NZ | Population Statistics Thread

[whizz_pat]

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.

[Dazzle]

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

[jarbury]

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

[metroman]

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.

[jarbury]

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.

[whizz_pat]

Originally Posted by metroman

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.

-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.

Originally Posted by jarbury

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.

[timnz2000]

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?

[metroman]

Melbourne is a good model to work with.

[Svartmetall]

Originally Posted by metroman

Melbourne is a good model to work with.

Yep, freeways and sprawl. Great model.

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.

[DML2]

Originally Posted by whizz_pat

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

[Nicco]

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.

[Svartmetall]

Originally Posted by BLUFFMASTER_Auckland

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.

[Justme]

Originally Posted by BLUFFMASTER_Auckland

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/generato...perty=data.pdf
Frankfurt Rhein Main Mainly Urban Area including U-bahn but not trams
http://www.rmv.de/coremedia/generato...perty=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_...an_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_...8_25102007.pdf

Wider Damstadt area
http://www.dadina.de/fileadmin/user_..._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.

[Nicco]

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!

[Justme]

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.

[Svartmetall]

Originally Posted by BLUFFMASTER_Auckland

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!

[Nicco]

Originally Posted by Justme

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? So much density could be achieved there

[Svartmetall]

Originally Posted by BLUFFMASTER_Auckland

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? So much density could be achieved there

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.

[jarbury]

Originally Posted by Svartmetall

Hopefully we'll get there eventually! Here's hoping that the planners in Auckland start visiting SSC!

Am doing so!

[whizz_pat]

Originally Posted by DML2

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.