“We provide master facilitation to support strategic planning and change initiatives in organisations across a wide variety of public and private sectors. Our clients include CEO's, Board Chairmen, and senior executives who are responsible for strategic thinking and 'making the boat go faster'.”

—Next Corporation

Judging the Commission's Plan for Auckland

By Dr. Nick Marsh

By 2025, 80% of the world’s population will be living in cities, either by choice or by circumstance. Circumstance will be largely employment driven, or because people are already linked to their city through family or other ties. But what does it take for people to really love their city?

Later this month the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance will present its recommendations to the Governor Geneneral and, through him, the Government.
 
Some Aucklanders have over the years visited some of the more successful super-cities to see what made them tick, and what attracted people to them. The Royal Commission has also followed that path. So have I. Cities such as Vancouver, Toronto, Seattle, Brisbane and Capetown are all considered generally successful and attractive. Surveys show people living there seem to love their city. I think we in Auckland are more reticent about our city. What would it take for us to wear ‘I love Auckland ‘ t-shirst like they do in New York?

Many of the failings of Auckland are embarrassing when you visit other ciities. The new structure proposed for Auckland will be presented as the solution to the well-known frustrations of getting things done in Auckland under the current setup. One simple example: unlike almost any other comparable city in the world we still cannot get from the airport to the CBD inside 30 minutes ( or even 120 minutes on a bad day!)

The international Mercer Survey and the Economist magazine index rank cities around the world on quality of life and cost of living. But what makes people really love a city, and how can planners translate that into making the right decisions? I believe we all, deep down, think in a simple way about whether we love or don’t love a particular city. Just like movie ratings we find it easy to score our city on the following:

    * How attractive is it as a place for me and my family to live? -‘Liveability’

    * How attractive is it to make a living? – ‘Workability’

    * How attractive is it to invest and expect reasonable returns – ‘Investability’

    * How attractive it is to visit? – ‘Visitability’

Surely this is what people actually think about and discuss within the family when deciding whether to move or stay put.

So a city, and each of its parts, has features that are measureable- just like a diamond. A diamond’s value is based on the attractiveness of not one but a number of key facets: color, clarity cut and carat/weight. A city’s value is based on livability, workability, visitability, and investability.     

A city and its hinterland can have a low diamond score, and is unattractive, unsafe, and declining; only the desperate choose to live and work there. Or it can have a high score and its challenge will be managing the demands of growth that arise from its attractiveness to more and more people.

Of course the four attractors also feed off each other. Melbourne invested in a citywide cycleway that has boosted workability by providing jobs, and visitability through tourism, as well as liveability for the locals.

One secret of great cities is that they reap the benefit of the speed of single city decision-making, particularly in key investments. They also are able to offer choices which enhance the distinctive geographies, lifestyles, ambiance, and sub cultures of the different parts of the city that make it attractive as a whole.

A city is not just the CBD. It has the urban and suburban hustle, and the rural slower-paced hinterland. The hinterland people depend on the urban city for their economic growth, while the urban people depend on the rural space to visit the beauty and peace of the natural environment, and for slower-paced attractions. Many people of course want to live in the hinterland and commute to the city for work – have their cake and eat it! 

The frustration of our ‘four-city’ Auckland has been the failure to put in place the basic infrastructure of a great single city. But the appeal of Auckland will always lie in the magic of the dfferent parts sitting uniquely around two harbours connecting two oceans. We must not lose, but enhance the special distinctive attractions of Rodney, Manukau, North Shore, Waitakere, Auckland City, and Franklin.

Therefore, as we judge the Commission’s proposals, should we not ask the simple questions:

  1. Will we be growing our diamond ?
  2. Will a single city increase the liveability, workability, visitability and Investability of Auckland and its hinterlands?
  3. Will it make Auckland’s diamond a cut above the rest?

Let us hope that the single city can help make greater Auckland’s diamond grow to enhance its attractiveness as a great city. Let us also hope that each of the parts of Auckland are able to advance in their own right, and ensure that diamond’s component parts grow and thrive within the super city structure.

Otherwise our so-called super-city will be less a jewel in the crown than just so much cut and…paste.

Browse all articles