City size
July 18th, 2012 at 2:49 pm by David FarrarJust been debating affordable housing on Twitter. Greens and supporters are still arguing that the price of housing is awful, but whatever we do we must now allow cities to increase outwards.
One countered by saying that as so many people go to live in Sydney and Melbourne, that proves people don’t want to live in large sprawling cities.
I cheated and resorted to some facts, looking up respective sizes and populations.
It turns out that Auckland is three times the population of Auckland but 21 (yes 21) times the size in terms of area has a population density of 2,900/sq kms and Sydney 2,037 so Sydney is considerably more sprawling and less dense than Auckland. Guess we won’t be hearing again how Sydney (or Melbourne) is a case study for not increasing the urban limit.
Related posts:
- Housing affordability
- Smith targets Auckland metropolitan urban limit
- Auckland Super City
- Housing affordability
July 18th, 2012 at 3:11 pm
David, you might want to look at your figures – what your post appears to be saying is Sydney is denser – at nearly 3,000 people per square km – than Auckland with just on 2,000 people per square km. Thus for the number of people (1 million) Sydney would only be about 350 square kms, but at Auckland densities would be 490 square km – 40% larger. So Auckland is 40% less dense than Sydney.
Completely the opposite of what you are saying.
Vote:July 18th, 2012 at 3:17 pm
I have to agree with Fost on this one.
Vote:July 18th, 2012 at 3:20 pm
The figures do seem to disprove DPF’s point.
In my experience, once you get out of the CBD and old inner suburbs, houses in Auckland, Melbourne, and Sydney suburbs all look pretty much the same. They’re all about the same density. It’s not like anyone has built a New York or a Prague down under.
Vote:July 18th, 2012 at 3:25 pm
I actually don’t know what David’s point is, however, my experience living and working in Sydney for ten years is that it has far more dense population compared with Auckland’s (I don’t know what area David’s measure included but I’m thinking of the area from the eastern suburbs right out to Parramatta). The LGA of Sydney is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government_areas_of_New_South_Wales#Sydney
Vote:July 18th, 2012 at 3:29 pm
DPF has the figures for Auckland and Sydney round the wrong way, that’s all.
Auckland has Urban density 2,900/km2, Sydney has Density: 2058/km².
Melbourne is even less dense at 1567/km²
Vote:July 18th, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Nitpicking over degrees of urban claustrophobia.
Dunedin urban density is 460/km2 – but even better, 10 minutes drive from just about anywhere and you’re out of the (urban) city.
Vote:July 18th, 2012 at 3:39 pm
I wouldn’t mind a slightly longer trip home in the evening, if there was a full-sized house on a decent section waiting at the end of the trip…
Vote:July 18th, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Yeah Pete, Dunedin is the place to be LMAO
maybe no one wants to live there? hence the low density?
Id hate to see Auckland at 2,900/km2. When i lived in sydney it always felt busy. not relaxing.
Vote:July 18th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
RRM, from the CBD I have a 10 minute drive home to the edge of town with harbour views one side, and totally rural outlook the other. And a full sized houe.
But one thing that’s nuts, I have two sections (total 2.5 hectares) and I can’t build on one because it’s zoned productive rural – good for half a dozen woolly landmowers. So subdivisions are done further afield – on fields that were productive.
Vote:July 18th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
Dunedin must be great then; but maybe Invercargill would have an even lower density
Vote:July 18th, 2012 at 5:26 pm
I have Auckland and Sydney numbers mixed up – so my argument is correct.
Vote:July 18th, 2012 at 5:41 pm
Yep Dunedin regularly in Fodors top 23000 best cities world-wide to live in.
Vote:July 18th, 2012 at 5:51 pm
Subsidised housing is a sure way to get people to occupy more space than they otherwise would.
If the Greens were serious they would advocate an end to subsidised state housing and leave the market entirely to private landlords.
But no, they argue for subsidised state housing and denser living at the same time.
Vote:July 18th, 2012 at 5:56 pm
PEB – I’m not unhappy how things are (approximately) – I don’t want hordes of crowders coming here, that would stuff the characater I like.
Vote:July 18th, 2012 at 6:04 pm
Well Pete
I reckon you’re safe from the hordes then, the last time I was there two years ago, I was up a light tower in the Kiwirail yard and although I have been colder I just didn’t live to remember where.
Vote:July 18th, 2012 at 6:34 pm
Lies, damn lies and statistics. These population density stats depend so much on where you draw the line for the city limits of Sydney and Auckland.
According to this article two thirds of sydney-siders live at a population density of 8800 per square kilometre.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-news/sydney-city-crams-its-people-in/story-e6freuzi-1226041839336
Vote:July 18th, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Dunedin is awesome to live in. All the advantages of a small place. Easy easy to live in.
Vote:And a wacking great old serious university. (like – not Waikato)
Which means it is a international place with all sorts of interesting accomplished people.
And also this means there is a scene with interesting businesses. (like – not Penrose warehouses)
High income and low income people both, have more money in their pockets than their peers in Auckland.
We even like all those 20 year old north islanders discovering themselves in the north end.
July 18th, 2012 at 7:14 pm
I still wonder if the comparison is like for like, i.e. are you comparing the same area in both cities?
Vote:What are your sources for those numbers?
July 18th, 2012 at 7:22 pm
and got it wrong as your own correction shows.
That’s the problem with twitter debates. The need for a speedy return doesn’t allow you any proper research.
Vote:July 18th, 2012 at 8:15 pm
one of the biggest causes of density is local councils wanting to raise their rates by denying people the opportunity to own affordable land.
more land released and therefore less cost = cheaper housing.
but then everyone knows this, we just don’t have the political will to act on it.
Same as national super.
what a country of wankers we are.
Vote:July 19th, 2012 at 12:18 am
The last time I was in Dunedin , I thought it was really clean and tidy..attractive main street etc..Coming from CHCH , I couldn’t help but envy all the old buildings. I have just been in Sydney ; I much prefer it to Auckland regardless of density.
Vote:July 19th, 2012 at 7:19 am
Had a bit of insomnia last night. Wish to God I’d got up and logged on, this would have put me out like a light…..
Vote:July 19th, 2012 at 9:05 am
I guess this is why you’re a pollster and not a statistician? As willtruth said, it will very much depend on how you draw the boundaries for the polygons that one is using to calculate the density. Anyone who’s been to Sydney could work out that it is far, far denser than Auckland. There’s barely any intense housing development in auckland anywhere, hell as soon as you hit the burbs almost everyone is living on a section, outside of maybe eden terrace. That is certainly not the case in Sydney. Not to mention the fact that apartment buildings are a major fixture of the city right the way up and down the coast. The only way I can imagine they got those figures is if they included Cambelltown and all the satellite cities, but those places are dumps, miles away from anywhere and stinking hot. My guess would be if you only calculated based on “urban” areas, Sydney would kill us, much like the daily mail article suggested.
Vote:July 19th, 2012 at 10:03 am
This really was a rubbish post, wasn’t it? Even by Kiwiblog standards.
Vote:July 19th, 2012 at 11:23 pm
Have you not looked into the problem of stacks of unsold properties in the outer reaches of Melbourne? No one want to live that far from the city, not even the poor, who you’d like to have tucked out of the way.
If I need to live an hour plus drive from Auckland to afford a slither of land on a decent income, then I just won’t live there, meaning many decent cities outside NZ, with real city infrastructure, have more appeal.
Your party can’t just keep saying brighter future to make it so.
Vote: