NZ | Population Statistics Thread

[city_thing]

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.

[Milan Luka]

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!

Originally Posted by city_thing

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!!!

[Richard7666]

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.

[jarbury]

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.

[NZer]

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.

[Brizzy-Mike]

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

[NZer]

How do you define over population?

[Tasman]

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.

[NZer]

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.

[Kane007]

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.

[Davee]

Originally Posted by NZer

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

[deepred]

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.

[jarbury]

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.

[Richard7666]

Originally Posted by jarbury

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.

[Richard7666]

Originally Posted by Tasman

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.

Originally Posted by NZer

How do you define over population?

You do it by looking at Queenstown.

[Justme]

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.

[Kane007]

might have been a little carried away, and hopeful. BUT STATISTICS NEW ZEALAND'S 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.

[Tasman]

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.

[Brizzy-Mike]

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.

[city_thing]

Originally Posted by Tasman

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