Thursday, January 30, 2014

Auckland's Indigenous Music Culture Opportunity

Accompanied my daughter to the Lorde concert at Silo Park last night. Very relaxing and relaxed venue....

Went and listened to Greg Clark, Auckland Conversations beforehand.  He was talking about "business friendly cities..." competition between cities for investment... sort of thing.... but he did make some interesting comments about Auckland....



Lots of places at Silo Park to sit and chat, get something to eat.... We had a beer and a litre of wedges at Jack Tars on North Wharf. So we didn't need anything more.

The startup acts were underway at the stage, but a lot of the crowd just enjoyed sitting and chatting. It was a glorious evening.
The place looks great.

Plenty of food choices....
The six pack silos make a great background...

Greg Clark told us that people in a lot of other cities don't even know that Auckland is a city. he started his chat by saying he reckoned Auckland needed to discover its own authentic, indigenous, identity, and that - once he'd dealt with the whole thing about being business friendly - he'd come back with a couple of suggestions for Auckland....
The grittiness of Wynyard Quarter is the background of most of the pictures...it's good... it's what the plans have been calling for....
There is the flash of ASB in the background here....
Place is full of people out for a good night...
And again...
Managed to squeeze in a bit of silo, harbour bridge and the James Bond boat being maintained. Seagulls enjoyed the scraps...
Back to Greg Clark.  He told us that Auckland rated high for quality of life, outstanding natural environment, highly effective governance institutions. BUT that Auckland has "patchy global appeal", ranks weak in "presence" and is weak in "liveliness". In fact he used the word "anonymous" to describe Auckland. He advised that Auckland needed to find its DNA, to expose its soul, to discover its inbuilt pattern, and work with that - not against it.....
Gradually the crowd gathers round the stage. Lorde was due at 9:00 but kept us waiting for 20 minutes or so. Vomiting apparently.  Standing room only....
Very good natured though...
And then with a bang we were into it. An extraordinary 17 year old in her school shoes....
Blue light sticks were free. There was a cunning plan for them to all get lit up for Royals, but the crowd couldn't wait....
Here's how NZ Herald reported the concert. 
"....A Laneway make-up show on a Wednesday night in little old Auckland must feel like a blip when more than 28 million people watched you perform at the Grammys.
But Lorde, who had only walked off the plane from Los Angeles the morning of the show, had plenty of surprises in store for the nearly sold out crowd of 10,000 at Auckland's Silo Park...."
It was fun - though for me - wanted to hear her singing more than I needed to feel the bass line - but then I'm an oldie...
And everyone went wild with the blue light sticks. (Click on the pic to see it enlarged....)
Quite a splash.....

Greg Clark came back to his theme at the end of his talk. What IS Auckland. Is it volcanoes, islands, boats and water?  Is it about openness, diversity, human relations?  Or how about the nexus between sport, food, nutition and health...?

But he ended by suggesting this:  Your indigenous population is Maori, that is what really strikes me. Think about  what Martin Luther King means in and to Atlanta...   The new constitution in South Africa and how this is a big thing now to and for Johanesburg....  Auckland's "offer" can be the way it rebuilds its relationships with its indigenous people...."

This is all from Greg Clark.....

And so here we all are coming back across Te Whero bridge from Silo Park. Happy throng. Buzzing with it all. Some of us headed for the Devonport Ferry, some for bus, some to Britomart.  I know the feeling is similar when there's a concert at Vector Arena. 
Remember how Auckland was during the Rugby World Cup - when Samoa and Tonga had their teams here - when Auckland built - temporarily - a relationship with its polynesian population? Scroll through this posting and remember.

Maybe Auckland's buzz can be built around music. Sort of New Orleans of the South Pacific. There sure seems to be a lot of good stuff coming out of schools and music clubs and groups across the region. How about bringing NZ's Got Talent as well into Auckland Central. This expression does not need to be confined to TV and internet ITunes. Through music, performance, rehearsal spaces, performance places, it can become part of Auckland's urban night life - and rebuild that relationship within and between peoples.

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Debunking Demographia House Price Survey

It's about time NZ Herald and Auckland Council refrained from giving the Demographia Housing Affordability survey such an easy ride - especially given there are more useful and more credible surveys available internationally. And even more reason is that the matter of housing affordability requires reasoned discussion in Auckland.

In this posting I will quote criticism of the Demographia survey that has been published in Australia where stories similar to what we see in New Zealand about "unaffordability" are pedalled by Demographia. I will also refer readers to other surveys which are held in higher regard by the Economist - for example.

And at the end of this post I summarise the more useful findings and research of Numbeo - a very interesting and emerging crowd-sourced database including cost of living comparisons.

DEBUNKING DEMOGRAPHIA

But first, here's what the Australian Property Forum had to say a couple of years ago about the Demographia work:
The infamous Demographia survey is updated and released every year, and every year the property bears of Australia use the survey to claim that Australian houses are the most expensive in the world, the most unaffordable on the planet, the greatest real estate bubble in history.

But almost half a million families and individuals bought homes in Australia last year. So while housing may be unaffordable to some (has it ever been otherwise?) plenty of people do seem to be able to afford to buy houses. So how come so many people are buying houses in a country that Demographia claims to be completely unaffordable?

Obviously there must be many flaws in the Demographia survey, some of which I will outline here.....

For a start, the Demographia survey uses a very simplistic measure of affordability - the median house price to median gross household income ratio. Using gross household income is an inappropriate way to determine household spending power, because the spending power of a household is based on the amount of gross income remaining after costs are deducted for essentials such as taxes, food, transport, clothing etc. Differences in tax rates and cost of living pressures across various countries make a comparison of spending power based on gross income meaningless. Furthermore, there is no reason why a family on median wage income should feel entitled to be able to afford a median house, because houses are not purchased using wage income alone. Houses are purchased using wealth. A better measure of a household's ability to afford property would be to consider household discretionary income and total wealth. This would include non-wage income (such as income from interest, shares or other investments), and wealth stored in other assets (such as shares or equity in existing property) that may be liquidated or borrowed against in order to fund a new property purchase. A family with median wealth should feel entitled to a median dwelling, but an FHB on median wages (with no other wealth) should not....

The survey also fails to consider dwelling size. Houses in Australia are, on average, the largest in the world, so when comparing median houses it is important to note that a median dwelling in Australia is much larger than a median dwelling in the other countries. Why would Australians build the largest houses in the world if our houses are supposedly unaffordable? Wouldn't we build smaller less expensive ones if that was the case? The truth is that Australians have high incomes, Australia is a prosperous country, and as a nation we choose to spend a large portion of our disposable income on nice large well appointed houses. Clearly we can afford to do that.

Another major failing with the Demographia survey is its measure of median house price. The official median house price figures that Demographia use for Australia are sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. However these ABS figures only include freestanding houses. They don't include units or townhouses, meaning that Demographia are overstating median house prices in Australia compared to the other countries assessed in their survey (countries where units and townhouses are included when calculating the median house price).

So, the Demographia survey compares median house price to income ratios across various countries, but clearly there is no reason why those house price to income ratios should be consistent across each country, because there are substantially different factors impacting the housing markets in each country. The Demographia survey fails to consider the following important factors:

- Disposable/discretionary income
- Wealth (including wage income, non-wage income, and assets)
- Employment rate
- General cost of living (affects spending power)
- Interest rates
- Credit availability
- Rental yield
- Availability of public housing
- Marginal tax rates
- Mortgage default rates
- Tax incentives such as negative gearing, FHOG, CGT reductions
- Land/block size
- Dwelling size and quality
- Proximity to transport and infrastructure
- Currency exchange rates
- Economic and political stability
- Average persons per dwelling
- Home ownership rates
- Urbanisation
- Population growth rate
- Demographics (it is ironic that a survey called Demographia ignores basic demographics!)

Of course, no survey is perfect and no survey can possibly hope to account for all these factors. The best we can do is try to look at as many different surveys as possible, each of which address a few of these factors, and this will give an better general impression of comparative affordability in each country, rather than looking at just one survey (I have linked to twelve alternative surveys below).....

In my view, the best way to determine whether homes in Australia are affordable or not is to employ a little common sense.

1 - Would we choose to build the largest homes in the world if homes were unaffordable?
2 - Would half a million families and individuals (approximately) be buying homes every year if they couldn't afford those homes?
3 - Would we have one of the lowest mortgage default rates in the western world if people couldn't afford their homes?

I believe the answer to each of those questions is 'no'.

Can every first home-buyer in Australia afford the home they desire right away? Of course not... they never could. But any family willing to work hard can afford a home of some description, and as they progress through life, increasing their income and wealth, over time they will be able to afford comparatively better houses. Once they have achieved median wealth then the average family can afford a median dwelling, and later in life an average family who continues to build their wealth can afford increasingly higher quality dwellings. This is the way it has always been.

Here are some alternative studies...

World's Top 10 Priciest Cities To Own A Home
Sydney - not in the top 10

Numbeo: House Price to Household Disposable Income Ratio
London 15x, Singapore 14x, Tokyo 12x, New York 8x, Dublin 8x, Sydney 7x

GlobalProperty Most Expensive Cities 2009 (apartment price per sqm):
Sydney - Number 28: US$4,994 per sqm

CityMayors Expensive Cities
Sydney - Number 38

Knight Frank Survey (prime residential property)
Sydney - Number 8: EU$13,100 per sqm

Overseas Property Mall Survey
Average home values for select 2,200 square foot single-family dwellings with four bedrooms...
Tokyo $786K, Sydney $683K

The Economist: Worldwide Cost of Living Survey
Australia - Not shown in the top 10

Mercer Most Expensive Cities (cost of living, including housing)
Sydney - Number 24

Xpatulator Global Cost of Living Ranks
Sydney - Number 22

Aneki (most expensive countries to live in)
Australia - Not shown in the top 20

Most expensive countries in the world
Australia - Not in the list

Most expensive rental markets
Australia - Not in the list

NUMBEO

The study that I have looked at closely and which seems to me far more useful when looking at what is happening in Auckland is the NUMBEO study, which is now one the largest and most data rich sources of cost of living and housing price data in the world.

The survey data quoted by NUMBEO is described on its website like this. I have highlighted in bold aspects of the approach of note:
.... there is no standard formula to calculate property price indices. Our formulas differs from Case-Shiller Index, UK Housing Price Index, etc.

Price to Income Ratio is the basic measure for apartment purchase affordability. It is the ratio of median apartment prices to median familial disposable income, expressed as years of income.

Our formula assumes and uses:
  • net disposable family income, as defined as 1.5 * the average net salary
  • that the average apartment has 90 square meters
  • its price per square meter is the average price of square meter in city center and outside of city center

The statistics that are reported, by country, include:
  • Mortgage as Percentage of Income is a the ratio of the actual monthly cost of the mortgage to take-home family income.
  • Average monthly salary is used to estimate family income.
  • It assumes 100% mortgage is taken on 20 years for the house (or apartment) of 90 square meters where the price per square meter is the average of price in city center and outside of city center.
  • Loan Affordability Index is an inverse of mortgage as percentage of income. Used formula is : (100 / mortgage as percentage of income).

So there you go. In some ways this survey is like Demographia's - ie that it calculates a ratio of median prices to median family incomes. However when analysing affordable homes (as opposed to all homes), then it is more useful to survey the types of homes that are generally purchased by young families and couples starting out on the housing ladder. And for most cities in the world, the starting point is NOT a freehold 200 square metre floor area, three bedroom house on 400 square metres of land. The starting point is an apartment. The NUMBEO survey reports affordability of 90 square metre apartments.

You can see the NUMBEO survey for 2013 here for 103 countries. Note you can list the data in any ascending or descending order - by clicking the arrow keys.

In 2013, New Zealand ranked 21 (Price to Income Ratio of 6.40), while the USA was 1 (Price to Income Ratio of 2.16), Germany, Canada and Ireland ranked 8, 9 and 10 respectively. Australia ranked 32. And so on.

Then you can also look at the affordability index which considers the cost of a loan (assuming it is taken on for a 20 year period) and which uses interest data from each country and such like. New Zealand ranks 24th in affordability (with 1 - the USA - being most affordable), and places like Belarus and Ghana being least affordable and ranking 100 or more. It should be noted that in this survey countries like Sweden, Australia, Italy, Egypt rank as less affordable than New Zealand.

In Auckland we need to be measuring and comparing data that helps us focus on change and on policies that will make a difference, rather than using discredited surveys that only exist to reinforce a particular party line that is all about removing development costs and improving conditions for developers so they can be effectively subsidised to build relatively expensive and large homes.

We know that the average NZ home has been increasing in floor area for the past 20 years or more, and that the number of occupants/home has been decreasing on average. This is inconsistent with the policy objective of increasing the supply of affordable homes, because internationally, affordable homes in urban environments are apartments.


Understanding Urine - Stop Taking the Piss

NZ Herald and NZ Listener Magazine have run - with increasing frequency and force - articles criticising the growth and expansion in NZ's diary industry. Much of this media reporting has been triggered and informed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Environment's recent report on land use change and water pollution which shows a clear link between expanding dairy farming and increasing stress on water quality.

This article, by NZ Herald's writer on the NZ economy, was unusually to the point, and did not pull any punches.

My own research interest in this matter goes back a long way - being a South Islander (my rivers were the Oamaru Creek, the Kakanui River and the Waitaki River) - and over the past two decades thinking about water demand and raw water quality (Waikato River as drinking water source for Auckland).

Because of the issue of nitrate pollution I have recently been educating myself to better understand where the nitrogen actually comes from. To begin with, I had thought the main source of nitrogen contamination from pastureland in dry, relatively unfertile areas (such as North Otago and South Canterbury, was the zealous use of fertiliser. (This also being a source of phosphorous). I thought that nitrogen rich fertiliser was dissolving in surface water and then running off into rivers and into groundwaters.

That is happening, but the nitrogen cycle is more complex than that. Reading this Listener article (which you have to subscribe to see in entirety) alerted me to the fact that cow piss contains lots of nitrogen, and that cow urine is the main source of nitrogen contamination in natural waters (not nitrogen from fertilisers).

This was interesting. Good to have a new fact get in the way of my opinion.

So I did some research, and found this briefing from Environment Waikato, which says this, I have added emphasis:
Nitrogen is one of the most important major nutrients
in the New Zealand farming system. It enters the
system either by clover root nodules taking the
nitrogen from the air and fixing it in a form the
clover can use. It also enters as bought-in feed or
as nitrogenous fertiliser. Plants take up the nitrogen
returned to the soil in the form of urine, dung and
leaf litter. A small proportion of this nitrogen is
converted to milk, meat and wool.
What I take from this is something new about where the nitrogen that gets in the urine is coming from. It is taken from the atmosphere (air contains 78% nitrogen) during the growth of certain forms of pasture plants - especially clover. Cows eat the pasture which contains nitrogen taken up from fertiliser AND ALSO from the atmosphere. Hardly any of the nitrogen consumed by the cow is converted into milk or meat. It is disposed of as urine.


What has not been made crystal clear in the science that I have read in popular press is that much of the nitrogen in cow urine comes from the atmosphere.

We know that cows eat grass and convert organic matter into milk.

But it's not that simple.

As they grow, clover and other pastureland plants convert atmospheric nitrogen into digestable chemicals which are also consumed by the cow (along with the organic materials in the leaves and stalks), and nitrogen rich left-overs are mostly separated in the cow's stomach and then passed out as ammonia in urine. (And yes, plants also absorb nitrogen from fertiliser).

The more cows on an area of land eating natural pasture, the more nitrogen from the air is being transformed into ammonia on the ground (urine) where it is converted into nitrates by bacterial action. Nitrates can be used by plants, but if there’s too much it leaches past the roots, into the ground, and into groundwater reservoirs, where it slowly accumulates.

Scientists call these urine patches nitrogen hot spots.

This is a tragedy of the commons like global warming in reverse.

Instead of atmospheric carbon dioxide increasing through fossil fuel burning, it’s atmospheric nitrogen conversion into groundwater nitrate contamination as a by-product of dairy herd factory production of milk from pasture. Intensive dairy-farming is a machine sucking inert nitrogen from the atmosphere and pouring chemically active nitrate contaminants into natural water resources.

Asking farmers to clean up their factories is a bit like asking car owners to drive less and slow climate change.

 The question: “Can the conflict between the dairy farming economic boom and polluted water be resolved?” is a good one to ask, but it begs another: “by whom?” When Government sacked Environment Canterbury’s elected councillors and appointed commissioners to oversee difficult water allocation problems, it cited political advice that “ECan was science led, but that it should be science informed”.

You can't have it both ways guys. Now we have elected councillors and water scientists not being trusted by government. It's reminiscent of another time when government decided it couldn't trust local government with climate change. Took it into the Minister's office. Looks like that's where cow piss is headed too. But isn't it time to stop pissing about...?

Friday, January 17, 2014

Who is the Liveable City For?

This posting is the start of a critique I will be developing this year about the fundamentals of planning and governance in Auckland. This one considers the powers of our elected local government representatives, and, using a critique of planning in Barcelona, suggests that the driving force for Auckland planning has little to do with the what Auckland councillors, board members, and ratepayers might think or want.

Local Government Powers....

We sometimes kid ourselves that we are free, and that we live in a free society.

Auckland Councillors and Local Board members might easily convince themselves they are free to debate and discuss Auckland City, develop a vision freely, and make plans that will be implemented enhancing citizen abilities to make the most of their own freedom, as they live their lives, working and playing in Auckland.

But a moment's thought should dispel that. For example:
  • Local boards have no power. They are "an unincorporated body" and are not "a local authority, a community board, or a committee of the governing body" and "must undertake any responsibilities or duties that are delegated to it by the governing body (Council) or Auckland Transport". 
  • Auckland Transport decisions are actually driven by Central Government's Policy on Land Transport
  • The Auckland Council cannot perform any function or exercise any power that the Local Government Act has conferred upon Auckland Transport (and there's a lot of these)
  • .... and the list goes on....

These are obvious restrictions and limitations written in law on the powers of Auckland Council and Local Boards and their members. Others are less obvious, but reflect and impose the will of central government. For example, take a look at s.10 of the Local Government Act:
10. Purpose of local government

(1) The purpose of local government is—
(a) to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and
(b) to meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.

(2) In this Act, good-quality, in relation to local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions, means infrastructure, services, and performance that are—
(a) efficient; and
(b) effective; and
(c) appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.
Gone is the language and comprehensiveness of sustainable development for local government with economic, social, environmental and cultural objectives. Instead the emphasis is on efficient, effective and appropriate infrastructure, services and regulatory functions.These words are there to control councillors, board members and council staff. Stick to the basics. Austerity and discipline. Which is not all bad, but discipline can be directed in ways that might not be so obvious.

Central Government Policy for Local Government

Probably the best place to look for the underlying political drivers and desires that are fundamental to understanding Central Government local government reform is National Party policy on local government.

It's local government policy in 2011 is headlined:

“Building a Stronger Economy....

National will encourage regional
economic growth by working with councils across regions to eliminate barriers for firms and businesses to grow and expand..."

No mention of communities and ratepayers in this local government policy text. Emphasis is clear. The small print explains further:
Building local growth
Good, effective local government is important. It contributes to our plan to build a brighter future, grow a stronger economy, and create real jobs with higher incomes. It provides the essential local infrastructure our businesses and communities need to prosper. National is encouraging an efficient local government sector that supports a growing economy and brings benefits to taxpayers, ratepayers, and communities....
 NB, this is National's local government policy. You can see that it is all about economic growth and economic efficiency. It notes that "National" is: encouraging an efficient local government sector that supports a growing economy...

So how is it "encouraging" that sector? One mechanism is through further Local Government reorganisation carried out by the Local Government Commission. And this is much more explicit about the rationale for restructuring local government in New Zealand.

Legislation requires, that "in considering possible changes to local government:
.....the Commission must be satisfied that its preferred option....
will facilitate, in the affected area, improved economic performance, which may (without limitation) include—
(i) efficiencies and cost savings; and
(ii) productivity improvements, both within the local authorities and for the businesses and households that interact with those local authorities; and
(iii) simplified planning processes within and across the affected area through, for example, the integration of statutory plans or a reduction in the number of plans to be prepared or approved by a local authority...."

From this we readily deduce that these are the outcomes from local government that are preferred, desired, and required by central government, which is seeking by hook or by crook to discipline, direct and control the functioning and priorities of New Zealand councils. Of which Auckland Council is the biggest.

Economic restructuring and city governance

Now I'm going to introduce neoliberal politics. But don't groan. New Zealand has been experimenting and adopting neoliberal economic ideas since Rogernomics in the late 1980's. To ignore this influence on your country and the way it affects the running and governance of cities would be silly. Surely.

I quote from research work by Matthew Jacobson entitled: "Producing Neoliberal cities and citizens". While it is partly based on urban development and governance changes in Barcelona, it talks about urbanisation changes in cities around the world over the past 30 - 40 years. It analyses how those urban changes have been influenced by neoliberal economic ideas - which can be used to discipline, shape and control political and planning decisions. I think it is useful to share some of this thinking here, because it helps us all understand and anticipate shifts and changes that might be just around the corner - or here already - in Auckland. How can you sensibly govern or manage a city if you don't take the time to understand the major influences that are acting upon it.

The key ideas for Auckland in the quoted text are contained in the three lists - which you will see if you quickly scroll down. I suggest you read the lists (which are about changes in Barcelona) and note the similarities with what is happening - on your watch - in Auckland. But it does help to put the lists in context:
The shift .... to neoliberal economic logic in the last 30-40 years in a majority of the Western countries of the world has meant there have been significant shifts in how urbanization in the cities has developed. These shifts have brought about changes in the forms of politics and governance in which the city (promotes or encourages) capital accumulation strategies. In other words, neoliberalizing the city also has involved neoliberalizing the citizen. To move forward, neoliberal urban restructuring has meant changes in the ways in which city governments have had to convince and legitimize as well as control city populations....

Neoliberalism (is described) by critical geographers as having gone through an initial phase in the 70´s and 80´s under the leadership of Thatcher and Reagan and then a new phase in the 1990´s in which it became much more interventionist in the sense that in contrast to the early model of reducing government restrictions on trade, the new form is much more directly involved in restructuring and controlling various forms of relations and particularly directions for the development....

Brenner and Theodore summarize that “the overarching goal of such neoliberal policy experiments is to mobilize city space as an area both for market-oriented economic growth and for elite consumption practices”.....
...urbanization is not only a material process but involves attempts to (promote and encourage) certain ways of thinking ... which marginalize others. Examining these ....  is important to grasp how power relations themselves are actually being (re)produced.
How to create a neoliberal city?
Create a system of interrelated and associated administrative hierarchies, laws, popular and intellectual discourses, and histories which work to:
1. Convince popular culture that globalization (in the form of the increasing domination and power of multinational corporations ...) is inevitable, outside of the control of nations, cities, and city populations and that there are only two options: be successful or fail in terms of competing in the ‘free market’.
2. Promote the illusion to the population that the ‘free market’ means they are ‘freer’. Like good magicians give them lots of choices which actually forward your interests (usually profit interests) that you selected for them and they will think they are ‘free to choose’ and never consider who decides what the options are or that they are supporting your accumulation of wealth.
3. Create the popular belief that a central aspect of being successful and having a good quality of life for the residents is creating city spaces which attract large scale foreign investments in the form of built environment, multinational corporation headquarter and operation centers, and tourism.
4. Create histories about the city which make neoliberal colonial/capitalism the natural evolution of advanced societies as the most progressive and well adapted form of social relations in terms of all areas of society including; the protection of the environment and management of resources; technological development which improves the quality of life for all; education, health, and social welfare.
5. Make poverty illegal in the city and a result of poor immigrants who want to take advantage of the rich countries success and steal and cheat to do so. Make colonialism a historical event which was an unpleasant but necessary by-product of European civilizations advancement and success. Make the domination and exploitation of multinational corporations in the ‘former’ colonized parts of the world, a simple matter of capitalism's Darwinian rationalization called ‘survival of the fittest’, and then create ‘aid’ organizations funded by the same multinationals to show that they are part of the ‘solution’ rather than the problem.
6. Promote the city government as democratic, based in popular support, and has as its central priority the improvement of the quality of life for all residents above all other concerns or interests.
7. Give the impression that the public and private sector actually share the same interests and that profits motives and public welfare actually can work together harmoniously to create the ‘best’ city for those that live there. Then create powerful public/private ‘development’ corporations ... and take over poorer historical areas to turn them into privatized ‘chic’ business areas or living areas for the employees. Carefully designate a small proportion of these areas to newly constructed block social housing managed by private property developers with a large percentage of public funds.
8. Take over and manage the renovations that are open in the city with a few goals in mind:
a. Call them ‘public space’ and give the impression that the city and police are the best managers to ensure these spaces are attractive, useful, clean, and ‘peaceful’. Under no conditions let the residents of these areas gain the impression they have the right, ability, or capacity to decide and manage what happens in the open areas or plazas where they live.
b. Make sure that residents learn to deal with all social problems by calling the city police or complain to city officials rather than form their own associations and get the impression they can form communities where their problems can be discussed and dealt with through relationships.
c. Target poorer historical areas of the central city and make them into theme attractions for tourists.
d. Make plazas and other open areas places which are controlled and regulated under newly establish civic norms where you make illegal a series of behaviours that a lot of residents don’t like to live around (peeing and prostitution) which then lets you police and regulate the spaces to keep them happy places for tourism to pass and spend money.
e. Build large cement areas where there are no places for gardens or play areas such as basketball or soccer.
f. Create areas where you can have large scale private functions such as ‘merchandise’ sales, small booths filled with tourist items, artist performances which are regulated and controlled by the city with no political content.
g. Decrease as much as possible spontaneous socializing, play, or most importantly political encounters.
So that's what you might do if your objective is to neoliberalise a city and its citizens, so they are more ready to play ball when the big investors and developers come to Auckland with their proposals. This is a set of suggestions for conditioning Aucklanders and training them.

More explicit urban development policy objectives are also summarised in the Jacobson text:
Neoliberal transurban tendencies towards reflexive and entrepreneurial city governance (Peck and Tickel, 2002):
1. The normalization of a ‘growth first’ approach to urban development, reconstituting social –welfarist arrangements as anticompetitive costs and rendering issues of redistribution and social investment as antagonistic to the overriding objectives of economic development.
2. The pervasive naturalization of market logics, justifying on the grounds of efficiency and even ‘fairness’ their installation, as the dominant metrics of policy evaluation.
3. Through a combination of competitive regimes of resource allocation, skewed municipal-lending policies, and outright political pressure undermines or forecloses alternative paths of urban development based for example, on social redistribution, economic rights, or public investment. This produces a neoliberal ‘lock-in’ of public sector austerity and growth-chasing economic development.
4. Putting the cities in positions where they are pressured to actively-and-responsively-scan the horizon for investment and promotion opportunities, monitoring ‘competitors’, and emulating ‘best practices’, lest they be left behind in this intensifying competitive struggle for the kinds of resources (public and private) that neoliberalism has helped make (more) mobile.
5. Narrowing urban policy repertoire based on capital subsidies, place promotion, supply-side intervention, central-city makeovers, and local boosterism.
6. Creates a situation where national and transnational governments funds increasingly flow to cities on the basis of economic potential and governance capacity rather than manifest social need.
7. Regressive welfare reforms and labor-market polarization, for example, are leading to the (re)urbanization of (working and non-working) poverty, positioning cities at the bleeding edge of processes of punitive institution building, social surveillance, and authoritarian governance. 
You will recognise some of these "tendencies" in Auckland Council and Central Government local government policies now. More are likely to come to New Zealand as the incorporation of, and tacit acceptance of these ideas consolidates.

So: Who is the Liveable City really For?

While the rhetoric of Council and Mayor and Auckland Plan might be interpreted as meaning that the liveable city is for its citizens, most of the initiatives that are being taken are to make Auckland a safe and attractive place for investment (for foreign and local investors and for central government infrastructure investment), to promote and stimulate economic growth. That is fundamentally what the Liveable City is for. And then it is assumed that there will be local benefits from this investment. That's the 'trickle down' effect.

You might disagree with a lot of what these academic researchers have written, but it might make you think differently, and you might consciously make decisions about these matters, rather than just being another disciplined and well-behaved cog in the growth machine.

Kia kaha

(Useful references:
Read more of Jacobson's work.
Peck, Jamie and Tickell, Adam (2002) ‘Neoliberalizing Space’. Antipode. Volume 34, Issue 3, pages 380–404.
Brenner, Neil and Theodore, Nik (2002) Cities and the geography of ‘actually existing neoliberalism’. Antipode. Blackwell publish: MA, USA
Brenner, Neil and Theodore, Nik (2002) Spaces of Neoliberalism: urban restructuring in North America and Western Europe. Antipode: UK.)

On Special Housing Areas

Someone much wiser than me once wrote that: "people will believe something is true, if it is evident that others believe in it firmly..."

A couple of contested ideas about Auckland, copied from the Auckland Housing Accord document:

  • "(there is) a current shortfall of 20,000 - 30,000 new homes and a need for 13,000 new homes each year for the next 30 years..."
  • "...the 2013 Demographia International Housing Survey rated Auckland as severely unaffordable with a median multiple of house price to income of 7..."

Since the Housing Accord was agreed there have been a number of other pieces of information that have emerged about Auckland's population growth. One of these was the Census and a report by The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research which contradicted the first idea (See Fallow). There has also been debate about the median multiple statistic. A quick check of TradeMe's Real Estate listings shows there are many 3 bedroom homes on their own sections in Manukau City for sale for under $300,000.

So how real is the scarcity and affordability problem?

The above "facts" are used consistently and frequently with Auckland Councillors to keep them on the straight and narrow, keep them tied to the cause, and reinforce them for holding the line, compliment them for strength of character.

But is that what the role of an elected Councillor should be? Wouldn't it be more useful for a councillor to ask questions of the "facts" that are put in front of them? Wouldn't it also show greater strength of character? Reveal them to be questioning, seeking awareness of the many possibilities there are for action. Wouldn't that be more useful than leaning on "facts" that are in doubt?

Now that I'm a planner, my greatest concern with Special Housing Areas is how they will be implemented. I generally support the need for an implementation plan when considering the redevelopment of parts of urban Auckland.

But what I'm hearing is that these proposed Special Housing Areas will really only be a cluster of development sites for developers. The wild west. No urban planning to speak of. Just let the market and entrepreneurial energy build the new community and any necessary infrastructure. So just a cluster of homes - and no structure plan - and no binding economic development plan that will take a share of the profits from development sales to fund necessary infrastructure - whatever that might be.

And what I understand is that the planners who work for Auckland Council, and who are generally nudging these Special Housing Areas along have bought into the idea that this is the way to go. No Structure Plan needed. No infrastructure funding and development plan and agreement needed. Let the market deliver....

So what school did you planners go to? Surely you had the odd lecture about market failure and that urban planning and design is needed - beyond what the RMA delivers and requires - to ensure good urban outcomes?

Or are you just about outputs now?  ten houses permitted today - hooray!  A Special Housing Area agreement signed tomorrow - hooray!  Driven to feed the questionable and insatiable engine of housing shortage and affordability. Not sure about the urban outcomes, but just love those outputs to report back to management, make Council look good, and keep the Minister happy.


Come on planners. Look in the mirror and consult your handbook of ethics.

And give them a hand councillors. Show some interest in the problems your officers and planners are dealing with pioneering these Special Housing Areas under pressure from be-suited central government bureaucrats. Ask a few questions when you have an opportunity. Otherwise your silence will be interpreted as support. And you'll be thanked and stroked. But not by those who will eventually end up living in poorly planned housing estates.....

On Auckland Public Transport Priorities

In contemplating what needs to be done to improve Auckland's public transport, and in identifying where the highest priorities are for investment, it is necessary for Councillors and those "in charge" to consider many matters, and to be open to a change in thinking when circumstances change.

And they have.

One of the biggest changes to Auckland public transport planning has been Auckland Transport's decision to redesign Auckland's bus network. The implications of this are well illustrated and reported in the transport blog here and commented upon more recently here. When I was involved in PT planning at North Shore City Council and ARC I was made aware of the challenges to reorganisation presented by the particular PPP arrangements and contracts in place with private bus operators. This was so thorny that it all seemed intractable. As transport blog writers put it with AT's fast frequent bus network plan: "we have the opportunity for an absolutely revolutionary improvement to that often neglected, yet still utterly dominant, part of our public transport system – the buses...."

At risk of poking a somewhat sacred cow, I am now going to challenge the holy gospel of the central rail link project....

But first of all some holy writ to question:

  • Auckland's rail network is like Perth's, which can now carry 20,000 passengers/hour
  • The top priority for Auckland public transport is to build the central rail link

When he was Mayor of North Shore City Council, George Wood criticised me "because I wanted to destroy the Northern Busway project". I didn't want to destroy it, but I was critical of the route proposed (within the State Highway designation, instead of through Barry's Point edge of Takapuna, through Milford etc), and the location of large stations (especially Akoranga which is in the middle of nowhere). Maybe sometime in future the city will come to the busway, but for now, the busway is not a shaper of urban development (except perhaps at Sunnynook). That digression is here because I have a little history of taking on sacred cows.

When I was on ARC I was a regular questioner of the rail rationale. This was because, being numerate and being well-travelled and being analytical, I didn't readily adopt the beliefs of those around me who had strong beliefs - bordering on religious - in rail for Auckland.

Before I go on, let me say this this: I do accept that Auckland has rail corridors that carry freight and passengers, and that it is rational to use those pre-existing corridors and designations for public transport. But within reason.

Because there is this:

  • Auckland's rail network is like Perth's (same gauge) but there the similarity ends. The principle difference between Perth and Auckland is that Perth's rail network was built grade-separated from the road network. This means there are very few at grade intersections (between road and rail) requiring level crossings. In contrast, the large number of level crossings in Auckland's rail network presents a significant obstacle to delivering fast frequent services. And removing these comes at huge cost - see, for example - the cost of removing level crossings in New Lynn.
  • I believe that Perth's commuter rail network does not also carry freight services.
  • Auckland PT planners talk up the service level that can be expected in future on Auckland's electrified rail network. Sometimes - though rarely - service levels of 5 minute frequencies in future are mentioned. Given 6 car sets, with each car carrying 100 passengers, that means each train carries 600, which at 12 per hour is equivalent to a maximum carrying capacity of 7,200/hour - much less than Perth

Figures for the CBD Rail Link project vary between $2 billion and $3 billion. As councillors at ARC we were told that rail was very expensive compared with buses. But we pressed on. I pressed on as Chair of the Regional Land Transport Ctte. But I have never had satisfactory answers to my questions about rail carrying capacity, and network upgrade costs - especially the cost of grade separation of the rail network from the roading network in order for frequencies to get anywhere near the levels delivered in Perth.

And now, as of 2013, the bus network has been rationalised and replanned. It is to be a fast frequent network. While I agree that the CBD rail link designation should be obtained, so that the project can be built in future, I believe that Auckland Council needs to prioritise improvements to the roading network used for the fast frequent bus network - so that buses have priorities - especially at peak times. This is the most pressing and justifiable need for PT investment now.

Councillors would do well to ask Auckland Transport what PT service benefits could be expected, and gained, from the investment of $1 billion in Auckland's bus network - now that it has been rationalised - instead of/ahead of building the CBD rail link.

I can see that investment being used to plan and implement bus priority measures through the reallocation of road use on the network. I can see that perhaps Auckland Transport might purchase a a fleet of buses and establish a PPP to allow a new publicly owned operator onto one of the routes, to allow some comparative cost benchmarking with privately contracted operators, or it might go 50/50 in the capex of new buses with some operators in order to improve the quality and comfort of the service, and it can improve the quality of onstreet furniture (bus stops and shelters) to send the message out that this is about quality and customer service.

And a final thought. Thinking about liveability. If there is a genuine interest in delivering liveability throughout the region (not just those able to use the North Shore busway, or those benefitting from the rail corridors in the West and the South), then spare a thought for those in the South West and elsewhere with very poor levels of PT service.

Significant investment in the fast frequent bus network and services would benefit ratepayers and residents across the region. It would be egalitarian. Big ticket rail network upgrade and extension projects need to go on the back burner - not their planning - in the interests of debt management, borrowing for necessities, and not getting sucked into projects that might feel good bordering on religion, but fail to affordably provide the greatest benefit for the greatest number.

Cycling and Liveability

"I think, therefore I cycle" - a saying I came across on the web the other day.

The Auckland public debate after the recent fatal cycling accident seems typical of any Western world city, all of which in some shape or form are recognising, or have recognised, the need for safe cycling infrastructure. Some cities did it a long time ago - Copenhagen, Stockholm and Amsterdam. The popular myth that these cities have always had good cycling infrastructure and never had public debates and dissension over cycling is quite untrue. European cities adopted the American dream of motorways and highways and private car ownership after the second world war - just like New Zealand cities - a key difference being that their cities were bigger, with greater populations, and in most cases narrow street networks, so that travel demand by cars quickly overwhelmed the capacity of local streets.

That led to the removal of pre-existing cyclelanes, conflict between cars and bikes, a rising cycling death toll, and eventually major public protests - particularly by women - angry at the deaths of children on their way to school and on local errands. Authorities quickly responded, and the cycle infrastructure we see today in the photos and tourist videos, shows the results of those public protests.

It is important to note that the debates over cycling in those European cities were highly polarised. Motorists did not want road space allocated to cyclists, and cyclists wanted to be able to cycle safely on local roads.

The debate is polarised in Auckland too, but Auckland is different. This is not because Aucklanders didn't cycle to work, school and for errands before cars became so popular. They did in the early twentieth century, but the city streets were generous, with plenty of room for trams, buses, a few cars and cycles - so there was no need for cycle lanes. (This pic is from outside the premises of the bicycle shop of Dexter and Crozier, cycle importers, Victoria Street East, Auckland, in 1902).

The level of anger being expressed now in Auckland is not as high as led to the changes in European cities, but I suggest to those councillors and others in authority and with the power to make changes - don't wait till a pupil biking to school gets killed.

It may suit your peace of mind to believe the arguments of motorists and their advocates. There's nothing like a firmly held opinion to convince and comfort those who are reluctant to speak about the need for change, who don't want to encourage cycling. Those bound by a commitment to moving round in a tonne of steel stroke quiet politicians and say, "good on you, stay strong, these lycra louts need to be contained...."

Or whatever the argument: they don't pay road taxes, they should be registered, they need to be educated, they should go on training courses, they are inconsiderate ..... it goes on and on .... reading the comments in the NZ Herald's webpages remind me of what democracy is. It's a long way from governance by the best.

Cycling has been returning to New Zealand and to Auckland for a long time. Many have done their bit to accelerate change. I'll never forget time on North Shore City Council in 1998 and 1999 when I first tried to change Council policy on cycling. I was almost laughed out of the chamber. Not a single Councillor supported my motion. Outside round the teacups councillors much younger than me suggested I must be joking. "No-one wants to cycle around here", they said. And one even ran a gym. After a year I managed to get a majority to support a motion calling for the development of a North Shore Cycling Strategy. It was a start, eventually leading the way to a cycle lane along Lake Road, and support for cycling lanes to local schools especially Belmont Intermediate.

But boy it was hard. For a time North Shore City was a little oasis of cycling in the Auckland region (I know, oasis is hardly the right word, the least arid I guess.) Gradually other cities built bits and pieces of cycle infrastructure - often not joined up - and often not across the really dangerous intersections of road networks. The message (and signs) to cyclists was "dismount".

Auckland Transport is a Council Controlled Organisation in name only. The reality is that Auckland Transport each year requires Auckland Council to raise rates to fund transport priorities that are actually determined by central government's policy statement on land transport. Words are cheap when it comes to naming institutions - AT being a CCO - not really. Auckland's transport priorities are determined by central government in Wellington. Auckland Councillors might like to think they are in control. But while have little ability to influence Auckland Transport, they do have some influence.

If Auckland Council was to embrace the new world of commuter cycling, cycling to school, errands and to the park - and I don't mean high speed lycra - then it can lead change, rather than being dragged along reluctantly. It was good to read in NZ Herald that Cllr Darby had managed to get agreement for text calling for "an increase in priority for cycling and walking" to go into the Council's letter of expectation, but hey, that call could be satisfied by going from 3.1% of the budget to 3.10005%.

It's an output measurement. Not an outcome.

Cycling wants to come to Auckland. It can make Auckland rate more liveable in most international measures. But not if cycling itself is unsafe, and unliveable.

Ironically, Central Government has committed to significant investment in cycle trails throughout the country. But have they not noticed that users of rural cycle trails need to get trained before they head into the countryside?  My experience suggests that for every kilometre of rail trail that gets biked in the country, several kilometres get biked in an urban environment by inexperienced riders wanting to get cycle fit. Some build a regime into their daily commute. More efficient to get fit on the way to work, rather than taking time out in the gym. Not only that but tourists who come here for the cycling quite rightly assume that cycling will be as encouraged and as safe in our cities - especially the Queen City where they first arrive - as it is in the country. (This is certainly what I have noticed in United States cities, and Northern European cities, priding themselves in their safe cycling infrastructure.)

So what might Councillors do to make a difference, to make Auckland more liveable, by making it safer for cycling. I have a few thoughts from my own ten years cycling experience: Devonport, Ferry, Queen Street, Albert Street, Pitt Street, Quay Street, Custom Street, Anzac Street, Symonds Street...

Cycling has increased hugely in that time, and cycle parking provision, despite additions from time to time, is mostly at capacity. Auckland's cycling demographic has changed from lycra dominance to casual commuter dominance. The style has changed from the coast to coast stereotype, to the Copenhagen stereotype. And more, lots more would do it, but they feel it is unsafe on the mean streets of Auckland City.

Most cycling commuters on Auckland City streets today are toughened, defensive cyclists. They have learned the habits of defensive cycling. They anticipate accident producing situations: drivers not seeing them, doors being suddenly opened, people stepping between slow moving lines of vehicles, drivers suddenly overtaking, turning left and cutting you off. But they also value the sense of freedom that cycling provides. Bike slow and you're on talking terms with pedestrians, because you're going at walking speed uncased in a tonne of metal, and know that it's not a problem to ease across a red light intersection with pedestrians. Bike faster and you're sharing the road with cars - provided they let you.

But those who would cycle, want to cycle, want that choice, but haven't much experience, are quite rationally fearful of sharing a road with a line of traffic and buses. Note to councillors: ask for some decent market research, focus groups and suchlike, so you know why more people don't cycle and what you can do to make the change. (You do want changes that make Auckland more liveable don't you? And cycling is one of those measures that crank up when cycling is safe.)

Auckland CBD needs a network of cyclepaths on or adjacent to the existing road network. This requires space to be re-allocated from road traffic.  Note to councillors: don't combine "cycling and walking" in one phrase. Really they are like chalk and cheese. Two different modes. Two different transport infrastructure needs. Request that cycling and walking be treated separately and planned separately. Why?  Because it's an excuse to do nothing really - combining cycling with walking. So called "sustainable modes". (Some bikes have batteries. What's the difference with an electric car?)

If the path is wide - let's say 4 metres - then that's a path that can be shared by cycling and walking. But for the most part, and to provide for cycling as a transport mode, cycling needs its own path. It needs its own strategy. So separate it from walking.

Final note to councillors: it's great that you support the SkyPath cycling and walking infrastructure over the Auckland Harbour Bridge. But you'd call anyone nuts for building a motorway with cul de sacs for exits - wouldn't you? Cycle infrastructure is the same. You need to be able to get from A to B on it to be really useful. (I mean a whole trip - like home to a destination).

Go on. Make a difference to Auckland's liveability. People will love you for it.




Thursday, January 30, 2014

Auckland's Indigenous Music Culture Opportunity

Accompanied my daughter to the Lorde concert at Silo Park last night. Very relaxing and relaxed venue....

Went and listened to Greg Clark, Auckland Conversations beforehand.  He was talking about "business friendly cities..." competition between cities for investment... sort of thing.... but he did make some interesting comments about Auckland....



Lots of places at Silo Park to sit and chat, get something to eat.... We had a beer and a litre of wedges at Jack Tars on North Wharf. So we didn't need anything more.

The startup acts were underway at the stage, but a lot of the crowd just enjoyed sitting and chatting. It was a glorious evening.
The place looks great.

Plenty of food choices....
The six pack silos make a great background...

Greg Clark told us that people in a lot of other cities don't even know that Auckland is a city. he started his chat by saying he reckoned Auckland needed to discover its own authentic, indigenous, identity, and that - once he'd dealt with the whole thing about being business friendly - he'd come back with a couple of suggestions for Auckland....
The grittiness of Wynyard Quarter is the background of most of the pictures...it's good... it's what the plans have been calling for....
There is the flash of ASB in the background here....
Place is full of people out for a good night...
And again...
Managed to squeeze in a bit of silo, harbour bridge and the James Bond boat being maintained. Seagulls enjoyed the scraps...
Back to Greg Clark.  He told us that Auckland rated high for quality of life, outstanding natural environment, highly effective governance institutions. BUT that Auckland has "patchy global appeal", ranks weak in "presence" and is weak in "liveliness". In fact he used the word "anonymous" to describe Auckland. He advised that Auckland needed to find its DNA, to expose its soul, to discover its inbuilt pattern, and work with that - not against it.....
Gradually the crowd gathers round the stage. Lorde was due at 9:00 but kept us waiting for 20 minutes or so. Vomiting apparently.  Standing room only....
Very good natured though...
And then with a bang we were into it. An extraordinary 17 year old in her school shoes....
Blue light sticks were free. There was a cunning plan for them to all get lit up for Royals, but the crowd couldn't wait....
Here's how NZ Herald reported the concert. 
"....A Laneway make-up show on a Wednesday night in little old Auckland must feel like a blip when more than 28 million people watched you perform at the Grammys.
But Lorde, who had only walked off the plane from Los Angeles the morning of the show, had plenty of surprises in store for the nearly sold out crowd of 10,000 at Auckland's Silo Park...."
It was fun - though for me - wanted to hear her singing more than I needed to feel the bass line - but then I'm an oldie...
And everyone went wild with the blue light sticks. (Click on the pic to see it enlarged....)
Quite a splash.....

Greg Clark came back to his theme at the end of his talk. What IS Auckland. Is it volcanoes, islands, boats and water?  Is it about openness, diversity, human relations?  Or how about the nexus between sport, food, nutition and health...?

But he ended by suggesting this:  Your indigenous population is Maori, that is what really strikes me. Think about  what Martin Luther King means in and to Atlanta...   The new constitution in South Africa and how this is a big thing now to and for Johanesburg....  Auckland's "offer" can be the way it rebuilds its relationships with its indigenous people...."

This is all from Greg Clark.....

And so here we all are coming back across Te Whero bridge from Silo Park. Happy throng. Buzzing with it all. Some of us headed for the Devonport Ferry, some for bus, some to Britomart.  I know the feeling is similar when there's a concert at Vector Arena. 
Remember how Auckland was during the Rugby World Cup - when Samoa and Tonga had their teams here - when Auckland built - temporarily - a relationship with its polynesian population? Scroll through this posting and remember.

Maybe Auckland's buzz can be built around music. Sort of New Orleans of the South Pacific. There sure seems to be a lot of good stuff coming out of schools and music clubs and groups across the region. How about bringing NZ's Got Talent as well into Auckland Central. This expression does not need to be confined to TV and internet ITunes. Through music, performance, rehearsal spaces, performance places, it can become part of Auckland's urban night life - and rebuild that relationship within and between peoples.

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Debunking Demographia House Price Survey

It's about time NZ Herald and Auckland Council refrained from giving the Demographia Housing Affordability survey such an easy ride - especially given there are more useful and more credible surveys available internationally. And even more reason is that the matter of housing affordability requires reasoned discussion in Auckland.

In this posting I will quote criticism of the Demographia survey that has been published in Australia where stories similar to what we see in New Zealand about "unaffordability" are pedalled by Demographia. I will also refer readers to other surveys which are held in higher regard by the Economist - for example.

And at the end of this post I summarise the more useful findings and research of Numbeo - a very interesting and emerging crowd-sourced database including cost of living comparisons.

DEBUNKING DEMOGRAPHIA

But first, here's what the Australian Property Forum had to say a couple of years ago about the Demographia work:
The infamous Demographia survey is updated and released every year, and every year the property bears of Australia use the survey to claim that Australian houses are the most expensive in the world, the most unaffordable on the planet, the greatest real estate bubble in history.

But almost half a million families and individuals bought homes in Australia last year. So while housing may be unaffordable to some (has it ever been otherwise?) plenty of people do seem to be able to afford to buy houses. So how come so many people are buying houses in a country that Demographia claims to be completely unaffordable?

Obviously there must be many flaws in the Demographia survey, some of which I will outline here.....

For a start, the Demographia survey uses a very simplistic measure of affordability - the median house price to median gross household income ratio. Using gross household income is an inappropriate way to determine household spending power, because the spending power of a household is based on the amount of gross income remaining after costs are deducted for essentials such as taxes, food, transport, clothing etc. Differences in tax rates and cost of living pressures across various countries make a comparison of spending power based on gross income meaningless. Furthermore, there is no reason why a family on median wage income should feel entitled to be able to afford a median house, because houses are not purchased using wage income alone. Houses are purchased using wealth. A better measure of a household's ability to afford property would be to consider household discretionary income and total wealth. This would include non-wage income (such as income from interest, shares or other investments), and wealth stored in other assets (such as shares or equity in existing property) that may be liquidated or borrowed against in order to fund a new property purchase. A family with median wealth should feel entitled to a median dwelling, but an FHB on median wages (with no other wealth) should not....

The survey also fails to consider dwelling size. Houses in Australia are, on average, the largest in the world, so when comparing median houses it is important to note that a median dwelling in Australia is much larger than a median dwelling in the other countries. Why would Australians build the largest houses in the world if our houses are supposedly unaffordable? Wouldn't we build smaller less expensive ones if that was the case? The truth is that Australians have high incomes, Australia is a prosperous country, and as a nation we choose to spend a large portion of our disposable income on nice large well appointed houses. Clearly we can afford to do that.

Another major failing with the Demographia survey is its measure of median house price. The official median house price figures that Demographia use for Australia are sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. However these ABS figures only include freestanding houses. They don't include units or townhouses, meaning that Demographia are overstating median house prices in Australia compared to the other countries assessed in their survey (countries where units and townhouses are included when calculating the median house price).

So, the Demographia survey compares median house price to income ratios across various countries, but clearly there is no reason why those house price to income ratios should be consistent across each country, because there are substantially different factors impacting the housing markets in each country. The Demographia survey fails to consider the following important factors:

- Disposable/discretionary income
- Wealth (including wage income, non-wage income, and assets)
- Employment rate
- General cost of living (affects spending power)
- Interest rates
- Credit availability
- Rental yield
- Availability of public housing
- Marginal tax rates
- Mortgage default rates
- Tax incentives such as negative gearing, FHOG, CGT reductions
- Land/block size
- Dwelling size and quality
- Proximity to transport and infrastructure
- Currency exchange rates
- Economic and political stability
- Average persons per dwelling
- Home ownership rates
- Urbanisation
- Population growth rate
- Demographics (it is ironic that a survey called Demographia ignores basic demographics!)

Of course, no survey is perfect and no survey can possibly hope to account for all these factors. The best we can do is try to look at as many different surveys as possible, each of which address a few of these factors, and this will give an better general impression of comparative affordability in each country, rather than looking at just one survey (I have linked to twelve alternative surveys below).....

In my view, the best way to determine whether homes in Australia are affordable or not is to employ a little common sense.

1 - Would we choose to build the largest homes in the world if homes were unaffordable?
2 - Would half a million families and individuals (approximately) be buying homes every year if they couldn't afford those homes?
3 - Would we have one of the lowest mortgage default rates in the western world if people couldn't afford their homes?

I believe the answer to each of those questions is 'no'.

Can every first home-buyer in Australia afford the home they desire right away? Of course not... they never could. But any family willing to work hard can afford a home of some description, and as they progress through life, increasing their income and wealth, over time they will be able to afford comparatively better houses. Once they have achieved median wealth then the average family can afford a median dwelling, and later in life an average family who continues to build their wealth can afford increasingly higher quality dwellings. This is the way it has always been.

Here are some alternative studies...

World's Top 10 Priciest Cities To Own A Home
Sydney - not in the top 10

Numbeo: House Price to Household Disposable Income Ratio
London 15x, Singapore 14x, Tokyo 12x, New York 8x, Dublin 8x, Sydney 7x

GlobalProperty Most Expensive Cities 2009 (apartment price per sqm):
Sydney - Number 28: US$4,994 per sqm

CityMayors Expensive Cities
Sydney - Number 38

Knight Frank Survey (prime residential property)
Sydney - Number 8: EU$13,100 per sqm

Overseas Property Mall Survey
Average home values for select 2,200 square foot single-family dwellings with four bedrooms...
Tokyo $786K, Sydney $683K

The Economist: Worldwide Cost of Living Survey
Australia - Not shown in the top 10

Mercer Most Expensive Cities (cost of living, including housing)
Sydney - Number 24

Xpatulator Global Cost of Living Ranks
Sydney - Number 22

Aneki (most expensive countries to live in)
Australia - Not shown in the top 20

Most expensive countries in the world
Australia - Not in the list

Most expensive rental markets
Australia - Not in the list

NUMBEO

The study that I have looked at closely and which seems to me far more useful when looking at what is happening in Auckland is the NUMBEO study, which is now one the largest and most data rich sources of cost of living and housing price data in the world.

The survey data quoted by NUMBEO is described on its website like this. I have highlighted in bold aspects of the approach of note:
.... there is no standard formula to calculate property price indices. Our formulas differs from Case-Shiller Index, UK Housing Price Index, etc.

Price to Income Ratio is the basic measure for apartment purchase affordability. It is the ratio of median apartment prices to median familial disposable income, expressed as years of income.

Our formula assumes and uses:
  • net disposable family income, as defined as 1.5 * the average net salary
  • that the average apartment has 90 square meters
  • its price per square meter is the average price of square meter in city center and outside of city center

The statistics that are reported, by country, include:
  • Mortgage as Percentage of Income is a the ratio of the actual monthly cost of the mortgage to take-home family income.
  • Average monthly salary is used to estimate family income.
  • It assumes 100% mortgage is taken on 20 years for the house (or apartment) of 90 square meters where the price per square meter is the average of price in city center and outside of city center.
  • Loan Affordability Index is an inverse of mortgage as percentage of income. Used formula is : (100 / mortgage as percentage of income).

So there you go. In some ways this survey is like Demographia's - ie that it calculates a ratio of median prices to median family incomes. However when analysing affordable homes (as opposed to all homes), then it is more useful to survey the types of homes that are generally purchased by young families and couples starting out on the housing ladder. And for most cities in the world, the starting point is NOT a freehold 200 square metre floor area, three bedroom house on 400 square metres of land. The starting point is an apartment. The NUMBEO survey reports affordability of 90 square metre apartments.

You can see the NUMBEO survey for 2013 here for 103 countries. Note you can list the data in any ascending or descending order - by clicking the arrow keys.

In 2013, New Zealand ranked 21 (Price to Income Ratio of 6.40), while the USA was 1 (Price to Income Ratio of 2.16), Germany, Canada and Ireland ranked 8, 9 and 10 respectively. Australia ranked 32. And so on.

Then you can also look at the affordability index which considers the cost of a loan (assuming it is taken on for a 20 year period) and which uses interest data from each country and such like. New Zealand ranks 24th in affordability (with 1 - the USA - being most affordable), and places like Belarus and Ghana being least affordable and ranking 100 or more. It should be noted that in this survey countries like Sweden, Australia, Italy, Egypt rank as less affordable than New Zealand.

In Auckland we need to be measuring and comparing data that helps us focus on change and on policies that will make a difference, rather than using discredited surveys that only exist to reinforce a particular party line that is all about removing development costs and improving conditions for developers so they can be effectively subsidised to build relatively expensive and large homes.

We know that the average NZ home has been increasing in floor area for the past 20 years or more, and that the number of occupants/home has been decreasing on average. This is inconsistent with the policy objective of increasing the supply of affordable homes, because internationally, affordable homes in urban environments are apartments.


Understanding Urine - Stop Taking the Piss

NZ Herald and NZ Listener Magazine have run - with increasing frequency and force - articles criticising the growth and expansion in NZ's diary industry. Much of this media reporting has been triggered and informed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Environment's recent report on land use change and water pollution which shows a clear link between expanding dairy farming and increasing stress on water quality.

This article, by NZ Herald's writer on the NZ economy, was unusually to the point, and did not pull any punches.

My own research interest in this matter goes back a long way - being a South Islander (my rivers were the Oamaru Creek, the Kakanui River and the Waitaki River) - and over the past two decades thinking about water demand and raw water quality (Waikato River as drinking water source for Auckland).

Because of the issue of nitrate pollution I have recently been educating myself to better understand where the nitrogen actually comes from. To begin with, I had thought the main source of nitrogen contamination from pastureland in dry, relatively unfertile areas (such as North Otago and South Canterbury, was the zealous use of fertiliser. (This also being a source of phosphorous). I thought that nitrogen rich fertiliser was dissolving in surface water and then running off into rivers and into groundwaters.

That is happening, but the nitrogen cycle is more complex than that. Reading this Listener article (which you have to subscribe to see in entirety) alerted me to the fact that cow piss contains lots of nitrogen, and that cow urine is the main source of nitrogen contamination in natural waters (not nitrogen from fertilisers).

This was interesting. Good to have a new fact get in the way of my opinion.

So I did some research, and found this briefing from Environment Waikato, which says this, I have added emphasis:
Nitrogen is one of the most important major nutrients
in the New Zealand farming system. It enters the
system either by clover root nodules taking the
nitrogen from the air and fixing it in a form the
clover can use. It also enters as bought-in feed or
as nitrogenous fertiliser. Plants take up the nitrogen
returned to the soil in the form of urine, dung and
leaf litter. A small proportion of this nitrogen is
converted to milk, meat and wool.
What I take from this is something new about where the nitrogen that gets in the urine is coming from. It is taken from the atmosphere (air contains 78% nitrogen) during the growth of certain forms of pasture plants - especially clover. Cows eat the pasture which contains nitrogen taken up from fertiliser AND ALSO from the atmosphere. Hardly any of the nitrogen consumed by the cow is converted into milk or meat. It is disposed of as urine.


What has not been made crystal clear in the science that I have read in popular press is that much of the nitrogen in cow urine comes from the atmosphere.

We know that cows eat grass and convert organic matter into milk.

But it's not that simple.

As they grow, clover and other pastureland plants convert atmospheric nitrogen into digestable chemicals which are also consumed by the cow (along with the organic materials in the leaves and stalks), and nitrogen rich left-overs are mostly separated in the cow's stomach and then passed out as ammonia in urine. (And yes, plants also absorb nitrogen from fertiliser).

The more cows on an area of land eating natural pasture, the more nitrogen from the air is being transformed into ammonia on the ground (urine) where it is converted into nitrates by bacterial action. Nitrates can be used by plants, but if there’s too much it leaches past the roots, into the ground, and into groundwater reservoirs, where it slowly accumulates.

Scientists call these urine patches nitrogen hot spots.

This is a tragedy of the commons like global warming in reverse.

Instead of atmospheric carbon dioxide increasing through fossil fuel burning, it’s atmospheric nitrogen conversion into groundwater nitrate contamination as a by-product of dairy herd factory production of milk from pasture. Intensive dairy-farming is a machine sucking inert nitrogen from the atmosphere and pouring chemically active nitrate contaminants into natural water resources.

Asking farmers to clean up their factories is a bit like asking car owners to drive less and slow climate change.

 The question: “Can the conflict between the dairy farming economic boom and polluted water be resolved?” is a good one to ask, but it begs another: “by whom?” When Government sacked Environment Canterbury’s elected councillors and appointed commissioners to oversee difficult water allocation problems, it cited political advice that “ECan was science led, but that it should be science informed”.

You can't have it both ways guys. Now we have elected councillors and water scientists not being trusted by government. It's reminiscent of another time when government decided it couldn't trust local government with climate change. Took it into the Minister's office. Looks like that's where cow piss is headed too. But isn't it time to stop pissing about...?

Friday, January 17, 2014

Who is the Liveable City For?

This posting is the start of a critique I will be developing this year about the fundamentals of planning and governance in Auckland. This one considers the powers of our elected local government representatives, and, using a critique of planning in Barcelona, suggests that the driving force for Auckland planning has little to do with the what Auckland councillors, board members, and ratepayers might think or want.

Local Government Powers....

We sometimes kid ourselves that we are free, and that we live in a free society.

Auckland Councillors and Local Board members might easily convince themselves they are free to debate and discuss Auckland City, develop a vision freely, and make plans that will be implemented enhancing citizen abilities to make the most of their own freedom, as they live their lives, working and playing in Auckland.

But a moment's thought should dispel that. For example:
  • Local boards have no power. They are "an unincorporated body" and are not "a local authority, a community board, or a committee of the governing body" and "must undertake any responsibilities or duties that are delegated to it by the governing body (Council) or Auckland Transport". 
  • Auckland Transport decisions are actually driven by Central Government's Policy on Land Transport
  • The Auckland Council cannot perform any function or exercise any power that the Local Government Act has conferred upon Auckland Transport (and there's a lot of these)
  • .... and the list goes on....

These are obvious restrictions and limitations written in law on the powers of Auckland Council and Local Boards and their members. Others are less obvious, but reflect and impose the will of central government. For example, take a look at s.10 of the Local Government Act:
10. Purpose of local government

(1) The purpose of local government is—
(a) to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and
(b) to meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.

(2) In this Act, good-quality, in relation to local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions, means infrastructure, services, and performance that are—
(a) efficient; and
(b) effective; and
(c) appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.
Gone is the language and comprehensiveness of sustainable development for local government with economic, social, environmental and cultural objectives. Instead the emphasis is on efficient, effective and appropriate infrastructure, services and regulatory functions.These words are there to control councillors, board members and council staff. Stick to the basics. Austerity and discipline. Which is not all bad, but discipline can be directed in ways that might not be so obvious.

Central Government Policy for Local Government

Probably the best place to look for the underlying political drivers and desires that are fundamental to understanding Central Government local government reform is National Party policy on local government.

It's local government policy in 2011 is headlined:

“Building a Stronger Economy....

National will encourage regional
economic growth by working with councils across regions to eliminate barriers for firms and businesses to grow and expand..."

No mention of communities and ratepayers in this local government policy text. Emphasis is clear. The small print explains further:
Building local growth
Good, effective local government is important. It contributes to our plan to build a brighter future, grow a stronger economy, and create real jobs with higher incomes. It provides the essential local infrastructure our businesses and communities need to prosper. National is encouraging an efficient local government sector that supports a growing economy and brings benefits to taxpayers, ratepayers, and communities....
 NB, this is National's local government policy. You can see that it is all about economic growth and economic efficiency. It notes that "National" is: encouraging an efficient local government sector that supports a growing economy...

So how is it "encouraging" that sector? One mechanism is through further Local Government reorganisation carried out by the Local Government Commission. And this is much more explicit about the rationale for restructuring local government in New Zealand.

Legislation requires, that "in considering possible changes to local government:
.....the Commission must be satisfied that its preferred option....
will facilitate, in the affected area, improved economic performance, which may (without limitation) include—
(i) efficiencies and cost savings; and
(ii) productivity improvements, both within the local authorities and for the businesses and households that interact with those local authorities; and
(iii) simplified planning processes within and across the affected area through, for example, the integration of statutory plans or a reduction in the number of plans to be prepared or approved by a local authority...."

From this we readily deduce that these are the outcomes from local government that are preferred, desired, and required by central government, which is seeking by hook or by crook to discipline, direct and control the functioning and priorities of New Zealand councils. Of which Auckland Council is the biggest.

Economic restructuring and city governance

Now I'm going to introduce neoliberal politics. But don't groan. New Zealand has been experimenting and adopting neoliberal economic ideas since Rogernomics in the late 1980's. To ignore this influence on your country and the way it affects the running and governance of cities would be silly. Surely.

I quote from research work by Matthew Jacobson entitled: "Producing Neoliberal cities and citizens". While it is partly based on urban development and governance changes in Barcelona, it talks about urbanisation changes in cities around the world over the past 30 - 40 years. It analyses how those urban changes have been influenced by neoliberal economic ideas - which can be used to discipline, shape and control political and planning decisions. I think it is useful to share some of this thinking here, because it helps us all understand and anticipate shifts and changes that might be just around the corner - or here already - in Auckland. How can you sensibly govern or manage a city if you don't take the time to understand the major influences that are acting upon it.

The key ideas for Auckland in the quoted text are contained in the three lists - which you will see if you quickly scroll down. I suggest you read the lists (which are about changes in Barcelona) and note the similarities with what is happening - on your watch - in Auckland. But it does help to put the lists in context:
The shift .... to neoliberal economic logic in the last 30-40 years in a majority of the Western countries of the world has meant there have been significant shifts in how urbanization in the cities has developed. These shifts have brought about changes in the forms of politics and governance in which the city (promotes or encourages) capital accumulation strategies. In other words, neoliberalizing the city also has involved neoliberalizing the citizen. To move forward, neoliberal urban restructuring has meant changes in the ways in which city governments have had to convince and legitimize as well as control city populations....

Neoliberalism (is described) by critical geographers as having gone through an initial phase in the 70´s and 80´s under the leadership of Thatcher and Reagan and then a new phase in the 1990´s in which it became much more interventionist in the sense that in contrast to the early model of reducing government restrictions on trade, the new form is much more directly involved in restructuring and controlling various forms of relations and particularly directions for the development....

Brenner and Theodore summarize that “the overarching goal of such neoliberal policy experiments is to mobilize city space as an area both for market-oriented economic growth and for elite consumption practices”.....
...urbanization is not only a material process but involves attempts to (promote and encourage) certain ways of thinking ... which marginalize others. Examining these ....  is important to grasp how power relations themselves are actually being (re)produced.
How to create a neoliberal city?
Create a system of interrelated and associated administrative hierarchies, laws, popular and intellectual discourses, and histories which work to:
1. Convince popular culture that globalization (in the form of the increasing domination and power of multinational corporations ...) is inevitable, outside of the control of nations, cities, and city populations and that there are only two options: be successful or fail in terms of competing in the ‘free market’.
2. Promote the illusion to the population that the ‘free market’ means they are ‘freer’. Like good magicians give them lots of choices which actually forward your interests (usually profit interests) that you selected for them and they will think they are ‘free to choose’ and never consider who decides what the options are or that they are supporting your accumulation of wealth.
3. Create the popular belief that a central aspect of being successful and having a good quality of life for the residents is creating city spaces which attract large scale foreign investments in the form of built environment, multinational corporation headquarter and operation centers, and tourism.
4. Create histories about the city which make neoliberal colonial/capitalism the natural evolution of advanced societies as the most progressive and well adapted form of social relations in terms of all areas of society including; the protection of the environment and management of resources; technological development which improves the quality of life for all; education, health, and social welfare.
5. Make poverty illegal in the city and a result of poor immigrants who want to take advantage of the rich countries success and steal and cheat to do so. Make colonialism a historical event which was an unpleasant but necessary by-product of European civilizations advancement and success. Make the domination and exploitation of multinational corporations in the ‘former’ colonized parts of the world, a simple matter of capitalism's Darwinian rationalization called ‘survival of the fittest’, and then create ‘aid’ organizations funded by the same multinationals to show that they are part of the ‘solution’ rather than the problem.
6. Promote the city government as democratic, based in popular support, and has as its central priority the improvement of the quality of life for all residents above all other concerns or interests.
7. Give the impression that the public and private sector actually share the same interests and that profits motives and public welfare actually can work together harmoniously to create the ‘best’ city for those that live there. Then create powerful public/private ‘development’ corporations ... and take over poorer historical areas to turn them into privatized ‘chic’ business areas or living areas for the employees. Carefully designate a small proportion of these areas to newly constructed block social housing managed by private property developers with a large percentage of public funds.
8. Take over and manage the renovations that are open in the city with a few goals in mind:
a. Call them ‘public space’ and give the impression that the city and police are the best managers to ensure these spaces are attractive, useful, clean, and ‘peaceful’. Under no conditions let the residents of these areas gain the impression they have the right, ability, or capacity to decide and manage what happens in the open areas or plazas where they live.
b. Make sure that residents learn to deal with all social problems by calling the city police or complain to city officials rather than form their own associations and get the impression they can form communities where their problems can be discussed and dealt with through relationships.
c. Target poorer historical areas of the central city and make them into theme attractions for tourists.
d. Make plazas and other open areas places which are controlled and regulated under newly establish civic norms where you make illegal a series of behaviours that a lot of residents don’t like to live around (peeing and prostitution) which then lets you police and regulate the spaces to keep them happy places for tourism to pass and spend money.
e. Build large cement areas where there are no places for gardens or play areas such as basketball or soccer.
f. Create areas where you can have large scale private functions such as ‘merchandise’ sales, small booths filled with tourist items, artist performances which are regulated and controlled by the city with no political content.
g. Decrease as much as possible spontaneous socializing, play, or most importantly political encounters.
So that's what you might do if your objective is to neoliberalise a city and its citizens, so they are more ready to play ball when the big investors and developers come to Auckland with their proposals. This is a set of suggestions for conditioning Aucklanders and training them.

More explicit urban development policy objectives are also summarised in the Jacobson text:
Neoliberal transurban tendencies towards reflexive and entrepreneurial city governance (Peck and Tickel, 2002):
1. The normalization of a ‘growth first’ approach to urban development, reconstituting social –welfarist arrangements as anticompetitive costs and rendering issues of redistribution and social investment as antagonistic to the overriding objectives of economic development.
2. The pervasive naturalization of market logics, justifying on the grounds of efficiency and even ‘fairness’ their installation, as the dominant metrics of policy evaluation.
3. Through a combination of competitive regimes of resource allocation, skewed municipal-lending policies, and outright political pressure undermines or forecloses alternative paths of urban development based for example, on social redistribution, economic rights, or public investment. This produces a neoliberal ‘lock-in’ of public sector austerity and growth-chasing economic development.
4. Putting the cities in positions where they are pressured to actively-and-responsively-scan the horizon for investment and promotion opportunities, monitoring ‘competitors’, and emulating ‘best practices’, lest they be left behind in this intensifying competitive struggle for the kinds of resources (public and private) that neoliberalism has helped make (more) mobile.
5. Narrowing urban policy repertoire based on capital subsidies, place promotion, supply-side intervention, central-city makeovers, and local boosterism.
6. Creates a situation where national and transnational governments funds increasingly flow to cities on the basis of economic potential and governance capacity rather than manifest social need.
7. Regressive welfare reforms and labor-market polarization, for example, are leading to the (re)urbanization of (working and non-working) poverty, positioning cities at the bleeding edge of processes of punitive institution building, social surveillance, and authoritarian governance. 
You will recognise some of these "tendencies" in Auckland Council and Central Government local government policies now. More are likely to come to New Zealand as the incorporation of, and tacit acceptance of these ideas consolidates.

So: Who is the Liveable City really For?

While the rhetoric of Council and Mayor and Auckland Plan might be interpreted as meaning that the liveable city is for its citizens, most of the initiatives that are being taken are to make Auckland a safe and attractive place for investment (for foreign and local investors and for central government infrastructure investment), to promote and stimulate economic growth. That is fundamentally what the Liveable City is for. And then it is assumed that there will be local benefits from this investment. That's the 'trickle down' effect.

You might disagree with a lot of what these academic researchers have written, but it might make you think differently, and you might consciously make decisions about these matters, rather than just being another disciplined and well-behaved cog in the growth machine.

Kia kaha

(Useful references:
Read more of Jacobson's work.
Peck, Jamie and Tickell, Adam (2002) ‘Neoliberalizing Space’. Antipode. Volume 34, Issue 3, pages 380–404.
Brenner, Neil and Theodore, Nik (2002) Cities and the geography of ‘actually existing neoliberalism’. Antipode. Blackwell publish: MA, USA
Brenner, Neil and Theodore, Nik (2002) Spaces of Neoliberalism: urban restructuring in North America and Western Europe. Antipode: UK.)

On Special Housing Areas

Someone much wiser than me once wrote that: "people will believe something is true, if it is evident that others believe in it firmly..."

A couple of contested ideas about Auckland, copied from the Auckland Housing Accord document:

  • "(there is) a current shortfall of 20,000 - 30,000 new homes and a need for 13,000 new homes each year for the next 30 years..."
  • "...the 2013 Demographia International Housing Survey rated Auckland as severely unaffordable with a median multiple of house price to income of 7..."

Since the Housing Accord was agreed there have been a number of other pieces of information that have emerged about Auckland's population growth. One of these was the Census and a report by The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research which contradicted the first idea (See Fallow). There has also been debate about the median multiple statistic. A quick check of TradeMe's Real Estate listings shows there are many 3 bedroom homes on their own sections in Manukau City for sale for under $300,000.

So how real is the scarcity and affordability problem?

The above "facts" are used consistently and frequently with Auckland Councillors to keep them on the straight and narrow, keep them tied to the cause, and reinforce them for holding the line, compliment them for strength of character.

But is that what the role of an elected Councillor should be? Wouldn't it be more useful for a councillor to ask questions of the "facts" that are put in front of them? Wouldn't it also show greater strength of character? Reveal them to be questioning, seeking awareness of the many possibilities there are for action. Wouldn't that be more useful than leaning on "facts" that are in doubt?

Now that I'm a planner, my greatest concern with Special Housing Areas is how they will be implemented. I generally support the need for an implementation plan when considering the redevelopment of parts of urban Auckland.

But what I'm hearing is that these proposed Special Housing Areas will really only be a cluster of development sites for developers. The wild west. No urban planning to speak of. Just let the market and entrepreneurial energy build the new community and any necessary infrastructure. So just a cluster of homes - and no structure plan - and no binding economic development plan that will take a share of the profits from development sales to fund necessary infrastructure - whatever that might be.

And what I understand is that the planners who work for Auckland Council, and who are generally nudging these Special Housing Areas along have bought into the idea that this is the way to go. No Structure Plan needed. No infrastructure funding and development plan and agreement needed. Let the market deliver....

So what school did you planners go to? Surely you had the odd lecture about market failure and that urban planning and design is needed - beyond what the RMA delivers and requires - to ensure good urban outcomes?

Or are you just about outputs now?  ten houses permitted today - hooray!  A Special Housing Area agreement signed tomorrow - hooray!  Driven to feed the questionable and insatiable engine of housing shortage and affordability. Not sure about the urban outcomes, but just love those outputs to report back to management, make Council look good, and keep the Minister happy.


Come on planners. Look in the mirror and consult your handbook of ethics.

And give them a hand councillors. Show some interest in the problems your officers and planners are dealing with pioneering these Special Housing Areas under pressure from be-suited central government bureaucrats. Ask a few questions when you have an opportunity. Otherwise your silence will be interpreted as support. And you'll be thanked and stroked. But not by those who will eventually end up living in poorly planned housing estates.....

On Auckland Public Transport Priorities

In contemplating what needs to be done to improve Auckland's public transport, and in identifying where the highest priorities are for investment, it is necessary for Councillors and those "in charge" to consider many matters, and to be open to a change in thinking when circumstances change.

And they have.

One of the biggest changes to Auckland public transport planning has been Auckland Transport's decision to redesign Auckland's bus network. The implications of this are well illustrated and reported in the transport blog here and commented upon more recently here. When I was involved in PT planning at North Shore City Council and ARC I was made aware of the challenges to reorganisation presented by the particular PPP arrangements and contracts in place with private bus operators. This was so thorny that it all seemed intractable. As transport blog writers put it with AT's fast frequent bus network plan: "we have the opportunity for an absolutely revolutionary improvement to that often neglected, yet still utterly dominant, part of our public transport system – the buses...."

At risk of poking a somewhat sacred cow, I am now going to challenge the holy gospel of the central rail link project....

But first of all some holy writ to question:

  • Auckland's rail network is like Perth's, which can now carry 20,000 passengers/hour
  • The top priority for Auckland public transport is to build the central rail link

When he was Mayor of North Shore City Council, George Wood criticised me "because I wanted to destroy the Northern Busway project". I didn't want to destroy it, but I was critical of the route proposed (within the State Highway designation, instead of through Barry's Point edge of Takapuna, through Milford etc), and the location of large stations (especially Akoranga which is in the middle of nowhere). Maybe sometime in future the city will come to the busway, but for now, the busway is not a shaper of urban development (except perhaps at Sunnynook). That digression is here because I have a little history of taking on sacred cows.

When I was on ARC I was a regular questioner of the rail rationale. This was because, being numerate and being well-travelled and being analytical, I didn't readily adopt the beliefs of those around me who had strong beliefs - bordering on religious - in rail for Auckland.

Before I go on, let me say this this: I do accept that Auckland has rail corridors that carry freight and passengers, and that it is rational to use those pre-existing corridors and designations for public transport. But within reason.

Because there is this:

  • Auckland's rail network is like Perth's (same gauge) but there the similarity ends. The principle difference between Perth and Auckland is that Perth's rail network was built grade-separated from the road network. This means there are very few at grade intersections (between road and rail) requiring level crossings. In contrast, the large number of level crossings in Auckland's rail network presents a significant obstacle to delivering fast frequent services. And removing these comes at huge cost - see, for example - the cost of removing level crossings in New Lynn.
  • I believe that Perth's commuter rail network does not also carry freight services.
  • Auckland PT planners talk up the service level that can be expected in future on Auckland's electrified rail network. Sometimes - though rarely - service levels of 5 minute frequencies in future are mentioned. Given 6 car sets, with each car carrying 100 passengers, that means each train carries 600, which at 12 per hour is equivalent to a maximum carrying capacity of 7,200/hour - much less than Perth

Figures for the CBD Rail Link project vary between $2 billion and $3 billion. As councillors at ARC we were told that rail was very expensive compared with buses. But we pressed on. I pressed on as Chair of the Regional Land Transport Ctte. But I have never had satisfactory answers to my questions about rail carrying capacity, and network upgrade costs - especially the cost of grade separation of the rail network from the roading network in order for frequencies to get anywhere near the levels delivered in Perth.

And now, as of 2013, the bus network has been rationalised and replanned. It is to be a fast frequent network. While I agree that the CBD rail link designation should be obtained, so that the project can be built in future, I believe that Auckland Council needs to prioritise improvements to the roading network used for the fast frequent bus network - so that buses have priorities - especially at peak times. This is the most pressing and justifiable need for PT investment now.

Councillors would do well to ask Auckland Transport what PT service benefits could be expected, and gained, from the investment of $1 billion in Auckland's bus network - now that it has been rationalised - instead of/ahead of building the CBD rail link.

I can see that investment being used to plan and implement bus priority measures through the reallocation of road use on the network. I can see that perhaps Auckland Transport might purchase a a fleet of buses and establish a PPP to allow a new publicly owned operator onto one of the routes, to allow some comparative cost benchmarking with privately contracted operators, or it might go 50/50 in the capex of new buses with some operators in order to improve the quality and comfort of the service, and it can improve the quality of onstreet furniture (bus stops and shelters) to send the message out that this is about quality and customer service.

And a final thought. Thinking about liveability. If there is a genuine interest in delivering liveability throughout the region (not just those able to use the North Shore busway, or those benefitting from the rail corridors in the West and the South), then spare a thought for those in the South West and elsewhere with very poor levels of PT service.

Significant investment in the fast frequent bus network and services would benefit ratepayers and residents across the region. It would be egalitarian. Big ticket rail network upgrade and extension projects need to go on the back burner - not their planning - in the interests of debt management, borrowing for necessities, and not getting sucked into projects that might feel good bordering on religion, but fail to affordably provide the greatest benefit for the greatest number.

Cycling and Liveability

"I think, therefore I cycle" - a saying I came across on the web the other day.

The Auckland public debate after the recent fatal cycling accident seems typical of any Western world city, all of which in some shape or form are recognising, or have recognised, the need for safe cycling infrastructure. Some cities did it a long time ago - Copenhagen, Stockholm and Amsterdam. The popular myth that these cities have always had good cycling infrastructure and never had public debates and dissension over cycling is quite untrue. European cities adopted the American dream of motorways and highways and private car ownership after the second world war - just like New Zealand cities - a key difference being that their cities were bigger, with greater populations, and in most cases narrow street networks, so that travel demand by cars quickly overwhelmed the capacity of local streets.

That led to the removal of pre-existing cyclelanes, conflict between cars and bikes, a rising cycling death toll, and eventually major public protests - particularly by women - angry at the deaths of children on their way to school and on local errands. Authorities quickly responded, and the cycle infrastructure we see today in the photos and tourist videos, shows the results of those public protests.

It is important to note that the debates over cycling in those European cities were highly polarised. Motorists did not want road space allocated to cyclists, and cyclists wanted to be able to cycle safely on local roads.

The debate is polarised in Auckland too, but Auckland is different. This is not because Aucklanders didn't cycle to work, school and for errands before cars became so popular. They did in the early twentieth century, but the city streets were generous, with plenty of room for trams, buses, a few cars and cycles - so there was no need for cycle lanes. (This pic is from outside the premises of the bicycle shop of Dexter and Crozier, cycle importers, Victoria Street East, Auckland, in 1902).

The level of anger being expressed now in Auckland is not as high as led to the changes in European cities, but I suggest to those councillors and others in authority and with the power to make changes - don't wait till a pupil biking to school gets killed.

It may suit your peace of mind to believe the arguments of motorists and their advocates. There's nothing like a firmly held opinion to convince and comfort those who are reluctant to speak about the need for change, who don't want to encourage cycling. Those bound by a commitment to moving round in a tonne of steel stroke quiet politicians and say, "good on you, stay strong, these lycra louts need to be contained...."

Or whatever the argument: they don't pay road taxes, they should be registered, they need to be educated, they should go on training courses, they are inconsiderate ..... it goes on and on .... reading the comments in the NZ Herald's webpages remind me of what democracy is. It's a long way from governance by the best.

Cycling has been returning to New Zealand and to Auckland for a long time. Many have done their bit to accelerate change. I'll never forget time on North Shore City Council in 1998 and 1999 when I first tried to change Council policy on cycling. I was almost laughed out of the chamber. Not a single Councillor supported my motion. Outside round the teacups councillors much younger than me suggested I must be joking. "No-one wants to cycle around here", they said. And one even ran a gym. After a year I managed to get a majority to support a motion calling for the development of a North Shore Cycling Strategy. It was a start, eventually leading the way to a cycle lane along Lake Road, and support for cycling lanes to local schools especially Belmont Intermediate.

But boy it was hard. For a time North Shore City was a little oasis of cycling in the Auckland region (I know, oasis is hardly the right word, the least arid I guess.) Gradually other cities built bits and pieces of cycle infrastructure - often not joined up - and often not across the really dangerous intersections of road networks. The message (and signs) to cyclists was "dismount".

Auckland Transport is a Council Controlled Organisation in name only. The reality is that Auckland Transport each year requires Auckland Council to raise rates to fund transport priorities that are actually determined by central government's policy statement on land transport. Words are cheap when it comes to naming institutions - AT being a CCO - not really. Auckland's transport priorities are determined by central government in Wellington. Auckland Councillors might like to think they are in control. But while have little ability to influence Auckland Transport, they do have some influence.

If Auckland Council was to embrace the new world of commuter cycling, cycling to school, errands and to the park - and I don't mean high speed lycra - then it can lead change, rather than being dragged along reluctantly. It was good to read in NZ Herald that Cllr Darby had managed to get agreement for text calling for "an increase in priority for cycling and walking" to go into the Council's letter of expectation, but hey, that call could be satisfied by going from 3.1% of the budget to 3.10005%.

It's an output measurement. Not an outcome.

Cycling wants to come to Auckland. It can make Auckland rate more liveable in most international measures. But not if cycling itself is unsafe, and unliveable.

Ironically, Central Government has committed to significant investment in cycle trails throughout the country. But have they not noticed that users of rural cycle trails need to get trained before they head into the countryside?  My experience suggests that for every kilometre of rail trail that gets biked in the country, several kilometres get biked in an urban environment by inexperienced riders wanting to get cycle fit. Some build a regime into their daily commute. More efficient to get fit on the way to work, rather than taking time out in the gym. Not only that but tourists who come here for the cycling quite rightly assume that cycling will be as encouraged and as safe in our cities - especially the Queen City where they first arrive - as it is in the country. (This is certainly what I have noticed in United States cities, and Northern European cities, priding themselves in their safe cycling infrastructure.)

So what might Councillors do to make a difference, to make Auckland more liveable, by making it safer for cycling. I have a few thoughts from my own ten years cycling experience: Devonport, Ferry, Queen Street, Albert Street, Pitt Street, Quay Street, Custom Street, Anzac Street, Symonds Street...

Cycling has increased hugely in that time, and cycle parking provision, despite additions from time to time, is mostly at capacity. Auckland's cycling demographic has changed from lycra dominance to casual commuter dominance. The style has changed from the coast to coast stereotype, to the Copenhagen stereotype. And more, lots more would do it, but they feel it is unsafe on the mean streets of Auckland City.

Most cycling commuters on Auckland City streets today are toughened, defensive cyclists. They have learned the habits of defensive cycling. They anticipate accident producing situations: drivers not seeing them, doors being suddenly opened, people stepping between slow moving lines of vehicles, drivers suddenly overtaking, turning left and cutting you off. But they also value the sense of freedom that cycling provides. Bike slow and you're on talking terms with pedestrians, because you're going at walking speed uncased in a tonne of metal, and know that it's not a problem to ease across a red light intersection with pedestrians. Bike faster and you're sharing the road with cars - provided they let you.

But those who would cycle, want to cycle, want that choice, but haven't much experience, are quite rationally fearful of sharing a road with a line of traffic and buses. Note to councillors: ask for some decent market research, focus groups and suchlike, so you know why more people don't cycle and what you can do to make the change. (You do want changes that make Auckland more liveable don't you? And cycling is one of those measures that crank up when cycling is safe.)

Auckland CBD needs a network of cyclepaths on or adjacent to the existing road network. This requires space to be re-allocated from road traffic.  Note to councillors: don't combine "cycling and walking" in one phrase. Really they are like chalk and cheese. Two different modes. Two different transport infrastructure needs. Request that cycling and walking be treated separately and planned separately. Why?  Because it's an excuse to do nothing really - combining cycling with walking. So called "sustainable modes". (Some bikes have batteries. What's the difference with an electric car?)

If the path is wide - let's say 4 metres - then that's a path that can be shared by cycling and walking. But for the most part, and to provide for cycling as a transport mode, cycling needs its own path. It needs its own strategy. So separate it from walking.

Final note to councillors: it's great that you support the SkyPath cycling and walking infrastructure over the Auckland Harbour Bridge. But you'd call anyone nuts for building a motorway with cul de sacs for exits - wouldn't you? Cycle infrastructure is the same. You need to be able to get from A to B on it to be really useful. (I mean a whole trip - like home to a destination).

Go on. Make a difference to Auckland's liveability. People will love you for it.