The picture shows the golf course at Devonport which runs between Ngataringa Bay (visible mid right), and Narrowneck Beach's Woodall Park. Got me thinking a little about the effect on Auckland citizens of Central Government policies which are to meet the nation's economic growth targets by stimulating economic development activity in Auckland. (That's leaving aside the other economic growth areas of dairy farming and the Christchurch rebuild.)
A range of policy measures have been put in place by Central Government to encourage and enable urban development across Auckland. These include the supercity amalgamation project which had very little to do with economic efficiency, and much more to do with creating a form of local government much more under the control of Central Government than the city councils it replaced, and much less directly accountable to local ratepayers. Central Government has been able to influence the policy settings of Auckland Council by requiring a particular form of Auckland Plan (defined in legislation), and by requiring Auckland Council's transport planning - for example - and budgeting to accord with Central Government policies on which modes should receive greatest priority (roads for cars rather than public transport). The issue of housing affordability and housing supply is where the influence of Central Government's focus on economic growth - at pretty much any cost - is driving Auckland Council policy settings, with little regard for how those policies will affect the quality of life of people, families and communities already resident in Auckland.
Put simply, Central Government policy is to free up urban development and redevelopment opportunities in Auckland (remove "red tape" and minimise the influence of "nimbyism" both derogatory terms used to describe processes where existing communities can protect their quality of life from the effects of development), to increase demand pressures for housing (by increasing immigration targets) and at the same time to ensure that property investment is largely de-regulated. It is a classic neoliberal strategy to unleash market forces in Auckland property and land development.
Various stakeholders will gain from these policies. The building industry is booming and already stretched to meet demand because of a shortage of skilled tradesmen. The finance industry has an area of the economy it can direct investment with little risk - it seems. Central Government coffers gain from the GST and taxes from increased economic activity, and there's foreign capital from foreign investment in building and brought into the country by new immigrants. These are all gains.
But there are losers in this strategy. These include those existing residents who might lose a golf course, who might suddenly find a piece of park or stopped road has been sold by Council to a developer, who find they can't get their kids into a school with reasonable teacher ratios because places have been taken up by new families in a new subdivision, by workers who find they can no longer reliably get to work in a half hour because new residents have filled up the roading networks. The list is lengthening. Their ability to resist the impacts of this growth strategy on their quality of life has been steadily reduced to the point they can almost be ignored. For now.
There are other signs of a shift that is being forced on the City of Sails. We read in NZ Herald today that more luxury shops are moving into Queen Street and the CBD. Those who regularly walk Queen Street know how few people visit these high end shops, but I understand from retailer friends that it takes just a few very high value transactions each week to keep them viable. But the streetscape that results is not for the rest of Auckland. Changes like these, and the sale of green spaces increasingly beg the question: who is Auckland for? Because increasingly amenities that Aucklanders take as their birth-right - access to green spaces, the right to a night out in the city, freedom to swim close to home - are under threat, because the city is being re-oriented, repainted, represented as an investment opportunity for a few, rather than as a place to live and to thrive for the majority.
The slogan, "the world's most liveable city" is becoming ironic. At least with the "city of sails" you can, on a good day, count the sails out in the Harbour. Maybe there are other ways to measure what is happening, beyond a planned increase in metro GDP which closely correlates in any case with an increase in population, so that our indicators draw attention to what matters to those who live in Auckland already. Other cities (in Sweden, Germany, Japan) have around zero population growth and focus on measuring the quality of life/person, and wealth/person. Not for those cities anymore the crude emphasis on growth at any cost. International interest in measuring quality of urban life is growing. Numbeo is gaining traction because of the sheer volume of data it can draw upon. Have a look at its quality of life rankings and what it considers important when measuring quality of life. And this is an interesting account of what is happening in Japan (a no growth economy), which concludes: "Japan’s experience seems to tell us that the end of growth does not mean the end of everything. Even without growth, Japan seems to have a better handle on many of life’s pressing problems, including health care, longevity, public safety, and personal security than does the faster-growing and wealthier US economy...."
Here in New Zealand it's not that we don't try to measure Quality of Life. There is a regular Quality of Life survey. The recent 2014 survey has a story to tell, as these extracts show, starting with green space:
I don't for a minute suggest this as evidence that we should flog off "surplus" bits of this green space! This data goes with a series of statistics recording what Auckland citizens enjoy about where they live. The natural environment and access to it close to home figures highly in how Aucklanders rate their quality of life. Which makes it all the more important that the powers that be take a good hard look at how those same citizens rate and trust their Auckland Council:
This is not a good start. Barely a quarter understand how Council goes about its business. It might help explain what follows....
"Over half those surveyed would like more say in what the Council does..." Good luck with that. Most of the legislation that disciplines Council behaviours is designed to allow the market to do most things. Hence there is an increasing tendency toward non-notification, and communication, rather than genuine participation in Council decision-making. Auckland Council is ideologically riding along on Central Government coat tails - doing Central Government bidding - rather than genuinely listening to NIMBY's. I would suggest that a lot of what is driving Council is the delivery of Central Government's economic growth strategy - rather than a strategy concentrating on quality of life - despite its stated interest in "liveability". You can see in this statistic what is probably the most telling of all results:
The caption tries to put a positive spin on this. It be more honest to state that less than half those surveyed have confidence in Auckland Council. You'd have to read this as a vote of no confidence. And ramming the message home is this feedback:
This statistic about "influence" is not a surprise either. Because the main influence on Auckland Council is the legislative framework that binds it into Central Government's growth agenda, coupled with the efforts of politicians and officers who also subscribe to that agenda. I think it is time to challenge that agenda. Is it the best we can do in Auckland, and for Aucklanders?
In the meantime, the most effective way for officers and politicians and activists to challenge this agenda when considering a decision, initiative or proposal, is to raise questions about who loses and who gains from it. This is not an anti-development tactic. It is a way of ensuring that the public interests held by existing residents and communities are given proper weight when making decisions that will affect their qualities of life. These interests cannot be left to market forces.
3 comments:
Hi Joel, for the first time I don't agree with you - for me that is unheard of! I think the Auckland Council has done everything in your article all on their own. The Government has had to step in to fill where the council has totally failed.
Len and his boys are totally fixated on the CRL and trying to turn Auckland into a city which demographically can never be like other world cities, primarily because of it's shape. We need satellite cities not a bulging CBD which is only of use to council employees.
They have their head in the sand as you have previously pointed out about the urgent need for infrastructure repairs such as water pipes. It really worries me that water pressure in the CBD isn't efficient enough should a fire break out in some of the many large apartment blocks, it is a tragedy waiting to happen. They should keep up with basic maintenance work which is what we pay our rates for. It is not council job to own and run business, they should get their cotton pickin fingers out of such things and get on with what they're paid for. Businesses are for business people not council wannabees.
Joel I remember Councillor Tony Holman raising matters of why we need to grow so fast passionately during the Growth Forum days. We all thought it was well beyond our control (and it was) but why is it beyond citizens control to determine how many or how quickly more people will live in Auckland or NZ. When did citizens ever have a say on that? Seems we are simply growing to meet the goal of getting bigger - reminds me of Dr Seuss:
“I meant no harm I most truly did not, but I had to grow bigger so bigger I got. I biggered my factory, I biggered my roads, I biggered the wagons, I biggered the loads, of the Thneeds I shipped out I was shipping them forth from the South, to the East, to the West. To the North, I went right on biggering selling more thneeds. And I biggered my money which everyone needs.”
Last sentence say's it all. Question is do we really need to bigger the money, who gets it and at what cost?
Hi Joel,
Great article. Goes quite a bit deeper than NZH...
But I only partially agree with this statement:
"...the most effective way for officers and politicians and activists to challenge this agenda when considering a decision, initiative or proposal, is to raise questions about who loses and who gains from it..."
I think this is not enough. 'Activists' also must propose alternatives to the Plan. The vulgar, extremist version of the Compact City model that the council wants to ram down Auckland's throat must be exposed as ideology and fantasy, posturing as science and reality. There are other ways to achieve liveability, affordability and sustainability than 'compacting the fabric'. Just as there are other ways of achieving come degree of intensification than smearing it all over the place, without any intelligent spatial structure. Once the banality of the current plan is exposed, then better alternatives need to be proposed and explained. The council never allowed a proper discussion of other urban form configurations. Such the 'linear city-region', that I have been arguing for four years now - but, am sure, would not be the only one on the table if non-officialy sanctioned experts were allowed to speak up.
The problem with the current debate is that most people are not aware that alternative spatial layouts exists, because the council has monopolized the debate with its PR machinery and its sway over the media.
The controversy over the golf courses is just another in the long series of controversies triggered but a Plan that is impossible to implement - short of raping what is already one of the 'world's most livable cities' in order to prove an ideology (of urban form) correct.
--Dushko B.
Post a Comment