daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Continental Forums > OZScrapers > Skyscrapers & local issues > Projects, Construction, Skyscrapers & Statistics > KiwiScrapers

KiwiScrapers Kia Kaha



Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old February 24th, 2012, 08:28 PM   #1181
IThomas
I'm Prada, you're nada.
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,431
Likes (Received): 4017

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiGuy View Post
Those statistics IThomas posted may soon be out of date for the Nelson and Tasman regions with amalgamation now imminent.
Ok Kiwiguy! Here's the new update

TASMAN+NELSON
HIGH 95.200 (2011) - 107.700 (2021) - 118.600 (2031)
MEDIUM 93.800 (2011) - 105.400 (2021) - 103.100 (2031)
LOW 91.400 (2011) - 91.100 (2021) - 88.000 (2031)


NZ’s Regions Rank Population 2031 – HIGH SCENARIO
01. Auckland (2.154.700)
02. Canterbury (736.400)
03. Wellington (618.700)
04. Waikato (534.200)
05. Bay of Plenty (368.800)
06. Manuwatu-Wanganui (272.100)
07. Otago (259.600)
08. Northland (195.900)
09. Hawke’s Bay (182.200)
10. Taranaki (127.000)
11. Tasman+Nelson (118.600)
12. Southland (102.500)
13. Marlborough (56.400)
14. Gisborne(54.300)
15. West Coast (36.900)

**********


In addition, I added my own vision of amalgamation (such as Tasman+Nelson) between the regions that have few inhabitants. In this way, the regions become 8. Before the map with the current regions and after the idea of new regions. Tell me what you think about this.

BEFORE



AFTER


AUCKLAND + NORTHLAND = 2.350.600
CANTERBURY = 736.400
WELLINGTON = 618.700
BAY OF PLENTY + HAWKE'S BAY + GISBORNE = 605.300
WAIKATO = 534.200
MANUWATU WANGANUI + TARANAKI = 399.100
OTAGO + SOUTHLAND = 362.100
TASMAN + NELSON + MARLBOROUGH + WEST COAST = 211.900
__________________

can't forget it{aly}
DISCOVER EVERY PLACE . SEE DIGITAL DIARY .
EXPO MILANO 2015
Feeding the Planet. Energy for Life.
MAY 1 ・ OCTOBER 31 | JOIN EVENT
IThomas no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old February 25th, 2012, 12:51 AM   #1182
Richard7666
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Invercargill
Posts: 935
Likes (Received): 11

I think it's a map drawn by someone who knows little about NZ.

Nelson & Tasman are amalgamating because Nelson+Richmond are basically one city. They were a unique case as both Nelson and Tasman were already unitary authorities. What you're doing is merging entire disparate regions.

Merging Northland and Auckland, or Otago and Southland, would achieve what exactly?

A more helpful amalgamation would be Environment Southland and Southland District, for example.
Richard7666 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2012, 02:08 AM   #1183
GI_Joint
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Wellington - New Zealand
Posts: 114
Likes (Received): 0

Great work Ithomas! love the detail.
Can you do the same with city/town populations in each region too?
GI_Joint no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2012, 02:16 AM   #1184
Matt L
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Auckland
Posts: 905
Likes (Received): 44

Quote:
Originally Posted by GI_Joint View Post
Great work Ithomas! love the detail.
Can you do the same with city/town populations in each region too?
Use this, you can zoom down to individual meshblocks just a handful of houses.
http://apps.nowwhere.com.au/StatsNZ/Maps/default.aspx
Matt L no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2012, 08:49 AM   #1185
IThomas
I'm Prada, you're nada.
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,431
Likes (Received): 4017

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard7666 View Post
I think it's a map drawn by someone who knows little about NZ. Nelson & Tasman are amalgamating because Nelson+Richmond are basically one city. They were a unique case as both Nelson and Tasman were already unitary authorities. What you're doing is merging entire disparate regions. Merging Northland and Auckland, or Otago and Southland, would achieve what exactly? A more helpful amalgamation would be Environment Southland and Southland District, for example.

Thanks for the comment In fact it was just an idea that may be questionable and should be improved. For example, to reduce the regions and have territorial continuity as you would do? What would you have joined?
__________________

can't forget it{aly}
DISCOVER EVERY PLACE . SEE DIGITAL DIARY .
EXPO MILANO 2015
Feeding the Planet. Energy for Life.
MAY 1 ・ OCTOBER 31 | JOIN EVENT
IThomas no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2012, 03:58 PM   #1186
Richard7666
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Invercargill
Posts: 935
Likes (Received): 11

Sorry I was a bit harsh, the stats you posted earlier were interesting!
I don't know enough about regions other than Southland to be able to comment on district amalgamations within them.
Richard7666 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 27th, 2012, 03:20 AM   #1187
KiwiGuy
Vote for Me (Or Else)
 
KiwiGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 862
Likes (Received): 796

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard7666 View Post
Sorry I was a bit harsh, the stats you posted earlier were interesting!
I don't know enough about regions other than Southland to be able to comment on district amalgamations within them.
All it means for Nelson and Tasman is the combined use of local government funding and resources and our place in the country as the single largest district council in terms of size.
__________________
"You must obey the law, always, not only when they grab you by your special place." -Vladimir Putin
KiwiGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 27th, 2012, 04:45 AM   #1188
NZ1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Plymouth
Posts: 701
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiGuy View Post
All it means for Nelson and Tasman is the combined use of local government funding and resources and our place in the country as the single largest district council in terms of size.
IMO it makes perfect sense for the Nelson-Tasman amalgamation to occur, however amalgamating Taranaki, Wanganui, and Manawatu into a single district (as IThomas has suggested) could cause far more cost inefficiences and loss of focus on resolving local issues.
__________________
http://www.taranaki.info/
NZ1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 27th, 2012, 01:58 PM   #1189
badbehaviour
From Hamilton, NZ
 
badbehaviour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 407
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by NZ1 View Post
IMO it makes perfect sense for the Nelson-Tasman amalgamation to occur, however amalgamating Taranaki, Wanganui, and Manawatu into a single district (as IThomas has suggested) could cause far more cost inefficiences and loss of focus on resolving local issues.
Likewise I think the following mergers make a bit more sense:

Waikato + Western BOP
East coast + Hawkes Bay + Eastern BOP
badbehaviour no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 2nd, 2012, 06:10 AM   #1190
Richard7666
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Invercargill
Posts: 935
Likes (Received): 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiGuy View Post
All it means for Nelson and Tasman is the combined use of local government funding and resources and our place in the country as the single largest district council in terms of size.
They're less than one third the size of Southland District (excl Invercargill and Gore)
Richard7666 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2012, 05:41 PM   #1191
IThomas
I'm Prada, you're nada.
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,431
Likes (Received): 4017

UN guesses the shape of the world by 2100
New Zealand will have over six millions people

The latest United Nations population estimates, say the global population will reach 10bn in the next 90 years. According to the UN Population Division's best-case 'medium' estimate - and you can see the original report here - it will take 13 years to add the eighth billion, 18 years to add the ninth billion and 40 years to reach the tenth billion.

The big increases are coming from countries with high fertility rates - the high-fertility countries identified by the UN comprise of 39 countries in Africa, nine in Asia, six in Oceania and four in Latin America.

Today, 42% of the world's population lives in low-fertility countries, defined in the UN report as "countries where women are not having enough children to ensure that, on average, each woman is replaced by a daughter who survives to the age of procreation".

Low-fertility countries include all countries in Europe except Iceland and Ireland. Europe is the one region in the world to see its population decline by 2100.





IThomas no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 30th, 2012, 03:41 AM   #1192
Indictable
 
Indictable's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Waaaaaay south of the Bombay's!
Posts: 2,020
Likes (Received): 24

So those UN pedictions for G20 countries are in millions, yes? I find it very hard to believe that Brazil will drop almost 20 million people. Brazil is the second largest producer of ethanol. And I think that will only strengthen growth especially when peak oil rocks around.

Where the hell are almost half a billion Chinese going to be?
__________________
True friends stab you
in the front
Indictable no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 30th, 2012, 04:00 AM   #1193
jarden
Registered User
 
jarden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cairns and Christchurch
Posts: 3,511
Likes (Received): 77

Maybe some will emigrate and a lot will die and not be replaced with their low birth rate.
jarden no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 30th, 2012, 12:54 PM   #1194
IThomas
I'm Prada, you're nada.
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,431
Likes (Received): 4017

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indictable View Post
So those UN pedictions for G20 countries are in millions, yes? I find it very hard to believe that Brazil will drop almost 20 million people. Brazil is the second largest producer of ethanol. And I think that will only strengthen growth especially when peak oil rocks around.

Where the hell are almost half a billion Chinese going to be?
Yes. The G20 countries are in millions. Even to me, is hard to imagine that a country like Brazil can lose almost 20 million inhabitants, this I think because in other charts this scenario does not occur. Are in agreement as regards the countries: Italy, Japan, Russia and South Korea, which in other classifications are down. I have doubts about Germany if it is or not in the previous situation.
With regard to China, I was very impressed by the more than 400 million loss ... Perhaps it can be justified by new style of life that the Chinese are dealing with in these years and those in the future, migration, or why it continues to be in place by 1979, the one-child policy (which according to the calculations of demographers to this rate the country will reach its peak population in 2026 with 1.4 billion people then begin to decline in subsequent years; in this way will be avoided from 250 to about 400 million births) ... We'll see!
IThomas no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2012, 12:40 AM   #1195
Blah
Jafa
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Auckland
Posts: 553
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indictable View Post
So those UN pedictions for G20 countries are in millions, yes? I find it very hard to believe that Brazil will drop almost 20 million people. Brazil is the second largest producer of ethanol. And I think that will only strengthen growth especially when peak oil rocks around.

Where the hell are almost half a billion Chinese going to be?
Dead like the rest of us I suspect.

It's pretty common knowledge that China's population is going to decline over this century.

If only India bothered to do the same.
Blah no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2012, 01:31 AM   #1196
Puuugu
Registered User
 
Puuugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Auckland
Posts: 37
Likes (Received): 0

Blah, I'm Chinese, and I know that the Indians really have pride in having more people than China in the future. Some people I know in fact rub it into our faces.

This is why i have some disrespect for Indians. They keep comparing themselves to us.
Puuugu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2012, 05:39 AM   #1197
NZer
De-regulate them hours.
 
NZer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Perth
Posts: 1,848
Likes (Received): 6

Why would they be proud of having more people?
If they have more people who are also wealthier and more proseperous I could understand, but simply being proud to have more people is a bit silly.
NZer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2012, 07:14 AM   #1198
Puuugu
Registered User
 
Puuugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Auckland
Posts: 37
Likes (Received): 0

They sort of derive some sick pleasure from trying to beat the Chinese in any aspect no matter what.
Puuugu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2012, 08:24 AM   #1199
Blah
Jafa
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Auckland
Posts: 553
Likes (Received): 17

1.6 billion people in India

Just insane. They would be better off trying to get it down to 700 million and increasing the average wealth. Unless they just want to remain a low income country with rampant poverty, because that is all they will ever be with that chronic overcrowding.
Blah no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2012, 11:51 AM   #1200
KaneD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 814
Likes (Received): 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah View Post
1.6 billion people in India

Just insane. They would be better off trying to get it down to 700 million and increasing the average wealth. Unless they just want to remain a low income country with rampant poverty, because that is all they will ever be with that chronic overcrowding.
Yeah and just remember that India is a MUCH smaller country in land area...
India = 368 people/sqkm
China = 139 people/sqkm

Insane... too many people in too smaller area for a country that cannot provide enough food for it's own population.
KaneD no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 05:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu