Government
plans to take out loans to fund its flagship "Roads of National
Importance" projects because of declining revenues from fuel taxes and
other tax revenues.
But is
building more roads - and even taking out loans in desperation - the best
infrastructure answer to questions now in front of NZ's economic planners?
For
example, new figures indicate a worrying increase in New Zealanders relocating
to Australia. What needs to be done about that? Are kiwis less likely to live
and work in Australia if New Zealand builds more roads?
There are
increasing concerns about the fact that residential property prices are still
going up. Some say it's because property is the only reliable investment in New Zealand. It’s become a heated market that the Government is anxious to
dampen.
However, an
immediate effect of new roading projects in New Zealand is a proliferation of
subdivisions and property development projects located a significant distance
from existing urban environments. The lack of amenity associated with any
resulting new housing means they don’t meet the needs of those looking for
affordable housing near employment opportunities.
We have a
government which is keen to deal with the issue of affordable housing on the
one hand – but going ahead with infrastructure investment which is simply
fanning the flames of expensive land speculation far from urban centres.
If government
instead invested in urban infrastructure, rather than state highway
infrastructure, it would trigger more commercial building development, an
increase in skilled employment opportunities, the creation of urban
environments attractive to skilled kiwis and international visitors, and make
medium density housing desireable.
Auckland’s
Wynyard Quarter, is an example of urban infrastructure investment. Public money
came from Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council, and land came from Ports of Auckland Ltd.
Public investment is in the streets and pavements, the gardens, public artwork,
playgrounds and the like. Additional investment went into heritage buildings.
It is all infrastructure. (Shifting the land from port purposes to public purposes is an infrastructure decision - much the same as taking land under Public Works Act for roading.)
Public investment is in the streets and pavements, the gardens, public artwork, playgrounds and the like. Additional investment went into heritage buildings. It is all infrastructure.
The
benefits are exceptional: for a start there is a massive commercial real estate
boom going on. The most obvious private sector development is the ASB bank HQ.
That's the tip of the real estate economic iceberg. The anchor tenant is the
urban infrastructure investment and the public space quality.
There's a
lot else happening which has economic value. I challenge you to go down and sit
at a table outside the old netshed on North Wharf about 5pm on a balmy sunny
afternoon, Saturday, Sunday, Friday - whenever - and watch the promenading
that's happening here in Auckland. You could be on the Mediterranean. Kiwis
have style and they like to show it, given an opportunity. Photos of this
phenomenon are getting around the world. People want to visit. Business wants
to invest. (Some argue this is only about Jafas having lattes and poncing about on the waterfront - but this is limited thinking and shows scant regard for what makes great places - people are attracted to people.)
New Zealand
needs to be investing in the infrastructure of its cities and its urban centers
far more than new roads. Singapore, Shanghai and Sydney are great examples on
our doorstep. Municipal money was required for the urban infrastructure which
encouraged private investment and the creation of great places to work, live
and play. These cities would never have developed as they have if economic
planners could only rely on Council rates to fund necessary infrastructure. (And by the way - I am not only talking about Auckland here. Auckland is my example, but I am aware how Wellington's waterfront was changed by Government investment in Te Papa. That is urban infrastructure funded by Government. Other New Zealand Zealand cities can be similarly transformed by appropriate urban infrastructure investment which is difficult for Councils to afford and justify - especially as Government is keen to reduce the scope of Council activities to the bare minimum of local roads, rats and rubbish.)
Business
has been calling for a convention centre in Auckland for a decade or more.
However, in my experience it is not the lack of a convention centre that makes
Auckland relatively unattractive for business conferences - it is because
Auckland has not been a great place to visit. But with Wynyard Quarter that is
beginning to change.
Many have
mistakenly argued that a centrally located cruise ship terminal is an essential
trigger for economic revival. It is assumed that because Shanghai, Singapore
and Sydney all have significant cruise ship terminals, then Auckland needs one
too to ensure economic success. But this is cargo-cult thinking. Success does
not come from cruise ships. Cruise ships come to successful and interesting
places, and they stay for long visits because passengers find so much to do and
so many great places to visit. (I am not arguing against having a cruise ship terminal in Auckland. However that sort of infrastructure investment needs to be put in perspective against other options for public investment and options that generate the best big picture outcomes from scarce waterfront real-estate.)
Success does not come from cruise ships. Cruise ships come to successful and interesting places, and they stay for long visits because passengers find so much to do and so many great places to visit.
If
Government wants to stimulate private sector investment in New Zealand, and
bring business into our existing urban centres, and attract high value business
into urban centres, and make New Zealand cities as attractive and brimming with
creative high value employment and visitor opportunities as Australian cities -
then it needs to find ways of investing in those cities (learn from
Welllington's waterfront and Wynyard Quarter), and do more of that, and stop
throwing money at roads that pale into economic insignificance in today’s urban
world.
3 comments:
Good news Joel, they are planning on intensification round shopping nodes now as we speak. 3 story high sausage blocks including planning them for steep hills such as Glenfield where hardly anyone walks up the hills to the shops on the ridge. This will create no parking for residents and parked cars everywhere on the streets and clogging the roads because no one wants to walk up hills. Ho hum. Hopefully I will be out of here before the bugger up Glenfield. Hopefully uptake will be slow by the developers because of the economy.
forgot to say they won't be doing it in the Heritage areas. Where only rich buggers will be able to live on their valuable quarter acres.
Vivienne, I think you'd actually be hard pressed to find many quarter-acre sections left in the heritage suburbs - certainly not in Ponsonby, Freemans Bay or Grey Lynn - in fact these suburbs are some of the most intensely developed in Auckland. And a fair bit of their value in fact stems from their density - the ability to walk to the shops, having social interaction, actual urban spaces, good public transport - these places are valuable for their lifestyle, not just because they're old and quaint.
What anti-urbanists don't understand is that well-designed density can actually add value. It need not mean soviet tower blocks or "sausage blocks". God forbid people might actually value an area to want the choice to be able to live in it - or should or the poor people be consigned to transport poverty at the urban fringe?
Oh and before I'm written off as an urban snob, I actually live in Glenfield.
Post a Comment