I think New Zealand should have a population thread, just to talk about the local trends and growth dynamics of the different cities and regions of the country. That is one of the good things about New Zealand, cities are spread all over the map, and not concentrated to one area of the country. Just an idea, we have it for Australia, just wondering about New Zealand.

Good idea.

Quick run down:

NZ's current population: 4,286,129

By region (June 2008 estimates):

Northland Region: 154,700
Auckland Region: 1,414,800
Waikato Region: 402,200
Bay of Plenty Region: 269,900
Gisborne Region: 46,000
Hawke's Bay Region: 152,700
Taranaki Region: 107,500
Manawatu-Wanganui Region: 229,200
Wellington Region: 473,700
Tasman Region: 46,500
Nelson Region: 44,700
Marlborough Region: 44,500
West Coast Region: 32,300
Canterbury Region: 552,800
Otago Region: 203,500
Southland Region: 93,000

Unlike the late 90s and early 00s, all regions have grown in population throughout recent years. From 2007-2008 the Auckland region grew fastest, by 1.5%. Malborough and Canterbury also grew by more than 1%, while Otago grew by 0.9% (large because of the Queenstown-Lakes area).

Total North Island Population: 3,250,700
Total South Island Population: 1,017,300

From www.stats.govt.nz

National population change

New Zealand's estimated resident population was 4,268,600 at 30 June 2008, an increase of 40,300 (1.0 percent) over the June 2007 figure. The population growth in the June 2008 year was lower than the average annual increase of 45,400 (1.1 percent) recorded during the 10-year period ended 30 June 2008.

The population growth for the June 2008 year resulted from a natural increase (excess of births over deaths) of 35,600 people, and a net international migration gain of 4,700 people. The level of natural increase was the highest for a June year since 1973. In contrast, the level of net international migration was the lowest for a June year since 2001.


North Island and South Island populations

The population of the North Island continued to grow at a slightly faster rate than that of the South Island. An estimated 3,250,700 people lived in the North Island at 30 June 2008, an increase of 31,500 (1.0 percent) from 30 June 2007. The estimated resident population of the South Island grew by 8,900 (0.9 percent) in the June 2008 year to reach 1,017,300. At 30 June 2008, 76 out of every 100 New Zealand residents lived in the North Island.


Regional population change

All of New Zealand's 16 regions recorded population increases during the June 2008 year. Auckland retained its position as New Zealand's fastest-growing region, recording population growth of 1.5 percent. Marlborough (1.2 percent) and Canterbury (1.1 percent) also had growth rates above the national average of 1.0 percent. The largest numerical increases in population were in Auckland (20,800), Canterbury (5,900), Waikato (3,600) and Wellington (3,400).

http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/BE70443A-EE0F-480D-A0A5-2B619D1517F4/0/snpejun08regpopchg.gif

As in the June 2007 year, all 16 regions recorded a natural increase (an excess of births over deaths). However, for 13 regions the level of natural increase was higher in the June 2008 year than in the preceding June year. In numerical terms, the greatest rises in natural increase were in Auckland (up 1,000 from the June 2007 year) and Manawatu-Wanganui (up 300 from the June 2007 year).

In the June 2008 year, seven regions gained population through net migration (international and internal migration combined), while nine regions had a net migration outflow. For the majority of regions, the level of net migration was lower in the June 2008 year than in the preceding June year. However, there was a small increase in the level of net migration for six regions (Gisborne, Taranaki, Manawatu-Wanganui, Nelson, Marlborough and Southland).

At 30 June 2008, Auckland, with an estimated resident population of 1,414,800, was home to about one-third of New Zealand residents. The four northernmost regions (Northland, Auckland, Waikato and Bay of Plenty) contained just over half (53 percent) of New Zealand's population. Canterbury, with an estimated resident population of 552,800, was home to 54 percent of South Island residents.

More detail to come.... demographics is one of my specialties!

A couple more interesting graphics from Stats NZ

http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/2FE81DA4-92E8-4ABA-8C3F-FE8D288231E6/0/snpejun08mainuapopchg.gif

http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/53328DF7-6AD2-4063-A153-68890B0CD240/0/snpejun08secuapopchg.gif

Good idea for a thread.

Maybe we could come up with better urban area definitions - as has been raised in another thread, the Stats NZ urban areas are highly questionable.
Just going back to the Stats NZ population estimates.

The Stats "Urban Areas" are dubious at best - in many cases (Christchurch and Wellington included) they include reasonable areas of farmland, lifestyle blocks, etc which is a definition of "urban" that I wasn't previously aware of.

Examples:
Christchurch - fields along the south bank of the Waimakariri west of SH1 bridge, the bed of the Waimak, farmland behind the airport, hills behind Diamond Harbour.
Wellington - Takapu Valley (all lifestyle), land between Pauatahanui and Haywards (rural/lifestyle), Belmont Hills, Horokiwi.

For anyone who is curious to see what is (apparently) urban, the urban areas can be downloaded from Stats NZ (http://www.stats.govt.nz/statistics-by-area/geography-mapping/digital-boundaries.htm) for free as ESRI shapefiles (and there is free GIS software available to view them too e.g. QGIS).

I'd like to see the populations minus all this ruralness - unfortunately that probably means waiting for the census as Stats don't seem to release estimates per census area unit.
I might have a look at the GIS side of things when I've got some spare time.

Glad its somewhat of a hit...

I was curious on this issue. I saw the new stats out for June 2008 and it made me wonder. I was also suprised to see the South Island over the 1 million mark, that is great news!

BTW, could the mods please change the title, if it is a good idea for a thread, then it should have a better title. Maybe New Zealand Population Trends or something around that sort.

Thanks

A good idea indeed

For Auckland I think the best way of determining that actual city's population is by finding out the population of the area inside the Metropolitan Urban Limits. They're a pretty fixed edge to the city.

Well that looks good for Tauranga .......I would expect Population growth to be down a bit there over the next couple of Years ........could be wrong :nuts:

A couple more interesting graphics from Stats NZ

http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/2FE81DA4-92E8-4ABA-8C3F-FE8D288231E6/0/snpejun08mainuapopchg.gif

http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/53328DF7-6AD2-4063-A153-68890B0CD240/0/snpejun08secuapopchg.gif

Interestingly, Wellington's population stats are skewed by the unevenness of the region's growth. Wellington City and Kapiti are the fastest growing components, whereas the Hutt Valley and Porirua seem to be remaining static or reducing in population.

[I] understood that Porirua was at one stage New Zealand's fastest growing areas.

^^ Probably in the 1950s and 1960s when the vast tracts of state housing were being built.

I think Tokoroa declined primarily because of job losses at the sawmill(s) in the area.

Wow, look at Auckland, Hamilton and Tauranga powering ahead, Whangarei will join them soon. :D

The 'golden triangle' of Auckland, Hamilton and Tauranga will definitely become more and more New Zealand's engine-room over the next 20-30 years. Hopefully we'll get a good high-speed rail service between the three cities so that they can co-operate far more than they currently do, to everyone's benefit.

You could probably throw Northland into the equation as well. The new rail link to Marden Point :)and the new town centre which will all be in close proximatey to Auckland as well.

http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/2FE81DA4-92E8-4ABA-8C3F-FE8D288231E6/0/snpejun08mainuapopchg.gif


Breakdown of growth in Stats NZ urban areas that are split into zones:

1.5 % Auckland
1.3 % Northern Auckland Zone
1.5 % Western Auckland Zone
1.1 % Central Auckland Zone
1.9 % Southern Auckland Zone

1.3 % Hamilton
1.4 % Hamilton Zone
1.0 % Cambridge Zone
0.8 % Te Awamutu Zone

0.1 % Napier-Hastings
0.0 % Napier Zone
0.2 % Hastings Zone

0.7 % Wellington
0.4 % Upper Hutt Zone
0.1 % Lower Hutt Zone
0.5 % Porirua Zone
1.2 % Wellington Zone

(Source: Stats NZ Subnational Population Estimates at 30 June 2008 (http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/hot-off-the-press/subnational-population-estimates/sunational-population-estimates-jun08-hotp.htm?page=para004Master))

With a new government talking about growth. I am wondering whether New Zealand's projected population over the coming decades increases. At present we are only supposed to hit 5 million and the plateau out. It will be interesting to see how future policy makers and planners view this figure in years to come. I personally believe we should be aiming to grow our population to around 10 million in the next 100 years.:lol::cheers:

With a new government talking about growth. I am wondering whether New Zealand's projected population over the coming decades increases. At present we are only supposed to hit 5 million and the plateau out. It will be interesting to see how future policy makers and planners view this figure in years to come. I personally believe we should be aiming to grow our population to around 10 million in the next 100 years.:lol::cheers:

100 years is a long time to plan for! I doubt that NZ will ever reach 10 million based upon current projections for the future. It is too isolated.

I think we might, but only if we end up having to house half the Pacific when their islands get flooded by rising ocean levels.

^^ Yeah when in a hundred years time, NZ will be completely full of Pacific Islanders...

I think population growth for New Zealand is OK as long as it's carefully managed. The last thing we want is Auckland to sprawl even further, or any other New Zealand city for that matter. In the long-term we are clearly heading into a time of energy insecurity (particularly fossil fuels) so it's clear we will need to intensify our cities more. As long as it happens carefully, I think Auckland could be a much better city with a population of 2 million or more than it is at the moment. Hopefully with that population we would have the money for a decent public transport system and other things that would make us a 'world class city'. The same goes for a lot of other cities throughout the country - as long as an increased population is carefully managed they will benefit from it.

I definitely think we need to open our doors to immigrants more, particularly those who are young and well educated. I couldn't care less where they come from, as in the end we're all descended from immigrants to this country at some point in the last 800 or so years.

The auckland -hamilton- tauranga axis will grow rapidly .I think this area of upper north island will grow fast than we think.at the rate at which it is growing it will beat projected growth of 2015 /2020/2050.Hamilton and tauranga have come from nowhere in the last what 15-25 years.I thing whangerei will at some stage also see rapid growh if the local authorities there make the right decisions .Aucklanders and others may want to move there for lifestyle reasons or retirement ,ects like they move to tauranga .I would like aucland in the next few years get to around 1,7m and hamilton around 160,000-200,000.i think hamilton will continue to grow because of amongst other things its proximity to auckland and immigration .hamilton will surely become the farming and technology engine room of the country.this growth will hopefully lead to more highrise develpoments in hamilton and tauranga.

hamilton will surely become the farming and technology engine room of the country.


I thought it was already, at least the farming part......

I thought it was already, at least the farming part......

I would have thought Christchurch was already the farming and technology engine room. What makes Hamilton so likely to take over this role?

Hamilton supposedly has more Phds than anywhere else in New Zealand. I'm not trying to talk the area up either. Hamilton is probably more into agricultural biotechnology, bioinformatics and food processing. Its close proximatey to Auckland and better rail connections have it strategically well placed. Christchurch has an excellent airport and with work about to be completed in the next few years, is also well positioned for future growth. Christchurch has a lot of area in which to expand and it is reasonable to expect a metro population of around 600,000 in the coming decades, commuter rail would also help to facilitate a population of this size.:)

Hamilton supposedly has more Phds than anywhere else in New Zealand. I'm not trying to talk the area up either. Hamilton is probably more into agricultural biotechnology, bioinformatics and food processing. Its close proximatey to Auckland and better rail connections have it strategically well placed. Christchurch has an excellent airport and with work about to be completed in the next few years, is also well positioned for future growth. Christchurch has a lot of area in which to expand and it is reasonable to expect a metro population of around 600,000 in the coming decades, commuter rail would also help to facilitate a population of this size.:)

Chch has an agricultural university (Lincoln) and an engineering one (Canterbury). It is also in the centre of the biggest piece of farmland in the country - hence my statement.

Being a Christchurch boy myself I am definetly on your side on this one. Canterbury is already the 2nd biggest contributor to the New Zealand economy. Many people have said that it could or should be the engine room for the country's economy already. It would be great to see this happen, but there certainly does need to be a shitload of investment for this to happen and amongst other things, rail would help things along considerably.:cheers:

Hamilton doesn't have better railway links at the moment - one train a day goes through there to Wellington and one to Auckland! :lol:

We're hoping for a good connection eventually though!

Yeah but in terms of freight rail it is probably the most important location in NZ.

Yeah but in terms of freight rail it is probably the most important location in NZ.

Comparatively little freight is transported by rail compared to lorries though isn't it?

^^ Modal split for freight Tonne-kilometres in 2006/2007 was estimated as:
Road: 70.2%
Rail: 14.6%
Coastal shipping: 14.9%
Air: 0.3%

(Source: National Freight Demands Study (http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Images/NewFolder-2/FREIGHT-STUDY-FINAL.pdf) [pdf])

In the Waikato region, I believe rail's share is about 20% (can't remember the source though).

Many people were sceptical about voting for Key because of what they thought he would do to Kiwirail. He hasn't really said a great deal. Public opinion is however very much in favour of getting back to rail.:banana:

Comparatively little freight is transported by rail compared to lorries though isn't it?


Yeah, I know. But Hamilton is the junction of several trunk lines. If more freight does go to rail (which would be great) then Hamilton will be where a lot of it passes through and/or gets transfered to different trains or trucks.

Hamilton is really growing. Thats good news, hopefully the skyline can change soon.

I would have thought Christchurch was already the farming and technology engine room. What makes Hamilton so likely to take over this role?

I'd say your probably correct. Lincoln as well as Massey are the agricultural universities so you would think the farming technology engine room would be around those 2 universities?

The Ruakura Agricultural Research Centre (AgResearch) is in Hamilton though beside Waikato University, plus Fonterra ....

At exactly 8:00pm the population clock shows there are currently 4,287,041 of us.

Does anyone have a preference to what our population should be? Also where these people should be concentrated?

I would like to see us at about 7-9 million. I think we could sustain that.

Auckland should have a population of 3 million. We could have a Wellington/Kapiti/Palmy conurbation of close to 2 million. And Christchurch at around the 1 million mark. Add to that a population of 250k for Hamilton, Tauranga, Napier/Hastings, Nelson and Dunedin and I think we would have a powerhouse of a country on our hands.

Now from where to find these extra people...

I think it kind of depends on how the cities will take in those extra people. If Auckland has 3 million yet keeps its current urban limits then it'll be awesome. We would totally be able to afford a kick-ass urban train system with that sort of population. If Auckland spreads to twice its current size then it'll be a disaster. Same goes with the other cities.

Hard to say what an ideal population is for the country as a whole though, there are simply so many variables.

At exactly 8:00pm the population clock shows there are currently 4,287,041 of us.

I would like to see us at about 7-9 million. I think we could sustain that.

Auckland should have a population of 3 million.

Now from where to find these extra people...

Wow nearly 4.3 million!
Agree with your figure of 7-9 mill. I've always felt that for a country of our land size we are really underpopulated.
My thinking was always along the lines of 10 million - remember that our sq km size is bigger than the UK and they have around 60 million!
But I will take "7-9 million"!
Where from? = thats the problem. Preferably share it around...25% European, 25% American, 25% Asian and 25% licorice allsorts!

Though Piha on a sunny Sunday with 3x as many people might be a bit shit. There are advantages of a smaller population too.

If New Zealand is serious about economic growth, then this is definetly what our governments should be planning for. In the past a figure of 5 million is basically all the governments of this country have planned for, and beyond that there has been no real stategy to accomodate a population which would facilitate any real degree of significant economic growth. One of the things I am hopeful about with John Key is that maybe he is thinking more along these lines and also addressing the need to bring back significant numbers of expats back to our shores.:banana:

Growing an economy simply through growing a population doesn't necessarily lead to a better quality of life for those living in the country. I know many many New Zealanders enjoy the relatively low population density of the country.

I'd tend to disagree with people's desire for doubling the NZ population. It means we'd have to export less food, and import more oil, and would create more crowding in the cities.
While on a simplistic level the NZ economy may grow with increasing population, aren't we really concerned with GDP per capita rather than gross GDP?
To illustrate, imagine if the world population doubled in ten years, and the world economy doubled with it. No one will benifit. There will just be more mouths to feed, more cars to fuel, more kids to educate, more sick people to take care of, more factories polluting the air...etc.

I'm one of the many New Zealanders who would prefer a bit more company down in this empty part of the World :)

Good points whizz_pat, gosh imagine our current account deficit being doubled, it just about kills us as is.

New Zealand is a great little country with so much to offer the world. At the moment we are fighting to be heard. Tourism still has a lot of room for growth and I believe that it is not unrealistic with the right marketing and a concerted push to promote New Zealand as a tourist destination, we can become one of the top tourist destinations in the world. Our only real barrier is our geographic location. Oil and gas exploration will eventually become more of a key contributor to New Zealand's economy as we continue to get nearer and nearer to a sizeable discovery. For this country to flourish and prosper as our forefathers envisaged, we must be looking at increasing our numbers. I don't mean increasing them just for the shear sake of it, I mean increasing our population through high economic growth in a similar vain to Queensland which has a similar population.:):bash:

I agree in some respects, but once again it's critical how the increased population is managed so that our infrastructure can cope with it. I think Auckland is a pretty annoying size at the moment - big enough to have the problems of a big city such as congestion and air pollution, but too small to afford a proper solution - and would probably benefit from a population of 2.5-3 million. The same probably goes for a lot of other cities around NZ.

New Zealand is a great little country with so much to offer the world. At the moment we are fighting to be heard. Tourism still has a lot of room for growth and I believe that it is not unrealistic with the right marketing and a concerted push to promote New Zealand as a tourist destination, we can become one of the top tourist destinations in the world. Our only real barrier is our geographic location. Oil and gas exploration will eventually become more of a key contributor to New Zealand's economy as we continue to get nearer and nearer to a sizeable discovery. For this country to flourish and prosper as our forefathers envisaged, we must be looking at increasing our numbers. I don't mean increasing them just for the shear sake of it, I mean increasing our population through high economic growth in a similar vain to Queensland which has a similar population.:):bash:

-I believe we don't need to be heard to live good lives.
-Oil and gas will only go so far. They will run out and we will have to see a future beyond them.

I think Auckland is a pretty annoying size at the moment - big enough to have the problems of a big city such as congestion and air pollution, but too small to afford a proper solution - and would probably benefit from a population of 2.5-3 million

Its funny because my train of thought is completely opposite to yours. I think Auckland is large enough to have that 'big city feel', and provide the conveniences of a large city. At the same time, its congestion and pollution problems are relatively simple and insignificant. I might be a bit biased towards Auckland, because in my mind I'm constantly comparing it to Cairo, a mega city of abundant pollution, congestion, poverty, and corruption that you'll never see in Australasia.

But compare it to, say, Melbourne, a city just 2-3 times the size where there are 16 or so different rail lines, god knows how many light rail lines, a recently opened $2.5 billion tollway (EastLink), a slightly older $1.8 billion dollar CityLink, with plans afoot for both a cross-city road tunnel and a new underground metro line, both several kilometres in length and costing several billion dollars between them.

One key difference? The Victorian goverment acts as a defacto city-wide planning body (due to Melbourne's prominence within Victoria). Auckland has no such body with any real power of the assignment of funding. The longer I spend in Melbourne the more I'm convinced that Auckland couldn't organise a... well you know the rest.

Hell... EastLink actually opened ahead of schedule... can you imagine?

Melbourne is a good model to work with.

Melbourne is a good model to work with.

Yep, freeways and sprawl. Great model. :lol:

Sure, it's a lovely city which has changed a lot in recent times, however, it's very evident that it suffers from many of the same problems that we do in as much as low density sprawl dominates, it has a huge urban footprint and insists that road building will solve all its problems.

I'd tend to disagree with people's desire for doubling the NZ population. It means we'd have to export less food, and import more oil, and would create more crowding in the cities.
While on a simplistic level the NZ economy may grow with increasing population, aren't we really concerned with GDP per capita rather than gross GDP?
To illustrate, imagine if the world population doubled in ten years, and the world economy doubled with it. No one will benifit. There will just be more mouths to feed, more cars to fuel, more kids to educate, more sick people to take care of, more factories polluting the air...etc.

Yeah and if we had a population of 10000 people there'd be millions less mouths to feed and cars to fuel etc etc.. doesn't mean we'd be better off

New Zealand has the advantage of having a small population living in a (relatively) wealthy country. For those of us who have lived overseas, the problems associated with large populations are obvious. I for one would not want Auckland's population to increase very quickly. It is perfect the way it is-big enpugh to create the feeling of a cosmopolitan city, but also small in terms of population and size.
Thats the main reason people come here-to escape overcrowding in other countries. I love going for a drive around the countryside and seeing no one around. It has its own charms and this is something special about New Zealand. Also, there are very few countries in the world with a population of 4 million where you can get a big city like Auckland or Wellington...
I think in the coming decade (if our economy improves), we are going to have a surge of immigrants wanting to come here, mainly from Asia, India and also Europe and North America. I shouldnt forget Pacific Islanders as their islands will be drowning. Its just upto NZ to decide what type of people it wants to come and contribute. I would prefer anyone who is educated, can speak English and wont be reduced to working in a factory in East Tamaki.

New Zealand has the advantage of having a small population living in a (relatively) wealthy country. For those of us who have lived overseas, the problems associated with large populations are obvious. I for one would not want Auckland's population to increase very quickly. It is perfect the way it is-big enpugh to create the feeling of a cosmopolitan city, but also small in terms of population and size.
Thats the main reason people come here-to escape overcrowding in other countries. I love going for a drive around the countryside and seeing no one around. It has its own charms and this is something special about New Zealand. Also, there are very few countries in the world with a population of 4 million where you can get a big city like Auckland or Wellington...
I think in the coming decade (if our economy improves), we are going to have a surge of immigrants wanting to come here, mainly from Asia, India and also Europe and North America. I shouldnt forget Pacific Islanders as their islands will be drowning. Its just upto NZ to decide what type of people it wants to come and contribute. I would prefer anyone who is educated, can speak English and wont be reduced to working in a factory in East Tamaki.

I agree with some of your points, however, to assume that big cities are overcrowded and unsustainable is a bit odd. Paris, London, Madrid and the like are all far more sustainable and easily manageable in many ways than Auckland. I certainly don't notice an "overcrowded" feeling in London simply because the city has been constructed in a way to minimise this in all but the worst of council estates which are crowded in by commieblocks. Endless mid-rise is far more manageable than cities which one sees in South America or Asia with lots of highrise. The lack of building shadowing contributes to this in part.

I would say that the "problems" associated with large populations are exaggerated simply due to the fact that there are more people evident with those problems. Though the percentage attributed to a certain problem (IE Homelessness) may be the same in both countries, it could appear to be more endemic in a country with a larger population simply due to the larger number. I certainly saw very much the same problems in England as I see here in NZ.

As for countries of 4million with large cities, well there are actually plenty out there! Lebanon has Beirut, Puerto Rico has San Juan, Norway has Oslo etc etc. The reason for this is due to the centralised nature of many countries around the world. If you look again at two of the cities I mentioned above (London and Paris) and consider their population as a percentage of the population of the country, it is incredibly high.

Finally, I can't help but think it is arrogance to assume that everyone wants to move to New Zealand from all over the world. I for one am moving back to Europe once I have gained my second qualification as I have made perfectly plain. I happen to like the crowded cities and urbanity of other countries, though just as the sparsely populated nature of NZ is not for everyone, nor is urbanity.

New Zealand has the advantage of having a small population living in a (relatively) wealthy country. For those of us who have lived overseas, the problems associated with large populations are obvious. I for one would not want Auckland's population to increase very quickly. It is perfect the way it is-big enpugh to create the feeling of a cosmopolitan city, but also small in terms of population and size.
Thats the main reason people come here-to escape overcrowding in other countries. I love going for a drive around the countryside and seeing no one around. It has its own charms and this is something special about New Zealand. Also, there are very few countries in the world with a population of 4 million where you can get a big city like Auckland or Wellington...
I think in the coming decade (if our economy improves), we are going to have a surge of immigrants wanting to come here, mainly from Asia, India and also Europe and North America. I shouldnt forget Pacific Islanders as their islands will be drowning. Its just upto NZ to decide what type of people it wants to come and contribute. I would prefer anyone who is educated, can speak English and wont be reduced to working in a factory in East Tamaki.

I agree with Svartmetall here. I have lived in Auckland and many larger cities and the increase in population doesn't automatically make disadvantages as obvious as you suggested. There are of course some disadvantages in some cities but they are often offset by many advantages.

As an example, I now live in Frankfurt which has a city proper population of around 670,000 people (Auckland: 438,000) and urban area of 2.26million (Auckland 1.3million) and a metro area of 5.3million (Auckland 1.4million). The density of the city proper is 2699/km² (Auckland 688/km²) and sits in the middle of a country of 82million people compared to 4million which Germany is only about a 3rd bigger or so in land area.

My nearest neighbouring metropolitan area is the Rhein Neckar with Mannheim at it's hub and that is a mere 35minutes away from downtown Frankfurt by high speed train. In the other direction, The Rhein Ruhr metropolitan area with 12million+ people begins only an hour north by train when you hit Bonn. These three metropolitan area's have a combined population of 19-20million people and all that is within 1-2hours from my house.

And I don't feel crowded at all.

I live 30minutes walk from downtown Frankfurt (4minutes by u-bahn and 13minutes by bike) At the same time, if I walk in the other direction, I can be in a forest (the Frankfurter Stadtwald) in about 10minutes. It's dense enough in there to get lost if you don't keep your bearings or bring a map. On the otherside of the city, closer than the Waitakere Ranges is to central Auckland, I have the Taunus Mountains (Hills really) which are higher and larger in area, mostly forest covered and better transport options (train stations and regular buses): (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taunus).

Because of the make up of Frankfurt's metropolitan region, with greenbelts surrounding most of the urban area's, countryside, farms and fields are never far from wherever you stand. The urban area's themselves tend to be medium to high density and separated from each other by green pastures or forests.

Despite being a much larger city than Auckland it is far easier to reach the countryside or forests from downtown than it is in Auckland itself, due mainly to the suburban low density sprawl of Auckland.

Frankfurt is also generally a safer city than Auckland, despite being much larger. From the statistics I have seen, it has less murders, less assaults, less burglaries and less rapes per capita than Auckland. Statistics when delt with internationally should always be taken with a grain of salt due to differences between definitions but some of the differences are quite notable.

Public transport in Frankfurt is infinitely better than Auckland with a full metro (u-bahn) network, a suburban rail network similar to the RER in Paris (S-bahn, where ín the central area the trains run like metro's) a wider area commuter train network and three tram networks in the metropolitan area. Not to mention of course incredibly extensive bus networks. It takes so many maps to cover all the transport options in this metro that you could spend hours going through them. So, getting around is much easier in this city and metro than Auckland. It even has, being Germany, a much larger Motorway (Autobahn) network where we still have no speed limits outside the direct urban area's, and Auckland does have a good motorway network.

Metropolitan Area Rail (Not including U-bahn or Trams)
http://www.rmv.de/coremedia/generator/Bilder/0Abbildungen/PlaeneNetzplaene/PLA__Schienennetzplan__PDF,property=data.pdf
Frankfurt Rhein Main Mainly Urban Area including U-bahn but not trams
http://www.rmv.de/coremedia/generator/Bilder/0Abbildungen/PlaeneNetzplaene/PLA__Schnellbahnplan__PDF,property=data.pdf

Frankfurt City Proper U-bahn, S-bahn and Trams (only Frankfurt trams) but not including Commuter rail which is in the other maps
http://www.traffiq.de/fm/20/traffiQ_Liniennetzplan_2008_V2.pdf

And as an example to compare with Auckland's metro, let's take Darmstadt which is about 30minutes from downtown Frankfurt by the slower S-bahn suburban rail (half that by the faster high speed commuter trains). It has a population of around 141,000 (to say Waitakere City with 201,000) though of course, being part of a larger region the overall urban population is bigger. But this is a good comparison with Waitakere City. Below are three maps that show the public transport options in this city. I would imagine they are much larger than Waitakere's. The main reason is of course that although its city proper population is smaller, it's overall population being part of Frankfurt's 5.2million metro area is much larger.
City Proper of Darmstadt (Includes S-bahn, Trams and buses but no longer distance commuter rail)
http://www.dadina.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Dokumente/2008/Netzplaene/da_innenTarife_2008_25102007.pdf

Wider Damstadt area
http://www.dadina.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Dokumente/2008/Netzplaene/da_land_08_1.pdf

So, I really fail to see the obvious disadvantages to larger cities. The only one I can think off-hand is that to afford a large family house here you do have to move further out of the central city. But then again, I prefer apartment living. (I live on the 18th, top floor with a 270° view over an area where more people live than all of NZ)

It is so easy for me to find solitude here, and I can do so probably quicker than anyone living 30minutes walk from downtown Auckland due to the proximity of our city forest. Yet at the same time, there are over 300 restaurants, bars and cafe's I can walk to in 15minutes, now that's cosmopolitan ;O)

I'm not knocking Auckland, I love the city. And one thing, we don't have a coastline here which I really miss. But I don't feel crowded here in the slightest and the higher population does give us many advantages.

Oh, finally, also as Svartmetall pointed out, there are plenty of country's between 3-5million which have cities as big as NZ's. You just have to realize that Australia and NZ always use metropolitan area populations to describe their city (a good thing I believe) and many other country's just use city proper figures. So, many of those European cities may seem smaller when you see their population listed, but using the same criteria as NZ they can grow much larger.

:cheers:

^^ Fine. But I just cant imagine Auckland having double its current population. As some people on here suggest, Auckland could do with about 2 million inhabitants. Is that really possible? We have to remember that this is not Europe, so I dont think we should compare Auckland to Frankfurt or Paris.
Of Course, high density cities dont necessarily have to be unmanageable and unsustainable. But thats not the case for Auckland because we dont have the right infrastructure to enable this. Endless Mid rise in Auckland? Maybe in 30 years time but not now, when we have a third class public transport infrastructure and congested roadways. The city's main focus should be on bringing its infrastructure to line so that we can cope with any future population growth.
And Svartmetall, I was not being arrogant about the immigrants coming. It has been envisaged that by the time baby boomers retire, there is going to be an even greater skills shortage and to rectify that, we will need much more immgrants. I know many people who have immigrated to NZ, and didnt like it and went back or to some other country. But a lot of people do prefer the fact that NZ has a small population-as you say, urbanity may not be for everyone!

^^ Actually, Frankfurt is a good comparison to Auckland because we were discussing the point that was made where high populations automatically equals obvious disadvantages. I wasn't comparing Frankfurt to Auckland in how Auckland should develop or grow, just that it is possible to have a city several times larger and actually have less problems.

Endless midrises in Auckland? This is not needed for an increase to 2million, or even 3million. Growth should start at transportation junctions (railway stations and major bus interchanges) and town centers. Here is where the higher density apartments should be built. This doesn't mean all the low density suburban dwellings inbetween must go.

Anyway, I am not saying Auckland should be a larger city. I am simply saying there is no reason why it should not. If Auckland stays at 1.3million for the next 75years so be it. But if it does grow, double, or even triple, it doesn't mean that the city would collapse. Whether it succeeds or not depends on Auckland, her planners and the population. But Frankfurt is a good example that larger cities can be relaxing and safe places.

The problem with bringing Auckland's infrastructure in line is that the city is currently in an inbetween phase. It has far too low density to support a proper and extensive rail network but it is still a big enough city that needs one. If the city was the same population, but took up far less space then it wouldn't be in this situation. However, it is a vast sprawling city of small, low density population. Start with increasing the densities around the train stations, this would encourage greater use of that transport as well as the central core and inner suburbs. As the population increases, then the rail infrastructure can grow as well.

^^ Fine. But I just cant imagine Auckland having double its current population. As some people on here suggest, Auckland could do with about 2 million inhabitants. Is that really possible? We have to remember that this is not Europe, so I dont think we should compare Auckland to Frankfurt or Paris.
Of Course, high density cities dont necessarily have to be unmanageable and unsustainable. But thats not the case for Auckland because we dont have the right infrastructure to enable this. Endless Mid rise in Auckland? Maybe in 30 years time but not now, when we have a third class public transport infrastructure and congested roadways. The city's main focus should be on bringing its infrastructure to line so that we can cope with any future population growth.
And Svartmetall, I was not being arrogant about the immigrants coming. It has been envisaged that by the time baby boomers retire, there is going to be an even greater skills shortage and to rectify that, we will need much more immgrants. I know many people who have immigrated to NZ, and didnt like it and went back or to some other country. But a lot of people do prefer the fact that NZ has a small population-as you say, urbanity may not be for everyone!

Oh I certainly agree with you on the infrastructure front which is exactly why I wanted the Greens to get into power. They appeared to be the only party with any interest in sorting out the problems with Auckland. When I consider how much infrastructure a small city like Wellington has compared to Auckland, I can't help but grit my teeth as it is certainly disproportionate.

The unfortunate thing is that people don't seem to WANT the problems to be sorted. They're content with the status quo and investing money into sorting the transport network appears to be a difficult uphill struggle. Hopefully we'll get there eventually! Here's hoping that the planners in Auckland start visiting SSC! :lol:

^^ Actually, Frankfurt is a good comparison to Auckland because we were discussing the point that was made where high populations automatically equals obvious disadvantages. I wasn't comparing Frankfurt to Auckland in how Auckland should develop or grow, just that it is possible to have a city several times larger and actually have less problems.

Endless midrises in Auckland? This is not needed for an increase to 2million, or even 3million. Growth should start at transportation junctions (railway stations and major bus interchanges) and town centers. Here is where the higher density apartments should be built. This doesn't mean all the low density suburban dwellings inbetween must go.

Anyway, I am not saying Auckland should be a larger city. I am simply saying there is no reason why it should not. If Auckland stays at 1.3million for the next 75years so be it. But if it does grow, double, or even triple, it doesn't mean that the city would collapse. Whether it succeeds or not depends on Auckland, her planners and the population. But Frankfurt is a good example that larger cities can be relaxing and safe places.

The problem with bringing Auckland's infrastructure in line is that the city is currently in an inbetween phase. It has far too low density to support a proper and extensive rail network but it is still a big enough city that needs one. If the city was the same population, but took up far less space then it wouldn't be in this situation. However, it is a vast sprawling city of small, low density population. Start with increasing the densities around the train stations, this would encourage greater use of that transport as well as the central core and inner suburbs. As the population increases, then the rail infrastructure can grow as well.

Ok I am guessing that you HAVE been on Auckland's trains. The rail network that goes from Papakura to Britomart goes through the most abandoned industrial areas of Auckland with no populated areas in the vicinity...Once you get to Newmarket, it starts to change but then again, Orakei is also like that...I wonder which idiot chose to place the industries in the middle of the isthmus with railway lines? :ohno: So much density could be achieved there :bash:

Ok I am guessing that you HAVE been on Auckland's trains. The rail network that goes from Papakura to Britomart goes through the most abandoned industrial areas of Auckland with no populated areas in the vicinity...Once you get to Newmarket, it starts to change but then again, Orakei is also like that...I wonder which idiot chose to place the industries in the middle of the isthmus with railway lines? :ohno: So much density could be achieved there :bash:

I'm guessing that the railways developed around the industry when freight was primarily shifted to the ports by rail and raw materials were shipped to the industrial zones from the port for manufacturing.

There are some areas which could become successful growth nodes though - Glen Innes, Panmure, Manurewa, Middlemore, Papatoetoe, Meadowbank, Kingsland, Mount Eden, Mount Albert, Avondale, New Lynn, Glen Eden. Etc etc. Most of these areas have definite potential for densification even if the dumps of Otahuhu, Westfield and the like don't.

Hopefully we'll get there eventually! Here's hoping that the planners in Auckland start visiting SSC! :lol:
Am doing so!

Yeah and if we had a population of 10000 people there'd be millions less mouths to feed and cars to fuel etc etc.. doesn't mean we'd be better off
We would actually be better off if the entire world population is reduced. We won't be facing huge spikes is food and petrol prices, as there will be less people to share our food and petrol with.

Definately, urban problems associated with large populations can be alleviated with decent planning and foresight. As some have pointed out, places like Germany, UK, Japan etc all have similar land areas to Auckland and are well off. However, assuming that the entire world can be well off with the same population densities as these countries is a mistake.

If you put 100 bacteria in a dish full of sugar, they will last longer that 10000 bacteria in the same dish. Similarly, in an Earth with finite resources, 6 billion people will be able to be sustained longer than 60 billion can be.

I sound too much like a greeny.

Nothing wrong sounding like a greeny. Over-population is like the elephant in the middle of the room when it comes to environmental issues.

Nothing wrong sounding like a greeny. Over-population is like the elephant in the middle of the room when it comes to environmental issues.

Yeah I agree and if people think 6 Billion people can live a middle class life they are dreaming.

I am a greenie :nocrook:

Jeez you guys. How can you want the population of NZ to increase? The environment comes before the economy and urbanity!! We should actually be thinking of ways to reduce the human footprint on the earth's natural resources...Thats why NZ's population is perfect the way it is :) People should just focus on making Auckland a better city.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2360/2041919208_b1b7ff4a96.jpg
^^ This?

or this?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1047/657162681_470bf33d5c_o.jpg

I like both actually :D

Double Post

My personal view - enough people for a sense of vibrancy and decent economy of scale, but not so many people that we become a walking sardine tin like Mumbai.

Here's an interesting chart of density vs petrol use below. There are some surprises here, and the data is out of date, but the overall pattern is obvious.

Petrol use vs urban density (Newman & Kenworthy, 1989) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Petrol_use_urban_density.svg)

^^ I can imagine lol
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/211/466573828_c7653fe4ef_o.jpg

or this?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1047/657162681_470bf33d5c_o.jpg


Looks like there's an algal bloom problem in that river! :lol:


But beautiful none the less!

I have always wanted the NZ population to increase significantly. To what figure, somewhere between 5-10 million, what I would like to see is an increase in population density, currently we have a density of about 15per sq km, the OECD average is 33. The United States is the closest with 31per sq km. Out of the 30 OECD countries NZ is ranked no. 26 ahead of norway, canada, iceland and australia (remember these countries have vast areas making human habitation very difficult). In terms of land area NZ is ranked 15th. So somewhere between 20 and 30 per sq km would give us a population of somewhere between 5.5 and 8 million and a similar density as sweeden and the usa.
Some things to think about. NZ has traditionally been pretty well self sufficient with food. If our population were to nearly double, this would put a lot of pressure on the economy I believe as imports would continue to smash the value of our exports, which is pretty much primary products and tourism. So we need some smart farmers.
I would be keen to see population growth in the regional cities. I believe that half of NZs population live from Taupo going north, this would be a good trend to continue around the cities of Whangarei, Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga and I believe that New Plymouth is primed for big growth. The majority of our best not great but best infrastructure is in this area and looks set to get also the majority of govt funding. Chch will be the South Island capital (hmm a South Island state, anyone keen for a thread) that continue to focus on agriculture and tourism, and who knows maybe one day; oil.
Enough for now.

We would actually be better off if the entire world population is reduced. We won't be facing huge spikes is food and petrol prices, as there will be less people to share our food and petrol with.

Definately, urban problems associated with large populations can be alleviated with decent planning and foresight. As some have pointed out, places like Germany, UK, Japan etc all have similar land areas to Auckland and are well off. However, assuming that the entire world can be well off with the same population densities as these countries is a mistake.

If you put 100 bacteria in a dish full of sugar, they will last longer that 10000 bacteria in the same dish. Similarly, in an Earth with finite resources, 6 billion people will be able to be sustained longer than 60 billion can be.

I sound too much like a greeny.


Year, but we're not talking about Global population, we're taking about NZ population, and NZ with 4million, 6million or 10million wouldn't affect the planet in the slightest.

By the way, sudden population decrease also has massive implications, especially economical.

^^ Definately, I am not for a sudden decrease in population.

While 6 or 10 million will make no difference in terms of the planet, it will make us more dependant on imports to support a larger populations, and will make as have less surplus agricultural products for export.

If there was a global food shortage, a low population will definately work to our advantage.

I am a greenie :nocrook:

Jeez you guys. How can you want the population of NZ to increase? The environment comes before the economy and urbanity!! We should actually be thinking of ways to reduce the human footprint on the earth's natural resources...Thats why NZ's population is perfect the way it is :) People should just focus on making Auckland a better city.


Actually, to be honest, I find Frankfurt to be cleaner than Auckland with the exception of air pollution, but that also has a lot more to do with it's location inland without the prevalent sea breezes clearing things up. (An NZ example of this can be seen that ChCh had more air pollution than Auckland despite being much smaller)

Yes, greater population can mean more pollution, but it doesn't always have to mean that, and you could double NZ's population without noticing anything different. Environmentalism is more to do with people's actions than to do with population sizes. A tiny communist country back in the cold war days had far worse pollution than most larger democratic nations, and Germany today for instance with 82million people is not 20x more polluted than NZ despite 20x more people. In fact, Germany is far more environmentally aware than NZ in so many ways.

I think there are advantages and disadvantages of New Zealand's population growing. Further reliance on imports is a clear disadvantage, which definitely makes me think we need to reduce that reliance before we got about significantly increasing our population.

In the longer-term, as oil becomes far more expensive and transportation costs in general become more significant, a relocalisation will mean that we will have to become more self-reliant. Though one again that's a moot point as to whether that would make us more or less able to support a bigger population.

I think the Germany example shows that it's not simply the population numbers which affect the environment, but how they are contained. If our cities grow big enough to support fantastic public transport and a more sustainable way of life, then a bigger population may not have negative environmental effects.

Actually, to be honest, I find Frankfurt to be cleaner than Auckland with the exception of air pollution, but that also has a lot more to do with it's location inland without the prevalent sea breezes clearing things up. (An NZ example of this can be seen that ChCh had more air pollution than Auckland despite being much smaller)

Yes, greater population can mean more pollution, but it doesn't always have to mean that, and you could double NZ's population without noticing anything different. Environmentalism is more to do with people's actions than to do with population sizes. A tiny communist country back in the cold war days had far worse pollution than most larger democratic nations, and Germany today for instance with 82million people is not 20x more polluted than NZ despite 20x more people. In fact, Germany is far more environmentally aware than NZ in so many ways.
True that. Lifestyle and government policy can have more impact on the environment than population. But, given that government policy and lifestyle remains the same, and doubling the population will double the polution.

For example, if the global population was 6 million rather than 6 billion, we could all drive around our sexy SUVs 100km to and from work, and not have to worry about the environment. It is because of an increasing population that we have to be careful.

So in NZ's case, in order to keep the environment in the same condition as it is now, we can either:
a) keep our population constant, and keep our lifestyle the same
b) increase our population, and change our lifestyle

Hell Yes, NZ's population needs to double.

There are no disadvantages that I can see unless they all want a 1/4 acre and a Pajero, oh hang on ......

I think NZ could easily handle 10-20 million people without too much impact on the environment if it chooses densification over sprawl.

There are no disadvantages that I can see unless they all want a 1/4 acre and a Pajero, oh hang on ......
Yeah too true. The NZ culture is built around having a lot of space to do what you like, so it would be difficult to get around that. It's hard enough to convince the NIMBYs that intensification does not mean ghettos.

^^ EXACTLY! The New Zealand culture has always been about living in your quarter-acre section with a couple of SUV's to drive around in...It will take a couple of decades to change that. It is SLOWLY changing in the cities though...
Again, as I said, the culture in Europe is different. People have been living in dense urban areas for centuries whereas in New Zealand, which is a new world country, the way of living is significantly different.

Where exactly are the largest number of immigrants coming from at the moment, I assume Asia and Britain. These people are all use to dense urban living and wouldn't surprise me if they found it more comforting. Also, to make a dramatic increase in population natural increases is a very slow way.
If new zealand wanted to change its population dramitically then migration has to play a big part, that would change your defitiion of a new zealander with a quarter-acre.
The other option is bringing ex-pats home, this could be done quite succesfully, just needs to be more incentives to bring them all home.
Out.

^^ Thats a misconception that many people have. Immigrants dont come here expecting to live in apartments in the middle of the city. Okay maybe Asian students who are only going to be here for a couple of years. However, many of the people who come here with families want to live in the newer suburbs because thats the essence of living in a new world country. Just because they were used to living in dense environments in the UK or Asia, doesnt mean they would find it more comforting here. Large McMansions with huge highways and shopping malls etc. are what a large proportion look for. No wonder the Northern and Eastern parts of Auckland are full of recent immigrants who prefer these suburbs. Look at the North Shore-full of South Africans, Britons and Koreans. Same with Botany Downs-many Europeans, Saffas, Indians, Asians...

oh dear thats not good, then more immigration will lead to more sprawl therefore more roads and more motorways, more schools, more hospitals and back to more imports and less exports, where is NZ heading? That sprawl continues to take up productive farming land too.

^^ Actually that's very true, Bluffmaster. We came here hoping for a bigger house, nicer car and more space for our money than we could get in England. It's only since living here that I, and my family, have come to realise that these wants are unsustainable and vapid when considering quality of life. Unfortunately, many migrants from Europe still cling to the "BIGGER IS BETTER" philosophy.

This will change eventually though, and it's starting to change now.

We would actually be better off if the entire world population is reduced. We won't be facing huge spikes is food and petrol prices, as there will be less people to share our food and petrol with.

Definately, urban problems associated with large populations can be alleviated with decent planning and foresight. As some have pointed out, places like Germany, UK, Japan etc all have similar land areas to Auckland and are well off. However, assuming that the entire world can be well off with the same population densities as these countries is a mistake.

If you put 100 bacteria in a dish full of sugar, they will last longer that 10000 bacteria in the same dish. Similarly, in an Earth with finite resources, 6 billion people will be able to be sustained longer than 60 billion can be.

I sound too much like a greeny.

I don't want an increase in world population, I want an increase in NZ's population

I agree. Up not out.

Interesting perspective svarty, I wonder if many others have the same sense of disappointment with the "spacious" New Zealand lifestyle. I think to truly enjoy what Auckland has to offer one should live somewhere in the inner-suburbs, preferably in the Western Bays. Nice houses but also a relatively high density of development and not the sense of isolation one must get way out on the edge of the city.

Whilst I'm still within a 2 stage bus ride of the city, I still feel further out than desirable. My next move will be to either the very inner-suburbs (if I can afford it) or not far over the harbour bridge so I can busway into town.

^^ :yes: If I could live anywhere in New Zealand, I would live in those central suburbs. Mt Eden, Epsom, Mission Bay, Kohimarama, Orakei, Meadowbank, Parnell etc. (thats if I will ever afford it) Also, Takapuna, Birkenhead, Devonport are really nice. :)

Parnell & Devonport are particularly nice suburbs, with some of Auckland's best late 19th and early 20th century housing stock. I wouldn't want to be too far into the eastern suburbs unless I was near a train station.

Recent Update:

4,287,714

Recent Update:

4,287,714

Is it me - or does the national population seem to be climbing quickly? It only seemed like yesterday that the 4 million mark was reached.

I think 4 million was passed in about 2002, so not that quick really. But yeah, considering it was three million and something forever it does seem like it's made its way towards 5 million fairly quickly.

I know that natural increase rates have been pretty high in the last few years.

Must be my age then:lol:

I believe that NZs population is supposed to peak at about 5.5 million in about 2050. What are the projections for the major cities? If NZ were to have a major influx of immigrants then I would a more concerted effort in encouraging them not all to live in Auckland. I believe the cities of Chch, Palmy, Hamilton and Tauranga would be easier to develop infrastructure than trying to fix up auckland and accomadate 3 million people. I would like to see auckland popn at 2mill MAX with Chch somewhere between 600,000 - 1 mill. Hamilton 400,000, Tauranga 300,000 and Palmy with 200,000.
Again just dreaming, doubt there will ever be much foresight planning done in the capital. When a govt only has 3 years to do its thing, its always about the current day.

I'm not sure I'd like to see Chch with up to 1 million living there! Chch would require a huge amount of infrastructure investment to get it up to the level where it could support that kind of population, much the same as Auckland does now. ~600,000 would be more comfortable, though it'd still need a fair amount of investment.

Yes 1 million in chch would would not be ideal in the forseeable future. I was just considering the fact that new zealand cities seem to be hell-bent on city sprawl and less higher-density, I think chch would be well-suited for a large city with its unlimited boundaries it would be a lot easier to build motorwasy and rail (how big? thats up to the imgination)

For New Zealand's population, percentage growth is pretty good, and the raw numbers are great. Remember, New Zealand has a small population, your not going to see some 200-300,000 people a month like the U.S. Small population = small growth, but percentage wise, New Zealand is doing great, and shouldn't expect anything more.

For New Zealand's population, percentage growth is pretty good, and the raw numbers are great. Remember, New Zealand has a small population, your not going to see some 200-300,000 people a month like the U.S. Small population = small growth, but percentage wise, New Zealand is doing great, and shouldn't expect anything more.

Being from Queensland you may know this. What area has the larger population? NZ or Qld? And who is growing faster?

checked it out. Who would of thought? Australian Bureau of Statistics have qld pop at 4,253,200 as at 31 march 2008. Quoting Brisbaner21 NZ has 4,287,714 therefore NZ has approx 34500 more residents. Not sure who is growing faster, im sure somwone does though.

So I had to check this out. If NZ were to be the 7th state of aust where would it rank?
NSW - 6,947,000
Vic - 5,247,000
NZ - 4,288,000
Qld - 4,253,000
WA - 2,150,000
SA - 1,598,000
Tas - 497,000
ACT - 343,000
NT - 218,000

Doing not too bad.

In terms of area, Queensland is masses bigger than New Zealand I would guess. Interesting their similar populations.

There must be hardly anything in South Australia outside Adelaide.

checked it out. Who would of thought? Australian Bureau of Statistics have qld pop at 4,253,200 as at 31 march 2008. Quoting Brisbaner21 NZ has 4,287,714 therefore NZ has approx 34500 more residents. Not sure who is growing faster, im sure somwone does though.

Interesting. Had a look as well - seems Qld is growing really fast. They were only 4 million 3 years ago, so I suspect they will overtake us soon. I think we were 4 million about 5 years ago.

Actually, I take that back We hit four million in 2005 as well. So growth must be pretty even. It's a race!

Queensland's population is forecasted to hit 8-9 million within the next couple of decades. South East Queensland will eventually become a metropolis stretching from Noosa down to Tweed Heads on the Gold Coast. It will possibly be Australia's second biggest centre. There is some debate about that, as Melbourne may overtake Sydney's population in the next 20 years. New Zealand's population may sprawl in a similar way as South East Queensland. Instead of 1 million people in Christchurch for example it is possible that Canterbury as a region will have that population and as it gets better rail connections and infrastructure etc it could become like a sprawling centre. Same may apply to the other provinces like Waikato, Taranaki, Hawkes Bay. Someone in an earlier post even suggested a Palmy/Wellington/Kapiti metropolis. This is what good rail infrastructure has the very real possibility of doing:banana:, drawing communities, cities, towns and villages closer together.

Yuck. Sprawl.

doubling the population in 20 years, that is out of control. That would be a pretty big metropolis, guessing there is already about 3 million people in the sunshine coast, brisbane, gold coast and also ipswich cities.
Would be cool to see something like that in NZ. Dont think a canterbury metropolis would happen, apart from Christchurch, Timaru and ashburton are too small and too spread out from chch. Palmy/Wellington/Kapiti could happen and could include the area around masterton. But I think a NZ metropolis would most likely occur around auckland/hamilton/tauranga, perhaps another major city could develop within the triangle around huntly or morrinsville.

sprawl may be yuck, but it will continue to happen, it wont stop

You seriously don't want to see what has happened between Brisbane and the Gold Coast or the Sunshine coast. SEQ is a lovely part of the world, but it is, ultimately, quite unsustainable. The sprawl is quite something to behold and not something I'd like to see replicated in NZ.

Sprawl won't continue to happen if politicians wise up to the detrimental impact of sprawl. There are lots and lots of academic, peer reviewed articles addressing the detrimental factors associated with sprawl both economically and environmentally. It's essential that NZ doesn't go further down that route.

I think they are trying to repair some of the unsustainable aspects of urban sprawl through better designed communities, masterplanned communities with well integrated public transport hubs and town centres. The Sunshine Coast is a classic example of this. Highrise development is definitely the way to go.:)

doubling the population in 20 years, that is out of control.

Agreed. Doubling the population in 20 years gives an average annual growth rate of (100ln2)/20= 3.46%
Doesn't sound bad when its a mere 3.5% ay.
OZ as a whole is growing at a rate of 0.96%, and NZ is growing at a rate of 1.18%, giving a doubling time of around 70 and 60 years respectively.

Definately, the 3.5ish percent growth rate is unsustainable.

wow, NZ is actually growing at greater rate than Aust, that is really cool. So ho many years (to the closest 100) when we pass aust?

I think a NZ metropolis would most likely occur around auckland/hamilton/tauranga

Leaving Tauranga aside - absolutely.

Lets face it, with a half-decent train system, it wouldn't be that far at all.

But yes, Sprawl is evil......agreed.

Agreed. Doubling the population in 20 years gives an average annual growth rate of (100ln2)/20= 3.46%
Doesn't sound bad when its a mere 3.5% ay.
OZ as a whole is growing at a rate of 0.96%, and NZ is growing at a rate of 1.18%, giving a doubling time of around 70 and 60 years respectively.

Definately, the 3.5ish percent growth rate is unsustainable.

Let's get some actual facts on here...

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0?OpenDocument

For the year until the end of March 2008, Australia's population grew by 336,800 people or 1.6%. For the past 10 years, Australia has averaged population growth of around 1.3%.

For the year until March 2008, Queensland's population grew by 91,900 people or 2.2%. For the past 10 years, Queensland's population growth has been around 2.0% or above.

Queensland's population is growing by almost twice the number of people New Zealand's population is growing by yearly. It will not be long before it bypasses NZ's population and moves ahead at a rapid pace.

Is there a projected maximum population for NZ which would be feasible ?

Well unless something changes significantly regarding migration levels, NZ's population is not expected to exceed 5.5 million. However, I think once our population actually starts decreasing (which isn't till after 2050 I don't think) there will probably be a lot of political pressure to avoid this from happening.

Many European countries have decreasing or stagnant populations though, and they manage OK economic growth.

returning to a bit of common sense... i doubt we will ever get a 'huge sprawling metropolis'... Auckland and hamilton would have to under go unprecedented growth before that happens and it certainly wont be happening in Christchurch or wellington for 1000 years. Plus, by the time say Auckland would be knocking on Hamiltons door, such growth would have opened a few minds on planning in a more sustainable manner.

Having lived in SEQ and having family still there, both NZ and Aus born, i have to say its dissapointing to see the way its been developing. too rushed and out of control its all about money money

I certainly hope that Auckland never sprawls much beyond its existing boundaries. The only places that I consider vaguely appropriate for further greenfields development are Papakura to Pukekohe and Swanson to Kumeu. However, the problem is that would take up a lot of incredibly productive rural land, that Auckland desperately needs.

Regarding a big upper North Island metropolis, this certainly won't (and shouldn't) happen by each city growing to meet others. However, towns between Auckland, Hamilton and Tauranga should definitely be encouraged to grow (in sustainable ways). A 160 kph regular train service between the three cities - servicing places like Pokeno, Te Kauwhata, Huntly (dare I say it), Ngaruwahia, Morrinsville etc. would enable people who want a more spacious lifestyle to enjoy it in those smaller towns, while the bigger cities intensity.

There would be huge economic advantages of being able to catch an hourly train service to Hamilton and/or Tauranga which took say 1 hour to get to Hamilton and another 40 min to Tauranga. You'd be getting a faster city-centre to city-centre time than you manage on the plane I would imagine.

Where is Auckland in terms of population compared to the Australian cities. I'm guessing at number 5 behind Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth? Is the Auckland pop growing at a faster rate than Brisbane or Perth?

Let's get some actual facts on here...

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0?OpenDocument

For the year until the end of March 2008, Australia's population grew by 336,800 people or 1.6%. For the past 10 years, Australia has averaged population growth of around 1.3%.

For the year until March 2008, Queensland's population grew by 91,900 people or 2.2%. For the past 10 years, Queensland's population growth has been around 2.0% or above.

Queensland's population is growing by almost twice the number of people New Zealand's population is growing by yearly. It will not be long before it bypasses NZ's population and moves ahead at a rapid pace.

Sweet, my source was a Statistics NZ 2005 booklet. The figures I posted were the average annual rate of change of population from 2000-2004. Your stats seem to contradict mine, so there is some uncertainty.

I would like to point out that it is not a competition of whose population can grow the fastest, and a higher population growth rate does not mean a higher standard of living. If that was the case, Egypt would be kicking ass in terms of quality of life (which is not the case).

Where is Auckland in terms of population compared to the Australian cities. I'm guessing at number 5 behind Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth? Is the Auckland pop growing at a faster rate than Brisbane or Perth?

Yeah Auickland is number 5 in terms of popuation. Auckland is the second fastest growing city in Australasia, after Brisbane.

Is there a projected maximum population for NZ which would be feasible ?


I don't know, but I read on another website yesterday that NZ currently produces enough food to support 50 million people.

I'm not sure if that is what you menat by feasible, but I thought it was an interesting stat ....

Yeah Auickland is number 5 in terms of popuation. Auckland is the second fastest growing city in Australasia, after Brisbane.

Is this currently or over a particular time period? Because at the moment, Perth and Darwin are growing faster than Brisbane, but not on average over the last 10 years.

^^
I have no clue. I have heard it in some paper somewhere.

The Brisbane-Gold Coast-Sunshine Coast conurbation is 180km long, about 2.3million people. Its form is clearly linear meaning it can be serviced by public transport fairly easily, rather than a London or Paris shaped blob. There is a conscious effort to consolidated and promote along the public transport routes. There are about 1.7million cars at 65% car ownership rates. As usual, a large proportion of the Gross Regional Product is expended on the 1.7million cars, less than 20% of which are for commercial purposes and have a return on income, the rest is spent on oversized cars stuck in traffic jams or screaming along motorways taking kids to school or getting a small bag of shopping. The weather is fabulous.

Having lived in SEQ and having family still there, both NZ and Aus born, i have to say its dissapointing to see the way its been developing. too rushed and out of control its all about money money

It is about the money, but along with that have come some amazing aspects to both Brisbane/Gold Coast and SEQ all together. I will honestly miss it here when I move to Melbourne, but I will be up here every other month or will at least try. It really is an amazing place to live.

The weather is fabulous and that is the thing which really attracts people to the place. When the infrastructure finally catches up with the population growth, particularly on the Sunshine Coast it will be a far more liveable place. I do think parts of New Zealand will experience this type of growth. Places like Tauranga are growing at a similar growth rate. In time New Zealand will experience its own boom.:banana:

It is about the money, but along with that have come some amazing aspects to both Brisbane/Gold Coast and SEQ all together. I will honestly miss it here when I move to Melbourne, but I will be up here every other month or will at least try. It really is an amazing place to live.

i have a very soft spot for the place what with plenty of family and friends living there from the gold coast to north of brisbane.

The weather is fabulous and that is the thing which really attracts people to the place. When the infrastructure finally catches up with the population growth, particularly on the Sunshine Coast it will be a far more liveable place. I do think parts of New Zealand will experience this type of growth. Places like Tauranga are growing at a similar growth rate. In time New Zealand will experience its own boom.:banana:

You're quite the optimist.. :rock:

The more often I go back to New Zealand the more I am convinced that the place is amazing, I absolutely love the place. I am feeling quite optimistic about what this new government can do for New Zealand, despite not voting National. I have seen how optimistic Queensland is about its future and despite the fact Aussies are often brash and overconfident, I think some of that is needed in New Zealand. I don't mean arrogance, I do think Kiwis should be proud of their country and should be looking at building an exciting and productive future for the country. I am curious to know more about this new $7.5 billion economic stimulus package which is being offered over the next 2 years, it almost warrants a new thread. Anyone have any details on it?:):)

^^My trip home last week, just re-enforced how much I LOVE the place for all it goods and faults.

It is truely one of the most remarkable countries in ALL the World, and I'm so proud to be able to call myself a New Zealander :):banana:

^^My trip home last week, just re-enforced how much I LOVE the place for all it goods and faults.

It is truely one of the most remarkable countries in ALL the World, and I'm so proud to be able to call myself a New Zealander :):banana:

You could always come back. They're trying to persuade Kiwis to get back here afterall. You and Rob arriving would make up for myself and my family leaving! :lol:

Queensland's population is growing by almost twice the number of people New Zealand's population is growing by yearly. It will not be long before it bypasses NZ's population and moves ahead at a rapid pace.

I'd put money on the June '08 data showing the change over.

In a few years time a lot of expats will start coming home. The government still need to do a bit of work yet. They still need to apply the right stimulus, whether that is lower tax rates, better infrastructure or some incentive to be part of a new exciting future. Something along those lines.:banana:

I know about 80,000,000 million Vietnamese who would like to move here. Countries are about same size= do you think you can handle 20x population?

In a few years time a lot of expats will start coming home. The government still need to do a bit of work yet. They still need to apply the right stimulus, whether that is lower tax rates, better infrastructure or some incentive to be part of a new exciting future. Something along those lines.:banana:

well it isnt tax cuts... when i get paid double for doing what id get here no amount of tax will 'stimulate' me to come back. commercial tax though, is a different story, perhaps creating the jobs and competition to drive wages and salary's up along with other smart incentives.

i just hope this national government doesnt do what it usually does and throw the baby out with the bath water...

Might be interested to see the latest stats from across the pond, for the year to 30 June 2008:

Latest stats from ABS today:

Total; increase; %

New South Wales
6967.2m 79.2 1.1

Victoria
5297.6 92.7 1.8

Queensland
4279.4 98.0 2.3

South Australia
1601.8 17.6 1.1

Western Australia
2163.2 57.1 2.7

Tasmania
498.2 4.8 1.0

Northern Territory
219.9 5.0 2.3

Australian Capital Territory
344.2 4.5 1.3

Australia(a)
21374.0 359.0 1.7


ESTIMATED RESIDENT POPULATION

* The preliminary estimated resident population (ERP) of Australia at 30 June 2008 was 21,374,000 persons. This was an increase of 359,000 persons (1.7%) since 30 June 2007 and 91,400 persons since 31 March 2008.
* Preliminary natural increase recorded for the year ended 30 June 2008 (145,500) was 4.3% (or 6,000 persons) higher than the natural increase recorded for the year ended 30 June 2007 (139,500).
* Preliminary net overseas migration for the year ended 30 June 2008 was 213,500 persons.



POPULATION GROWTH RATES

* Australia's population grew by 1.7% during the 12 months ended 30 June 2008. Natural increase and net overseas migration contributed 41% and 59% respectively to this total population growth.
* All states and territories experienced positive population growth over the 12 months ended 30 June 2008. Western Australia recorded the largest percentage gain (2.7%) and Tasmania the smallest (1.0%).

Interesting that Victoria's growth in numbers was more than NSWs. Melbourne sprawl I assume?

Interesting that Victoria's growth in numbers was more than NSWs. Melbourne sprawl I assume?

NSW is in deep trouble at the moment and a bit of shine seems to have come off the Sydney pull. Plus Melbourne became quite the little posterboy for regeneration from its old monicker of "Bleak City". From basketcase to revitalised metropolis.

You could always come back. They're trying to persuade Kiwis to get back here afterall. You and Rob arriving would make up for myself and my family leaving! :lol:

Svarty, are you leaving NZ? Are you heading for Australia or the UK?

Svarty, are you leaving NZ? Are you heading for Australia or the UK?

Definitely not Australia (really doesn't appeal anymore). I've decided it's Europe for me. After my Masters year next year I'm applying for a position at the MDC in Berlin for a PhD. If I fail to achieve a place there, I intend to apply at Oxbridge and London institutions for Cancer Cell Biology PhD's (specifically research into Wnt signalling as I like that pathway).

My family are moving back to the UK they've decided when it is economically feasible to do so.

Lots can happen in that time, however, that is the plan for now! As fantastic as the cancer research department is at Auckland Uni, I feel that I need international experience.

^ I guess we should meet up for a beer when you get to Germany... :cheers:

^ I guess we should meet up for a beer when you get to Germany... :cheers:

Haha, that would definitely be on the cards mate. I've always said that it's an open invite for anyone meet up with me* if people are in the area. I've already met a few members of Kiwiscrapers and each time they've turned out to be great guys.

Fair while yet though til I make it to Germany. Got a lot of hurdles to jump through first least of all getting my research to work, getting my research published, speaking at conferences and getting a dissertation written all within a year! It'll be a bumpy ride, but I look forward to it!


*Disclaimer: If I happen to feel that anyone who offers has the perchance to be an axe murderer I shall decline their invitation forthwith.

;)

Hello everyone!

Quick update:

4,291,632

New Zealand is doing good! Comparing it from the start of the thread till now, great population growth rate.

Hello everyone!

Quick update:

4,291,632

New Zealand is doing good! Comparing it from the start of the thread till now, great population growth rate.

Grow Baby, Grow :banana:

Grow Baby, Grow :banana:

Just not too fast or too much. ;)

(Fast = bad as it leads to bad planning, unsustainable practices and pushes house prices /land prices up for Kiwis due to demand before people jump on me and say "YOU WANT TO HOLD NZ BACK RARRRARR")

Steady but Sure :)

Quick update: 4,291,632 (as of 20 Dec)New Zealand is doing good! Comparing it from the start of the thread till now, great population growth rate.

Latest as of: 23 Dec 2008 at 1:07:57 p.m. NZ Population Clock 4,292,049.

4.3 million just around the corner...Give or take 3 weeks! :)

I reckon the big 4.3 million will happen in about 10 weeks time...

It should only take a few weeks, this is really good news.

4.5 mil is what I'm waiting for.

Oh yeah bring on 20 mill!:banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:

Do you people get some sort of prize or chocolate gold medal for reaching 4.3 million? No offense but it has to be asked.

Oh yeah bring on 20 mill!:banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:

Lol
Can you imagine Auckland with 15 million people.......
Sprawl from Whangarei to Tokoroa.

Do you people get some sort of prize or chocolate gold medal for reaching 4.3 million? No offense but it has to be asked.

Actually, handjobs from Lucy Lawless.

Lol
Can you imagine Auckland with 15 million people.......
Sprawl from Whangarei to Tokoroa.
My point exactly.

NZ probably would lose a lot of its character with anymore than about 6 million people. I think Auckland may work well as a city of 2 to 2.5 million, as long as we intensify and don't sprawl. Other cities are sadly only likely to grow through sprawl...

Lol
Can you imagine Auckland with 15 million people.......
Sprawl from Whangarei to Tokoroa.

Yes. And it ain't a pretty sight.

Oh yeah bring on 20 mill!:banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:

Sure...just as long as they stay in the NORTH Island, though. :)

So if NZ is not far off 4.3 mil what is Auckland at the moment ?
Is Auckland's sprawl encroaching on any other north island city to possibly become part of greater AKL ?

yea, wellington!


I kid

So if NZ is not far off 4.3 mil what is Auckland at the moment ?
Is Auckland's sprawl encroaching on any other north island city to possibly become part of greater AKL ?

Yes, Orewa/Whangaparoa.

Well theoretically Auckland isn't going to sprawl much further. There has been an urban limit since the late 90s that's pretty strictly enforced. A few additional areas of greenfields development are likely in the future around Takanini, Flat Bush, Westgate, Hingaia and Ranui, but apart from that most of Auckland's future growth should be through intensification.

Orewa/Whangaparaoa are generally considered part of Auckland, and in any case should remain separate as the Stillwater/Dairy Flat greenbelt is pretty strongly protected.

So in Auckland, a quarter-acre is not going to be the norm? (never been to Auckland so don't know if it isn't the norm currently or what, someone enlighten me).

So in Auckland, a quarter-acre is not going to be the norm? (never been to Auckland so don't know if it isn't the norm currently or what, someone enlighten me).

Certainly not the norm for new houses. I think that's a thing of the past these days. Land prices are just too high.

Quarter-acre hasn't been the norm for about 30 years. The typical new section size in sprawl suburbs is 400 m2. That's about 40% of a quarter-acre.

Auckland is at 1.4 million right?

Auckland is at 1.4 million right?

I think the urban area is 1.3. The Auckland region is 1.4.

Just had a look. Auckland Urban Area = 1,313,000 in July 2008. Auckland Region = 1,414,000 in July.

Interesting. So there must be 100,000 people in Pukekohe, Warkworth, Wellsford, Helensville, various other towns and a heck of a lot of lifestyle blocks.

Update:

4,293,492

Interesting that NZ is one of the few western or developed countries to have a total fertility rate above 2.0 Meaning unlike Australia it doesn't need to also rely on immigration to have population growth.

Keep those babies coming! Good work NZ

^^ Yeah I agree on that one. Well spotted.

I think all population models for NZ have traditionally factored in the idea that all western countries have a low-declining birthrates. I dont know the figures however I am aware that Kiwis have been popping out sprogs at a breakneck speed the last 7 years or so. And this is across all ethnic groups, traditionally its the PIs and Maori who have the highest birthrates but the whiteys, Asians and others are going hammer and tong as well. Primary schools are starting to struggle with increased enrolments now.

We can thank our Pacific population for that birth rate. Especially in South Auckland ;)

Although even with such a high fertility rate, NZ is still growing slower than Australia. :ohno:

I assume that it because of less immigration. Oh and that 737 load of kiwis that come over here to live every day.

Very sad:ohno:

IM confused jumping around these threads. Thanks for the info Jarbury re median ages around the country. I truly believed their would be little variation.

So its fairly safe to say the bigger cities with tertiary facilities have lower ages. Also anywhere with a high polynesian population.

So if Tauranga, Marlborough have high median ages than Im assuming places like Kapiti and Hibiscus Coasts also do.

Anyone want to predict NZs next boom town? After dying a slow death small west coast towns are starting to boom again due mining- Reefton is a classic example.

My thoughts are that New Plymouth / Hawera and Ashburton / lesser extent Christchurch see an influx but this all depends on oil resources.

Maybe thats a question for another thread.

Regarding southern oil resources (offshore) I don't see why Ashburton would, considering it doesn't have a port. Invercargill and to a lesser extent Dunedin (Great South Basin), and Christchurch and Dunedin (Canterbury Basin, although you don't hear so much about this one) make more sense. I suppose Timaru could as well, but it seems a bit out of the way according to the map I'm looking at (http://www.offshore-mag.com/display_article/336546/120/ARTCL/none/DRLCM/1/Origin-to-drill-Canterbury-basin-well/).

Wanaka and Te Anau seem to be doing alright for themselves too, of the small towns. So does Kaiapoi (I'd still consider this a town as opposed to a suburb of Christchurch).

Although even with such a high fertility rate, NZ is still growing slower than Australia. :ohno:

I assume that it because of less immigration. Oh and that 737 load of kiwis that come over here to live every day.

Very sad:ohno:

Bah, give it a decade. Globing warming is already starting to put Australia in it's place...:shifty:

Although even with such a high fertility rate, NZ is still growing slower than Australia. :ohno:

I assume that it because of less immigration. Oh and that 737 load of kiwis that come over here to live every day.

Very sad:ohno:

It doesn't seem to be hurting New Zealand too bad. I had a great time there, and every single major city had something different and unique to it.

Regarding southern oil resources (offshore) I don't see why Ashburton would, considering it doesn't have a port. Invercargill and to a lesser extent Dunedin (Great South Basin), and Christchurch and Dunedin (Canterbury Basin, although you don't hear so much about this one) make more sense. I suppose Timaru could as well, but it seems a bit out of the way according to the map I'm looking at (http://www.offshore-mag.com/display_article/336546/120/ARTCL/none/DRLCM/1/Origin-to-drill-Canterbury-basin-well/).

Wanaka and Te Anau seem to be doing alright for themselves too, of the small towns. So does Kaiapoi (I'd still consider this a town as opposed to a suburb of Christchurch).



Bah, give it a decade. Globing warming is already starting to put Australia in it's place...:shifty:

Yes, and the entire world at some point, its not just an Australia issue, last time I looked, Auckland sat on an isthmus.

Sea level rise is a fairly minor issue compared with all the other effects of climate change. Australia's 1 in a 1000 year drought a year or so ago was a wake-up call for many.

^^

:lol:

Granny Herald - James Griffin: Beware blokes wearing camo, mate (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10543675&pnum=2)

^^

Global warming could just turn out to be a big scam :lol:

I mean, the earth is cooling at the moment

Yes, and the entire world at some point, its not just an Australia issue, last time I looked, Auckland sat on an isthmus.

Global warming will also put Auckland in it's place...:shifty:

^^

Global warming could just turn out to be a big scam :lol:

I mean, the earth is cooling at the moment

It's cooling?
Also I don't think global warming is a 'scam' of any kind; the possibility of man-made climate change is probably more what you're referring to.

The world only 'cooled' in 2008 because there was a highly unusual lack of sunspots. Oddly enough, less sunspots leads to cooler weather, so we had an usually cold year FOR THIS DECADE. It was still something like the 10th hottest year since 1900 though, hardly a sign the world is cooling.

Global warming will also put Auckland in it's place...:shifty:



It's cooling?
Also I don't think global warming is a 'scam' of any kind; the possibility of man-made climate change is probably more what you're referring to.

That's what I meant

We can thank our Pacific population for that birth rate. Especially in South Auckland ;)

Yes, but there is a lot of people having babies at the moment for all races. Didn't you say you have a kid? As do I. Dunno about you, but I'm more pale than Casper the friendly ghost. Lots of people in my family have been having kids in the last five years, as well as friends etc.

Hey, 400th post. Only took me 6.5 years (and a few post count wipes in the early days;)

Hey, 400th post. Only took me 6.5 years (and a few post count wipes in the early days;)

Well done Blah.........and you're one of the old timers on SSC!!

http://www.tc.gov.yk.ca/digitization/images_web/007375.jpg

Geez September 2002. That certainly feels like a long time ago. I was still finishing off my BA then.

Well done Blah.........and you're one of the old timers on SSC!!

http://www.tc.gov.yk.ca/digitization/images_web/007375.jpg

http://socialmediaworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/loldogs-cute-puppy-pictures-gitoffm.jpg

http://www.themissouriozarks.com/images/hillbillys.jpg

Geez September 2002. That certainly feels like a long time ago. I was still finishing off my BA then.

Back in the oooold days, Skyscraperpage was the place to be. Yes, I posted there as well. Probably when it started in 1999. The problem with SSP back then, and still today, is that it is very american-centric. Which is why I enjoy this forum a lot more. It's a lot more international.

Plus this place has dancing fruit which is really awesome. :banana:

^^ Agreed, I browsed SSC and SSP from 2004 onwards and SSC was definitely the most international out of the two. SSP tends to be far more serious and has far more detailed information when it is displayed, however. There are also some strange sections on SSP that are populated by American ex-pats who do an excellent job in keeping people up to date with projects in those cities too.

The explanation for what comes below is that I am extremely bored at work...

NZ Population as of just now = 4,295,237.
At the rate of one new person every 10 mins we should acheive the glorious 4.3 million on Monday Feb 16th or thereabouts.

And yes I know I need to get a grip! :)

NSW broke the 7 million mark around new years eve.
Interesting that New Zealand has about the same population as QLD. 4.3 million

Yes, we'd be 3rd-equal for biggest state if you annexed us. But I'm sure we'd be treated about the level of Tasmania.

Yes, we'd be 3rd-equal for biggest state if you annexed us. But I'm sure we'd be treated about the level of Tasmania.

New Zealands 4 million plus voters would make it a lot more important than Tasmania and its paltry 500,000 or so.

The pork barrelling from Canberra would be shameless and copious.

Anyday now!! 1 new person every ten minutes, thats seems quite fast hey!!?


as at Friday, 30 January 2009 at 11:20:44 a.m.

4,297,522

To update the population clock, please refresh your screen. New Zealand's population is estimated to increase by one person every 9 minutes and 59 seconds.

LoL richard. im guessing NZ would be the 3rd biggest state for only afew more years as QLD will overtake Victoria in bout a decade. would of made a very intreresting country tho, lol who would of been able to beat us in rugby lol

what are NZlanders ideas on the ideal population amount for their country? being an aussie looking in from the outside i think bout 9-10 million.

I don't mind if New Zealands population reaches ten million plus, as long as the unspoilt areas are left untouched.
For example I would be unhappy if it meant more roads and towns in areas like Fiordland or the Urewera.
Keep the urbanisation in areas where it has already started and on the lowlands such as Canterbury plains and Waikato.

I think 6-7 million would be good. But it is critical that additional population stays within the existing urban areas in the case of larger cities (growth through intensification rather than sprawl) or through the growth of provincial cities and towns that in many cases are underpopulated.

There's no chance of towns being built in Fiordland, it's a national park. There's...'civilisation' at the settlement of Milford Sound, but that's it. I don't even think people live there permanently. An interesting thing about the towns of Manapouri and Te Anau is that they can look across their respective lakes at Fiordland, but not touch.

what are NZlanders ideas on the ideal population amount for their country? being an aussie looking in from the outside i think bout 9-10 million.

I'd like to see NZ around the 25 million mark. Then they're be ripe for HSR, a tunnel connecting the two islands (phwoar!) and the North Island would be dense as all buggery.

It would be very sexy seeing Auckland around the 7 million people mark with another 10 million within a few hours drive :)

I think Australia should be aiming for 60 - 70 million mark, according to the ABS we should hit 62 million in 2101.

I predict Australia to be empty by 2101 due to lack of water.

^^ You're probably right :)

Then we'll have to invade New Zealand.

Hmmmm.... well I guess Australia could harness its huge solar energy potential and build giant desalinisation plants to keep itself alive.....

Oh please, we didn't even get a Government that admitted global warming exists until our last election. All of our solar energy technology gets sold off to California. We have little hope of ever reaching our green potential :)

On an interesting side note about our previous Government, when Obama first started being muted for President, John Howard said at a press conference "A win for Obama is a win for Al-Qaeda". Our current climate change laws basically mirror those of Howard's - so that aforementioned quote should be speaking volumes to you now.

Enough of this talk about he who must NOT be named. This is thread about NZs pop not past Australian leaders. I'd almost forgotten he existed!

I'd like to see NZ around the 25 million mark. Then they're be ripe for HSR, a tunnel connecting the two islands (phwoar!) and the North Island would be dense as all buggery.

It would be very sexy seeing Auckland around the 7 million people mark with another 10 million within a few hours drive :)

I think Australia should be aiming for 60 - 70 million mark, according to the ABS we should hit 62 million in 2101.

Wow what an idea. Done sensibly a population in the 20 million plus mark would be something else. My dream population is about 8 million but I'd be happy subscribe to your way of thinking. The ethnic make up of the country would change considerably but fundamentally the culture and ethos would remain the same.

Where do we get these people from though. Plenty of Chinese, Indians, Koreans, Brits, Germans, SAfricans etc would get on board.

Id like to see NZ actively seeking out more Latin Americans. Argentina exported many of her brightest in the beginning of the decade and we missed the boat there, Mexico has a very large class of professionals that would should tap into as well. I think AKL only has about 10k Brazilians, Argentinians, Chileans et al- imagine with even an extra 50 thousand- just think of all the extra hot tottie!!!

There is no way New Zealand could support that many people without becoming very dependant on other countries for all sorts of things (more than it is now, which is bad enough). We certainly couldn't feed them ourselves. I don't think there is a way for NZ to do 20m people sensibly. If the ones who come here would settle in places other than Auckland it might help a bit, too. It's built on an isthmus and from what I can tell is choking itself to death. If NZ ever gets much over 10m, I'm going to support South Island seccession lol.

I do agree with you about Latin Americans though. Probably more desirable migrants than those we get from some particular countries.

I am sure that I've heard that NZ makes enough food to feed 50m people or something. We just export most of it. Not to say that's a bad thing, as otherwise our current account deficit would be EVEN WORSE!

Regarding immigrants, I don't think certain parts of the world should be put ahead of other parts. That just smacks of racism. Have a points system, encourage young and educated immigrants no matter where they're from and make life a bit easier for those trying to get in already.

I don't doubt that that New Zealand makes enough food to feed many millions more than it's own current 4.2 million population.
But, to have an economy that affords 10-20 million people a good standard of living, and have a healthy trade balance, New Zealand needs to be manufacturing, consuming and exporting a greater range of it's own products, and making more of the manufactured goods that it already does have an industry for.
Milk powder, butter and lamb might suffice for now, along with tourism, but I believe there needs to be more than this if the population grows, and everyone wants the same lifestyle they have now.

I think most of the people who have gone to NZ have wanted to get away from over-population.

How do you define over population?

I think NZ should be around 9 million, with 6 million in the north, 3 million in the south.

City size (Metros):

Auckland - 2.5 million
Christchurch - 1 million
Wellington - 750,000
Tauranga - 650,000
Hamilton - 600,000
Napier-Hastings - 400,000
Dunedin - 350,000
Nelson - 300,000
Palmerston North - 275,000
New Plymouth - 250,000
Whangarai - 200,000
Queenstown - 150,000
Greymouth - 100,000

- another 1.5 million or so made up from towns and smaller cities and rural areas.

The location of all these people has more potential to impact New Zealands quietness and unspoilt places rather than the total of the population.

For example you say 300,000 for Nelson, and 100,000 for Greymouth. I imagine this would do far more damage to national parks and change the natural landscape more drastically than the area around Auckland, Waikato and Bay of Plenty having roughly four million people......

Imagine cutting down beautiful, untouched Kahikatea and beech forest inland from Greymouth and having sprawl on the foothills of the southern alps-no thanks.

Actually estimates are for Auckland to reach 2.5 million early to mid 2020's.

Current population balance is 3:1 for the North Island over the South, so I doubt the 2:1 will happen. 6 million in the north is more likely to be balanced with 2 million in the south.

The location of all these people has more potential to impact New Zealands quietness and unspoilt places rather than the total of the population.

For example you say 300,000 for Nelson, and 100,000 for Greymouth. I imagine this would do far more damage to national parks and change the natural landscape more drastically than the area around Auckland, Waikato and Bay of Plenty having roughly four million people......

Imagine cutting down beautiful, untouched Kahikatea and beech forest inland from Greymouth and having sprawl on the foothills of the southern alps-no thanks.

So true ^^

It largely depends on whether local authorities encourage building upwards or outwards, and I do think intensification works much better in some urban centres than others.

I'm of the view that NZ needs more than a few extra people for a decent economy of scale (especially outside Auckland), but just enough people to not become a human sardine tin. As it stands, NZ's population growth is rather unevenly distributed.

I don't see why Greymouth would ever grow that quickly. It hasn't grown in size throughout the past 20-30 years so I don't know why it would start now.

Generally a few parts of the country have a huge majority of the population growth. In any given inter-census period Auckland usually has at least half the numerical population growth for the whole country. Other places that have grown quite rapdily are:
- Tauranga/Western BOP
- Waikato
- Marlborough
- Canterbury
- Queenstown

Within those areas I reckon at least 85% of the country's population growth is happening. I imagine that would continue in the future unless something radical happens.

I am sure that I've heard that NZ makes enough food to feed 50m people or something. We just export most of it. Not to say that's a bad thing, as otherwise our current account deficit would be EVEN WORSE!

Regarding immigrants, I don't think certain parts of the world should be put ahead of other parts. That just smacks of racism. Have a points system, encourage young and educated immigrants no matter where they're from and make life a bit easier for those trying to get in already.

Certain parts of the world *are* put ahead of other parts though. Samoa, for one, because of it's status as a former dependency. And I know this sounds horrible, but that is probably (from a purely objective standpoint) the wrong way round. Of course, we have responsibilties to Samoa because of it's status concerning us, so we can't really just say "no, bugger off, same standards as everyone else thanks". At least, not at this stage, anyway.
I don't know why people equate country with race though. That does not smack of racism. If Samoa had the same ethnic & cultural composition as NZ but was otherwise the same as it is now, I'd still be iffy about them if it weren't for their special relationship.

I'm not saying restrict it by country or anything. If we said "Sorry, no Bulgarians allowed because of your country's lower levels of such and such, but we'll accept all Japanese because of their high levels of such and such", we could still end up with only Japan's unwanted while missing Bulgaria's finest, so of course that sort of thing is just silly.

I think NZ should be around 9 million, with 6 million in the north, 3 million in the south.

City size (Metros):

Auckland - 2.5 million
Christchurch - 1 million
Wellington - 750,000
Tauranga - 650,000
Hamilton - 600,000
Napier-Hastings - 400,000
Dunedin - 350,000
Nelson - 300,000
Palmerston North - 275,000
New Plymouth - 250,000
Whangarai - 200,000
Queenstown - 150,000
Greymouth - 100,000

- another 1.5 million or so made up from towns and smaller cities and rural areas.

That is totally insane. Queenstown cannot support it's 15,000 properly at the moment, let alone 150,000. Have you ever spent much time in some of these places? Dunedin too; it has only 4 roads leading into it (and only 2 that anyone actually knows about, one north, one south), though maybe with a lot of bulldozing it could be an okay place to live with that sort of population. I can't really comment on the northern centres so well as I haven't been to them.

Christchurch, Hamilton, Palmerston North are all perfectly plausible considering their geography. Napier-Hastings too, and Invercargill is a more viable place for 100k people than Greymouth (let's be realistic) or Nelson (unless they like traffic jams), though Nelson will likely continue to outgrow Invercargill. I'm not sure about your prediction on Tauranga over Hamilton either...but I guess Aucklanders have to retire somewhere, and there are a lot of Aucklanders.

How do you define over population?

You do it by looking at Queenstown.

A couple of points or questions here. With an increase in population, do you want NZ to continue it's love with sprawl, or to grow with tighter urban planning and densities? If it's the 2nd, you should also take into account that many people who migrate to NZ, do so because they want the sprawled out suburban house with garage.

We have a few travel shows here where it shows families moving to another country. When they move to Spain they usually want a lovely apartment in a dense and lively neighbourhood. When they move to France, they are looking for a country retreat, a large old farmhouse they can renovate, and when they move to Australia or NZ, they want the suburban lifestyle.

If you don't offer the suburban lifestyle you may not get the immigration needed to prop up the population, but if you allow the sprawl to continue, great swarves of NZ will be taken over by endless suburbs.

Catch 22 really.

By the way, @Kane007, I can't really see Auckland reaching 2.5million by the 2020's. That starts in 11 years from now, and 22 years ago when I was living in Auckland the population was only 250,000 less than it is now.

:) might have been a little carried away, and hopeful. BUT STATISTICS NEW ZEALAND'S (http://wdmzpub01.stats.govt.nz/wds/TableViewer/tableView.aspx) OWN PROJECTIONS have the following....

2011: 1,483,300
2016: 1,597,600
2021: 1,711,300
2026: 1,823,400
2031: 1,932,300

So that's 102,000 to 132,000 population increase every 5 years. So we can all see that it will more likely be mid 2030's for the magic 2 million.

I think people misunderstood that I completely meant that as what I would LIKE to see, not what I think future population predictions are going to be. Of course Greymouth will never get to that size, I'm pretty sure its declining. And I'm pretty sure the West Coast could handle a city of 100,000 people, I mean the region is bigger than New Caledonia, which is known for its pristine landscape and is no where near overpopulated. I think there is a 1/4 million people there, with 100,000 in Normea. I don't think population has caused anyone to think its 'destroyed' its natural beauty.

Many have also said some of the cities could not support that population, but I'm pretty sure infrastructure would be build. I mean look at Wellington, which is probably the worst geographically located city in the world. If Wellington can expand I'm sure Nelson and Dunedin could to, maybe the plains out by Mosgeil. Judging by some of the larger cities, its obvious you don't need flat land to build larger city.

Over-population is a mistake you make only once. The population growth tendencies though are for a 'primate' city, such as Auckland, London, Paris..etc, the one big city in the country, unlike Oz, US which have a range of large cities. Population growth in NZ with high immigration would see all the people wanting to live in or near Ak, so most of the population growth would end up in that region while the other urban centres remain fairly static. Attempting to make people go an live somewhere else has been tried before, with the earlier immigrants in the 1900s, but obviously never worked.

I think NZ should be around 9 million, with 6 million in the north, 3 million in the south.

City size (Metros):

Auckland - 2.5 million
Christchurch - 1 million
Wellington - 750,000
Tauranga - 650,000
Hamilton - 600,000
Napier-Hastings - 400,000
Dunedin - 350,000
Nelson - 300,000
Palmerston North - 275,000
New Plymouth - 250,000
Whangarai - 200,000
Queenstown - 150,000
Greymouth - 100,000

- another 1.5 million or so made up from towns and smaller cities and rural areas.

Only 750,000 for Wellington? I think something around the million mark would be good and sensible, or at least having a million people within 1 1/2 hours drive.

I'd love to see Wellington develop around the same urban ideology as Zürich, or Geneva. Get a great rail and tram system in place, and have masses of people from all around the world giving the city an international, 'diplomatic' and political feel. One of the things I liked most about Geneva is the presence of so many diplomats, NGO workers and political life. I think that would suit Wellington.

Keep Wellington dense as well, don't let it boom out to a million people with sprawl everywhere :ohno:

^^ It already sprawls for miles and miles as it is! Though unlike other Kiwi cities, Wellington sprawls in a linear fashion (see Lower and Upper Hutt and the other "cities" around that make up Greater Wellington).

Wellington is severely constrained by geography too so I think 750,000 is ambitious rather than conservative I have to say.

Most of the growth potential of the Wellington area is likely to be through intensification (although it is already quite dense by New Zealand standards particularly) and also further development on the Kapiti Coast. I'm generally OK with further development on the Kapiti Coast as it is well linked to Wellington by train.

I think people misunderstood that I completely meant that as what I would LIKE to see, not what I think future population predictions are going to be. Of course Greymouth will never get to that size, I'm pretty sure its declining. And I'm pretty sure the West Coast could handle a city of 100,000 people, I mean the region is bigger than New Caledonia, which is known for its pristine landscape and is no where near overpopulated. I think there is a 1/4 million people there, with 100,000 in Normea. I don't think population has caused anyone to think its 'destroyed' its natural beauty.

Many have also said some of the cities could not support that population, but I'm pretty sure infrastructure would be build. I mean look at Wellington, which is probably the worst geographically located city in the world. If Wellington can expand I'm sure Nelson and Dunedin could to, maybe the plains out by Mosgeil. Judging by some of the larger cities, its obvious you don't need flat land to build larger city.

True, you don't *need* flat land, but it can be a pain in the fuckin arse if you don't. Also, I doubt the people of Greymouth would LIKE to see those sort of populations.

^^ Yep, most NIMBY's wouldn't! :lol:

Plus it'll probably broaden the gene pool aswell :lol: :lol:

5.16pm today NZ's pop was 4.3 million

5.16pm today NZ's pop was 4.3 million

According to the below not yet!!

NZ Population Clock 4,299,001


Statistics NZ > Population clock

Estimated resident population of New Zealand

as at Monday, 9 February 2009 at 5:21:17 p.m.

4,299,001

4.299 = 4.3 (1dp)

4.299 = 4.3 (1dp)

This is one case where rounding doesn't quite work. You can't just lose or gain 1000 people. ;)

sure you can. NZ's population is often quoted at 4 million but what about those 0.3 million?

^^ Wouldn't be by me! I don't think I'd like to erase most of Chch from the country!

^^ At least the Blues might have a chance in the Super 14 then.

burn!

Hurricanes have always been bridesmaids.

They have been talked up year after year, I even remember when they had the dream team back line, still where did they get.

I'm backing the blues for obvious reasons but we don't have the depth amazingly at the moment..

I say grudgingly Crusaders again!! But maybe the Chiefs this year :)

BTW

Currently 4,299,412

Where is everyone getting their population clock? The Statistics NZ website says its currently 4,297,321? Not over 4,299,000.

Where is everyone getting their population clock? The Statistics NZ website says its currently 4,297,321? Not over 4,299,000.

Wow they must of re-adjusted it

This is based on the estimated resident population at 31 December 2008 and the following component settings.

I think before it was at June?

Either that or 2,000 people just died.

...so as the settings have been recalibrated, we are looking at the 7th March for the big 4.3...:)

Keep the urbanisation in areas where it has already started and on the lowlands such as Canterbury plains and Waikato.

the 'lowlands' are also where our food is produced, so I wouldn't suggest developing that - as jarbury has suggested, we should aim for intensification, within the boundaries of the current urban areas

Indeed, here's why sprawl sucks:

http://www.jarbury.net/index.blog/1357744/why-sprawl-sucks/

the 'lowlands' are also where our food is produced, so I wouldn't suggest developing that - as jarbury has suggested, we should aim for intensification, within the boundaries of the current urban areas

Considering the sizes of the aforementioned farming lowlands, is sprawl really any kind of threat at all to agriculture? Especially considering the sizes of those regions in proportion to the cities within them, which are nothing more than pinpricks really.

It might be a pin-prick to Canterbury, but not so much in the areas around Auckland. Though I think that lifestyle blocks are in some ways more of a threat to reducing productive land than low-intensity sprawl.

Sprawl does have many many other negative effects though, as the link in my post above talks about.

Appearntly NZ is in the midst of a baby boom (or blip). Its set to last all of 2009.

Births exceeded deaths by 35,160 in the December 2008 year, down 370 (1 percent) from 2007, Statistics New Zealand said today. However, the 2007 figure of 35,520 remains the highest for a December year since 1972. National population projections (2006-base) show that natural increase is likely to decline over the next 50 years. Deaths are projected to outnumber births from 2055.



There were 64,340 live births (33,100 boys and 31,240 girls) registered in New Zealand in the December 2008 year, up 300 (less than 1 percent) from 2007. The number of live births in 2008 was 1,050 less (2 percent) than the 65,390 figure registered in 1961, which was the highest for any December year. At that time New Zealand's population numbered just 2.5 million, compared with 4.3 million in 2008.

The birth rate reached 2.2 births per woman in the December 2008 year. This was the highest rate of fertility reached since 1990. The current birth rate is around half the peak of 4.3 births reached in 1961.

In the December 2008 year, women aged 30–34 years had the highest fertility rate (126 births per 1,000 women aged 30–34 years). In 1968, women aged 20–24 years had the highest fertility rate (218 per 1,000), almost three times their 2008 rate (78 per 1,000).

On average, New Zealand women now have children about five years later than their counterparts in the mid-1960s. The median age (half are younger, and half older, than this age) of New Zealand women giving birth is now 30 years, compared with 25 years in 1968. The median age of women giving birth to their first child was 28 years in the year ended December 2008.

Deaths registered in the December 2008 year totalled 29,190, up 670 (2 percent) from 2007. Deaths continue to be concentrated in the older age groups. The median age at death in the December 2008 year was 77 years for males and 83 years for females, compared with 72 for males and 78 for females in 1988. Only 5 percent of the deceased were aged under 40 years in the December 2008 year, compared with 9 percent in 1988.

Population clock as at this very moment:

4,298,674.

We are nearly at 4,300,000!!!!

That will help :lol:

Yeah and bring a friend that will make up for me and Carlos leaving.Not long now only 2 and a half weeks.

That will help :lol:

You're living in Melbourne now Marky Mark?

Officially over 4.3 million now!
9 million just around the corner :wink2:

Yay
as at Saturday, 7 March 2009 at 10:50:15 a.m.

4,300,033

Officially over 4.3 million now!
9 million just around the corner :wink2:

:banana: