Auckland growth

October 8th, 2013 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Statistics Minister Maurice Williamson says new data which show that New Zealand population growth has halved since the last could prompt revision of ’s infrastructure plans such as an increase in high-rise apartments and the construction of a city rail loop.

But Auckland Council is standing by its plans for growth, saying that Auckland is expected to grow faster than the rest of the country.

The council’s planning for the next 30 years is based on the prediction that the number of residents will grow by 1 million.

Mr Williamson said the first Census data in seven years indicated that this projection was far too high.

Statistics New Zealand figures released yesterday showed that on Census night, there were 214,101 more people in New Zealand than at the previous Census in 2006. This meant the population had grown by 31,000 a year over the past seven years, compared to 58,000 a year in the previous period of 2001 to 2006.

“This is a huge surprise – bigger than Ben Hur,” Mr Williamson said. “It’s nearly half the growth rate that everyone had been basing their historic numbers on.”

This is why I think the Government’s funding position on the CRL is smart. Budgeted to start in 2010 2020, but with the provision to start earlier if there is sufficient population growth etc leading to inner city employment growth.

The planning documents assume that the region will grow by 2.2 per cent a year. As a result, they include proposals for more high-rise, small apartments in the suburbs and 160,000 homes outside the existing urban boundaries.

The Census data showed a national average increase of 0.75 per cent in population per year, but regional growth would not be revealed until next week.

One can make a dirty estimate if you ignore changes in the Maori roll.

The 21 electorates mainly in Auckland had an electoral population of 1,205,678 in 2006 and of 1,318,141 in 2013. That is growth of 112,463 or 9.3% over seven years.

That equates to an average growth of almost 1.3% a year – well below the 2.2%.

What difference does this make over time?

Well 2.2% a year for 30 years is a 92% growth while 1.3% for 30 years is a 47.3% growth.

What difference does that make to projected population? Well on 1.5 million current population the 2.2% figure means an extra 1.4 million residents while the 1.3% figure means an extra 710,000 – so a difference of around 700,000 Aucklanders.

I look forward to people claiming that we should ignore the census data and not change the Auckland plan. Of course we should wait for the official figures next week.

 

 

Tags: , ,

38 Responses to “Auckland growth”

  1. swan (651 comments) says:

    “This is why I think the Government’s funding position on the CRL is smart. Budgeted to start in 2010, but with the provision to start earlier if there is sufficient population growth etc leading to inner city employment growth.”

    What is smart about funding a project that is uneconomic even with rosy population and patronage growth projections?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. flipper (3,269 comments) says:

    2010.. ???????????????

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. redqueen (342 comments) says:

    This will potentially average out though: if Labour get in charge there could be a massive upswing in immigration again and, in the reverse direction, if we continue with our wonderful ‘resource management’ system we may simply end up with people not being able to afford living in Auckland (or wanting to, if they’re stuck living in astronomically priced shoeboxes), with a corresponding change in demographic patterns in the future. So the current census pattern, while very telling, isn’t the whole story and it will be interesting to see how things actually play out.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. hamish_nzl (21 comments) says:

    Considering that the last 7 years have seen one of the biggest human displacement events in New Zealand’s history (the Christchurch earthquakes), it’s very premature to try to guess Auckland’s population change based on nationwide data.

    Obviously the govt has an interest in getting the boot into Len Brown before voting closes.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. MikeG (359 comments) says:

    Williamson would have more credibility if he also questioned the huge road building program in Auckland – is that still necessary with lower population growth?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. decanker (220 comments) says:

    It’s also good that Auckland doesn’t need to open up so much land now for large new houses, cos you know, lower growth. Extra harbour crossing, puhoi-wellsford, good to know they’re also not required because of the lower growth, billions of savings there. Though I am basing all this on very early figures being released a couple of days before the election.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Cunningham (746 comments) says:

    Anyone who lives in Auckland have any thoughts on the alternative transport plan put forward (can’t remember by who)? Just wondering how it compares to the current one. I saw it on TV a while ago and I wondered why it is not even conssidered. Massive cost difference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Redbaiter (6,478 comments) says:

    “This is a huge surprise – bigger than Ben Hur,” Mr Williamson said. “It’s nearly half the growth rate that everyone had been basing their historic numbers on.”

    Well who is responsible for this major major fuck up?

    Good management means no surprises. Especially in statistical management. That is the whole damn point of it.

    I’d guess Williamson is responsible and he should be fired. Useless prog prick.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Jack5 (4,217 comments) says:

    Singapore/Malaysia solution:

    Hive off Auckland as an Asian-culture city-state and let it do as it likes, find export industries and thrive or sink back to Third World-ism. This while the rest of NZ soldiers on as an Anglo export state in close relationship with Australia.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. decanker (220 comments) says:

    “Anyone who lives in Auckland have any thoughts on the alternative transport plan put forward (can’t remember by who)?”

    Congestion Free Network – a far cheaper alternative to all current local and central government proposals.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Cunningham (746 comments) says:

    decanker but why is it not even considered? It looked good when they explained it but I don’t live in Auckland and the people explaining it obviously have a skewed view. Is it something that should be considered? What are the issues with it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. decanker (220 comments) says:

    Probably because the team behind it are young and the elderly in power are happy to dismiss them. Even though they’re the ones that will be in the city – alive – in 40 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. hj (5,677 comments) says:

    If we aren’t getting the people it must be that Auckland has too many negatives because the Government wankers are explicitly trying to grow the population. Could it be another case of the spin not up to the reality?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Bingo99 (42 comments) says:

    Wow, just wow. Another demonstration of why central government just has no clue on Auckland. They latch on to data to wave a flag of victory, undermining their own investment bias towards roads (afterall, if population growth is going to be sluggish – why build massive motorways?), all the while assuming past behaviour is an accurate predictor of future growth. Worse given the data has come from such a disruptive period for local and global immigration flows.

    What’s funnier is that Wellington bureaucrats assume that Auckland has a functioning, acceptable transport system right now. It doesn’t. It’s a compete mess. Roading is a mess, public transport is a mess – you can’t live in Auckland and expect to lead a normal, productive life without owning a car. It is effectively an Auckland tax – the initial outlay for the car, subsequent running costs, parking costs etc.

    The loop reduces that burden – it gives people a choice, which is what the political right should be all for. It unlocks so much in terms of employment opportunities (if you live out west and can’t afford a car, there could actually be a reasonable alternative within cost/time constraints outside of your area), development potential and, actually, increasing the efficiency of Auckland’s PT network – again, something the political right should be all for.

    If anything, the government should be ditching whatever plucked-outta-Joyce’s arse transport plan they have for Auckland now and adopt the Congestion Free Network (CFN) plan. It aint perfect, but it’s a much much better starting point than what we have now (which may be the same as no plan at all).

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. hj (5,677 comments) says:

    JESSICA – How is Auckland growing compared with the rest of the world in terms of a city?

    PAUL – Well, just to talk about New Zealand for a minute – natural growth, that’s the births over deaths, is still the most important factor in New Zealand’s growth. But in Auckland, our most important factor is immigration. So we are one of the major destination cities around the world, and you can see that in the make-up of Auckland – the number of people who have been born overseas.
    JESSICA – Let’s talk about that immigration mix, particularly in a place like Auckland. 40% of the population is born overseas. What is that immigration growth looking like long term?

    PAUL – Well, the first thing is that 40% puts us right at the top. I mean, there aren’t many cities around the world that have 40% of their population born overseas. I mean, Toronto, Vancouver, but really

    New Zealand is growing slowly. Statistics New Zealand have released their first population projection since 2009. With nearly 4.5 million people living here now, the projections show slow growth in coming years – 5 million in the mid-2020s, 6 million around 2060. But it’s the make-up of that population that’s most interesting. By the late 2020s, 1 million New Zealanders – that’s one in five – will be over 65, and there’ll be more of them than there are children under 15. And as our fertility rates decline, so the proportion of immigrants rises. To help explain what all this might mean, here’s Jessica Mutch with Massey University professor Paul Spoonley.

    JESSICA – Professor Paul Spoonley, thank you very much for joining us this morning. I want to touch on that 5 million figure – that’s what New Zealand’s population is going to be in 2020. What will New Zealand look like with that kind of population?

    PROF PAUL SPOONLEY – Massey University
    Well, we’ll be much older, but we’ll also have a much higher proportion of immigrants, and so the things that stand out are the ageing population and the fact that our growth is going to have to come from overseas.

    JESSICA – Are we growing as fast as we should?

    PAUL – No, we’re not, but then all countries in the Western world are in decline, and we are what’s called premature ageing. So not only are we getting a lot more older people – that’s in size – but as a proportion of the population they’re growing because, of course, we’re seeing quite a few young people leave the country.

    Success is population increase and diversity and that is National Party (the property Council) policy.
    The distinguished academic also says diversity is absolutely essential for our economic well being.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Redbaiter (6,478 comments) says:

    “The loop reduces that burden – it gives people a choice, which is what the political right should be all for.”

    So where is the choice in paying for it?

    You want it.

    You build it.

    That is real choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. hj (5,677 comments) says:

    “The democratic process has been prevented from correcting our maladaptive immigration policies due to bipartisanship – a long-term deal between the major political parties to keep immigration issues off the table at election time.”
    http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2010/6/the-misguided-advocates-of-open-borders

    National, Labour, Green Party,UF (in our case).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. nickb (3,629 comments) says:

    Monorail, monorail, monorail!

    I know next to nothing about the central rail loop but form what I do know it seems bizarre and a spectacular waste of money.

    AFAIK it doesn’t even go into nay suburbs and just goes from britomart around the city to the top of Queen St and back?

    This sounds retarded given that public transport in the inner CBD is generally good with link and loop buses abound, and no overcrowding at all. Why on earth do you need a train to double up on the same routes? Surely you would focus on more trains and more buses during peak hours to and from the suburbs.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Yogibear (227 comments) says:

    @DPF “I look forward to people claiming that we should ignore the census data and not change the Auckland plan.”

    No need to ignore the Census data at all.

    The small issue, and Maurice as Minister should know this, is that Stats NZ don’t rely on the Census for their population forecasts.

    Births, deaths and net migration see Stats NZ updating their national population forecasts quarterly, and their sub-national (i.e. Auckland) forecasts annually.

    As I understand it, both the Unitary Plan and the CRL used the latest annual propulation projections available, and these already incorproated the slowdown Maurice now says needs to be factored in.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. hamish_nzl (21 comments) says:

    Redbaiter is right. Although for projects of this size we’ll need to form an organisation with the funds and authority to undertake the work. It can represent the people of Auckland and will be run by a board of members, voted for by the people of Auckland. We’ll pay it a levy and it will decide on what services will be funded on our behalf. We’ll get it to provide all sorts of services that would be infeasible to otherwise. I’ll get right on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. hamish_nzl (21 comments) says:

    @nickb it has a number of considerable benefits:

    1. Significally increases the city catchment with Aotea and K rd stops (ie the *destinations* that people might want to go to). For each *city* station you build, you increase the number of people willing to use every single other station, but for a suburban stop you only increase the catchment linearly.

    2. Removes the Britomart bottleneck. Britomart is a dead end, which means every train that goes in has to come out the same way. This means the entire network is near capacity, even though the rest of the network could see much increased trip frequency. The CRL turns Birtomart in a thru station, which basically frees up capacity on the *entire* network. In other words, it makes the entire network more efficient.

    3. It cuts a significant time of the Westernline city journey. It means Western line trains don’t have to dog leg through Newmarket.

    The network effects are huge, so while it’s an expensive project, it’s not quite as retarded as you think =)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. decanker (220 comments) says:

    Nickb: “This sounds retarded…”

    Yes, what you described is retarded.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Fox (182 comments) says:

    So that’s the best the ‘intellectual heavyweights’ within the National Party can do in terms of projecting future population growth??
    Take HISTORICAL data from 7 years back which; tells us nothing about what FUTURE trends might be, says nothing about what possible changes in immigration policy lie ahead of us, changes in regional growth policy and trends, fluctuating future global and national economic developments, changes in human behaviour and reprioritisation of the work/lifestyle/environment mix etc etc, and simply take a pencil and ruler and draw a straight line extrapolation and say “that’s it – that’s our future growth projection for the next 30 years”.

    FFS

    Frightening…..truly frightening.

    Remember we’re simply talking about a planning document here. If the document proposes that (for example) 15,000 apartments are to be built, that doesn’t make it mandatory for them to be built! It is simply a provision, so that when demand for them eventually arises the project developers can get straight to it and put concrete to ground, rather than having to wait for a bunch of half witted bureaucrats and politicians on both local and nation levels to do their usual agonisingly protracted song and dance, and spend 10 years+ stewing and mulling over whether it’s a good idea or not.

    Also it is worth noting that we are currently in a housing CRISIS.

    Finally the Auckland Council has gotten serious about actually tackling this issue and doing some substantive about it and impressively have even managed to coordinate efforts to produce a clear, concise and comprehensive planning document – and lo and behold, who would be there waiting in the wings at the threshold trying to throw a last minute spanner into the works and sabotage their efforts; The National Party!

    To those of you who up to now may up have been under the slightest impression that National is in any way, shape or form serious about solving the housing crisis (as if the last 5 years of hand-sitting wasn’t indication enough), actually gives two squirts of piss that low income Kiwis are wilting away under the pressure of outrageously exorbitant rents, could give a damn about the fact that NZ houses are now amongst the most unaffordable in the developed world, or are in the slightest bit bothered by the fact that most young Kiwis currently don’t have a hope in hell of being able to own a home, let alone own one near a town/city where they actually have job prospects and where there is employment opportunity, I suggest it is at this point that you sit up and take notice, because finally Maurice Williamson has revealed the Nat’s cards and shown us where they REALLY stand.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Redbaiter (6,478 comments) says:

    Poor old Hamish, a communist product of NZ’s fouled education system whose history skills are so poor he has never heard of private investment consortia building railroads, buses, ships, airlines, tunnels, roads, bridges. As they have done for centuries.

    Suddenly, in the 21st century with our government and our bureaucracy stuffed full of lame unimaginative risk averse shiny arsed public tit sucking half educated socialist losers, it can’t be done.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. mikenmild (8,778 comments) says:

    I can’t see a private consortium leaping forward to build, own and operate public transport networks in New Zealand. New Zealand has a long history of socialising transport infrastructure, given the difficulty of attracting private capital to provide networks that have benefits shared so widely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Redbaiter (6,478 comments) says:

    Funny ain’t it Milkey, Cuba doesn’t attract much private investment either.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. mikenmild (8,778 comments) says:

    New Zealand’s background has been of state investment in areas for which private capital could not be raised. I’m thinking of most rail development and electrification here: essential steps in NZ’s development for which private capital was not available. It would be nice to have a country built solely by private investment; but that’s not the lesson from our past.

    Re Cuba, about which I know little, isn’t there a ban on private investment from the US in operation there?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. swan (651 comments) says:

    mikenmild,

    “I can’t see a private consortium leaping forward to build, own and operate public transport networks in New Zealand. New Zealand has a long history of socialising transport infrastructure, given the difficulty of attracting private capital to provide networks that have benefits shared so widely.”

    Nor can I (see them willing to build the CRL). It only takes about half an hour of research and “back of fag packet” calculations to show it would be an absolute dog of an investment.

    In terms of public transport in general – aren’t there private enterprises trying to do just that down near fiordland? What about the airline industry? Plenty of private investors there – air travel is public transport after all.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Nigel Kearney (747 comments) says:

    >I can’t see a private consortium leaping forward to build, own
    >and operate public transport networks in New Zealand.

    Why not? If it makes a profit, great. If not, wait until there is a Labour government desperate to buy an election and flog it off to them at a grossly inflated price. It’s a win-win.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. mikenmild (8,778 comments) says:

    swan
    I’m not saying private investment can’t create public transport infrastructure, just that by and large it has not in New Zealand’s history. We could get into chicken and egg arguments here: is the lack of private investment due to government control or was government control the result of a lack of private investment? Re air transport, from memory nationalisation followed unsuccessful private airlines and the privatisation of Air NZ was not exactly a stellar success.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. mikenmild (8,778 comments) says:

    Nigel
    It would be possible to be so pure as to refuse to provide any infrastructure that cannot be built and operated by private owners at a profit. Modern technology may even make it possible one day to privatise all water supplies, sewage, roads and street lighting even, but I would suggest that is a long way off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. swan (651 comments) says:

    mikenmild,

    Obviously every investment needs to be judged on its merits.

    In the case of the CRL, the investment is a dog. It will lose money. The return on $2.8bn will be less than zero. It is utterly ridiculous.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. hamish_nzl (21 comments) says:

    I applaud you for your astuteness Redbaiter. It’s true that our risk-averse leaders have been unwilling to sit idly by while the free market adequately serves our city’s needs. When you consider the wide ranging economic benefits of the project to the people of Auckland it’s almost surprising that we haven’t spontaneously formed a private consortium to build the thing ourselves. Perhaps a project for my previously mentioned organisation.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. hj (5,677 comments) says:

    Redbaiter (5,604) Says:
    October 8th, 2013 at 1:41 pm
    Poor old Hamish, a communist product of NZ’s fouled education system whose history skills are so poor he has never heard of private investment consortia building railroads, buses, ships, airlines, tunnels, roads, bridges. As they have done for centuries.
    …………………………
    One thing you need to explain Redbaiter is what will drive the economy that will eventually pay for this new infrastructure (other than a sector serving new arrivals from offshore). What do you imagine the extra million will be doing?
    The sort of development you refer to took place as migrants arrived and mixed it with natural resources in the U.S, Canada Australia.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. hj (5,677 comments) says:

    Public Investment Wasteful Subsidy
    http://cdn.theatlanticcities.com/img/upload/2013/10/02/32_subsidy2_grey.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. lazza (296 comments) says:

    Righty-ho all you Council financial planning hotshots.

    GO REDO ALL OF YOUR TOTALLY FALSE AND/OR MISLEADING 10 YEAR PROJECTIONS … now that the NZ pop stats (with half the predicted growth rate) are official.

    Now that! might make a dent in rates increases/debt and your fancy salaries … based on earlier erroneous optimistic (starry-eyed) expectations of “La La Land” growth rate projections.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Viking2 (10,709 comments) says:

    Remember all those plane loads of people leaving that the Nats were going to stop?
    Well roughly 500.000 have left in the last 12 years.

    Half a million kiwi’s gone.

    and we couldn’t figure out that the results.?

    Now you understand why there is no housing crisis other than that manufactured in lefty heads.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Bingo99 (42 comments) says:

    Ah Redbaiter, the ever-reliable knucklehead so eager to contribute.

    Aucklanders have already paid for the loop, in excessive contributions to the national tax pool, without receiving its share back in infrastructure investment… or any other kind of government spending. Only recently has Auckland’s tax take been matched by the spend back into the region… about bloody time. Meanwhile all those years subsidising vast tracts of empty roads in the regions.

    And then we pay again through congestion, wasted time, increase costs, virtually mandatory car ownership just to survive, government-imposed regional fuel taxes and on and on and on. We’ve paid enough – it’s time for something in return. Something that might actually make life a little easier, a little more pleasant, and kickstart the change in Auckland to take it from the half-arsed suburban wasteland that the rest of the country bemoans, to a fairly decent city with fair decent infrastructure that attracts the right people and in investment, that generates the kind of growth that helps break our milk dependence.

    If that makes me a pinko commy poofta in your eyes, Redbaiter, then pass me the hammer and sickle and roll out the red flags.

    Oh and NickB, I see you’ve been soundly dealt with regarding your little monorail jibe, but perhaps in future actually boning up on the basics would be of use. Better to say nothing at all than open your gob and… well, you should know the rest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.