Auckland's "One Rating System"

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

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

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

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

My first letter to NZ Herald went like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or is it just expensive propaganda?

All $400,000 houses are not the same

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

But it is anything but fair.

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

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

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

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

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

3.6% Rate Increase? Not!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Interest and the Unitary Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three things to say:

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

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

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

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

Essay: Garden City and Auckland

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

The Garden City and the Future of Auckland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Essay: Transport Planning and Auckland

This post contains an essay submitted as part of student course work for the Planning 100 "Introduction to Planning" course taught by me this year at Planning School, University of Auckland. The topic for the essay is: Comment on the influence of different forms of transport in shaping urban form and the way people live in an urban environment. Investigate and explain the key transport issues facing those responsible for planning Auckland's future. The essay is about Auckland planning and is by Luke Carey, who has kindly given permission for it to be published here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Essay: Utopianism and Auckland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Essay: Culture and London's Urban Form

This post contains an essay submitted as part of student course work for the Planning 100 "Introduction to Planning" course taught by me this year at Planning School, University of Auckland. The topic for the essay is: Comment on the influence of culture on the way urban settlement develops. Choose a city and describe how specific cultural ideas shape settlement patterns within the urban environment. The essay is about the evolution of London and is by Jessie Jia Qin Xie, who has kindly given permission for it to be published here.

London can be underlined as the urban mecca of Britain. Brown (1965) informs that the Romans established London as a livable-‘main junction’ to connect Britain to the Thames River. Eventually settlements sprawled concentrically whilst population and transportation intensified. The introduction of the industrial revolution and aristocracy drove the commercialism culture and social priorities were shifting away from its monarchal and religious ideas into self-driven pursuits of happiness. Nonetheless, urban settlement and displacement coincided with the changes in societal desires of mainly the upperclass.

The Victorian Era was the instigation of Plutocracy. Brown (1965) claims that this era was the beginning of London’s financial proliferation and liberation: This resulted in a ‘miserably unplanned’ London. Hall (2002) claims in 1780, London was the ‘fastest growing’ port town, this drew the poorer rural population and worker migrants into the city: these new urbanites lacked ‘social and technical necessities for urban-life’ as well as the skills and knowledge for the factory industries. This privation prolonged the social gap, created ghettos and compromised employment. The Free-trade movement and the development of larger port-dock drew in Irish immigrants whom wanted employment. Whitfield (2006) recognizes that Immigration was the catalyst for London’s population growth. By 1860, London housed more ‘Roman Catholics than Rome’ and ‘more Irish people than Dublin’. Little (2010) supports Whitfield’s statement stating that the city acted as a ‘magnet’ to the less fortunate because it was concentrated with opportunities. Many of the Irish alongside with dock workers settled in the East end of London, but due to the sway of industrialization; its seafaring-economy could no longer support the additional workforce and many workers relocated to the city in search of employment.

By the 19th century, London’s topography and society was driven by monetary forces of the wealthier class and prosperity became the dominant value of city inhabitants. I believe plutocracy fulfilled aristocratic cultures and enflamed the ‘slum culture’ during urban developments. Weightman & Humphries (1983) show a distinctive commercial transformation in the 1800’s where tradesmen and merchants had to be repositioned away from the city-center for financial offices and buildings, yet the poorer classes remained hopelessly stagnated in the city until demolitions for roads and railway impelled those outwards. Capital exponentially grew by the 1800’s, Brown(1965) comments as London grew outwards, buildings expanded ‘upwards in the center’ especially by the 1850’s, Weightman & Humphries (1983) explains the ‘power and wealth’ concentrated within the city also pushed poverty and it’s people out to the East End London, Healey(2002) calls this notion: Economic Planning. Aristocracy pursued ‘industrial capitalism’ and these ‘Capitalist Entrepreneurs’ fed the pecuniary culture; exploiting labor, creating competition and hierarchy. Weightman & Humphries (1983)also claims that the Late 1800’s saw a decline in employment within the East End ports , poverty struck and forced stagnated residents to settle in slums with diseases, drunkenness and violence. This was partially caused by the exponential growth of its State power, wealth and railways within the city and West end-London’s eviction of the under-employed community into the East end London. The rail-way network allowed residency to decentralize away from work-areas which essentially dispersed varying social classes in a segregated manner. Gentry’s success and prosperity evolved into a culture of exploitation and greed. The incompetent lower class was consequently overpowered by the elite and their previous cheaphousing and slums were demolished for railways, dock-expansions, new office buildings and new roads that benefited the London City and London West end-nobles. Nevertheless, the East end London had weak barriers of entry and powerless social systems which attracted not only the underprivileged of London’s Central Business District but the underprivileged of the whole Britain and worldwide. The Eastend settlements became more concentrated and housing-densities increase whilst the city-Centre intensified its slum-clearance to satisfy the metropolitans’ pursuit for a pristine society.

Eventually by the mid-19th century, London’s metropolis became less residential and highly concentrated with ‘commercial offices’ and warehouses. Brown(1965) identified ‘Brokers’ as the new Victorian- hierarches that had evidently replaced the lucrative businesses of tradesmen and merchants Hall (2002) also argues that aristocracy ‘dominated the growth’ and city-structures during the industrial revolution. He notifies the streets were developed for the ‘richer’ taste; decorous dwellings dominated ‘residential quarters’ and street arrangements were more geometrical to develop garden-squares. Whitfield reinforces that London provided greater ‘commercial opportunities and access to markets which was obliviously unequal and aimed for the higher society. The new railways relocated the city’s residents and eased traffic which resulted in a commercial and trade based metropolitan. London’s Central business District drew in buyers, sellers, bankers, entrepreneurs and aristocrats all coveting wealth: The new wealth shaped the cities social structure. The city was implicitly making way for the upper class, geographically mapping social classes; Weightman & Humphries (1983) identifies the growing professional wealth and consumption of the higher society where the city provided the majority of professional employment.

Although post 1815-London was prospering with wealth and capitalism, masses of poverty still lingered within the city. Weightman & Humphries (1983) notified the newly developed suburbs were not financially assessable and inconveniently displaced for the lower-working class. Newman (2007) claims that the poor occupied over half the urban population. It has appeared that the upper class treasured their social wellbeing that forced them to displace away from poorer communities. By 1870, Whitfield (2006) claims that 250,000 residents had departed from the city central, leaving remnants of ‘starvation, crime, disease, prostitution, drunkenness and disorder’ of the working class. West End-suburban settlement of the riches began to sprawl during the 1880’s, development of offices and ‘high-prestige’ attracted many companies and the suburb became an ‘opulent suburb’. Weightman & Humphries (1983) called it the ‘aristocracy playground’ where the elite created a ‘techno-burb’ of metropolitan characteristics that also provided seasonal shopping’ for luxury goods and entertainment: ‘coffee houses’ in particular became a cultural phenomenon for the fortunate clique.

Weightman & Humphries (1983) depicts that London City expanded from 2 centers: Westminster – Political power and the city- commercial power which was eventually linked by the urban sprawl of West end London. The growth of London’s population naturally spread the city outwards further away from the core-city. The early suburbs were settled within about 3km walking-distance from the city Centre to conveniently access work but with mobility enhancements such railways and underground networks, the expansion of London proliferated. Established settlements were noticeably concentrated by ‘fashionable’ residents with remnants of slums in hidden alleyways and corners. While the majority of the established suburbs were homes to the upper class, minor cases of poorer communities also settled in the outskirts such as Bretford; in comparison to the Bedford estate (wealthier area) unwanted activities such as brewery and slaughterhouses were allowed. This was more practical and accessible for the poorer-lifestyle. Although, cases of such suburban-social amalgamation was rarely seen as it degraded the whole estate. As a plutocratic solution, the poorer society was constantly displaced away from high society.

The patterns that evolve in a city’s urban settlement are primarily triggered by the growth of its population. A city’s façade and structure can be determined by the dominance of certain social ideas and cultures. Victorian and Edwardian London illustrates an era of social wellbeing and prosperity; newly developed from the enlightenment period and into a modern society. It can be concluded that it was specific cultural ideas of the upper-social classes that shaped the city’s reformation and allocation of socially-ranked suburbs. Whilst London began to flourish with wealth due to trade and finance, society also pursued a new money-driven culture that consequently exploited vulnerable communities which extended the social gap. This social gap continued to grow as London’s economy boomed and the British Empire expanded where eventually plutocracy determined the city’s social and physical structure. The power of wealth fuelled plutocracy to an extent that urban and suburban settlement was mostly manipulated to gentry desires: separated from lower social classes. These environments were extremely beneficial for the rich but extremely detrimental to the poor. The need for Upper-class identity could be seen as a catalyst for suburban sprawl. Hierarchy and the social values withheld by aristocrats physically separated the rich from poor as they settled in contrary ends if the city central.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abram, S. (2011) In: The idea of culture in Planning. Culture and Planning. England, Ashgate Publishing Limited, pp. 7-17

Anonymous (1999) The workshop of a new society. The Economist: Millennium Special Edition, pp15-16

Bassand, M. (1995) In: Urban Dynamics and Cultural Action. Culture and Neighbourhoods. Volume 1. Concepts and References. Strasbourg, Council of Europe Publishing, pp. 105-114

Bianchini, F. & Santacatterina. L (1997) In: Analytical themes and issues. Culture and Neighbourhoods. Volume 2. A comparative report. Strasbourg, Council of Europe Publishing, pp. 33-61

Betjeman, J. (1969) Victorian and Edwardian London from old photographs. Suffolk, B.T Batsford Limited

Beaumont, C. (1994) How superstore sprawl can harm communities-and what citizens can do about it. Washington DC, National Trust for historic preservation.

Brown, I. (1965) London an illustrated History by Ivor Brown. The Netherlands, Studio Vista Limited Hall, P (2002). In: The Origins: Urban growth from 1800 to 1940. P. Hall (ed.), Urban and Regional Planning, 4th edition. London, Routledge, pp. 11-25

Healey, P (2002) from Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in fragmented Societies. In G. Bridge & S. Watson (Eds), The Blackwell City Reader (pp.490-501). Oxford UK: Malden MA.

Mehling, M. (1988) London- A Phaidon Culture guide. Oxford, Phaidon Press Limited

Newman, K. (2007) Cultural capitals-Early Modern London Paris. New Jersey, Princeton University press.

Watson, S. (2006) In: Children’s Publics. Bridge, G(ed.). Questioning Cities. City Publics-The (dis) enchantments of urban encounters. USA, Rutledge, pp. 123-158

Walljasper, J. (2007) In: Where Everybody Knows Your Name. The Great Neighborhood Book. Canada, New Society publisher, pp. 34-45

Weightman, G. & Humphries, S(1983)The making of modern London 1815-1914 London, Sidgwick & Jackson

Whitfield, P. (2006) London- A life in maps. London, The British Library