Speaker 1: Yoda. I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page,
Speaker 1: a daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. This
Speaker 1: year marks fifteen years since the birth of Auckland's supercity.
Speaker 1: The controversial idea to merge eight regional and district councils
Speaker 1: into one super council was kickstarted after a Royal Commission
Speaker 1: on Auckland governance back in two thousand and seven. The
Speaker 1: city now stretches from Welsford down to Bombay and from
Speaker 1: Uruay to Hoe their point. More than a decade later,
Speaker 1: discussions are still being had about whether it was a
Speaker 1: good move for New Zealand's largest and most populated city. Today,
Speaker 1: on the Front Page ends At Herald's senior writer Simon
Speaker 1: Wilson joins us to discuss what needs to be done
Speaker 1: to make sure Auckland's still thriving for the next fifteen years.
Speaker 1: So fifteen years on, Simon, how super is our supercity?
Speaker 2: So yeah, the Auckland City has been a supercity officially
Speaker 2: in legislation for fifteen years. That's when the new amalgamation
Speaker 2: in twenty ten, the amalgamation of eight different local authorities
Speaker 2: now around the Auckland region was completed and we got
Speaker 2: Auckland Council, which is both a regional council that in
Speaker 2: the way that other parts of the country have, as
Speaker 2: well as a city council in the way that other
Speaker 2: cities have the combined them won so it's called a
Speaker 2: unitary council. After fifteen years, it has now been an
Speaker 2: opportunity to take stock of just how well that's progressing,
Speaker 2: What is being solved in the city, what is the
Speaker 2: state of play with funding, with planning, with ambition, and
Speaker 2: how are we doing with our natural resources and with
Speaker 2: the way in which people are able to thrive.
Speaker 3: So tell me.
Speaker 1: About this latest research from the Auckland at fifteen that's
Speaker 1: by the University of Auckland's Complex Conversations Lab, which sounds
Speaker 1: like something that we just do in our day to
Speaker 1: day right, thank you, Right. How are Auckland is feeling
Speaker 1: about the supercity?
Speaker 2: Well, there are some The way in which the survey
Speaker 2: was done was that it's a kind of opten survey
Speaker 2: of people who went online and participated in conversations about
Speaker 2: what the city is like and where it should be going,
Speaker 2: responded to some provocations and statements added their own for
Speaker 2: other people to talk about and the surveys from that
Speaker 2: process built up a picture of what people think they had.
Speaker 2: I think five hundred and seventy five participants who made
Speaker 2: over one thousand proposals, and out of that they reached
Speaker 2: in many ways a very high degree of consensus. So
Speaker 2: there is over ninety percent support for enhancing the natural
Speaker 2: environment of the city. And I don't think that should
Speaker 2: surprise anybody. We know we live in a beautiful city,
Speaker 2: and we know we want to look after it, and
Speaker 2: we know we want to make the most of it
Speaker 2: and not threaten it. That environmental side comes turns into
Speaker 2: things like the beach is clean, when the storms come,
Speaker 2: do they remain clean or clean enough? So will we
Speaker 2: doing enough in those sorts of areas as are we
Speaker 2: dealing with CARDI dieback? Are we looking after the forests?
Speaker 2: Are we making sure there is enough what is called
Speaker 2: urban nahili, which is the urban forest. We're making sure
Speaker 2: there's enough greenery in the city. And we know that
Speaker 2: those things are becoming more important, not just because we
Speaker 2: like trees and trees are good for our mental health,
Speaker 2: but also trees provide enormous amounts of shelter, and that's
Speaker 2: becoming more important. In some parts of the city, particularly
Speaker 2: in the south of Auckland, where the sun is getting
Speaker 2: hotter and stronger and the weather wilder, and we need
Speaker 2: those kinds of protections too. So all of that's happening.
Speaker 2: There is a big push for the city to become
Speaker 2: more innovative. Question for Auckland is that we have pretty
Speaker 2: highly educated population, pretty highly mobile, We are a relatively
Speaker 2: wealthy country, and we have pretty good communication networks, and
Speaker 2: all of those things ought to mean that we're very
Speaker 2: well placed globally to become what's called an innovation city,
Speaker 2: to be using technology to make the most of our
Speaker 2: economic opportunities, and to do it from this fabulous place
Speaker 2: so that we attract what Sir Paul Callahan used to
Speaker 2: call the people to come and work, play and live
Speaker 2: here because it's a great place to live and because
Speaker 2: you can do the stimulating, interesting work that you want
Speaker 2: to do that maybe you were doing in Europe or
Speaker 2: Australia or America, that you come and to it in
Speaker 2: New Zealand, come and do it in Auckland, where you
Speaker 2: get all the advantages of the outdoor life as well
Speaker 2: as the fascinating diverse society, and you still got those
Speaker 2: economic advantages too. The problem with that vision is that
Speaker 2: it is the vision of almost every city in the
Speaker 2: world that's about the same sizes.
Speaker 1: Right, yes, why should you choose all exactly?
Speaker 2: So, what is the thing that is going to make
Speaker 2: Auckland unique? And we can't be smug about it. We
Speaker 2: can't just go We'll look. You know, it's a great
Speaker 2: place to get your kayak out and get on the harbor,
Speaker 2: go surfing or go tramping or whatever, because other people
Speaker 2: offer those things too and can offer a better sentard
Speaker 2: of living. We know, housing prices are really high here,
Speaker 2: so there's a real barrier and those sorts of things.
Speaker 2: You know, there are a range of issues that we
Speaker 2: confront that we're not very good at confronting, and unless
Speaker 2: we get much better at them, we risk being left
Speaker 2: behind by other cities in Asia and Australia and in
Speaker 2: other parts.
Speaker 3: Of the world overall. When this new line opens, Auckland's
Speaker 3: rail networks will start looking quite different. In addition to
Speaker 3: the new and upgraded stations, the network will have far
Speaker 3: more capacity, slightly more coverage, and much better cross city connections.
Speaker 3: But in my view it's important as extra capacities to
Speaker 3: good use While it will be most needed during the
Speaker 3: busy peak periods, I want to see it be used
Speaker 3: to boost off peak frequencies as well. There are many
Speaker 3: stations in Auckland suburbs that only get trains every twenty
Speaker 3: to thirty minutes and I'd like to see this improved
Speaker 3: to more turn up and goes to our frequencies.
Speaker 1: Well, one of those things that I guess that we're
Speaker 1: not amazing at might be that cohesion in public transport.
Speaker 1: Now seventy six percent I believe said that we lack
Speaker 1: a cohesive public transport vision and I've got to agree
Speaker 1: with them, But how much do you reckon the City
Speaker 1: rail Link will better those results when it's open.
Speaker 2: The Yeah, So the theory of the City rail Link
Speaker 2: is that it will double patronage of our rail system.
Speaker 2: And it doesn't mean that everybody's going to start catching
Speaker 2: the train. It's not like that. You know, most people
Speaker 2: don't live near a train station, but a lot of
Speaker 2: people do. And when you think about congestion on the roads,
Speaker 2: congestion was identified in the survey as the biggest single
Speaker 2: transport problem to be solved. The problem with that is
Speaker 2: that there are different ideas about how to solve it
Speaker 2: right now. Some people say more roads, Some people say
Speaker 2: better public transport, better cycling and so on, so that
Speaker 2: you take people off the roads. Some people say congestion charging,
Speaker 2: so that the busiest roads should be have a toll
Speaker 2: on them at those times to discourage people from using them.
Speaker 2: Then these debates are ongoing in relation to the CRL.
Speaker 2: If you could move ten, twenty, even ten percent of
Speaker 2: the population who are currently driving every day, you could
Speaker 2: move them onto other forms of transport, onto public transport,
Speaker 2: in particular, you would overnight, you would solve the congestion problem.
Speaker 2: You would have streets that are freer than they currently
Speaker 2: are during school holidays. So the CRL is a big
Speaker 2: part of that is a big part of saying there
Speaker 2: will be twice as many trains. The trains, the train
Speaker 2: trips will be faster, They will take people further to
Speaker 2: where they want to go, because if you're coming into
Speaker 2: the city, you won't just be deposited at Britain Art.
Speaker 2: You'll be able to get off at Cutting a Happy Road,
Speaker 2: or get off at Midtown area now closer to perhaps
Speaker 2: to where you work or where you study, and those
Speaker 2: things will all make public transport more appealing. That's the
Speaker 2: theory of that. And you know there are other things too.
Speaker 2: If we had a concerted effort to have kids not
Speaker 2: be driven to school, that would make a real material
Speaker 2: difference to congestion on our roads, not just for in
Speaker 2: terms of the school traffic, but also in terms of
Speaker 2: people who you know. You drop the kids at school
Speaker 2: and then you could drive on to work, or you
Speaker 2: drive to work, so you might as well drop the
Speaker 2: kids to school. It's a checking anything. If you could
Speaker 2: break that, go back to a generation or two earlier
Speaker 2: where that wasn't the norm. Now you'd make a big difference.
Speaker 1: Again, I guess, how is it working having such diverse
Speaker 1: parts of the city under the same council. You can
Speaker 1: forget the further north you go from the city center.
Speaker 1: Just how much is considered part of Auckland. Do the
Speaker 1: people in say fung A Paroa have the same concern
Speaker 1: as someone in Wayuku.
Speaker 2: Often they don't. If they're stuck on the motorway and traffic,
Speaker 2: then they essentially do have the same concerns. If you
Speaker 2: think about Fungapara, so that's a relatively developed suburban area
Speaker 2: that's a good distance away from the city, different from Wayuku,
Speaker 2: which is very rural. A lot of Auckland now is
Speaker 2: rural geographically, but not many people live there now. Most
Speaker 2: people live in the built up areas. Of course, by definition.
Speaker 2: The example that people always used to give when the
Speaker 2: supercity was formed was what are we going to do
Speaker 2: about our waterfront? And there were so many different local
Speaker 2: authorities that had different points of view that nothing ever happened.
Speaker 2: Since the super City, the waterfront of Auckland has developed
Speaker 2: quite significantly. So you think about Queen's Wharf was given
Speaker 2: back to or Council and became they wanted to make
Speaker 2: it the People's Wharf, the renovation of Shed ten. They're
Speaker 2: the North Wharf area, that the viaduct, which was pre
Speaker 2: Supercity but has continued to evolve, the North Warf area.
Speaker 2: There are cycleways, there are great recreational areas. There are
Speaker 2: lots of things for people to do that are free,
Speaker 2: as well as going drink and eating, the bars and
Speaker 2: restaurants and so on. You think about the sale GP
Speaker 2: thing last summer, where there was enormous, enormous popular support
Speaker 2: for events that people could get to. Those sorts of
Speaker 2: things have all evolved and been made possible because of
Speaker 2: the super city. It's been easier to plan, easier to organize,
Speaker 2: easier to get approval and funding for that kind of development.
Speaker 2: That's the upside. The downside is that it's a city
Speaker 2: of one point seven million people. There are twenty one
Speaker 2: local boards, most of them have populations that are bigger
Speaker 2: than most other cities in the country, and they have
Speaker 2: local boards which are part time members. They don't have
Speaker 2: anything like the funding of other city councils. So there
Speaker 2: is a real gap at the local democratic level now
Speaker 2: between decisions that get made centrally by Auckland councils centrally
Speaker 2: and people's aspirations in their neighborhoods and their suburbs. And
Speaker 2: that's very hard to know how to bridge because you know,
Speaker 2: the one obvious way to bridge it would be to say,
Speaker 2: let's have lots more democratic engagement. Let's have lots more
Speaker 2: opportunity for people in local areas to belong to committees
Speaker 2: and communities where they can feed in ideas and have
Speaker 2: a say in what happens. But nobody's very keen on
Speaker 2: paying for that. Nobody wants to have that kind of
Speaker 2: local democracy where we've got lots and lots and lots
Speaker 2: of officials. That's quite problematic. Decision making is removed and
Speaker 2: nobody has a real has a clear answer.
Speaker 1: And I can imagine the funding in these small areas
Speaker 1: as well. I mean, I'm just thinking about a situation
Speaker 1: perhaps where a local board is petitioning for a zebra
Speaker 1: crossing in their town center versus what that money could do,
Speaker 1: say for the waterfront in the viaduct, and how like
Speaker 1: who along that line would that local board need to
Speaker 1: go through to get the funding for that zebra crossing,
Speaker 1: because I can probably tell you right now that that
Speaker 1: funding is probably going to go towards something in the city,
Speaker 1: right Actually.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, So that the council in its fifteen
Speaker 2: years has had slightly different ways of organizing how the
Speaker 2: money is spent, but it's always been driven by the
Speaker 2: idea that there will be pots of money for each
Speaker 2: of the local areas. So if there is money to
Speaker 2: be spent in your area and your local board wants
Speaker 2: a zebra crossing there, that money won't be taken and
Speaker 2: used in another local board area or in downtown, right,
Speaker 2: that will be allocated to the local board to spend
Speaker 2: in that way, they might have to persuade Auckland Transport
Speaker 2: that it's worth having. An Auckland Transport might come back
Speaker 2: to them and say, well, we've got twenty requirements for
Speaker 2: more zebra crossings and yours, in terms of the risks
Speaker 2: that we've measured, is only number ten, so we can't
Speaker 2: do it this year. Now, that might happen, and you
Speaker 2: have an ongoing debate about that, because the local board
Speaker 2: will say, but this is our priority, so therefore they
Speaker 2: should listened to. Transport will say well, it's not our priority.
Speaker 2: And that's a clash that is not managed very well
Speaker 2: all the time. Now, so you do get that tension.
Speaker 2: But Auckland Transport can't say, well, the money you want
Speaker 2: to spend on the zebra crossing, we're going to spend
Speaker 2: it in another part of the city.
Speaker 1: They can't say that, right, So I'm going down a
Speaker 1: conspiratorial path, am I.
Speaker 3: I'll put my pitchfork away.
Speaker 2: Having just said that, local boards would probably say we
Speaker 2: want more money. You know, there was a under an
Speaker 2: earlier there there was a proposal. Can't remember the exact
Speaker 2: wording of it, but it was the one, the one
Speaker 2: big project. Each local board had to say, this is
Speaker 2: the one thing we want to fund and they only
Speaker 2: got one.
Speaker 4: Oh wow.
Speaker 2: So there was this pot of each of them had
Speaker 2: a pot of a reasonablysizeable amount of money and they
Speaker 2: got to decide each one and that led to some problems.
Speaker 2: That system isn't quite in place now, so it's always
Speaker 2: evolving the way the city city works. But that led
Speaker 2: to some problems where what about project number two and
Speaker 2: three and four? Are they just not going to happen?
Speaker 2: You know those things are going to be important too,
Speaker 2: And that was one of the problems. Another problem was
Speaker 2: you had a case out and with a couple of
Speaker 2: local boards near each other. Both of them wanted and
Speaker 2: entertainment a recreation center, and they both got They both
Speaker 2: made those projects their one project, and they were pretty
Speaker 2: close to each other, only a kilometer or so apart,
Speaker 2: and the city planning didn't need those two centers so
Speaker 2: close to each other. But the idea of the local
Speaker 2: boards deciding meant that that was progressing. I think in
Speaker 2: fact that got stopped in the end. But you can
Speaker 2: see the problem that would be there. How you balance
Speaker 2: central planning with local important local decision making every day
Speaker 2: is a problem. It doesn't mean it's not worth doing,
Speaker 2: and it's but that is part of the thing that
Speaker 2: the council engages with.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: I know that the rest of the country probably rolls
Speaker 1: their eyes and hates when we center in on Auckland,
Speaker 1: But something Deloitte Chief Executive Mike Horn said in the
Speaker 1: research stuck out to me. He said, if Auckland isn't
Speaker 1: competing globally, then New Zealand will suffer. Couple of things here. Firstly,
Speaker 1: do you think the country needs to accept that in
Speaker 1: order to thrive, Auckland needs to do well.
Speaker 2: I think that's right. And one of the things about
Speaker 2: Auckland is that we have something like a third of
Speaker 2: the population and I think thirty eight percent of the GDP.
Speaker 2: Now that's quite low for a major city. So the
Speaker 2: GDP in London compared to the British GDP is much higher.
Speaker 2: In other countries where there is one big city as
Speaker 2: we have, you would expect it to be higher than
Speaker 2: the proportion that we have. So that that is a
Speaker 2: problem for the city now and a problem for the
Speaker 2: country New Zealand has. If our farming, if our agriculture
Speaker 2: isn't doing well, we are in trouble as our whole country.
Speaker 2: It's not just farmers in trouble. We're all in trouble
Speaker 2: if it isn't doing well. We know that, but that
Speaker 2: is also true about Auckland itself. Auckland is such a
Speaker 2: powerhouse economically now that if it isn't doing well, then
Speaker 2: the country suffers as well. So we need from a
Speaker 2: national perspective, we need planning to do both those things
Speaker 2: as well as keep the regions viable so they're worth living.
Speaker 2: And we don't want everybody to come to Auckland because
Speaker 2: that's just that's there would be a nightmare.
Speaker 1: For everyone road through a nightmare aready, right, and there aren't.
Speaker 2: The houses and all the rest of it. And you
Speaker 2: want the regions to be viable, but you also need
Speaker 2: that central city to be strong. And as you say,
Speaker 2: the Deloitte chief executive Mike Horn saying, we need to
Speaker 2: understand that's that's one of the things he said that.
Speaker 2: He also says, we've had an incremental approach to development
Speaker 2: and that has to change because it's meant to be
Speaker 2: slipping away. You know, I've been following the super city
Speaker 2: since it was formed in twenty ten, and the first
Speaker 2: to me, Lenn Brown, always used to say, don't fret
Speaker 2: about the fact that we're not getting big transformative change
Speaker 2: happening straight away. Every little bit helps. We will do
Speaker 2: this incremental thing, and it will build on the last
Speaker 2: and we will keep building on it and the next
Speaker 2: and the next. And that is how most polots tix
Speaker 2: works most of the time. It's the reality of politics.
Speaker 2: And he knew that, and the city was progressing. But
Speaker 2: what Mike Horn is saying is that actually that isn't enough.
Speaker 2: We understand that we are not making ourselves attractive enough
Speaker 2: for the world's best and brightest to come and live
Speaker 2: and work here, for the world's entrepreneurs to want to
Speaker 2: set up here and put money into the New Zealand economy.
Speaker 2: We understand we need to transform in order to do that.
Speaker 2: We also understand that you can't just make the buses
Speaker 2: a bit more efficient and I hope to transform the
Speaker 2: transport system. You've got to be thinking bigger about it
Speaker 2: than that. You can't just make the schools a little
Speaker 2: bit better and hope to transform the problems we have
Speaker 2: an education. You've got to do better than that. You
Speaker 2: can't just build a few more houses and solve the
Speaker 2: housing crisis. You've got to build a lot more houses
Speaker 2: to solve the housing crisis and on it. Guys, how
Speaker 2: we get how we do those transformative things is extremely
Speaker 2: difficult because probably most people are reasonably comfortable with the
Speaker 2: idea that we as The survey shows very high support
Speaker 2: for density done well, particularly around transport hubs. Doesn't follow
Speaker 2: that you want more density in your street?
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, What are your thoughts on living in Auckland.
Speaker 4: Auckland is expensive. I've lived overseas a lot and being
Speaker 4: back two years and coming back I was shocked.
Speaker 3: It's not too bad.
Speaker 4: It can be expensive.
Speaker 3: Sometimes it's inflation.
Speaker 4: But yeah, I.
Speaker 1: Got a UNI and I have to pay for parking
Speaker 1: for the train station.
Speaker 3: I guess you do a bet of it.
Speaker 1: But even then sometimes it's not enough.
Speaker 3: How much are you paying for renting here in Auten City.
Speaker 4: I'm sharing with somebody, so my share is four hundred
Speaker 4: and fifty dollars one week. I just done that in Thailane, Cambodia.
Speaker 4: I was paying four hundred dollars for one month.
Speaker 3: Get the government to bring some things down, take some
Speaker 3: money out of things that's unnecessary and put into things
Speaker 3: actually matter.
Speaker 1: And we're already I mean, I guess we're in that
Speaker 1: catch twenty two, because we're already paying London Sydney New
Speaker 1: York prices to live in Auckland. And it's kind of
Speaker 1: like that thing, Well, why should you get paid more
Speaker 1: at work when you're doing the work you are at
Speaker 1: the moment for the pay that you're getting. You know,
Speaker 1: it's just like why why should the city thrive and
Speaker 1: why should it better itself when everyone is paying these
Speaker 1: prices to live here? Anyway? Like, what's the incentive there
Speaker 1: for people to attract more people? Well, we've got one
Speaker 1: point seven million people here already, what's going to What
Speaker 1: is it going to take, I guess for us to
Speaker 1: make that jump and just to really fasten things up
Speaker 1: and get to the Sydney, get to the New York,
Speaker 1: get to the London.
Speaker 2: I would argue that we need a housing price structure
Speaker 2: that means there are enough places for everybody to live.
Speaker 2: That's at all the different price points and all the
Speaker 2: different types of housing. Now you can't just look after
Speaker 2: a certain proportion of the population in that way. An
Speaker 2: awful lot follows from housing. If people have got decent housing,
Speaker 2: then they're more likely that their families will be healthier,
Speaker 2: more likely to be kids going to school. Now more
Speaker 2: likely people are in work and able to stay and work.
Speaker 2: All of those things follow from having a place, a
Speaker 2: secure or and dry, safe place to live, So that's
Speaker 2: really important. Beyond that though, what's the point of difference
Speaker 2: for Auckland, Well, in terms of big cities. You know
Speaker 2: something somebody said to me once when I first moved
Speaker 2: to Auckland, which is over twenty years ago. They said,
Speaker 2: what I like about it is the mess. What he
Speaker 2: meant was, you walk down the street. You don't know
Speaker 2: who you're going to meet or see, you don't know
Speaker 2: what you're going to see, you don't know what might
Speaker 2: have been changing. It's always stimulating. And that's a big
Speaker 2: city thing where the fact that it doesn't quite work
Speaker 2: properly but people make it work for them. If that
Speaker 2: is possible, that can be pretty exciting. You know. One
Speaker 2: of the things that means is that really cool little
Speaker 2: bar there that those people set up in a place
Speaker 2: that doesn't even seem like it should be a bar,
Speaker 2: but hell, they're now music venue. And you know, if
Speaker 2: you think about a place like Wammy Bar in Auckland,
Speaker 2: that seems nonsense. It's an underground and it doesn't seem
Speaker 2: big enough and all the rest of it. But people
Speaker 2: make do People make do with the mess, and when
Speaker 2: they can do that and thrive, you get that happening
Speaker 2: in all the different sorts of ways, and that can
Speaker 2: be very exciting to live in. So we need that
Speaker 2: you need, and it means that you need, as I
Speaker 2: said before, place to live. It also means that you
Speaker 2: know that you're not going to spend too much of
Speaker 2: your life stuff stuck in traffic. You've got to have
Speaker 2: viable alternatives to that, and you've got to have a
Speaker 2: sense in the economy that there are opportunities for people
Speaker 2: that people can move on up and take risks and
Speaker 2: make money. You've got to have those things happening, and
Speaker 2: if they are all happening, then big City has become exciting.
Speaker 1: Thanks for joining us, Simon, Thank you. It's it's for
Speaker 1: this episode of the Front Page. You can read more
Speaker 1: about today's stories and extensive news coverage at enzdherld dot
Speaker 1: co dot nz. The Front Page is produced by Ethan
Speaker 1: Sills and Richard Martin, who is also our sound engineer.
Speaker 1: I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow
Speaker 1: for another look behind the headlines.