Where to for the Auckland Council in the 2013-2016 Term

Written by Ben Ross - Talking Auckland

Where now?

 

It is Monday and coverage of where next for the new Auckland Council starts in earnest across the media realm.

We have these following reports or blog posts on the matter:

 

Of course I made my contribution yesterday where I stated:

Auckland Council Elections – The Proviso

This from The Herald was rather telling:

Len Brown should be able to get more from the Government. Photo / Greg Bowker

Photo / Greg Bowker. Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11139291

That aside this is what we have from the elections as of the provisional results this morning:

 

The breakdown as follows:

  • 34.33% voter turn out compared to 51% in 2010
  • Len Brown won at 162,675 compared 107,672 for John Palino
    • On a two person preferred basis it was a 60:40 split
    • Difference of 55,000
  • Six new councillors with the loss of three (not including the ones who retired)
  • Council make up for the Governing Body is 11-9 on a rough support for Len basis. It swings to 13-9 on the Committees of the Whole as the two Independent Maori Statutory Board members also vote there

So I would say we are heading for a more centrist and fiscally conservative Council in this 2013-2016 term. This means there should be no re-call of the Unitary Plan from notification while we should see the City Rail Link in 2018 approximately.   It is also a make up (of the Council) that is not particular going to bother me for the next term per-se. Unless something close to heart get bottled I won’t be particular minding Councillors doing their best in seeing debt does not shoot above 150% (rather than 275% as currently forecast).

…

The 2013-2016 Term

All things considered I would say we are still heading down a progressive path in building a 21st Auckland is on track. For me personally it means:

Right then with Mayor confirmed and Council pretty much confirmed it is back to business. For me it is the following
1) Debt kept under 150%
2) City Rail Link
3) Manukau South Link
4) Pukekohe Electrification
5) Unitary Plan
6) Area Plans
7) Manukau Super Metropolitan Centre
8) Wesley College Special Housing Area
9) Glenora Road Station
Looking forward to working with the Mayor and Councillors again in the new term of Council

Time to start trawling those Committee Agenda’s again :P

A lot of work still to do and I am picking up noises the East-West Link that got proposed is causing grief in Mangere and Otahuhu.

All in all – time to get back to work

…

 

So where to honestly with Auckland Council over the next term?

 

Voter turn out wise I will cover in a separate dedicated post as that will take up some time and spurn off some comments no doubt. But you can see my initial thoughts over in the Transport Blog post (linked above) where I started off a discussion on City Wide Alliances and Tickets. I shall bring that discussion back here with my own view leaning towards loose alliances. By loose I mean the individual councillors can still dissent if required but at least we know their own leanings more clearly.

Council numbers wise I mentioned we currently have a 11-9 (Herald reports  11-7 with two unknown yet) split in favour of the Mayor on most issues on the Governing Body. That moves to 13-9 when you include the Independent Maori Statutory Board on the four Committees of the Whole which are:

  • Strategy and Finance (sets the budget and rates recommendations)
  • Auckland Plan Committee (All things Unitary and Area Plans)
  • Accountability and Performance (the one committee that can hold the spot light over a rather particular Council Controlled Organisation with its AT-HOP issues)
  • Regional Operations and Development Committee (The Committee that annoyed me when they bottled the Part Two of the Port of Auckland review study – but is now under way thanks to the Auckland Plan Committee)

 

I suppose the reason why the Herald moved to 11-7 with two unknowns stems from Waitakere’s Linda Cooper and Franklin’s Bill Cashmore. For now I have them in the “opposition side” owing to their Centre Right affiliations. However and this is a big however and as Simon Wilson from Metro Magazine just pointed out on Dr Bryce Edwards (I am a stickler for titles) Liberation Blog: “Simon Wilson: No great shift to the right in Auckland” – things could change. Ross Clow being elected provisionally ahead of Noelene Raffils in Whau being one.

Again and in agreement with Simon not only does Len have a canny ability on uniting fronts and getting things done but, in looking ahead we are heading down a Centrist but progressive three years of Auckland Council. Meaning we will see some left stuff (Ports and Living Wage) and some right stuff (CEO Salaries and getting debt back under control).

Do I have confidence in this new Council in managing the books and bringing Auckland forward into the 21st Century? Without looking at the Committees and the Council’s view towards the Unitary Plan yet then I will give a reluctant yes at the moment. Hopefully that can be changed to a YES within 12 months.

 

Auckland – A World Class Megalopolis

 

As I noted earlier I will look at the low voter turnout, the reasons and what can be done about it in a later post. In another separate post I will outline why Councillor Brewer will not win Mayor for 2016 as well – as it currently stands.

What I am going to note for the rest of this post was this article from Stuff which rings true to a major presentation I gave to Council in May on the same topic.

From Stuff

Auckland ‘our only world class city’ Brown says Auckland City the most important

Auckland is the most important city in the country and in order for New Zealand to thrive there must be investment in the country’s largest city, according to Len Brown, the freshly re-elected mayor.

“Auckland has a great deal of strategic importance for New Zealand. It is our only world class city, and it needs to have a world class economy to compete with other international cities for investment and talent,” said Brown.

The economic development of Auckland and creating a fiscal environment that will attract major companies is a key goal of the mayor’s second term. And investment in Auckland is an investment in New Zealand, Brown said.

“I think most people realise that Auckland’s success doesn’t have to come at a cost to the rest of the country and that in fact we can all benefit from a successful and thriving Auckland,” he said.

Despite a sometimes bumpy relationship with the government, this year Brown secured significant investment in Auckland’s infrastructure. The government agreed to provide $10 billion package for Auckland’s transport upgrade including the Central Rail Link, a tunnel for a second harbour crossing, and other motorway upgrades.

But after census data revealed Auckland’s growth was not as rapid as predicted, the government has started to question the level of investment in the city’s infrastructure.

However, Brown believes the Auckland Council and the government see eye-to-eye.

…

You can see the rest over at the Stuff website.

 

Len is right on all grounds. Auckland holds 34% of the general and voting population as well as depending which way you work the figures around 40% of the country’s economic output (more than Fontera). And that concentration of population, political power and economic clout will only increase as time goes on (saving World War III or a volcano in the Gulf).

That means very special attention and care by Council and Central Government needs to be paid heed to towards Auckland in ALL aspects of ALL planning. And I do not mean just run of the mill urban and transport planning either. I also mean social planning, infrastructure (physical, social and civil), economic planning and even political planning for a city that might as well be declared a City State at any given length.

This alone would be enough for me to repost two pieces I wrote up earlier this year on Auckland. One on whether we are a megalopolis, and the second on a similar question but tied into Manukau.

From my earlier post in regards to whether Auckland is a megalopolis or not:

Question: Auckland – Metropolis or Megalopolis/Megapolis

 / April 21, 2013

Something to think about

 

As I have been chatting away to various people on the concept of Manukau being a second CBD in Auckland; two interesting and thought-provoking questions popped up. They were:

  • Can Auckland be looking at THREE CBD’s by 2040: the existing CBD, Manukau and Albany (or Takapuna(something the North Shore can figure out itself))
  • Is Auckland an actual metropolis or in fact a megapolis/megalopolis

As for the tri-CBD question; another time and another debate. Right now it is the metropolis/megapolis/megalopolis question for Auckland

Now before some one pipes up about the world megapolises and megalopolises being massive areas with tens of millions of people, I want you to put that world relativity concept behind and think of a New Zealand and literal Greek concept of the terms.

 

The best way to convey the information is an information dump from Wikipedia

Metropolis

A metropolis is a very large city or urban area which is a significant economic, political, and cultural center for a country or region, and an important hub for regional or international connections, commerce, and communications. The term is Greek and means the “mother city” of a colony (in the ancient sense), that is, the city which sent out settlers. This was later generalized to a city regarded as a center of a specified activity, or any large, important city in a nation.

Urban areas of fewer than one million people are rarely considered metropolises in contemporary contexts.[citation needed] Big cities belonging to a larger urban agglomeration, but which are not the core of that agglomeration, are not generally considered a metropolis but a part of it. The plural of the word is most commonly metropolises.[1]

Etymology and modern usage

This is a Greek word, coming from μήτηρ, mḗtēr meaning “mother” and πόλις, pólis meaning “city”/”town”, which is how the Greek colonies of antiquity referred to their original cities, with whom they retained cultic and political-cultural connections. The word was used in post-classical Latin for the chief city of a province, the seat of the government and, in particular, ecclesiastically for the seat or see of a metropolitan bishop to whom suffragan bishops were responsible. This usage equates the province with the diocese or episcopal see.

In modern usage the word has come to refer to a metropolitan area, a set of adjacent and interconnected cities clustered around a major urban center. In this sense metropolitan usually means “spanning the whole metropolis” (as in “metropolitan administration”); or “proper of a metropolis” (as in “metropolitan life”, and opposed to “provincial” or “rural”).

 

Metropolitan Area (to provide clarification)

A metropolitan area, metro area or metro is a region consisting of a densely populated urban core and its less-populated surrounding territories, sharing industry, infrastructure, and housing.[1] A metropolitan area usually comprises multiple jurisdictions and municipalities: neighborhoods, townships, cities, exurbs, counties, and even states. As social, economic and political institutions have changed, metropolitan areas have become key economic and political regions.[2]

 

Now there is no denying Auckland does have a metropolitan area, the catch is and this is where the mega’s come in is how we seen that densely population urban core (often seen or used in a mono-centric core model)

 

 

Megapolis and Megalopolis 

A megalopolis (sometimes called a megapolis or megaregion) is typically defined as a chain of roughly adjacent metropolitan areas. The term was used by Oswald Spengler in his 1918 book, The Decline of the West, and Lewis Mumford in his 1938 book, The Culture of Cities, which described it as the first stage in urban overdevelopment and social decline. Later, it was used by Jean Gottmann in 1957, to describe the huge metropolitan area along the eastern seaboard of the U.S. extending from Boston through New York City; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Baltimore, Maryland and ending in Washington, D.C.

 

Before I go post the twin Greek definitions I want to point something out highlighted in red above: “defined as a chain of roughly adjacent metropolitan areas.” With Auckland this could stem from a duo or even poly centric core model where you have more than (borrowing from the Metropolitan Area terminology): “a region consisting of a densely populated urban core and its less-populated surrounding territories, sharing industry, infrastructure, and housing.”

While drawing a long bow on a world scale, for a New Zealand scale this could be drawn as true especially with Auckland. Examples being the CBD itself and its Metropolitan Area which could be defined as the old Auckland City Council area and extending in part to West Auckland, while Manukau City Centre had its metropolitan area which was everything south of Otahuhu and the Tamaki Estuary. Two distinct separate parts of Auckland (only combined technically by just the new Unitary Authority called Auckland Council) with two very distinct senses of identity between the two Metropolitan Areas (being the isthmus and Southern Auckland).

 

Thus is we treated wider Auckland that has “a chain of roughly adjacent metropolitan areas” (now this would include the North Shore entity as well) then we do have by definition a megalopolis/megapolis.

Let me draw on the two Greek definitions:

Definitions

A megapolis is a Greek word that derived from Greek: μέγας – great and Greek: πόλις – city therefore literally a great city. The metric prefix mega- represents the number of million (1,000,000) in the metric system.

A megalopolis, also known as a megaregion, is a clustered network of cities with a population of about 10 million or more.[1][2][3] America 2050,[4] a program of the Regional Plan Association, lists 11 megaregions in the United States and Canada.[1] Literally, megalopolis in Greek means a city of exaggerated size where the prefix megalo- represents a quantity of exaggerated size.[5] Megapolitan areas were explored in a July 2005 report by Robert E. Lang and Dawn Dhavale of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech.[6] A later 2007 article by Lang and Nelson uses 20 megapolitan areas grouped into 10 megaregions.[7] The concept is based on the original Megalopolis model.[3]

 

As I said ignore the world concept and look at it on a New Zealand concept here as it has to do with our planning.

  • Megapolis: Great City and representing one million. While “great city” might be a subjective term giving different interpretations of it, wider Auckland is the only “city” with over one million people. You could say Auckland is a Great City due to its world global city ranking (Beta) and its economic/population clout the city has in NZ. So on those literal terms alone Auckland is a megapolis and should always be treated as such.
  • Megalopolis: Now this is where it gets interesting on definition and planning fronts. Auckland housing 34% of New Zealand’s population and its sheer size topography wise compared to other urban areas in New Zealand could give the feeling compared to the world Auckland is a city of exaggerated size for where it is.

However, again depending on how one sees Auckland is depending on if you would term it Metropolis or a Megalopolis/Megapolis. Also the term you pick and hold to is how you would see in a planning sense how Auckland should be planned through the Auckland and Unitary Plans. Those who see Auckland as a Metropolis would support the compact city – mono centric core (the Metropolitan Zones are not cores) that could treat the city in a homogeneous manner in the sense of identity – currently portrayed in the Unitary Plan). Those who see Auckland as a collection of cities and towns often with distinct metropolitan areas or centres bundled together by a massive urban sprawl. They would see Auckland in the sense of identity as a heterogeneous  manner and thus the planning should be reflective of that (thus often opposed to the compact city – mono-centric core model).

So again: Is Auckland a Metropolis or a Megalopolis/Megapolis? How you answer that question is how you would plan and see Auckland through the life of the Unitary Plan. And it is a question that needs to be again asked.

 

…

 

The second one is from a pdf version to a presentation I gave to both the Auckland Plan Committee and the Manukau Central Business Association in May this year. The much wider context can be found in my submission to the Draft Unitary Plan as well

Manukau as a Second CBD – PDF Mode

 

I would say all-in-all Auckland is about to embark in the biggest city-building and place-making exercise seen since the 1950’s auto-centric and dominated sprawl took off way-back then. And to do this successfully as drag – and yes drag is the right word – Auckland from the 1950’s into the 21st Century. City Building and Place Making is also one of my strongest interests hence why I follow and run commentary on it quite passionately. In being a bit bold I will leave my LinkedIn profile link here too: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ben-ross/51/268/ab4

 

Even with the Unitary Plan under formal notification and heading to the Commissioners there is still a lot of City Building and Place Making to do. We have transport and Area Plans coming through on this term of Council and I will be keeping an electron microscope on Mayor and Council so that we do advance into the 21st Century. Also means participation levels step up a notch too.

 

Before I close I shall leave two rather interesting remarks from that Simon Wilson guest blog post over at Liberation which I linked earlier. Needless to say I don’t think Simon will be on Chris Fletcher’s Christmas Card list this year.

From Liberation

At the same time, the rightists on the outgoing council distinguished themselves for their complete failure to cohere around a platform, a leader or anything else. Of the leading members, Dick Quax is Act and too extreme; Christine Fletcher has a battiness to her that potential supporters find remarkably alienating; Cameron Brewer is an opportunist lightweight, constantly flailing this way and that to find an issue that might stick (and absurdly allowing his name to be used as running mate with the ingenue mayoral  contender John Palino); and George Wood is now almost fully in Brown’s camp.

And

I understand Lee was stung by my criticisms of him in the Metro feature, and both he and the people around him are keen to prove he is not just a crotchety old bastard.

 

Crotchety old bastard… Nice one Simon… 😛 

Note I do not condone those views either but Simon’s point about the Centre Right does lead into the chances of the Centre Right having a mayor in 2016. Something I will cover soon when I look at Cameron Brewer and his odds.