to large western construction corporations which take all the profit whilst the less developed countries are left with huge debts. These debts are then routinely used as leverage by developed nations to force economic policies favourable to western corporations (structural adjustment policies) at the expense of LEDC populations (Perkins, 2004).

This pursuit of economic growth has created economic policies that concentrate wealth and resources into an elite handful of the largest western nations and corporations, often at the expense of economic development and improvements in living standards in less developed countries. In effect, over the last two centuries economic growth has been manipulated by developed nations in order to maintain a monopoly on economic growth and its benefits. This is not consistent with the economic growth that occurred during the industrial revolution, which was used (or harnessed) to enrich the lives of society as a whole. Today almost half of the world’s population lives on $2.50 per day or less whilst the world’s richest 20% is responsible for over 75% of the world’s consumption (World Bank, 2008). It is clear that economic growth today, instead of having widespread positive societal effects as per the industrial revolution, is only benefiting a small minority.

Economic Growth has changed over the past two centuries due to the ability to define and measure it. While there are several reasons why economic growth is now so divorced from quality of life, one integral factor is the overreliance on GDP. GDP is decent measure of economic activity, or more specifically, production of goods but it is not accurate at accounting for the service industry which now comprises two thirds of MEDC economies (Stiglitz et al., 2010). Services are much harder to quantify than physical goods and it is estimated that GDP significantly undervalues these (Stiglitz et al., 2010). The measure also discounts work done by stay-at-home parents, the benefits of government health-care systems, and barter exchanges. Essentially, this means that current economies can be vastly undervalued. Second and most pertinently, GDP lacks any measure of wealth distribution. Nations with economies of similar GDP are valued equally despite how well wealth is distributed in them. Sweden, for example, has a similar GDP to Saudi Arabia but it’s economic activity is one of the most equitably shared within a nation in the world. In contrast, Saudi Arabia’s wealth is owned by a small elite, and does not benefit the vast majority of the country.

Societal problems arise when GDP is used as an indicator of standards of living and well-being. This is because GDP does not include any indicators of societal health such as literacy, infant mortality, life expectancy, education, physical, mental, or social health. GDP is utterly myopic with regards to societal health indicators - these are not commonly measured yet are extremely important. Neoclassical economics assumes that an individual with more income has a higher ‘utility’ and that with a higher utility an individual can buy the products and services required for a high quality of life. However, many societal attributes that contribute to a high quality of life cannot be bought (considered non-market realm). As Robert F. Kennedy said of GNP (GDP’s predecessor) “...It does not allow for the health of our families, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It is indifferent to the...safety of our streets...It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, or the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials...GNP measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile”. GDP is a measure of monetary transactions, and it is assumed that all monetary transactions in an economy are positive. Yet GDP can also mark the breakdown of social structure as a profit if social decay becomes bad enough that it requires intervention. For example, crime increases national GDP by billions as crime increases the need for prison buildings, police protection, and repair of property damage (Lietaer, B., & Belgin, S. 2001). Psychological counseling, social work, and addiction treatment, all efforts to stem social decay, increase GDP and are therefore also considered national gains.

Despite the inadequacies of GDP it is still used as the primary measure of a nation's wealth & well-being. Political parties and politicians are elected and judged primarily on their management of GDP. This has led to economic policies that champion increases in national GDP over the actual health and well-being of the populations and ecology living within them, as well as the sustainable use of its resources. Policies that raise GDP in the short term are chosen over those that contribute to widespread increases in health, education and well-being in the long term. The results of these policies have been an increase in global poverty and a dramatic widening of the wealth gap between rich and poor nations, as well as between the richest and poorest within even ‘developed’ nations. If economic growth is to better serve us, it needs to be realigned with the goals of increasing standards of living and quality of life for everyone. For this to occur, measures of economic growth such as GDP need to include more information such as wealth distribution. Measures of economic growth should also be discouraged from being used as indicators of living standards and actual measures of living standards and quality of life should be made more prominent in political discourse.

Distributing the benefits of economic growth equally is important for the health and sustainability of society and the environment (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009) but Heinberg (2011) raises the point that our economic system is an infinite growth paradigm on a planet of finite resources. Sooner or later, he argues, economic growth will end, and we will have to find ways of increasing standards of living and quality of life for an ever growing population in a contracting global economy. It is hoped that governments soon learn to differentiate economic growth and living standards so that attention can be focused on the challenges of life after economic growth.

In conclusion economic growth can be defined as increases in production of officially recognised products and services. The Industrial Revolution is considered the period of the most accelerated economic growth and paved the way for modern western society. During this period economic growth improved the standard of living for the majority, yet today the benefits of economic growth are experienced by an ever smaller proportion of society, at the expense of the majority. Whilst no single factor can be held responsible for this, a significant cause has been the reductionist measures of economic growth such as GDP as well as a confusion between economic activity and quality of life. To rectify this our definitions of economic growth and quality of life have to be clarified and improved. Furthermore, the supposed causal relationship between economic growth and quality of life needs to be questioned so that high standards of living can be achieved in a contracting economy of the future.

References

Chang, H. (2007). Bad Samaritans: The Guilty Secrets of Rich Nations & The Threat To Global Prosperity. London: Random House Business Books.

Chang, H. (2003). Kicking Away The Ladder: Development Strategy In Historical Perspective. London: Anthem Press

Lietaer, B., & Belgin, S. (2011). New Money For A New World. Boulder: Qiterra Press.

Perkins, J. (2004). Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Stiglitz, J., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. (2010). Mismeasuring Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn’t Add Up. New York: The New Press.

Stonecash, R., Gans, J., King, S., & Mankiw, N. (2009). Principles of Macroeconomics.Melbourne: Cengage Learning.

The Road to Riches. (1999). The Economist: Millenium Special Edition, December 31, 10-12.

The Workshop of a New Society. (1999). The Economist: Millenium Special Edition, December 31, 15-16.

Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. London: Bloomsbury Press.

The World Bank. (2008). Poverty Facts and Stats - Global Issues. Retrieved from http://www.globalissues.org/ article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats.

Essay: Public Space Planning

This post contains an essay submitted as part of student course work for the Planning 100 "Introduction to Planning" course taught by me this year at Planning School, University of Auckland. The topic for the essay is: Referencing historical examples, discuss the origins of public space in cities, and consider what the needs are for public space in cities today. The essay is by Charlotte Moss, who has kindly given permission for it to be published here.

Public spaces are not simply locations, but are tools that promote certain ideologies and power structures. This essay shall focus on how these structures lead to geographies of inclusion and exclusion, through analysing not only historical examples, but also the more recent trends of suburbanisation and privatisation. Exclusion is the most pressing issue for all public spaces, as it creates and maintains boundaries of social inequalities. This essay shall provide understandings of public space exclusions, and seek solutions for these needs.

Public spaces are commonly defined as areas that are openly accessible, where people can go either individually or as a group to carry out various activities (Stone: 50). However, every public space is context-specific in its actual use. Public spaces are integral to the function of any city, with formal forms of public marketplaces being tracked as far back as 200BC in Mesopotamian cities (Stone: 52). More frequently, the Greek Agora is cited to be the first public space embodying modern definitions, a place where citizens could converse, trade, and enact political roles such as voting and discussion (Minton: 9). Public spaces are needed to ensure a balance between public and private needs (Stone: 3), and how a society utilizes their public spaces for this reflects unique ideals of private/public relationships. In essence, societies attempt to create public spaces to meet their own distinctive social, economic and political needs (Minton: 9), either through planning or by natural occurrence (Stone: 5). Minton points to Lefebvre’s theory that space is both a product and a means of production, to show the interrelationship between how public spaces are designed, use, maintained and reinforced (25). This inherent interrelationship means that few spaces have ever been fully accessible to the complete public (Minton: 9), as proven by the idealised Greek Agora excluding women, the poor and non citizens from public political participation.

Public spaces are constructed as exclusive in many different ways, and often influenced by other trends and forces. In order to understand the needs of public spaces today, the former trends that stimulated such current conditions need to be observed and understood. Post world war two, the western world experienced a dramatic shift in cityscapes and in the idealisation of home life. This was characterised by two key processes- privatisation and suburbanisation. The emergence of a multitude of public space forms, including malls, corporate plazas and playgrounds in the 1950s are intrinsically linked to these two processes (Stone: 67). This resulted in altered boundaries of exclusion and a different function of the public-private balance.

Public spaces are typically assumed to be owned and managed by the local government or the state, thereby theoretically ensuring accessibility for all citizens. However, as early as the enclosures of the Victorian era, state ownership of public space began to be replaced with private ownership of individual landlords (Minton: 10). Enclosures were devastating for the British labour populations, as communal land previously open to the public, were transformed into lands of ownership and production. This process shifted the societal needs, with other public places being established to provide public life, such as the opening of libraries, museums and parks in London during the 19th century, which were freely accessible to all citizens regardless of gender or class (Zukin: 129). Similarly, public spaces today are under a fundamental shift, where new societal aspirations are being recognised and need to be catered for.

Understanding the establishments of modern privatisation is crucial to understanding the needs of contemporary public spaces. This is a force that grew to dominance during the neoliberal era, which emphasized privatisation of property, surveillance and management as key to economic efficiency (Collins: 517). New privatised owners often sought to transform public spaces into a profit landscape, by encouraging consumption or creating spaces to reflect their company’s power (Collins: 519). These landscapes are created to serve the owner’s needs rather than the citizen user, and such establishments have largely replaced previous communal areas such as squares or plazas (Stone: 5). Private ownership not only shapes the physical aspects of the ‘public place’, but also shifts the power of access and restrictions to the new individual owner, with critics arguing that this results in a higher level of control and higher levels of exclusion (Zukin: 128). Exclusion is usually targeted towards people who are seen to be threatening to social order or unable to contribute to the consumerist society, such as the homeless or the young (Zukin: 128), leaving them with no other formal public space to reside in. This leads to higher exclusion, and the clustering of social problems, creating ‘neighbouring ghettoised enclaves’ (Minton: 10).

As well as the displacement of social outcasts and an increased capacity for exclusion, privatisation of public gathering space has led to a homogenisation of aesthetics and use. Private public places are designed to attract consumers, requiring increased surveillance of product, and this increased control results in an ambience of sameness between all private-owned public spaces and a sense of sterility (Minton: 25). Areas are no longer created to be inclusive of the environment around them, but instead shape an environment that individuals can choose to fit in to, and even regulate themselves. This alteration of public space to privately owned public space is the root cause of widening inequalities (Minton: 25); the fundamental social problem of modern societies. Whilst privatisation has had a profound impact on how individuals use and conceptualise public space, suburbanisation has also played an important function. Advancing technologies (in particular the automobile) has led to greater mobility landscapes than were ever possible in historical and pre-industrial societies. Previous cities were compact and had high residential densities, but the introduction of the affordable car allowed rapid development of vast neighbouring territories to low density suburban development. Such expansions led to several outcomes that negatively impacted public spaces. The first was an increase in isolation as cars replaced incidental social occurrences, and privatised backyard space removed the need to seek public outdoor space (Stone: 5). Secondly, the rapid pace of suburbanisation led to a sprawl with lack of planning for public spaces, and changed the fundamental ideal of the aspiring individual from public engagement to private suburban comfort and security (Williamson: 81). Finally, any public places created within suburbs lacked the diversity and complexity of former public spaces, leading to lower engagement (Low: 34). It is clear from these two processes, that access and ownership are two critical aspects that shape any society’s public space.

These trends have led to an abundance of literature claiming that the public sphere is vanishing from modern societies. However, public spaces have rarely been completely accessible throughout history. For example, in the 1800s the act of begging was criminalised, as a method of actively removing such beggars from public spaces, resulting in a sense of dislocation and sanitisation of public space. Public spaces in the modern era are no longer as vital to citizens, with the emergence of private backyards and other social mediums (Stone: 8). Many public spaces have experienced a transformation, tailored to particular needs such as tourism, dining, or entertainment. This is a reaction to the new modern city structures and issues. Many public spaces have been placed under private ownership simply for preservation; to facilitate clean public spaces on minimal state budgets (Zukin: 127), at times of uncertainty and anxiousness of city dilapidation (Zukin: 130). A major example of this is the Union Square in New York, which has been privately managed since the 1980s to create a docile, safe sector amidst a chaotic city. Such spaces have served as a function for the public, and therefore cannot be considered to be expired or ‘dead space’. Rather, public spaces need constant re- evaluation and deliberation to tailor to a society’s altering and expanding needs.

To analyse the needs of public spaces in modern societies, we need to consider how binaries of inclusion and exclusion are developed, and how public spaces can be used to solve contemporary social and political issues. State-owned public areas do not necessarily lead to more appropriate social and political spaces, with critics pointing overdesigned public spaces that have inadequate funding for maintenance and end up underused and derelict (Stone: 17). Furthermore, both private and state owned public spaces are far too often constrained in their design, leading to underuse and a waste of potential. Some public spaces are completely constrained during parts of the year, such as New York’s Bryant Park which is used for business events for 3 months, and is inaccessible to the general public. Contemporary public spaces need to be reworked to target problems of exclusion and provide for a diverse range of people and functions. All citizens need to have the right to use such public spaces, despite the social position they are in (Collins: 518), which could be achieved through relaxed zoning, a stance on embracing diversity, or placing the management of public spaces back with the state or a not-for-profit organization. As well as embracing diversity, public spaces need to incorporate icons or significant events of the region (Collins: 517), to foster tolerance from a joint, collective history.

Public spaces need to encompass many spheres of life, and need to be assessed at the human level- not simply built under pre-determined assumptions (Stone: 87). This would mean that involvement at the local level would be crucial, as well as some involvement from the wider state (Williamson: 321), to ensure a responsible, meaningful and politically accessible space (Stone: 19). Public spaces cannot simply be built for economic growth; consumer-scapes must be incorporated in a way that does not disrupt tolerance and continue to polarise individuals. In essence, public spaces need to cover many functions- they must be comfortable to reside in, free for individuals to express beliefs, a place of socialisation or of relaxation, and a place where social, political, and economic activities may be carried out. They also must be maintained appropriately, with sufficient security to prevent criminal activity and serve for social justice (Collins: 521). The location of public spaces is also necessary to consider. Public spaces that promote acceptance and diversity are best when situated in dense urban surroundings, supported by efficient transport and a large system of individuals on the hinterland in residential or work spheres (Thompson: 62). This could be further aided by a reduction of busy roads, or automobile access, and more accessibility via walking, bicycles or skating. In conclusion, public spaces are complex settings which reflect the values and issues of the encompassing city. Public spaces have varied, both over time and between places, reflecting their own forms of exclusion and diversity. The goal for the contemporary city should be to learn from historical examples and create a functional, diverse and accessible city core which caters to the public’s economic, social and political needs. The issue of exclusion is important when considering any public space, as it both reflects and determines a region’s social issues. Therefore, planners of public realms must aim to mitigate instigators of exclusion, and shape a public space which will serve current and future needs.

Bibliography

Collins, D., & Shantz, B. (2009). Public spaces, urban. Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd. 517-522. Sourced from: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/homepage.cws_home

Low, S. (2000) On the Plaza: The politics of public space and culture. USA: University of Texas Press

Minton, A. (2006). The privatisation of public space. London: The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

Stone, Andrew. (1992). Public Space. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

Taylor, M. (2011) The changing fortunes of ‘community’. Public policy in the community. UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 9-21.

Thompson, C.W. (2002) Urban open space in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning. (60), 59-72.

Williamson, T. Imbroscio, D. Alporovitz, G. (2002) Making a Place for Community: Local democracy in a global era. Great Britain: Routledge

Zukin, S. (2010) Naked City: The death and life of authentic urban places. New York: Oxford University Press

Essay: Utopianism and Urban Planning

This post contains an essay submitted as part of student course work for the Planning 100 "Introduction to Planning" course taught by me this year at Planning School, University of Auckland. The topic for the essay is: Argue a case, either for, or against, the value of using utopianism as a method in planning the future of a modern city of your choice. The essay is by Ties Coomber, who has kindly given permission for it to be published here.

The inevitability and value of utopianism in planning.

Whether utopianism is a valuable method to use when planning the future of a modern city depends on two considerations: 1) how utopianism is defined, and 2) how the resulting conception of utopianism is applied. The definition outlined in this essay will show that any human planning activity constitutes utopianism. Though utopianism may be inevitable in planning, it faces crucial problems. I will explore, then, how utopianism might be applied in the face of these problems to make the most of its inevitability, thereby increasing its value in the planning process.

Defining utopianism

Distinguishing between ‘utopianism’ and a ‘utopia’ is the first important step in defining exactly what this essay is addressing. Though the etymology of ‘utopia’ suggests it refers to any imaginary place, ‘utopia’ has come to mean only an ideal imaginary place (Carey 1999). To contrast its now common meaning, imaginary places worthy of our fear have been coined ‘dystopias’ (Carey 1999). Typically, utopias have been expressed in works of fiction as a means of critiquing a society with which the author is disillusioned. Famous examples, such as George Orwell’s (1949) ‘1984’, play with the fine line between a utopia and a dystopia. These kinds of examples appear to warn people that the society in which we live may be headed in a frightening direction; and that though it may be someone’s utopia, such a society is certainly someone’s (perhaps many people’s) dystopia. In any case, a utopia in this sense is a description of some non-existent, perfect (in the eye of the beholder) place. Utopias might also refer to specific examples in which a person or group has brought into existence their ideal, imaginary place. Examples include Robert Owen’s ‘New Harmony’ and Charles Fourier’s Phalanx (Tod & Wheeler 1978). These certainly raise the question of whether such places constitute utopias, as they are no longer imaginary. This question is answered easily (with a ‘no’) if the definition of ‘utopia’ we adopt specifies that the place must be imaginary. Such a definition, however, leads to an unintuitive result, because these examples of existing ‘utopias’ certainly appear to deserve the name.

It seems, then, that the definition of utopia would benefit from encompassing existing as well as imaginary places. It must, however, distinguish between existing places that are utopias and existing places that are not utopias. I propose that a society, whether it exists or not, is a utopia to some person if it maps exactly on to that person’s ideal imagined society. This definition has three important consequences: 1) Whether or not a place is a utopia is relative to a person’s ideals – utopias are subjective, 2) someone’s ideal imaginary place retains its title as a utopia after they bring it into existence (supposing their ideals remain the same), and 3) someone’s utopia can change as their ideals change. In fact, as individuals develop throughout their lives, their ideals will almost certainly change, bringing with them changes in what would constitute for them a utopia. Utopias are subjective, ideal, almost certainly changing places.

What, then, is ‘utopianism’? If a utopia is the ideal, then utopianism is the method by which one attempts to match the existing with the ideal. It seems, then, that adjusting one’s ideal imagined society (what is going on in your head) to match your current existing society (what is going on in reality) constitutes utopianism. This is an interesting thought, but will not be developed here. This essay addresses the value of utopianism as a method in planning, so the focus will be on influencing the existing to match the ideal.

Because people’s ideals are subjective and shifting through time, pinning down the exact goal (the utopia) of a particular instance of utopianism is problematic. What is clear, however, is the notion that the existing society could be better. Any change, then, that attempts to better the existing society counts as utopianism, as these changes are motivated by ideal-driven goals, subjective and shifting though they are. Not only do any changes with the intention of bettering society constitute utopianism, but planning for a static or even a worse society might also constitute utopianism. For example, it is hard to imagine how to plan a mutually ideal society for two people whose respective ideals are irreconcilable. Some might argue that these sorts of problems justify avoiding utopianism altogether. This position, however, is motivated by the belief that avoiding the problems associated with utopianism is better than the good that might come of applying utopianism. Deciding that it is best to keep things the way they are to avoid dealing with conflicting ideals begins to sound like some form of utopianism itself; the ideal or goal being to live in a society that avoids this kind of conflict by remaining static. Further, a planner might wish to make a city worse for the sake of avoiding or spiting utopianism. Such a planner, however, would be motivated by the belief that a city which avoids and spites utopianism is ideal, i.e. some sort of utopia itself. It seems, then, that as planners we are engaging inevitably in some form of utopianism. Whether or not we achieve the ideal goal itself, we are influencing the existing society at least in the direction of some ideal.

Applying utopianism

As argued above, utopianism is the method through which one strives to match their existing society with their ideal society. Because every decision we make with respect to the future of our society is based on some ideal outcome, any planning decision seems to constitute utopianism. The subjectivity and relativity of utopias and ideals, however, poses problems for making planning decisions. Because one person’s ideals might change over time, and ideals differ between people, it seems that utopianism has a shifting target for one person; a vague common target for a group of people whose ideals are somewhat similar; and no common target for a group of people whose ideals are incongruent. Further, some people may have only a vague, undetailed idea of their utopia. So, for them, applying utopianism might be like climbing a mountain whose top you cannot see. Subjectivity and relativity seem to render utopianism near impracticable to apply. We could attempt to judge which utopia is most worthy as a goal, but the standards by which we would make that judgment are also likely subjective. Further, if someone imposes their utopia on other citizens, it has the potential to disgruntle and frighten many of them; and a society full of disgruntled, scared people is surely (unless the planner has very unusual ideals) no longer a utopia. How can we best address these problems and maximise the value of utopianism?

Perhaps the subjectivity of ideals is problematic only when the utopias are thought of as detailed goals. Levitas (2000) argues that once we acknowledge that utopias are based on relative moral and ethical values that are influenced by one’s current situation, utopias have to shift from systematic, detailed representations to general, exploratory depictions. These act simply as a catalyst for change toward a general direction rather than a specific goal. Harré (2011) adds to this by suggesting that utopias catalyze change by inspiring creativity. She argues that positive emotions tend to elicit broader thinking about how to contribute to the betterment of society. She supports this claim by providing evidence that reading a description of an ‘Ecotopia’ (a utopia centered on ideals of ecology and sustainability) inspires more hope, intrigue and creativity than does reading a passage that employs scare tactics to motivate change. We may disagree over whether specific elements of a utopia are important or even possible. Nonetheless, as a general catalyst for change or as a means of inspiring creativity, publicly displaying and discussing utopias may be an important way to add value to the method of utopianism.

Another way to add value to the method of utopianism is by reinforcing Levitas’ (2000) idea that ideals are heavily influenced by one’s current situation. By using utopias as general depictions of a desirable direction, the details of which are intended only to inspire creativity and intrigue, progress might be catalyzed such that the resulting changes in circumstances (physical or emotional) bring about common changes in ideals. For example, the Australian green bans movement (a utopian project in the 1970s) consisted of a group of construction workers who boycotted projects that they deemed ecologically or socially harmful (Burgmann & Milner 2011). Note that this instance of utopianism is not painting a detailed picture of a utopia as a goal. Rather, the people involved agreed that they could make an improvement on their situation and headed in a general better direction. Perhaps most interesting, though, are the social impacts of this movement. The ever-mounting support eventually overturned the power relations at the time, and the environment has subsequently benefited from being open to influence from the public (Burgmann & Milner 2011). It seems that once the utopianism ball is rolling, people get mobile and vocal, and common ideals are realised. This is almost certainly valuable. The final point worth touching on here is concerned with the relationship between urban planning and political philosophy. Hippodamus of Miletus, considered as the father of urban planning and political philosophy, called for an integration of the two disciplines (Padden 2001). He emphasised that political relationships ought to be reflected in the layout of cities, and that the construction of an ideal political city involves applying utopian thinking to the integrated study of political philosophy and urban planning (Padden 2001). This has important implications for the value of utopianism as a method in planning, because it reminds us that our ideals form an interrelationship with the social and physical environment. ‘Bettering’ the urban environment of a city without giving thought to how it reflects and shapes the society and its citizens’ ideals is less valuable than making progress based on an integration of these considerations.

Conclusion

When utopianism is defined as the method through which an existing city is brought closer to an ideal city, it becomes clear that any plan for the future of a city constitutes utopianism. Even though utopianism is inevitable in planning, how it is applied faces problems associated with the relativity and subjectivity of ideals. Utopianism’s value in the planning process would benefit from treating utopias as general guidelines that catalyze change and inspire creativity, rather than rigid plans to be imposed on people. Further, we must keep in mind that the social environment, physical environment and people’s ideals form an interrelationship. They each reflect and are shaped by one another. Recognising this reveals utopianism as a dynamic process with an ever-changing target, the value of which is derived from openness to change, rather than the imposition of some supposedly perfect place.

References

Burgmann, V. & Milner, A. (2011). Ecotopians in hardhats: The Australian green bans movement. Utopian Studies, 22(1), 125-142.

Carey, J. (1999). Introduction. In J. Carey (Ed.), The F aber Book of Utopias (pp. xixxvi). London: Faber.

Harré, N. (2011). Psychology for a Better World: Strategies to Inspire Sustainability. Auckland, New Zealand: University of Auckland – Department of Psychology.

Levitas, R. (2000). For Utopia: The (limits of the) Utopian function in late capitalist society. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 3(2- 3), 25-43.

Orwell, G. (1949). 1984. London: Secker & Warburg.

Padden, R. (2001). The two professions of Hippodamus of Miletus. Philosophy & Geography, 4(1), 25-48.

Tod, I. & Wheeler, M. (1978). Harmony: Utopia in the New World. In I. Tod & M. Wheeler (Eds.), Utopia (pp. 81-98). London: Orbis.

Rates Strike at Mangawhai

Things are getting very interesting at Magical Mangawhai, where residents are currently under threat of an 85% rate rise from Kaipara District Council. Residents are being consulted about how they should pay an additional $2000/annum, on top of their existing rates, for the next ten years. (You can see my previous blogs about this here and here.)

The Minister is finally taking an interest. Have a look at this 30th May media release from Local Government Minister. He's announced a Review Team to "work with" Kaipara District Council as it completes its 10 Year Plan. I understand in fact that the Minister communicated with the Council earlier in the week to the effect, "if you don't ask for our assistance you might get what you don't want....". So Council wrote asking for assistance and its got a Review Team.

And just in case you thought Government was getting ready right now to bail out Kaipara District Council - think again. Here's the Q and A that went with the Minister's media release. Among these are:

"Is the Government stepping in with financial support for the Council?


No. The Government will only fund costs associated with the appointment of the review team. It is also important to remember that the Mangawhai scheme has already received a Crown subsidy of $5,896,107 (GST exclusive) through the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme administered by the Ministry of Health...."

Submissions to the KDC Team Year Plan had to be in by 30th May. Just last week. A day of hearings at Mangawhai is happening on Thursday this week 7th June. I hope to be in attendance - especially if the fishing is bad. I'm sure the Minister's Review Team will be in attendance. Councillors must be shitting themselves.

Deservedly. The Ten Year Plan needs to be adopted in a couple of weeks.

Word among the locals is that they want a rate strike. Signs are sprouting around the neighbourhood. Their anger is understandeable. Around three years ago Kaipara District Council voted in confidential to double the size of the wastewater scheme (doubling the land area that was serviced and could be developed, and doubling Council's infrastructure investment) - without consulting ratepayers.

An ultra vires decision. By definition.

Residents oppose paying for a loan that was taken out by their Council illegally. You'd think that Central Government had no option but to cover costs and liabilities of an illegal Council decision.

Economic Growth Projects Disasters for NZ Communities

The financial cost of the Christchurch earthquake has been huge and carefully valued, a disaster for many but an opportunity for economists and politicians alike who regard it as New Zealand’s best hope of achieving economic growth targets.

Last week the economics division at National Bank of New Zealand said, "four solid quarterly increases in economic activity have propelled Canterbury to the top of the year-on-year economic growth rankings", ahead of Auckland. The New Zealand Government’s recent budget relies heavily on economic activity in Christchurch to deliver GDP increases it believes are necessary to bring New Zealand’s economy into the black. As if all New Zealand needs is another disaster to keep on track.

Questions need to be asked about economic growth assumptions and about GDP – New Zealand’s commonly used measure of progress and success - because the same strategy is being applied by Councils in towns and cities with disastrous effects.

Kaipara District Council has achieved notoriety because of its proposal to almost double the rates of Mangawhai ratepayers to pay back the huge loan it raised to pay for a controversial sewage scheme.

Ratepayers were forced to abandon well maintained onsite wastewater systems which were generally working soundly, and then connect to the new wastewater network for a modest fee.

The original scheme raised a few eyebrows and might have succeeded. But, under pressure from developers and without consulting ratepayers further, the Council decided to double the land area serviced by the scheme, doubling the cost of the project. Now, because the predicted growth and development did not happen, the sewage scheme debt equates to an additional $20,000/residential ratepayer.

The Kaipara District Council 2009 - 2019 Long Term Council Community Plan gives some insights into how this happened: ‘The Kaipara District Council believes its key role in assisting the local economy to sustain and grow itself is to ensure the appropriate infrastructure is in place…’

While KDC’s investment in a sewage scheme might encourage growth in and around Mangawhai sometime in the future, it is questionable whether it is appropriate to levy the costs of that strategy now on existing ratepayers, by charging them an additional $2000/year - for the next ten years - on top of existing rates.

The investigative report now being condicted by the Office of the Auditor General will make interesting reading. Late last week, the Minister of Local Government- David Carter, announced it will appoint a Review Team to work with Kaipara District Council. This is very late in the day given Council must adopt its new plan and set the rates before the end of this month.

Still. Better late then never, though it will be too late to influence the potentially disastrous economic growth related decisions of Auckland Council.

Auckland Council’s Auckland Plan includes a diverse range of initiatives aimed at delivering a real GDP increase for Auckland of 5% /annum. This rate of growth is described in the Mayoral Forward to the Auckland Plan as “bold”. The services provided by the Council are said to: “support economic development of the region and contribute to the national economy”. The stated objective is to shift Auckland’s economic performance rating from 69th to 61st in OECD city rankings.

Last week Auckland Council media statements drew public attention to the fact that residential rates will increase by a gentle 3.6%, but quietly ignored its Ten Year Plan financial position statements which make for rather unhappy reading.

These show that council debt will balloon from $4.5 billion to $12.5 billion in ten years reaching almost $20,000/residential ratepayer. As bad as Mangawhai which is the worst in New Zealand. That debt will incur interest charges of more than $750 million each year – more than a quarter of the rates revenue for the Auckland region.

Auckland Council plans indicate that a number of big ticket projects would be funded from new loans. The City Centre Rail Loop project cost to ratepayers ranges from $1 billion to $3 billion over the next ten years, depending on whether the Government contributes its half of the cost, and how the project is staged. Auckland has needed this part of the rail network completed for decades. More than can be said about Watercare’s $800 million mega-sewage project that is to be bored under Auckland.

Even without these projects Auckland Council debt would still be $9 billion.

In its budget this year Central Government gave notice of its intention to reduce spending, though it is still borrowing heavily and government debt to GDP ratio is fast approaching 50%. Big ticket motorway projects apparently needed for growth are still provided for.

No such notice came from Auckland Council, despite signs that the growth much of its spending is for, is as illusory as it was in Mangawhai.

New Zealand’s population growth rate has dropped to the magic figure of 0.6% per annum due to emigration to Australia and other factors outside our control. Much of the population growth that Auckland is experiencing is due to internal migration. For example families are shifting to Auckland from Christchurch and other urban centres.

These shifts will cause Auckland’s economy to grow slowly, but they will cause other urban economies to shrink, leaving New Zealand’s overall economic position little changed.

Rather than chasing the tail of economic growth at all costs and incur enormous debt, the time has come to build economic resilience into New Zealand, to spend only what we earn, and to ensure urban living remains affordable for those who live here.

Dear Celia - Don't Supersize Wellington

Dear Celia,

Don't do it. Don't make the mistake we made in Auckland by amalgamating Wellington's City and District Councils and Regional Council. Here's a few reasons. Some you'll know. Some you might not....

1)  Auckland's amalgamation was primarily about enabling Central Government to exert more control over Auckland's development. This was achieved by building into legislation the requirement for Auckland's infrastructure program to give effect to Central Government's economic growth program. Any financial support from Central Government for local infrastructure projects in Auckland is now heavily conditional on those projects being seen by Central Government as delivering Government strategy. In other words amalgamation has seriously undermined the ability of local government to act according to any mandate it might receive locally. Auckland local government is now heavily bound into Central Government's idea of what constitutes economic development.

2)   The costs of amalgamation are still not finally quantified. These are massive and include almost a billion dollars worth of new computer systems - when the previous systems could have been made to do an adequate job. The costs to Auckland also include the loss of many experienced staff. Costs of new buildings and new administrative systems, costs due to reduced productivity that ensures from re-organisations are significant. The crude benefit costs assessments of amalgamation used to justify super city changes in Auckland must be taken with a grain of salt. Treat any such efforts in Wellington with doubt as being self-serving and partial.

3)   Super sizing local government delivers ungovernable mass. What we are seeing in Auckland is a massive loss of effective local governance. The scale of planning and budgets, and the associated complexity, has not been matched by a similar up-sizing of the ability of elected representatives to cope, and to make good, considered and representative decisions. This is not a criticism of councillors. It is a criticism of the loss of local power, and the concentration of central power. What has been upsized in the super city is the ability and power of Chief Executive and General Managers. These people have been carefully selected and appointed and effectively run the Auckland Council now, driven by super city legislation made by Central Government. This effect might have been counter-balanced by the establishment of genuinely powerful Local Boards - but these have been set up to be part of Auckland Council, rather than independent from, Auckland Council. The combination of legislation, amalgamation, and loss of separate local government has disempowered Auckland Councillors, and disconnected local communities from decision-making.

4)   Central to the Auckland amalgamation process was the establishment of separate "Council Controlled Organisations" which are not controlled by Council - apart from the hands-off statements of corporate intent and board appointments. The most unaccountable of these is Watercare whose lobbying forced the disintegration of integrated planning around three waters. Watercare only wanted services that could be metered - water and wastewater - not stormwater. They also wanted the ability to issue a separate water rates bill. Despite the rhetoric that "one council would lead to one bill...." I understand also that legislation is being further changed to allow all Transport Planning to be done by the Auckland Transport CCO - undermining the ability of Auckland Council to manage integrated planning of land use and transport.

5)   Amalgamation has broken many local community projects which are where innovation and new ideas have started and developed. For example projects around recycling and reduction of waste streams. Particularly composting and green waste reduction projects. Auckland had a number of communities where Councils and Community Boards had been able to support and encourage experiment which can and has led to regionwide adoption. Auckland council has embarked on a massive program to harmonise and make uniform all sorts of systems and services across Auckland. Killing and stifling local initiatives.

Don't do it Celia. There's more I could share....

Business Booms at Watercare

The large newspaper advertisements in NZ Herald today, and the stormwater story earlier in the week, are shots across the bow of unsuspecting Auckland public.

The newspaper advertisments described Watercare's new charges for water and wastewater, and for residential and business ratepayers. Of course it has always been deeply ironic that the "One Council, One Bill" rhetoric was never ever going to be true. The re-organisation was always intended to allow Watercare to be a law unto itself, with its own computer system of residential and business ratepayers, and with its own business model and charging system. It is now almost stand-alone.

Watercare has embraced Central Government's business growth model with both hands. Watercare is now well placed to be sold off as a going concern, taking a sizeable chunk of Auckland Council's debt with it, and the promise of some very large, well funded, centralised network infrastructure projects.

The devil here - is behind the detail in Watercare's media release.

There are a few things that need to be aired, that are hard to discern readily in the Council's Ten Year Plan, which is the shop window on what Watercare plans:

1) I support the fact that Watercare can now charge residential ratepayers for their wastewater services on a volumetric basis. This will provide an economic incentive for water consumers to manage their consumption of water.

2) But these changes do not apply to business customers. We see in Watercare's public statement that "existing arrangements will apply...". While these are to some extent volumetric, their main purpose is to allow businesses to tip contaminants and trade wastes into the sewer, where they mix with ordinary sewage, ensuring that the cocktail that finally arrives at Mangere is completely untreatable for re-use. So Watercare is perpetuating an outdated system, which provides little incentive for Auckland business to clean up its act at source, and generates a nice little earner for Watercare. The resulting biosolids are too contaminated to be reused as soil conditioner, and must be landfilled. Hence Watercare's desire to continue its business oriented dumping operation by landfilling the biolsolids at Puketutu. (I have walked on the existing biosolids landfills in Manukau Harbour. These are not happy places.)

3) The Council's Team Year Plan includes the debt level for the Auckland Council Group - ie Council, plus Council Controlled Organisations - including Watercare. The debt level that Council has voted for is close to $13 billion - almost 3x what it is now. It appears that around $3 to $4 billion of that debt is Watercare debt. Part of the increase in that debt will be the proposed $800 million "Central Interceptor" project - the huge pipe/storage system to be dug under Auckland, allowing business as usual activity to occur, and to allow for more of it.

Councillors should not be allowing Watercare to hide this burgeoning centralised network of water and wastewater infrastructure - on the basis that the bills for it reduce Council's own rates bill, and on the basis that "they can blame Watercare...not us".

Watercare's practice is increasingly unsustainable. It is already the biggest user of electricity in Auckland - because of its need for pumping of water and wastewater, and for the electricity intensive, centralised treatment plants that it operates.

The fact that Auckland Council has to deal with stormwater, now that Watercare successfully separated the meter-paid waters, further exacerbates this trend. I await with interest the debate over the stormwater disposal charges that Watercare will levy on the Council, when Council seeks to divert pesky stormwater flows into Watercare's Central Interceptor. Another nice little earner for Watercare.

Staging Rail Link = Sensible Strategy

(NB: I have previously referred to this as the city "loop" project and, understanding the misconceptions and following advice, prefer to stick to "link" in this posting.... Apologies...).

Few Auckland commuters will benefit from an "all or nothing" approach to the Central City Rail Link project....

Other large transport infrastructure projects have had to be delivered stage by stage in the Auckland Region. For example the Northern Busway project (later stages include links to West Auckland and to Silverdale), the State Highway Project (this has been in progress for forty years with latest stages being Waterview Connection and SH20), Rail electrification (later stages will include extensions to Southern and Western lines), the Harbour Bridge (Clip-ons and extended approach road access added over the years).

While it is always cheaper to build a large piece of infrastructure in one go, the fact is that budgets usually don't permit that. It is useful to note also that communities learn as infrastructure projects are incorporated into existing urban fabric. Stage by stage incorporation - incrementalism - has its benefits. Very few projects - when all the stages are built - look the same as their initial design plans.

Infrastructure is improved if feedback and experience can inform designs of later stages. In other words there are substantial benefits to be had if infrastructure can be built in a staged manner.

The whole Central City Link project - tunnels, lines, connections and stations - comes at a significant cost. Estimates vary around $3 billion for everything - including additional trains and some rail interchanges. Many other projects and capital requirements have been incorporated into Auckland Council's new Ten Year Plan. Holding rates down has pushed significant and increasing debt out to the future. (The Draft plan has almost doubled the Treasury Management debt limit from 175% of revenue, to 275% of revenue. This has enabled the Council to adopt a ten year plan which allows council to take out substantial loans, allowing debt to treble from the present level of $4.5 billion.)

This might be called intergenerational equity, but it could also be irresponsible. Council needs to cut the coat to suit the cloth. We should not be spending more than we are earning - as a city.

The Draft Long Term Plan 2012-2022 currently calls for a massive increase in Council debt - out to almost $13 billion - which will require interest payments of $800 million/annum - over 25% of Auckland Council's rates income. Thus a quarter of rates revenue will be to service bank loans.

Consider these points in debating the merits, or not, of staging the Central City Rail Link:

1)  The most important part of the project is the network capacity that will be gained through connecting Britomart through to the Railway in the vicinity of Mt Eden. This capacity increase will be significantly greater if the connection at Mt Eden is in both directions. Not just West Bound. This stage - call it stage 1 of the Central City Rail Link - is the tunnel. The existence of the tunnel alone will free up Britomart (currently an end of line constraint) and significantly increase the carrying capacity of the rail services through Auckland Central Activity District. This will lead to much higher frequencies and greater carrying capacity per hour. Even if there are no stations along the tunnel. This improvement alone will allow Auckland Transport to apply necessary improvements to other feeder parts of the network whose capacity constraints will become the new bottleneck to rail service increases.

2)  Once the tunnel is built and operating, the case for stations built at strategic points along that new corridor will be huge. Land owners and public alike will call for stations, and the argument for private contributions to the cost and amenity of those stations will be huge. This is the experience of station development along Hong Kong commuter rail systems. Build the tunnel infrastructure, and development will follow. That is the appropriate sequencing. The same thing happens when a State Highway is built. There are calls for interchanges and access to the new network. Auckland Council must build the network, and that will be the trigger for next stages of development. Of course future proof planning is required for the route of the tunnel, and future proofing can be built into the tunnel itself to enable/ease the subsequent construction of stations - so that normal service is maintained.

3)   The Manukau Rail spur stands as a bleak reminder of what happens when what is built is a politically motivated whole project. There it was all or nothing. And it was all built - and it is still nothing in regional terms because the fundamental need to build a network was not respected. I was part of the Auckland Study visit to Perth a few years back which was organised by Waitakere City Council as part of the due diligence for the New Lynn Station. We were exposed to the advice and wisdom of a bunch of planners and urban designers. A key take home piece of advice from integrated rail and land use planners was: "Don't build spur lines. Build continuous lines and loops." Continuity is the thing to aim for. Building Auckland's Central City Link alone delivers that enormous benefit. Stations can follow.

Council is right to pursue the City Rail Link project. Auckland has been calling for it for decades. Closing the loop will bring huge efficiencies to the rail network and further justify electrification investment. But it can reduce risk to build it in stages - the tunnel being the first stage - and may be just the step the Government needs to financially support the project.

Auckland Council Rubbishes Innovation

It would be great to see something truly local come out of Auckland Council when it comes to the management of waste.

There were some very positive initiatives underway across the Auckland Region before amalgamation. These were valued by many, and were the start in the long walk to reducing our individual footprints across our region.

 From outside council it's hard to see where the "one size fits all" pressure comes from that seems to force Councillors into making "Regional Decisions" rather than local ones.

 I live in Devonport. A Borough known for innovation: first Nuclear Free Borough; also was first to get Kerb-Side recycling underway in New Zealand (I think). That initiative was partly driven by the fact Devonport had its own tip. Also used by Navy. Back then residents could not "chuck it and forget it". They could see the face of the tip. They could see the impact of their wasteful ways. And it was relatively easy for the Borough Council to roll out a significant "reduce, reuse, recycle" program.

 When I moved here, household rubbish was collected in small biodegradeable paper sacks. This then shifted to medium sized biodegradeable plastic sacks. The message was you paid for what you dumped, but recycling was free. (I know - you paid for it in your rates - but the economic incentive was there.) While I was on North Shore City Council a whole suburb (Bayswater) trialled a kitchen putrescible collection scheme. The object being to reduce to as close to zero as we could the disposal of organic matter into landfill. This was one of several experiments and innovations.

 It is disappointing to see Auckland Council going ahead with what appears to be a one size (bin etc) fits all. This approach may appeal to contractors who can have one size of truck. But taking the long view does require local initiatives and projects to occur - and to build on local initiatives that are already successful and have local buy-in. Otherwise all you are doing is encouraging residents to chuck it and forget it. The environment is big enough to absorb all your rubbish.

Innovation is essential if communities are to play a useful part in cleaning up their acts, and enabling them to participate in local projects which help reduce urban environmental impacts.

Women Who Want to Bike in Auckland

A university colleague is conducting research about cycling in Auckland. Specifically she is investigating the obstacles that women who want to cycle in Auckland experience. Thank you to those readers who visited her web-based survey and completed it. She has asked me to close the link now (June 18 2012) as the survey period is over.