Government Policy Keeps Auckland Poor

Auckland communities will be poorer and less resilient in future if they allow Central Government’s narrow focus on the GDP growth benefits of road construction to frustrate the popular planning consensus that has steadily taken shape under Local Government leadership here over the past fifteen years.

Transport Minister Gerry Brownlee’s blunt dismissal of Auckland Council investigations into road tolling, fuel tax and parking levy options to fund public transport infrastructure is the latest central government intervention as Auckland struggles to develop local solutions to its growth problems. Brownlee criticises Auckland Council for even thinking about tolling “my roads” to fund “your projects”.

Auckland is suffering from a discrepancy between the priorities of central and local government. Buoyed by a resurgence in the popularity of alternative modes of transport, a balanced approach to growth and development of urban form is being advocated by Auckland Council Whereas central government continues to invest heavily in highways while paying little more than lip service to alternative forms of transport, and advocates relaxing the metropolitan urban limit (MUL) instead of increasing density within the existing urban area.

It hasn’t always been this way.

Much of Wellington’s suburban railway infrastructure was funded by a central government imposed “Betterment Tax” on new development. Until the National Roads Act in 1953, a proportion of the uplift in value of private land in newly developed areas formed the revenue for rail infrastructure and state housing. Similar practices are common in other western countries today, but not New Zealand, where speculative land development is encouraged and where the true costs of infrastructure and subsequent living costs are born by communities.

Auckland’s suburban rail development plans came too late to benefit from land development tax funding. They were replaced by state highway plans funded by car registration and fuel taxes leading to unprecedented suburban development. While communities and families have been able to realize the Auckland version of the American Dream, it has come at a cost and with a set of risks that are no longer hidden.

Quite apart from the loss of horticultural land and the cost of infrastructure (roading, electricity, water, stormwater wastewater), travel options for those unable to drive themselves (including school aged children, and the elderly) have declined in quality and amenity, and the costs of private transport are higher for those in distant suburbs as fuel costs increase and because distances and travel times to work, shop and school increase.

The risks of unemployment and more expensive fuels strongly indicate a need for resilience. That requires a range of transport options and urban form that is less demanding of travel, enabling people and communities to spend less on essential travel freeing investment for more productive economic activities.

These costs and risks are no longer hidden from Auckland communities who, with increasing voice since the late 1990’s, have accepted and voted for the need for regional change. In 1998 all of Auckland’s Councils adopted the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy which put in place the Metropolitan Urban Limit restricting sprawl. In 2002 Auckland Councils led the development of new legislation enabling the collection of development levies to pay for new infrastructure. And in 2005 all eight Auckland Councils adopted a Regional Land Transport Strategy which advocated shifting $1 billion funding from state highways to public transport.

At the time, the Labour Government’s Minister of Finance Dr Cullen was noisily and strenuously opposed to investment in rail. But after Auckland Councils took the next step and called for a 5 cents/litre regional fuel tax to fund public transport operating costs – receiving strong public support – Central Government accepted the regional consensus and explored ways to strengthen Auckland local government. This eventually led to amalgamation and the Super City.

It should have come as no surprise to the Key Government that Auckland would vote for a Council largely committed to continuing the momentum in favour of efficient urban form and further investment in public transport options.

However the new Government lost no time in imposing its plan for Auckland, dismissing the regional fuel tax, and rolling out a program of roads of national importance to rival state highway plans not seen since the 1960’s. These are to be funded by fuel taxes exclusively collected by Central Government.

Communities will continue to be forced to own and run cars to meet their travel needs. They will congest Auckland roads, and Auckland Council will be required to provide alternatives on a skimpy budget, without recourse to fuel taxes and road tolls.

The Government’s emphasis on GDP as the sole measure of economic success is also a throwback to the 1960’s. Alongside new motorway infrastructure plans, this year’s budget highlighted the rebuild of Christchurch as central to national GDP growth – as if another earthquake in Wellington or a volcano in Auckland is the solution to economic woes. As if another motorway is the solution.

Auckland’s urban form and reliance on private car travel is keeping us poor. Not all, but many. Property speculation and motorway construction certainly enrich some, but New Zealand’s steady decline to the bottom of the OECD in wealth inequality, which is at least partly driven by escalating costs of private travel, needs to become a bigger driver of Government transport investment decisions.

Watching Watercare (1)

It isn't just state assets that are being readied for sale. The more I hear, the more I am concerned that local assets - especially neatly separated Council Controlled Organisations - are also being readied for some sort of sale, generating capital flows that can be used to fund other local activities. Like public transport for example....

My concerns with what has happened, and what is continuing to happen in Auckland, following Council amalgamation and the establishment of Watercare as a very stand-alone business, continue to disturb me. My major strategic planning concern is the splitting of Three Water management - Watercare only concerns itself with water and wastewater services - Auckland Council handles stormwater. More on this below.

Right now, Watercare's first monthly bills are going out, and residential ratepayers are scratching their heads, writing cheques, or wondering what it all means. I am aware that many landlords who previously passed water bills on to tenants, are wondering what to do with the new bills - pass them on effectively increasing rent charges, or somehow split them? An interesting conundrum. Passes wastewater costs from landlord to tenant.

I generally agree with the principle of charging by volume for wastewater, so that users become more aware of the true costs of water and wastewater. This allows Watercare to recover its operating costs.

I've only recently caught up with Watercare's newly adopted Infrastructure Growth Charges. You can read about these here and here. You can see that the connection fee for new development anywhere in much of metropolitan Auckland is $7935/housing unit (for water and wastewater connection). Interestingly, it's $27,830/housing unit for wastewater only at Kawakawa Bay. I did the resource consent hearing for that facility - which is a vacuum system.

I support the true costs of infrastructure being paid for by those who use existing capacity built to serve the needs of new development. But a couple of questions immediately present themselves:

1) Is it reasonable, fair, or appropriate to have the same connection charge across the whole of Auckland? I am aware - for example - that varying connection charges can be used to stimulate or encourage growth in inner city parts of the region - where the marginal costs to meet the needs of new demand are much smaller than at the edges of the region. This relates to affordability.
2) Given the high investment of North Shore residents for at least a decade on improving its sewer networks, reticulation, wastewater plant, and outfall - ie that many growth related costs have already been paid for - what provision is being made to ensure that growth levies collected from North Shore are invested on the North Shore? This may seem parochial - and it probably is - but regional differences are important, and need to be taken into consideration.
3) What will the development levies be for stormwater, transport and other items of infrastructure - hard as well as soft - that Council funds through rates?

Moving on, this graphic is from Watercare's latest water demand management strategy document. You can see it here. There is much of value in this document, and it is pleasing to see that Watercare is finally engaging with Demand Management - and the associated economic benefits. This graphic reports Watercare's assessment of the relative costs/cubic metre of new bulk water supply options.

It is interesting to contrast it with a similar piece of work carried out in Australia for the Dept of Prime Minister and Cabinet. What is interesting - and appropriate I believe - is the explicit inclusion in the Australian analysis of new supply options is what can be expected from demand management, and also from stormwater reuse - which is quite apart from high capacity rainwater tanks. These options are not present in Watercare's analysis - reflecting a worryingly traditional approach, and one where stormwater is out of the water supply picture.

Auckland is moving into a critical phase of implementation of super city reforms. It is important these changes are transparent, well understood, and that their effects on development are what is intended. Unintended consequences are not needed in Auckland right now.

Essay: The Meaning of Economic Growth 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: Use appropriate references to explain what is meant by economic growth and how and why economic growth has changed in the past two centuries. Explain the use of “GDP” as a measure of economic activity and discuss its usefulness. The essay explores the topic and also considers economic development in China. It is by Yin (Nikki) Hui, who has kindly given permission for it to be published here.

Economic growth is defined as an increase in the number of goods and services produced in an economy in a given time period, usually a year (Sabillion, 2007). For the majority of human history, economic growth has been so slow as to be non-existent. However, from approximately 1750, there was a “Great Divergence” which resulted in an exponential amount of growth in Great Britain, allowing the citizens of Western Europe to obtain previously unprecedented levels of wealth. Economists have largely debated over the causes of this growth and why Great Britain was the first to industrialize. (“The road to riches”, 1999). The first part of this essay will argue why the key reasons behind this growth was due to changes in political and economic institutions (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012). The second part of this essay will discuss the usefulness of using GDP (Gross Domestic Product), as a measure of economic growth and the limitations of this measure, as well as ways in which it can be strengthened.

During the 19th and 20th century, economic growth resulted in a tenfold increase in average world income (Maddison, 2003). Some economists argue that an advance in science and technology was the reason behind this growth. Technology and knowledge tend to concur, as technology is driven by scientific knowledge. The discovery of atmospheric pressure gave rise to James Watt’s steam engine in 1744, which was the driving force behind the British industrial revolution (“The Road to Riches”,1999). However, technology does not necessarily lead to economic growth when we look to China as an example. At the start of the 15th century, China’s supremacy in science and technology was astounding, and it was on the verge of industrializing. The Chinese had already invented the compass, gunpowder and the wheelbarrow well before these ideas had had even reached the West. However, in 1400 technological process halted and by 1600, China had fallen behind Europe. If technology were the driving force behind economic growth, China would have been the first country to industrialize; yet this was not the case (Ringmar, 2007).

What fundamentally lead to Britain’s modernization was not technology, but the particular institutions that were present within British society. Institutions are defined as “formal rules, informal norms and their enforcement characteristics” (Ringmar, 2007). No two societies will have the same institutions as societies are subject to economic and political conflict that is resolved in different ways. These differences are often unnoticeable at first, but they accumulate, creating a process of institutional drift. European growth has accelerated phenomenally in the past two centuries because of two critical junctures in history. At the turn of the 14th century, Europe had a feudal order. The king owned all land and granted control of the land to the lords. Peasants or “serfs” had to perform unpaid labor on the land and were subject to taxes and fines. Then in 1348, the Black Death shook up the foundations of the feudal order. The plague resulted in a shortage of labor, and workers demanded more freedoms and higher wages. The Peasants’ Revolt broke out in 1381, and as a result, feudal services diminished and an inclusive labor markets began to rise. The second critical juncture occurred in 1600, with the expansion of world trade in the Atlantic Ocean. In Britain, Elizabeth 1 and her successors were unable to monopolize trade with the Americas. This created a group of wealthy traders who opposed absolutism and demanded changes to the institutional structures of Britain (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012).

While economic institutions are important in determining the prosperity of a nation, it is political institutions that determine what economic institutions a nation has. The previous critical junctures gave power to the citizens who formed a coalition which was able restrict the power of the monarchy and executive, forcing them to listen to the demands of the coalition. The shift in power from the elites to the general masses sparked the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The Glorious Revolution diminished the power of the monarchy and enabled Parliament to determine the economic institutions which would foster investment, trade and innovation. These included patents, which granted property rights for ideas, the application of English law to all citizens, the ceasing of arbitrary taxation and the abolition of monopolies. Furthermore, the state promoted merchant activities and rationalized property rights to facilitate the construction of the infrastructure that would be key to economic growth. Property rights in particular are important, as they create an incentive for entrepreneurs to invest in order to increase productivity. These institutional changes underpinned the Industrial Revolution of 1750-1850 (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012).

As a result of inclusive economic institutions, inventors such as James Watt, who perfected the steam engine in 1774, were able to become innovative because they were confident their property rights would be respected and they had access to markets where their innovations could be profitably sold. When institutionalized, technology can lead to increased productivity and growth (Sabillion, 2007). This growth greatly benefited the working class, whose living standards rose sharply from 1820 and onwards. Industrialization then spread to the United States, which became first nation to adopt the new technologies coming from Britain. The War of Independence and enactment of the U.S Constitution Act displays similar characteristics to the long struggle in England of parliament against the monarchy. The French Revolution was another critical juncture that meant the institutions of Western Europe started to converge with those of Britain, and conversely, these nations were able to industrialize (Ringmar, 2007).

Looking to the other side of the world, China had experienced great things in the past but had grown conservative over the years. China was a feudal society that was ruled by a despotic emperor and bureaucratic elite. In the 15th century, these rulers stopped long-sea voyagers, blocking trade and commerce, which meant growth stagnated (Sabillion, 2007). However, China is also one of the examples of how changes to the institutional structures of a country can send it on a different path of economic growth. During 19th and 20th century the economy was in a process of decline under the rule of the Communist Party and Mao Zedong. Consequently, the political and economic institutions created were highly extractive in nature. In the 1950s, Mao promoted the Great Leap Forward and in the 1960s he propagated the Cultural Revolution. These initiatives led to the mass persecution of intellectuals and educated people and the death of millions. However, when Mao died in 1976, Deng Xiaoping came into power and implemented several economic reforms. Economic incentives were given to farmers, foreign investment was encouraged, and state owned enterprises underwent privatization. Despite the economy stagnating changes to economic institutions meant there were reductions in poverty and income inequality from the 1970s onwards and China experienced a phenomenal growth rate of 9.5% a year (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012).

Since historical times, growth has been commonly measured using GDP, which is the annual market value of final goods and services produced in a nation after accounting for changes in inflation. GDP is a measure of market activity, yet it is commonly used as an indicator of quality of life. However, GDP has many limitations which make is less useful as a measure of economic performance. The global economic crisis took many by surprise because of the high performance of the world economy between 2004 and 2007. During this period, temporary profits in the financial industry, increasing debt levels, and the real estate bubble painted a false picture of true economic conditions. This highlighted the fact our current system of measurement is failing us, and steps should be taken to improve GDP as a measure of economic performance and social progress (Stiglitz et al, 2010). One of the limitations of GDP is that it does not give any indication of income distribution. Although GDP may be increasing, this wealth may be only going to a select few in the economy, which decreases equity. Moreover, GDP includes expenditures that do not increase standards of living. For example, traffic congestion may increase GDP as a result of the increased fuel consumption, but this depletes air quality and time is wasted while travelling. Costs related to natural disasters and the cleaning up of pollution are also accounted for as positives in GDP (Anew NZ, 2006).

Furthermore, non-market activity is not accounted for in GDP. Many services people have received from family members in the past for free are now purchased on the market. This may translate to a rise in income and standards of living, although this is not the case. Non-monetary services contribute an important role to economic activity, yet they are not reflected when calculating GDP (Anew NZ, 2006).

More importantly, one of the most fundamental limitations of GDP is that it fails to take into account the effect economic expansion has on the environment, which has issues concerning sustainability. We live within a finite biosphere, and when growth encroaches too much on surrounding ecosystems, we will begin to sacrifice natural capital such as fish, minerals, and fossil fuels, which have more economic value than man-made goods. If we continue to deplete these resources they will no longer be available for future generations to benefit from. We are facing a looming environment crisis, especially over concerns of global warming, yet carbon emissions are not reflected in GDP. Clearly, if the environmental costs of production and consumption were reflected, measures of economic performance would look vastly different (“Economics in a Full World”, 2005).

Despite it’s limitations, GDP is hard to replace because it provides one summarized figure, which is comparable between nations. In a single number you get an idea of whether the economy is expanding or contracting, and this can be comparable over time. However, since GDP is used as a measure of people’s well being there needs to be more incorporation of quality of life factors that go beyond measuring output. These factors include health, education, political voice, social interaction and the environment (Stiglitz et al, 2010). The General Progress Indicator (GPI) is an example of an alternative measurement to GDP. It measures well being by taking into account of economic, social and environmental factors. In the GPI, the costs of pollution, the loss of natural resources, and ozone depletion are all submitted as negative (Anew NZ, 2006).

Furthermore, in order to make GDP a more useful measure of economic health and well being, focus should be taken away from production into income and consumption, as material living standards are more closely associated with these measures. In addition to this, the indicator should also reflect distribution of income. Particularly, measuring government provided services, such as education, should be improved as these contribute a vital role to economic activity and benefit society greatly. Lastly, GDP could be improved through broadening income measures to non-market activities, by showing how people spend their time over years and across countries to give a better reflection of change (Stiglitz et al, 2010).

In conclusion, economic growth is usually characterized by a rise in the living standards of people. The economic growth that occurred during the 18th and 19th century that started in Britain, and then spread to other parts of the world was a result of changes to political and economic institutions. These changes influenced the way society was governed, and thus how individuals behaved. These actions either allowed for economic growth, or stunted it. GDP is the most commonly used method to measure growth. However, GDP has many limitations, which restricts its usefulness. If GDP is used as a measure of wellbeing,

it needs to be improved or alternative measures need to be sought, as human well being incorporates various factors that are separate from material wealth. The human population is now better paid, educated and fed than his forefathers could have ever imagined. Yet this growth has been largely unsustainable, which raises the question of whether we can continue to see improvements in human standards of living in the future.

Bibliography

Acemoglu, D & Robinson, J. (2012). Why Nations Fail. London: Profile Books Limited.

Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. (2005). The American Economic Review. Vol. 95 (3), pp. 546-579.

Anew NZ Progress Indicator Action Group. (2006). Measuring Real Wealth in New Zealand. Auckland.

Daly, H.E. (2005). Economics in a Full World. Scientific American, September, 100- 107.

Maddison, A. (2003). The World Economy: Historical Statistics. Paris: Development Centre, OECD. pp 256-62, Table 8a and 8c.

Ringmar, E. (2007). Why Europe was First. UK and USA: Anthem Press.

Sabillion, C. (2007). On the causes of economic growth: the lessons of history. New York: Algora Publishing.

Stiligitz, E.J., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.P. (2010). Mismeasuring our lives. United States of America: The New Press.

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

Essay: Beijing - Ancient to Modern Metropolis

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 culture on the way urban settlement develops. Choose a city and describe how specific cultural ideas shape settlement patterns within the urban environment. The essay is about Beijing and is by Jianin Wu, who has kindly given permission for it to be published here.

Beijing’s Urban Development: From the Ancient Capital to the Modern Metropolis The influence of culture on the way urban settlement develops

Introduction

From paleolithic nomadism to nowadays metropolises, urban settlement development is a complex and dynamic process which shaped by many factors. Among all, cultural influence stands out its self and shows that it is the social-cultural values of past historical experience, rather than our technological achievements, that will guide us in solving contemporary problems and establishing the ethics of future urban design (Golany, 1995). Unlike other ancient civilizations, such as Greek and Romans, the Chinese never had a break in its continuity based on its comprehensive traditional culture. Thus, the cultural influence on Chinese urban settlement development would offer an excellent cultivation mode of such an understanding. Beijing, the Capital city for 800 years under five dynasties and now the most dynamic modern metropolis would guide us explore the uniqueness of Chinese culture and its influence on urban settlement development.

The Ancient Capital

Beijing is such a famous historic and cultural city that has 3,000 years of history as a city, and was for 800 years the capital under the Liao, Jin, Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasties, which is the most representative model of how traditional culture shape the urban development patterns .

Through Chinese history, its urban design principle is mainly based on harmonizing the relationship among humankind, heaven and earth, which is the triumvirate of elements related to the philosophies of Confucianism and Daoism that both arose in 16th century BC. The one was concerned principally with social behavior; the other, with the relationship between humanity and natural world. As Wallach(2005) summarized that Confucian, father of Confucianism ,advocated good behavior that was not only outwardly correct but inwardly true to one’s nature and emphasized on order and hierarchy in both social and political aspects. Unlike Confucianism, Golany pointed out that Daoism was a philosophy of non-interference which deeply appreciates and emphasizes nature and cosmos. Lao-zi offered the idea of Dao which is characterized by Wu-Wei (Literally “no action”) and called for no unnatural action or interference with a given situation, advocated freedom of thought, individuality and naturalness. As a result, Chinese houses tend to be followed the dictates of Confucius which is symmetrical and strictly ordered with straight lines, while Chinese gardens were more Daoist-asymmetrical, providing at least the illusion of wildness, and with curving lines.

Looking at the Beijing during Yuan dynasty which was named Da Du constructed adhered to the rules from ‘ The Artificers’ Record’ in ‘ The Ritual of Zhou’ ( Zhou Li-Kao Gong Ji) , a guideline for city building dating to Zhou Dynasty and a classic work of Confucianism. Referred to Golany ‘s research (2001) the ideal city described in ‘The Ritual of Zhou’ contained nine equal units, which consisted of nine latitudinal and nine meridianal avenues measuring 9 Li ( 1Li=0.5 kilometer) on each side.

Kublai Khan, the Mongolian emperor successfully put up Beijing as the grandest and the most faithful manifestation of ‘The Artificers’ Record’. Moreover, as Wang noted (2011): “builders of Dadu were bold enough to divert water of a natural lake- the lake of Shichahai as it is known today-into the city through a man-made channel that crossed with the city’s axis, thus completing the master plan on the basis of which old Beijing was developed.” While following the teachings of Confucianism the city of Dadu featured an architectural style and also showed understanding of basic teaching of Daoism: “Man is subordinated to Earth, Earth to Heaven, Heaven to Dao (the Great way) and Dao to Nature”, which again emphasized on harmony and matched the principle one of Earth Charter today, “respect and care for the community and life”, presenting a strong model of sustainable development back then (Joel, 2012).

The Forbidden City was constructed in Yuan, and then rebuilt by the Ming (1368-1644) at the nearby location. Cosmological principles strengthened the grid layout and high walls segregated the Forbidden City from the remainder of the Imperial City, with residential quarter spread across fifty wards around the Palace. There was also an outer city to the south for the Beijing populace. The form of the city, defined by its main north-south axis and the line of its city walls, has sustained since then (Gu and Cook, 2011).

Not only the traditional culture but also western influence has shaped Beijing’s urban development. In 19th century, western influence increased, following the Opium Wars and the ‘Boxer’ rebellion of 1900. Under the influence of the Constitutional Movement and then of the revolutionary sentiments which fulfilled in the birth of the Republic of China under Sun Yat-sen in 1911, thoughts and ideas of a substantial change in China’s political and social atmospheres began to take shape. The remnants of the Western architectural influences can still be seen in the churches, cathedrals which were built at the time of modern town and country planning ideas introduced to China. Pressures for change were great during this period as the decaying Qing dynasty finally fall from power and, in the early years of the new Republic, the ancient traditional culture was fluctuated by further reform movement –the New Culture Movement of 1917 and the Fourth of May Movement of 1919 which both aim to shape the country in a distinctive way of combining Chinese and Western culture .However, when the People’s Liberation Army entered the ancient capital in 1949, Beijing engaged in a radically different path as a socialist Chinese capital.

Beijing’s urban transformation in last 50 years

After the founding of People Republic of China, there was heated debate over the early plans for the new capital of the People’s Republic. Mainly two different opinions emerged, on economic and aesthetic aspects, some experts who were mainly from Soviet advocated an administrative center based on the Old City while the alternative view emphasized the protection of the Old City and the establishment of and administrative center covering a larger area, which was supported by Liang Sicheng who called for cultural and historical heritage protection (Gu and Cook, 2011). However, construction began in Beijing’s central area while these debated were under way, following the Russian proposals that a master plan developed in 1953 drew significantly on the Moscow Plan of 1935, made under Stalin.

Because of the same political ideology, Mao Zedong tended to follow the Russian’s step resulting in the basic principle for the planning of Beijing was heavily influenced by former Soviet Union. Under Mao Zedong, Beijing was massively transformed in both form and function became a production city with a focus on heavy industries. Following the outbreak of the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), Beijing entered a period of planning anarchy. But the situation began to change in the early 1970s when China-US relations improved and China joined the United Nations as a permanent member state. After the death of Mao in 1976, Deng Xiaoping took the leadership and opened up a whole new world, initiating a long process of economic and social transformation by submitting ‘Four Modernizations’ and ‘Open Door’ policy. In the light of reform and opening up, the Chinese people were moving forward and changing planning regulation to adapt the new form of development and facilitate the foreign investment. Referred to a research carried out by Gu and Cook（2011）, in the mid-1990s, the amount of construction per year increased to between 11 and 12 million square meters, rising later to 20 million square meters and to 30 million square meters per year after 2000. However, not only the temporal spirit but also traditional culture value affects now days rapid economic development. As Wallach (2005) noted that the rapid economic development of China today is often attributed to Confucian values, including the acceptance of one’s position within a hierarchy and a determination to work incredibly hard out of sense of responsibility, both to one’s superiors and inferiors.

The Modern metropolis

Beijing’s success of winning the Olympic bid in 2001 to host the 2008 Olympic Games built up the confidence of Beijing as a major player capable of hosting high-quality, world-class events on the global scale. Beijing treasured this event as a great opportunity to raise the level of openness in all aspects and present to the world a brand new image of the nation after reform and opening-up, which had a big influence on urban settlement as it appears today.

To achieve the promise of being a renowned, historical, cultural city, a comprehensive plan of new development was drawn which its strategic conception has included the widely known “New Beijing, Great Olympics” which based on green, science and technology ’,‘ humanism’ principle. The Olympic Green’ was designed as an extension of the old traditional north-south central axis, with extensive planting and water flowing through the whole area create a balance and harmony which corresponded the traditional Chinese philosophies in additional to temporal growth needs.

Following the first decade of the twenty-first century, there is an increase in the scale of new developments in Beijing. What is emerging in Beijing today is a distinctive landscape as the Chinese state has invited these international architects to create the landmarks of an ‘ open, modern, international city’ which include the new headquarters for China Central Television (CCTV) by Re Koolhaas and the National Grand Theatre by Paul Andreu. As Gu and Cook noted (2011) this landscape provides a spectacle intended to showcase Beijing and China in the global media. These buildings are symbols of the real socio-economic and political transformations underway as China has shifted from Beijing a closed state administrative center to becoming a heart city in the Asian region.

Challenges and issues

The urban transformation of Beijing in the last decades is significant. However, planning processes at such incredible pace have not always been successful. The drive of building the city at such a rapid rate and huge scale can lead to social and cultural problems.

Social polarization is considered as a key feature of Beijing’s current situation that there is an increasing contrast in income between different groups within the population. Lower income groups are mainly rural migrants from different regions that have flooded into including Beijing with the implementation of market economy. However ,known as floating population they are ‘in’ the city but not ‘of’ the city since they generally without ‘Hukou’ registration which is a system entitled officially sanctioned residents to gain access to housing, health, food rations and other benefits. Floating population employed jobs are often low paid, low skilled as working in construction industry or as stallholders selling a range of clothing and foods .There is also a regional culture issue that migrants are likely to live in crowded conditions with people from their own town or province within urban villages in Beijing, which face a regular threat of eviction and demolition if their dwelling place is required for new urban development (Gu and Cook, 2011).

Talking about demolition, statistics based on investigation carried out by Wang（2011） show that back in 1949, Beijing had more than 7,000 hutongs which are narrow lanes and alleys seen by many as a most salient cultural feature of this ancient capital. By the 1980s only about 3,900 had survived. As “transformation” of old Beijing accelerates, some 600 have disappeared annually in the most recent years. ‘Chai’ the Chinese character of demolition has become the most common word appeared on the walls flanking hutongs. More recently, Nanluoguxiang Street which is one of the most ancient hutong of Bejing is in danger of demolition because of an ongoing construction for a subway stop, showing the conflict between modern urban development and preservation of cultural heritage. Lots of citizens’ heart affected by the fate of Nanluoguxiang since the culture of Beijing not only has the red walls green watts of imperial amorous feelings, but also have the streets and lanes of common people life.

Conclusion

By analyzing the past experience, identifying the present problems, I intend to present a clear picture of how traditional cultural idea with addition of temporal spirit and outside influences shape Beijing’s urban settlement pattern. The harmony between the environment and rapid urban growth ,the balance between construction of new landscape and the preservation of historic and cultural heritage need to be reached as Beijing’s promise of being a renowned, historical, cultural while open ,modern ,new city.

Through various historical periods, Beijing’s urban settlement development succeed in guiding us understand the importance of cultural influence which could lead us preferably solve contemporary problems and establish the ethics of future urban design under social and cultural aspects.

Bibliography

Cayford,J. 2012. Planning for sustainability, Planning 100&100G lecture University of Auckland 21st May 2012

Golany,S.G.1995. Ethics and urban design: culture, form and environment. 1st Edition .New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Golany,S.G.2001. Urban design ethics in ancient China.1st Edition. New York: The Edwin Mellen Press.

Gu,C. & Cook,G.I.2011. Beijing: Socialist Chinese Capital and new world city, in Planning Asian cities: Risks and resilience, edited by Hamnett .Stephen. and Forbes. Dean. New York: 90-130.

Wallach,B.2005. China, in Understanding the cultural landscape. 1st Edition. New York: The Guilford Press: 61-71.

Wang, J.2011. Beijing Record: A physical and political history of planning modern Beijing. 1st English Edition. Beijing: World scientific.

Auckland's "One Rating System"

I wrote about Watercare a few weeks ago here. This advertisement has been placed frequently in NZ Herald and other news media. There has been discussion in letters and other news comment.

I support volumetric charging for wastewater, because I think the true costs of water infrastructure and its consequence - wastewater infrastructure - need to be better understood by those who use the services, so that they use it more knowingly, and more carefully.

But I do think the tail is wagging the dog here. Watercare has seized the opportunity of carving out its own business space, its own business plan, its own infrastructure development plan, and its own funding plan. Without much attention to the broader public interest.

There's nothing really new in that. From the moment amalgamation was suggested, Watercare was down in Wellington lobbying furiously to separate stormwater from water and wastewater services. (Hard to run stormwater as a business... etc etc). And now it wants to issue monthly bills....

My first letter to NZ Herald went like this:

“One council – one rates bill”. That was a catchphrase used to sell Auckland local government amalgamation.

Now we have a communications deluge - from a Council Controlled Organisation - warning Auckland ratepayers to expect no less than twelve water rate bills each year.

Disingenuously, Watercare announces this measure is in response to “customer feedback”, though I am not aware of any public consultation.

Sending and administering twelve water bills to one million ratepayers will cost ratepayers in excess of $10,000,000 annually. At least.

I understand Watercare has taken this step because that’s how privately run cellphone and electricity utilities operate.

But there’s a difference. Electricity and cellphone customers have a choice of provider. They need and expect monthly usage information. They shop around for the best deals and they can switch providers in a blink.

However there’s no competition for what Watercare provides. Watercare could provide accurate monthly usage analysis to ratepayers – presuming water meters are read frequently enough – through an appropriately secure website.

Watercare should minimize the costs of providing water and wastewater services and act in the public interest.

Many other letters have been published. Watercare's media people responded with a statement which added fuel to the flames, triggering some more robust comment. Including my response:

Watercare's letter justifying its plans to bill ratepayers every month for water services refers to private research showing that customers want monthly billing to better manage finances.

The letter also reports that Watercare achieved regional savings of $100 million last year.

This is a good saving and makes a dent in Auckland Council's annual expenditure of $3 billion. But it does not justify wasting that money on an expensive separate billing system when amalgamation was sold on the basis: One council = One rates bill = Efficiency.

Watercare's letter talks about the true cost of supplying water to Aucklanders and describes itself as a minimum cost operator.

If Watercare and Council were sincere about cost minimisation and genuine about helping ratepayers manage their finances, then there would be just one Council services bill - maybe monthly - listing each council service provided and its cost.

Ratepayers would know at a glance how their rates were being spent, see what each of their services cost, and benefit from further regional savings.

And then on Wednesday, last week, we had this advertisement in NZ Herald. Placed by Auckland Council - probably in damage control - rate bills about to hit the streets. The advert ran on page 13 (NZ Herald, 4 July 2012), while Watercare's ad (the one above) ran on page 22 (don't know how many times that advert has been placed). Watercare's is much bigger, easier to read. Both carry the Auckland Council logo (small in Watercare's case).

What's the poor ratepayer going to make of these public relations exercises? Auckland Council's advert insists that there is "one rating system". I guess you can have "one rating system" and then issue two different rating bills, supported by two completely different advertisements on different pages, without much in the way of obvious connection, and still be speaking the truth.

Or is it just expensive propaganda?

All $400,000 houses are not the same

In the Mayor's message to ratepayers accompanying the Auckland Council 2012-2022 Long Term Plan, he writes"...properties in Takapuna will be rated the same as those in Titirangi and those in Takanini...". It is clearly the assumption of Auckland Council that this is right and fair.

But it is anything but fair.

Rates are a blunt instrument, but that does not justify using the instrument in a blunt way, as Council is doing.

Council has received numerous submissions about this. Many supporting its proposal and many opposing it. Some will say, "oh well, we must've got it right because about the same number like it as hate it...". That is a lazy idea. There are always winners and losers in any change in rates. But just because one group is about the same size as another group does not make it fair.

Fact: Properties in older and more established parts of Auckland have quite reasonably paid less rates in the dollar compared with similarly valued properties in newer parts of Auckland. For example, Auckland City Council charged residential ratepayers a General Rate of $0.0342 in the dollar, for the year ended June 2011, while its newer counterpart, Manukau City Council charged $0.0374 in the dollar. (NB: Both Councils used the same Annual Value valuation system as the basis for rates calculations.) Thus Manukau City Council needed to charge ratepayers living in $400,000 houses 9% more than Auckland City Council. Both Councils had balanced budgets. Both councils met the needs of ratepayers. Yet under the new Auckland Council's new "fair" system, unless less public work is done than planned in Manukau, Auckland City ratepayers will be contributing to the cost of Manukau public works.

Fact: Newer parts of Auckland cost more for public infrastructure services than old established parts of Auckland - which is why it is reasonable for newer parts of Auckland to pay more in rates. For example, newer parts of Auckland have new roads to build and kerb and channel, new parks to buy, new community services to build, new stormwater systems to install. Whereas older established parts of Auckland already have that infrastructure in place, needing to be maintained but not built from scratch, paid for by rates in the past, and that value now capitalised in the higher land value. Example. Take Franklin District Council's rates for the year ended June 2011. It had a General Rate of $0.000563 in the dollar, a separate Transport rate of $0.000719 in the dollar (the largest component - reflecting the cost of building new roads), and even a stormwater uniform charge of $72/property. This reflects that district's early path in the urban evolution cycle - and it's rating system and costs reflect that.

Fact: Auckland consists of many different parts that are at different stages of the urban development cycle with different public services needs and incurring different public service costs. It is unreasonable and unfair to now presume that it is fair that "properties in Takapuna will be rated the same as those in Titirangi and those in Takanini...."

3.6% Rate Increase? Not!

Rates bills will soon arrive in letter boxes across Auckland Region. A mixture of Watercare bills and Council bills. People will be confused. Finding it hard to compare this year with last year....

I would like to hear from ratepayers who have done a little bit of work comparing this year with last year.

The message from council is that the rates increase is 3.6%. This is an average increase across the region. Everybody understands that. But it does conceal some significant changes because of the way the Council has designed the "single rating system" that has emerged. Council appreciate there will be huge increases and decreases in individual rates. That is why it has asked Government to make changes to the Local Government Act that enable the Council to "smooth" these increases and decreases by limiting the maximum changes that are experienced each year by these affected ratepayers.

Thus annual increases will be "capped" at 10%, and annual decreases will be "capped" at 5.6%. So, even if your rates are to increase by 40%, then you will experience the increase gradually, over three years or so, but the rates will still go up by 40% in the end.

The Council website contains a useful tool allowing ratepayers to get an idea of what their rates bill is likely to be. You can see this here. Different parts of the region will experience changes differently. I checked a typical North Shore house near where I live. The house has a capital value of $1,000,000. It paid rates of $3,130 in the financial year just ended (ARC and NSCC rates). This includes a uniform wastewater charge of $514 which paid for the cost of North Shore's wastewater system network, sewage treatment and ocean disposal.

Under the new Auckland Council rating system, this wastewater service is now provided by Watercare. The remaining services are provided by the Auckland Council. Thus the Auckland Council is to deliver what North Shore City Council used to provide for a rate cost of $3130.00 - $514.00 = $2616.00.

The Auckland Council rates for this North Shore property - according to the website calculator - would be $3,500. An increase of $884, or 34%. (Whereas if the wastewater charges are not subtracted, then it only looks as if the rates increase will be $370, or 12% - an altogether misleading figure.)

Elsewhere in this blog I question the fairness of the new rating system, and the assumptions that underlie its design. But for now I confine myself to a little question: when calculating the increase in rates, shouldn't Auckland Council be subtracting the cost of services that are now to be provided by Watercare? So that like is compared with like?

Public Interest and the Unitary Plan

One of the major planning tasks and headache for the amalgamated Auckland Council is the requirement to produce a single Unitary Plan under the Resource Management Act (which itself is under further pressure for change to make it even easier for development to occur).

NZ Herald ran a helpful story here last week and in today's Herald, there's a useful piece from Brian Rudman.

The last significant post I did about the Unitary Plan was after a presentation last year by Council Planner Penny Pirrit at Auckland University. It helps set the scene.

The public interest in the Unitary Plan tends to get concealed by all the noise made by the development community that would prefer to be able to do what it wants without much challenge. Their complaints about red tape find fertile ground among the red necks among us who want to be to what they like on their properties without much regard for their neighbours, let alone the environment.

But this Auckland Unitary Plan will not, or should not, be like the District Plans we have all become used to in Auckland - whether we wanted to develop in Waitakere, Auckland, Manukau, Rodney or Franklin. This plan will need to integrate the oversight that existed in the Auckland Regional Council's Regional Plan and Regional Plan Coastal. In the pre-supercity era, large and contentious applications were required to be tested against the provisions of different plans which had different purposes, but which were integrated, and which together delivered the overall purpose of the Resource Management Act - namely the sustainable management of Auckland's natural resources.

Of course there are countless examples of where this did not work well, or where the process was by-passed, and where damage was inflicted was private property, public property, and natural ecosystems. This comes with the territory of the RMA which is to enable development to occur, to permit anything, provided it does not contravene provisions in the relevant District Plan.

We have lived with the RMA and its strengths and weaknesses for over twenty years. The test of whether Auckland's environment and its natural resources have been sustainably managed over that period - thanks to the RMA and its various instruments - has never been properly investigated. Instead there are worthy, but unspecific "State of the Environment" reports produced.

There are no robust limitations imposed on what can be done. We have in New Zealand, and in Auckland, what is loosely termed "weak sustainability". It is mainly when private property rights are infringed or threatened that the RMA can be powerful. It can enable people to defend and advocate for their own property rights.

But the environment and Auckland's ecosystems have a weak and quiet voice at the table when applicants get down to the brass tacks of their plans and their implications.

This is not the place or the post to litigate the weaknesses of Auckland RMA planning. But I think this is the time for it, before allowing Auckland to be rail-roaded into a rough and ready Unitary Plan by Auckland Council - one that essentially rubber stamps and perpetuates the problems that are evident in the existing set of plans, and which will be exacerbated under any approach that simply bolts them together.

The thing that I really want to state here though, is that it's not just about the plan. Those pages with all of the rules, discretionary rights, controlled activities, and such like. It's about the machinery of implementation, assessment, compliance, checking - and it's about the opportunity this process presents to engage the public and get some genuine involvement and participation. These are issues. These are RMA issues, and they need objectives and policies and methods.

Three things to say:

1)   I am aware that the main reporting that is done to Ministry for Environment relates to how many consent applications are processed within statutory time-frames. This reporting puts huge pressure on Council staff to push consent applications through - and it is inevitable that mistakes get made - and if those lead to damage to the environment it is rare that anyone will complain. Or that any checks are made. The emphasis is on allowing development and growth to occur - pretty much unchecked. That might be good in the short-term - but we will suffer in the long term. The emphasis of reporting in favour of development is an RMA issue that needs to be addressed.

2)  Since the Super City came into being there has been a noticeable drop off in the quality of consents and compliance of residential works around the North Shore. This is partly anecdotal. However I have seen encroachments into public street reserves, I have seen developments that do not comply with site coverage rules. There is a lot of chatter about this. People who were involved as Commissioners - perhaps they were on Community Boards in the past - make similar comment. "This would not have been permitted before..." There is a risk that this slide into permissiveness in the council consent machinery, will seep further into the unitary plan. This review of the Unitary Plan will fail the public unless it also takes a hard look into how the plan actually operates on the ground. This is a developing issue that is a consequence of amalgamation. It needs to be addressed.

3)  A major and long standing criticism of the RMA has been that it is all about prevention of adverse effects, rather than promoting positive outcomes. It's about planning for what you don't want, rather than planning for what you do want. Councils in other parts of New Zealand - for example Kapiti Coast and Wellington City - have adopted Urban Design frameworks which are explicitly integrated into their RMA District Plan documents and consent processing. These sorts of provisions allow for Urban Planning to occur and to be incorporated into RMA plans. It is also a way of ensuring that unique urban character is identified, recognised, maintained and protected. And I'm not just talking about Heritage areas of Auckland. Auckland has developed as an urban conurbation of diversity, contrasts and different qualities. This is partly a reflection of culture, cultures, life styles and city landscapes. These urban characters can be built into a Unitary Plan that can be part of shaping city development.

This Unitary Plan process could be a quick and dirty. I'm sure there will be many who would find that convenient. But that would not be true to the purpose of the Resource Management Act.

Essay: Garden City and Auckland

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 about Auckland planning and is by Masato Nakamura, who has kindly given permission for it to be published here.

The Garden City and the Future of Auckland

The concept of the Garden City was created by Ebenezer Howard. The idea of the GardenCity addresses the urban issues that industrial cities in the late 1800’s. Many of the ideas within the Garden City are still applicable to many of the cities around the world, especially Auckland which is striving to become a world class city. The text will explore the different ideas present in the concept of the Garden City to address and propose solutions to themany issues Auckland faces as a city with the ideas created by Ebenezer Howard. The city of Auckland will continue to grow in the future, and that growth needs to be planned and managed for the benefit of the citizens who directly experience the effects of that growth.The issues present now are connected to each other. There is significant value in using theGarden City as a planning tool in Auckland city.

The concept of the Garden City was created and developed by Sir Ebenezer Howard, whenhe published the book ‘Garden Cities of Tomorrow’ in 1898 and 1902. The Garden City Howard envisioned was a city that solved the many issues in the industrial cities of that time.One of the important ideas underlying the Garden City is the idea of the ‘Town country magnet (Howard, 2011).’ This was a concept to allow the best of the country and the city at the time to come together for the benefit of the people. Howard, in his book, ‘Garden Cities of Tomorrow’ states that, “As man and woman by their varied gifts and faculties,supplement each other, so should town and country.” This concept of the town countrymagnet defines the Garden City.

Howards work simply aimed to come up with a solution to the horrible conditions of theindustrial cities in America and Europe. Although it is the urban form of the garden City that attracts the most attention, what Howard truly wanted was the social reform that was needed for the benefit of the people (Ward, 2002). The Garden City and the ‘town country magnet’ was a solution Howard proposed to solve the issues. The Garden Cities Howard established became new towns and the Garden City Association developed into the Town Planning Association (Hall & Ward, 1998).

The Garden City Howard proposed was detailed to fit its purpose. These are such as greenspace, parks for many uses, population limit and public transport (Hall & Ward, 1998).Howard proposed the amount of space a city should have, how many people live there andthe size and width of roads and parks. These different topics of an urban environment support the idea of Garden City, and it is these details that will change Auckland are apositive way when they are applied. The details and elements in the different ideas were put forward by Howard because they make up the idea of the Garden City as a whole.A key issue of Auckland City is its urban sprawl. The City stretches across two harboursengulfing rural open space seeing no end. This trend in the development of Auckland City iscausing other related issues, which also needs to be addressed. The issue of Urban Sprawl can be solved, or at least reduced by medium density housing. To solve the issue of urban sprawl, “Attached dwellings,” encouraging “higher densities in designated neighbourhood s(Simonds, 1994)” should be adopted. The housing ideas of the Garden City will beconsidered medium density housing in New Zealand. But it is also recommended that agiven suburb should offer a variety of housing within this constraint to have a diverse rangeof people in a neighbourhood (Taecker, 2002). The housing and property ideas in theGarden City will offer quality of nature and at the same time, resolving the issue of urban sprawl.

Another way in which the urban sprawl in Auckland can be solved is by establishing a greenbelt at a city level. A green belt in the Garden City concept is allocated for agricultural use (Howard, 2011). By restricting further development on the green belt, the sprawl can be contained within it. The benefit of the green belt is not only the containment of the city. The green belt that produces goods for the Auckland alone will reduce the ecological foot printof the city because less energy is used for transport. Another benefit of the green belt wouldbe the ecosystem services that it would offer to the region. The services the green beltwould offer will be filtering of the city’s water, habitat for insects that pollinate, andpreventions of floods on the basis that wetlands are present (Hirsch, 2008). The only issueof the green belt is that it will be very “vulnerable to development (Rooijen, 2002),” and the local government will have the responsibility to protect it. Due to these reasons, it iswithout a doubt that adopting of the green belt will be highly beneficial to Auckland City.The third way to manage urban sprawl is by establishing satellite towns along the main public transport routes from the Central Business District (CBD). This is a developed versionof Howard’s idea of a cluster of Garden Cities. This idea will produce, “all the economic and social opportunities of the giant city. (Hall & Ward, 1998)” The group of Garden Cities or main suburban centres around along the rapid transit routes will supplement each other function to as it does today. By applying this element of Howards Garden City in Auckland, it will be possible to reduce the strains on the roads and highways, which have been occurringfor many years, and will continue to do so in the future, without adopting this element ofthe Garden City.

It is very clear that Auckland City is centralised in the city centre. This is apparent with highincome jobs, major recreation locations and institutions being near the city centre. This iscausing a huge strain on the current infrastructure, environment and the social well-being ofthe people. It is evident that decentralisation needs to occur to certain level. A “moderate decentralisation, (Fisherman, 1977)” of the Garden City is desirable in Auckland City to solve these issues present today. The decentralisation will achieve better allocation of theelements listed above around the city for people to access and gain. The application of the Garden City will achieve a “planned metropolitan decentralization (Ward, 1992).”

To achieve decentralisation while maintaining the opportunities and choices for the people, especially from lower socio economic groups in Auckland, mixed land use is vital. The variety of land use should not only at the scale of street blocks but also at a scale of buildings as well. A variety of land use in a given suburb will give people a choice to use the servicesavailable in the area, reducing the need to go to the city centre to have access to them (Simonds, 1994). Furthermore, it is also important to have a variety of housing fit fordifferent age groups so that people continue to live in the area for a life time (Taecker,2002). By applying the idea of the Garden City, the allocation of services will improved, sothat people are not required to go into the Auckland CBD for different activities.A key improvement Auckland as a city must make to undergo decentralization is the public transport. At the moment, it is simply easier and more comfortable for a person to use a private vehicle, rather than taking a bus or train in Auckland. In the social reforming conceptof the Garden City, the need for a rapid transit system that interconnects each garden city ina group. A network of transit systems in an area of Garden Cities will support the movement of people, goods and services. The combination of transit corridors radiating out from thecentre city and orbitales that connect the garden cities or suburbs will shift more people tousing public transport (Hall & Ward, 1998). If this element of the Garden City is applied toAuckland, it will offer more choice in routes and methods to get to point A to B. Once these changes are made, but new development is still needed, major growth points could be established elsewhere (Hall & Ward, 1998), while maintaining the green belt. The application of the idea of the Garden City in terms of transport should be applied at an earlyphase of change to support the transition.

It is well known in Auckland that it is a poor pedestrian environment. This is in the parks arepoorly designed or placed and the streets are designed with the automobiles first in mind.These factors make Auckland City a terrible place to move around on foot. By decentralizing Auckland and applying other key elements on urban design from the garden City in thestreets. One way in which walking can become attractive to an average person is by “lining street trees and building fronts. (Taecker, 2002)” This will make the experience of walking pleasurable with more comfortable scenery present. Another way is to divert traffic into multiple paths to vehicle traffic and offer direct routes to local centres for pedestrians(Taecker, 2002). By making these changes to the urban design of Auckland, will allure peopleto walk more often, on the basis that jobs, services and recreation are distributed aroundthe city.

Green space is the most vital aspect of the utopian ideal of the Garden City. It is one of themain points of the idea of the ‘town country magnet. (Howard, 2011)’ Auckland as a city is introducing medium density housing; there is a possibility that the new development will follow the tracks of mega cities around the globe which try to fit as many people as they can.Although it is true that, “There is no such thing as excessive density, provided all required facilities, amnesties and open space are at hand. (Simonds, 1994)” The current medium density housing adopted lacks the green space which is vital for the social and environmental well-being of a city. It must be stressed that medium density housing is theright way to go in terms of the future of Auckland, but the social benefits of green space in cities from the idea of the Garden City must not be ignored.

The concept of the Garden City was created by Ebenezer Howard, who envisioned a societythat lived in harmony experiencing the best of nature and city. Although the book,‘Tomorrow- A True path to real Reform’ written by Howard addressed the urban issues of industrial cities at the time, it is clear from the research that his ideas will be able to solve the many issues of Auckland. Some elements of Howards work will be very beneficial to thecity which struggles with the issues such as urban sprawl. It is no doubt that the utopian idea of the Garden City will be extremely valuable to be used as a tool for planning thefuture of Auckland city. Especially when cities around the world are required to be comemore sustainable, the Garden City is a perfect model to achieving that goal. For without a model or signpost change for the future, the issues in Auckland will magnify and increase and there will never be change. Therefore, it is apparent that the Garden City is “highly valid as a planning model for the 21st century. (Rooijen, 2002)”

Bibliography

Fisherman, R., 1977. Introduction. In: Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century: EbenezerHoward, Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier. Cambridge: MIT, p. 3~20.

Hall, P. & Ward, C., 1998. Garden City: Ideal and Reality. In: Sociable Cities: The Legacy ofEbenezer Howard. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, p. 17~39.

Hall, P. & Ward, C., 1998. Sociable Cities. 1 ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Hirsch, D. D., 2008. Ecosystem Services and the Green City. In: Growing Greener Cities.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, p. 281~293.

Howard, E., 2011. "Authors Introduction" and "The Town-Country Magnet". In: The CityReader. New York: Routledge, p. 328~335.

Pinder, D., 2005. Smokeless, slumless cities. In: Visions of the City. Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversity Press, p. 35~46.

Rooijen, M. v., 2002. Letchworth Garden City and its Green Belt. In: T. Saiki, R. Freestone &M. v. Rooijen, eds. New Garden City in the 21st Century. Kobe: Kobe Design University, p.135~144.

Simonds, J. O., 1994. Garden Cities 21. USA: Mcgraw-Hill Inc.

Taecker, M., 2002. Neighbourhoods, Centres and Edges. In: New Garden City in the 21stCenturey. Kobe: Kobe Design University, p. 145~160.

Ward, S. V., 1992. The Garden City Introduced . In: S. V.Ward, ed. The Garden City; PastPresent and Future. London: Cambridge University Press, p. 1~27.

Ward, S. V., 2002. Ebenezer Howard's Legacy. In: T. Saiki, R. Freestone & M. v. Rooijen, eds.New Garden City in the 21st Century. Kobe: Kobe Design University, p. 23~40.

Ward, S. V., 2002. The Howard Legacy. In: From Garden City to Green City: The legacy ofEbenezer Howard. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, p. 222~244.

Essay: Transport Planning and Auckland

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 about Auckland planning and is by Luke Carey, who has kindly given permission for it to be published here.

Transport has defined urban life for as long as cities have existed, and it is far from being a ‘new’ domain of planning, yet it is still considered the biggest issue facing 93% of Aucklanders (Transit NZ, 2005), and the general public perception is that it is somehow ‘wrong’ and needs to be ‘fixed’. Ancient Rome by AD 100 with a reported population of one million had developed “immense problems of traffic congestion” (Hall, 2002). So why is it that after millennia of the issue existing in our cities, we somehow still struggle to get it right? How have different forms of transport influenced Auckland’s development over time? And why has this resulted almost exclusively in a pattern of urban sprawl and segregated zones of activity? The ability for the transport sector to rapidly diversity in order to accommodate outside factors causing change in society such as peak oil and climate change is questionable. It is becoming clear that the complicated urban fabric of the city is not the problem, but the solution, and that the key to transport success is achieving integration and avoiding having modes compete with each other.

Early 19th Century Auckland was dominated by coastal shipping and trade. Governor William Hobson selected the site in the then Commercial bay (now Fort Street) for the new settlement based on it’s easy access to both the Waitemata and Manukau Harbours, and a second port soon developed at Onehunga. Early development was sited around access to the wharves that scows transporting goods up and down the coast would trade from. Railways and roads were developed from 1870 onwards under Sir Julius Vogel’s infamous Public Works Scheme but it was not until the 1930’s and an extensive programme of tar sealing roads that suburban dwelling became widely possible. We never looked back. The suburbs of “cosmopolitan Auckland” reportedly “exploded” in the post war era. “It is the edges of the city where the residential areas are thrusting out to all points of the compass that the really spectacular changes are taking place”. “The shopping areas are new, up to date, convenient, the road gangs moving further and further into the country, Auckland’s fortunate in having room to grow, and with the roads comes the houses, a town the size of Whangarei goes up in Auckland every 12 months” all this new development was terribly exciting (TVNZ 7 Hindsight, 2011). By 1950 Auckland was contemplating an extensive motorway network to cope with this rampant growth, which had the city bursting at it’s seams (Bush, 1998). But De Leuw Cather, the overseas consultants contracted to design the motorway system issued a written letter to the Auckland Regional Authority in 1965 emphasizing the importance of balancing investment in the highway and motorway program with investment in a “transit” system that included significant rail improvements to avoid “unfortunate” consequences on “land use development”, or built urban form (Cayford, 2012). Nearly fifty years later, and most of the motorways have been built, but the ‘transit’ or public transport system most certainly hasn’t been. Why?

A common understanding we have is that the railroad tends to concentrate growth, and the automobile disperse it. The common view of urban sprawl (in abstract) is one of hatred for most people. We “deplore the loss of open space and farmland, long drives, congestion, and the boring uniformity of suburban development” (Bruegmann, 2005), not to mention air pollution, climate change, and the resulting segregated zones of activity. But when put in the context of how it might affect our ability to live the quarter-acre New Zealand dream it seems that suburban development is just “a natural market response to the desires of millions of individuals”. That is, as Bruegmann argues, we have it because we wanted to live at lower densities, and this was the primary cause for the growth in the transport industry. The enormous increase in mobility that came with it made sprawl possible, not caused it, and not the automobile specifically. So does the locational preference for life in the suburbs still ring true in New Zealand today? A 2009 ShapeNZ survey of 3244 kiwi’s had 80% of respondents state they would prefer to live in a stand-alone house than an apartment. And if there were no constraints on where respondents chose to live, 73% would choose to live in either the suburbs, or an even more low-density country lifestyle block or farm (N Preval, 2010 ).

Glaeser (2011), in his novel Triumph of the city contradictory to Bruegmann takes a more common stance by arguing that “modern sprawl is the child of the motorcar” and the urban form of our cities in general is directly influenced by which mode of transport is used. “The first 12-person omnibus appeared on New York’s Broadway in 1827, it was subsidized by the state and given right-of-way on the city’s streets, enabling the prosperous to commute into New York from less dense quarters uptown” (Glaeser, 2011), and so the suburban pattern started. He says that transport developments have been by far the most important, but not the only factor that made suburbanization possible, that it also involved cheap mass-produced housing and government incentives to make it widely available to the middle class. In New Zealand, this need was fulfilled by the government’s vast state housing schemes of the post-war era that gave people little diversity in housing choice, and government funding for vigorous motorway building schemes such as the Auckland Harbour Bridge and it’s associated northern motorway (Bush, 1998).

With the benefit of hindsight, it has become clear that tomorrow’s solutions to our transport woes should place much more emphasis and importance on the co-benefits of alternative modes of transport, such as active modes and public transport (Howden-Chapman, 2010). As Jamie Lerner puts it, “The car is like your mother-in-law, you have to have a good relationship with her, but she cannot command your life.” “So when the only person you have in your life is your mother-in-law, you have a problem” (Lerner, 2008). A more balanced approach to transport will result in more resilient communities. The transport system needs to “adapt to new challenges that span the environmental, social and economic range” of life in cities, such as peak oil and climate change, and these challenges all point very clearly towards increased use of alternative modes of transport (Howden-Chapman, 2010). New Zealand rail, for example is on average 47 times more efficient at moving goods and people than roads. (Hindsight, 2012) There is also a direct relationship between vehicle kilometers travelled (VKT) and urban density. As average density increases, vehicle kilometers travelled decrease, with a doubling in urban population density resulting in a 25-30% reduction in vehicle miles travelled (Ewing, 2010). Higher-density living, particularly along transport corridors, also supports higher per-capita use of alternative means of transport (Ewing, 2010). Therefore, the relationship between built urban form and transport is mutual, and changing the built urban form of an area can also address issues in transport. For example, designing and zoning for mixed use activity like what we have in Auckland’s CBD and Takapuna instead of segregating land-use activities like in Albany or Pakuranga should, in concept, also reduce VKT.

But investment precedes growth, particularly in public transport (Auckland Transport, 2011). Curitiba’s infamous bus rapid transit system (BRT), now with over 220,000 passengers daily, was conceptualized in the 70’s and 80’s and started on just 20,000 passengers a day. (Lerner, 2008) It has now revolutionized Curitiba’s transport system and urban form, with high density development having been concentrated along the BRT corridors. But Lerner emphasizes that the key is having an urban form and transport system that avoids having modes directly compete against each other and achieving integration between different modes; the better integrated the system is, the more potential it has to be successful.

In Auckland, we currently have a discrepancy between the priorities of central and local government, with a more balanced approach to growth and development of urban form being advocated by local government in response to a resurgence in the popularity of alternative modes of transport (Auckland Regional Council, 2010) and desire for more compact urban development. Whereas central government continues to invest in highways without funding alternative forms of transport, such as rail improvements, and advocate the relaxing of the metropolitan urban limit (MUL) instead of increasing density within the existing urban area (Mees, 2006). It’s my opinion that this discrepancy will, for the time being, be the most significant difficulty we face in planning for Auckland’s future. Investment in “both public transport services and infrastructure has not kept pace with the growth in travel demand” (Auckland Regional Council, 2010). This restricts people’s choice of transport modes and the viability and amenity of alternative means of transport. The most efficient and integrated, forward-thinking outcomes seem to occur when a specific public transport project has central government support, such as rail network electrification and the northern bus way.

If we are to see a more balanced outcome to transport investment in Auckland, we also need to see backward-thinking rules and regulations such as minimum parking requirements removed from our legislation. These have an economic cost and in places where alternative means of transport are available undermine efforts towards balanced investment because they directly compete against other modes (Auckland regional Council, 2009). The transport strategy claims that if we increase roading capacity by just 9%, and public transport services by 130%, then we can expect congestion in 2040 to remain roughly at current levels (Auckland Regional Council, 2010). Interestingly, the expected increase in public transport usage (270%) at this level of investment is also expected to have roll-on effects of increasing walking and cycling trips by 128%, so the solutions are there, it is simply a systemic change in the way we assess projects and manage transport funding that is needed to make these solutions possible, especially at a central government level.

In conclusion, transport and urban form have a mutual relationship, they both affect each other. The railroad tends to agglomerate development while the private car disperses it. The dominant pattern of transport has been growth in use of the private motorcar and investment in roading infrastructure that has seen an unprecedented growth of the suburbs. While this has historically met the ‘quarter acre kiwi dream’ it has had other consequences on the quality of life in our cities that we deplore and could be called a tragedy of the commons. The result is an unbalanced transport system in Auckland that is not currently serving the needs of it’s people, and this pattern will continue to increase unless significant systemic changes in transport funding towards alternative modes are made. It is quite possibly the biggest issue facing the growth and development of our city and is not an issue that is solved overnight, but investment precedes growth, and the first step is to introduce a more balanced model of funding and transport policy that values and encourages growth in alternative means of transport.

Bibliography

Auckland regional Council, 2009. Regional Parking Strategy , Auckland: ARC.

Auckland Regional Council, 2010. Auckland Regional Land Transport Strategy, 2010-2040, Auckland: Auckland Regional Council.

Bruegmann, R., 2005. The causes of sprawl. In: The City Reader. New York: Routledge urban reader series, pp. 211-221.

Bush, G., 1998. History Of Auckland City. [Online] Available at: http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/auckland/introduction/bush/chap4.asp [Accessed 29th May 2012].

Cayford, J., 2012. p11-12, Transport and Land Use lecture ppt (on Cecil), Auckland: Excerpt from: De Leuw Cather Report 1965.

Ewing, R., 2010. Urban Development, VMT and CO2 Emissions. In: Sizing Up the city. Otago: NZ Centre for sustainabile cities, pp. 18-33.

Glaeser, E., 2011. Why has sprawl spread?. In: Triumph of the city. London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd, pp. 165-197.

Hall, P., 2002. Urban and Regional Planning. The origins: urban growth from 1800 to 1940, pp. 11-25. Howden-Chapman, R. C. &. P., 2010. Urban Form and Transport: the transition to resilient cities. In: Sizing up the city. Otago: NZ centre for sustainable cities, pp. 7-17.

Lerner, J., 2008. Sing a song of cities- re-inventing urban space and transport in Curitiba, Brazil. Los Angeles: TED conferences.

Mees, P., 2006. Backtracking Auckland: Bureaucratic rationality and public preferences in transport planning, Brisbane: Griffith University Urban Research Program.

N Preval, R. C. &. P. H.-C., 2010 . For whom the city? Housing and locational preferences in New Zealand. In: K. Stuart, ed. Sizing Up the City. Otago: NZ Centre For Sustainable Cities, pp. 34-51.

Transit NZ, 2005. Stakeholder Survey, Wellignton: New Zealand Government.

TVNZ 7 Hindsight, 2011. Growing Pains. [Online] Available at: http://tvnz.co.nz/hindsight/s1-e5-video-4091796 [Accessed March 2012].

TVNZ 7, 2012. Hindsight - The place of rail in New Zealand. [Online] Available at: http://tvnz.co.nz/hindsight/s3-ep8-video-4896368 [Accessed May 2012].

Auckland Transport, 2011. Carl Chenery-Newmarket Station Upgrade, Auckland: Auckland Transport

Essay: Utopianism and Auckland

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 about the Auckland Supercity and is by Ryan Stamp, who has kindly given permission for it to be published here.

Utopian thinkers have always based their ideal cities around the idea of creating the perfect society,some going as far as starting with an empty plot of land and building from the ground up. Modelsproduced by Howard, Wright and Le Corbusier all were significantly different to the cities that they were currently living in, which they felt needed to be changed for better. Their plans were intended to hopefully be implemented into their social environments, yet it was their radical and authoritarian view (Macleod, 2002) to adapt their plan to each society which restricted their idealcities adopting their plans.

Fishman (1977) tells that Howard focussed his ‘Garden City’ around decentralising the city and promoting more cooperation amongst residents. On the other hand, Wright felt that society shouldbe based on individualism, and that citizens would provide for themselves on their own land, whenhe created the ‘Broadacre City’. Finally Le Corbusier produced his ‘Radiant City’ showing how hewanted cities to operate under an industrialist focus, as organisations worked together to provide everything that the city should need.

Using these foundations to plan the future of Auckland city would not be plausible due to the social structure which has evolved over the past century. All of the electorates were combined to form a‘Supercity’ last year, removing many of the identities which had been formed by citizens overprevious decades. Along with this, there are many immigrants choosing to move into the city, due tothe lifestyle which New Zealand promotes. Finally, communities have had a chance to form identities and stereotypes, which local citizens use to identify which areas of the Auckland they both live and socialise in.

Auckland was the first in New Zealand to become a ‘Supercity’, where the government combined allof the local electorates, to operate under one set of rules and regulations. This goes against the utopian idea which Wright proposed (Fishman, 1977), where many smaller cities exist, rather than one major city. In his model each individual city would be connected, and allow the exchange of knowledge and goods/services. Applying this method to Auckland would require subdividing theregion into much smaller distinctive cities along with each having their own rules and regulations, ultimately removing the ‘Supercity’ which has been created. By combining the various electorates, the Government removed some of the individuality which these parts of the city had created in thepast (historically and culturally). Given the large population of Auckland (approximately 1.5 millionresidents) the idea of having many smaller cities would cause much disruption as to how people could exist. For example, adopting Howard’s ‘Garden City’ ideal of smaller clusters of cities, each with a population around 30,000 people (Fishman, 1977), would mean 50 cities existing within theAuckland region. Each would likely operate under its own accord, making development within the city varied and difficult to monitor.

Along with this, ‘Broadacre City’ was created around the boom in automobile ownership (andpotentially planes) to assist in the individualism Wright deemed to be efficient (Fishman, 2007).Auckland was designed around private transport (predominantly roads rather than a rail or tram system), yet has in recent years tried to tempt residents away from this, instead promoting the use of public transportation. Expecting residents to rely heavily on individual vehicles and networks of highways would not be beneficial to how the city operates, due to the traffic delays already caused on a daily basis. Wright’s ideal was also formed long before concerns were raised around fossil fuels being depleted or the damage vehicle emissions were doing to the environment.

Another flaw in Wright’s design was the hope that all of the city’s residents would acquire theminimum of one acre of land, or ‘as much as he can use’ (Fishman, 1977). On top of this, he expected residents to split their day equally, half tending to their plot of land, and the other in offices or factories. Auckland would not have the physical space to allow each family to receive an acre of land (or there about). This would physically expand the Auckland region, whilst likely require sacrificing protected reserves to meet demand. Wright would have envisioned residents flourishing having been given the freedom to tend to their own plot of land, growing produce which they could partly survive on. By having this expectation, production of other goods/services would significantly decrease as people would spend more time on their own personal agriculture, rather then providing for society. Having this expectation would not sit well with all residents, as land usage could not be monitored or enforced. Again, many people have different levels of pride towards their property,and since the individualistic method promotes a sense of freedom, many residents would likely neglect the land which has been provided for them as they see it as a gift.

A second point to consider, is that Auckland has become culturally diverse over the past few decades, due to the increase in immigrants which are choosing to settle within the city. A criticism of utopian ideals suggested by Moos and Brownstein (1977) is that the social perfection promoted by past thinkers, is intended to be a static implementation in society. After perfection has been created and reached, then there is little need for further improvement or innovation. This suggests that the values of society should never change as this would break any perfection which has been established. As many immigrants are choosing to reside within Auckland city, the culture and social values which is created by its population (both current and future) is forever changing. New residents bring with them different lifestyle preferences, depending on where they have previously lived, along with different skill sets which may or may not benefit society. This builds on the fact that society could never be perfect either, as thinks such as crime could never be truly eliminated. Pinder (2002) suggested that utopianism has historically been created based on a totalitarianism mindset. Because of this ideal, utopian plans have never taken off and simply remained a potential of what could be. For Auckland to be planned with a utopian way of thinking, an acceptance from society would be needed to ensure the success of the changes made. The Government puts in place rules and regulations to direct the development of a city, yet it is the democratic voice which ensures that the local citizens are able to have an opinion too. What is created for one point in time, for one city, is not likely to stay in place due to changing wants and needs. For example Howard’s ‘The Garden City’ was proposed to find the perfect ideal of living apart from industrial environments.In many cities around the world (including Auckland), industrial environments have over time been created amongst residential areas. Many people choose to live nearer to where they work, rather than spend more time commuting. If everyone wished to live away from commercial parts of thecity, there would be a distinct divide of residential and industrial clustering. This design would require heavy redevelopment of local areas, to create distinctive suburban areas which are away from industrial environments.

Communities have formed over decades, knowledge which people are aware of and use as a securityto avoid dangerous parts of the city (Macleod, 2002). Any sense of community would be depleted if we adapted Le Corbusier’s ‘Radiant City’ and implemented a hierarchical society (Fishman, 1977), where the industry leaders/wealthy citizens reside in the heart of the city, whilst the remainder of the population surround the core in satellite communities. Although Le Corbusier intended his plans to create a newfound sense of equality amongst the population, in practice it would prove difficult.This is because it would remove the security that surrounds the existing areas of the Auckland region. For instance, people are mentally aware of the safer parts of town, and the not so safe, or the wealthy areas to live in, or the poorer suburbs. These assumptions (of the local areas and the residents which live in them) allow the Auckland population to decide on where to purchase a house (based around desirability or cost), or simply where to socialise. Relocating people to different parts of Auckland (the heart of the city for instance), may not be appreciated by those that are involved. Residents choose where they live due to a number of factors (price, community culture, location to work, physical space and many other reasons).

A visual hierarchical system could cause a rift within organisations and society, as the employees lower down the hierarchy, or with a lower income, could feel segregated or inferior as they may be relocated to different parts of the city. A flow on effect of reorganising who lives where could lead to higher levels of crime or isolation of residents, who could reside with other people they are unfamiliar with and do not trust.

As you can see, society is constantly evolving. What may be ideal for society in one period of timemay not be ideal for another. It is both the planners and citizens that decide and shape the future of their cities and its communities. A utopian ideal may appear to be efficient in theory, yet is likely to not be accepted by the general population. Auckland has adapted to the growth of its physical location and its residents, by uniting the various cities to fall into a ‘Supercity’. Over the years, communities have evolved around the physical environment and the citizens which are a part of it. Left to their own devices, they have a vital say in the future of the city in which they live. For utopia to become a reality, the residents within Auckland would have to want to adopt a dramatic change, due to dire living situations, otherwise any proposed plan will likely face rejection.

References

Fishman, R. (1977). Introduction. In R. Fishman (Ed.), Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century:Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Le Corbusier (pp.3-20). Cambridge: MIT.

Fishman, R. (2007). “Beyond Suburbia: The Rise of Technoburb”. In R.T. LeGates and F.Stout (Eds.),The city reader (4th ed., pp69-77). London; New York: Routledge.

Macleod, D., & Ward, K., (2002). Spaces of utopia and Dystopia: Landscaping the Contemporary City.Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, Vol. 84, No. 3/4, pp 153-170. Retrieved on30 May 2012 from JSTOR Database.

Moos, R., & Brownstein, R., (1977) Antiutopian Criticisms. In Moos, R., & Brownstein, R. (1977).Environment and Utopia. New York: Plenum Press.

Pinder, D. (2002). In defence of Utopian Urbanism: Imagining Cities after the ‘End of Utopia’.Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, Vol. 84, No. 3/4, pp. 229-241. Retrievedon 31 March 2012 from JSTOR Database.