We’re continuing to look at the recently released census results. A few weeks ago I looked at how travel to work and education had changed and John looked at how our cities have grown over the last 130 years. Today I wanted to look some of that growth in a little more detail.
As John noted, Auckland’s population grew between 2018 and 2023, but not by as much as it had between 2013 and 2018. In total, Auckland’s usually resident population grew by almost 85,000 in the five years between 2018 and 2023.
A more detailed look shows that this growth was highly uneven – and in quite a few areas, population declined. This is highlighted in the map below, which shows the change in population at a Statistical Area 2 (SA2) grain. You can see there has been huge growth in a few areas, such as Hobsonville Point, Flat Bush and Takaanini, with the darkest blue areas combined seeing over 50,000 new residents – but you can also see decline in many suburbs, particularly on the isthmus.
Some of the decline in population is understandable, such as fewer students in the city centre following COVID. But the swathe of decline across the central and western isthmus looks eerily similar to the Council’s Unitary Plan zoning maps. Essentially, the areas where we’ve made it the hardest to build new housing are the places where population has declined the most. Meanwhile, the places where more housing was permitted – like those greenfield areas on the outskirts, and West Auckland – have seen population growth.
The data allows us to go a bit deeper still.
For many years, Auckland has had, and still continues to have, the youngest population of any region in New Zealand. But the region is getting older: Auckland saw the second highest regional increase in median age, which increased by over a year from 34.7 to 35.9 since the last Census.
That’s almost twice the increase of NZ as a whole, which went from a median age of 37.4 to 38.1 – and only the West Coast saw a larger increase in median age.
We can see that change in age reflected in the chart below. For existing Auckland residents, they will shift by one age band between each census – and you can certainly see that with the 50+ age bands. Where there is change is in the under-50 population – which is what we’d expect, as most of Auckland’s growth will come from either babies being born or migration.
This is perhaps better shown in the chart below, which looks at the change in population for each age band after adjusting for the existing population getting older.
Looking at just that swathe of population decline in the central and inner western isthmus, we can see quite a different pattern: there’s a big drop-off of people who at the last census were in their late 20’s and early 30’s. These are people likely wanting to buy a home and start families, but for whom the restrictions on new housing and the resulting property price increases have pushed them away. Looking at the age profile, you can see a much smaller proportion of kids in the central isthmus, compared to the region as a whole.
By comparison, looking at the existing West Auckland urban area, we do see declines in older age groups but some notable jumps in the late 20’s and early 30’s. The age profile also looks much more like that of the region as a whole.
The growth in the 30’s age-groups is very noticeable in those high-growth areas.
As noted above, while some of the growth in these areas will be people who weren’t in Auckland in 2018, I suspect a decent proportion of it will be from younger people/couples forced out of the isthmus due to high house prices, in part because these areas have been locked in amber by over-zealous planners. Even Auckland Council’s proposal in response to the government’s requirements around allowing more housing doesn’t address this because the council spent all their time working out how to not allow growth in these central areas.
It’s a concern for other reasons too, as many of those high-growth areas have at best weak public transport options – meaning people are possibly moving from areas with some of the best public transport connectivity to areas with some of the worst. This means we’re likely to get more people driving as a result.
Finally, because I mentioned it above, I’ve also taken a look at the median age across Auckland. As you’d expect, the median age is the oldest around coastlines and eastern beaches, with younger populations in South Auckland.
Processing...
Waiheke is basically a retirement village.
“…council spent all their time working out how to not allow growth in these central areas.”
This. I’m continually surprised by the lack of nuance in the isthmus intensification conversation. The discussion revolves around either total blanket up zoning or total blanket protection. No exploration or vision of how we might up zone in particular key areas or in particular ways that retain and evolve the isthmus character while also growing and provide a real mix of quality housing choices.
Side note, I’m part of the displaced demographic. During my time flatting in Ponsonby there was a noticeable decline in young and coloured people on my street. By the time I left the “special character” was predominately white, middle aged families, large cars, a notice loss of tree coverage and a housing stock so modified and pristine shiny white it possessed little of its original structure or charm. Perhaps the special character evidence for these areas should be expanded to include these defining characteristics.
That population density-change map reveals the insanity of Auckland’s current development rules, and indicates the self-interest of the monied inner suburbs that was allowed to bend the AUP into 1950s-style anti-social uselessness.
The inner suburbs are lovely, and living there in one of those big old villas – with lots of space, a garden, easy access to everything – is a real privilege. The price is paid by everyone else who is forced further and further out into dreadful rabbit-hutch developments that are shoe-horned in side by side, back to back; and has to travel massive distances to access anything. And most of what they are given access to is car-dependent horrors like the god-awful Westgate and Albany.
“The inner suburbs are lovely, and living there in one of those big old villas – with lots of space, a garden, easy access to everything – is a real privilege” – they can have that privilege without the zoning rules, no one would be forced to demolish their villa or subdivide their land. The real privilege is being able to insist that your neighbours also own a big old villa with lots of space.
Thanks Matt – this is some great analysis. I am lucky to live in an area close to the city. The point about these parts becoming retirement villages is absolutely true. Most obvious to me in the drop off in primary school aged children in our area at the same time as the increase in “lock and leave” apartments which seem to be filling up with retirees. The demographic has moved so much in a relatively short time (c~15 years)
Anecdote incoming – By happy circumstance we live in our own place in Kingsland/Morningside, but of my friend group they’ve all basically scattered to the four corners of Auckland after they settled down and started families – Howick, Flat Bush, Birkdale, Silverdale, and Pokeno(!). I am not even sure if Silverdale and Pokeno are even in Auckland. Basically they were priced out of the cental city, or didn’t want to bring up families in town houses.