No Road, A Green Road, or A Divided Road: How will our Zero Carbon transition unfold, and how should we prepare?
James Hughes, Technical Director - Climate and Resilience, Tonkin + Taylor
“We have long since passed the time for climate action, and incremental change is no longer an option”
These are the words from the United Nations Emissions Gap Report 2022.
James Hughes, Technical Director - Climate and Resilience, Tonkin + Taylor
The report concludes that avoiding dangerous levels of warming will require ‘wide ranging, large scale, and rapid transformation’.
Scientists tell us we must limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius if we are to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
As a globe, we have a finite amount of carbon we can emit before we reach this threshold, and if we carry on emitting at current rates, we will use up this budget in only 9 years.
New Zealand has recently been very active in ‘planning’ for reducing emissions, however, there has been little action - in fact, our emissions are rapidly going in the wrong direction – having increased by 26% since 1990.
We must act now, and this action must be decisive and transformative.
Transport accounts for nearly one fifth of NZs total Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, and around half of the CO2 emissions (the remainder being largely methane from agriculture).
Significant emissions reductions need to come from our transport sector if we are to achieve our targets, and these reductions are fundamentally underpinned by the urban form of our cities.
Under NZ’s Emissions Reduction Plan, a transport emissions reduction target of 41% by 2035 has been established.
While many argue this is insufficient, this will still require a massive rethink in how New Zealanders build towns and cities - away from low density, sprawling neighbourhoods which lock in high emissions futures, and towards mixed use, higher density neighbourhoods.
This will, in turn, enable residents to reduce their reliance on private vehicles and move towards active and public transport modes.
This is not news to many councils and advocates who have been pushing in this direction.
However, what is unclear and unresolved, is how we deliver this transformation at the scale and pace required.
Changing our approach to urban development
New Zealand’s urban form has developed around the car.
Like many other countries, we have ended up with an ‘urban sprawl’ which has generated a wide range of negative impacts (not only in terms of emissions).
A low-density development pattern presents real challenges with funding infrastructure and services over the long term.
It can reduce the viability of public transport networks, lead to increasing traffic congestion, and often the decline or near-death of main street shopping areas and CBDs as we have seen in many large and mid-size cities around NZ.
The housing supply crisis has been putting pressure on councils to release more greenfield or undeveloped land (which is generally easier and quicker to deliver), which only adds to the above issues.
‘Density done well’, by comparison, can address many of the above issues, creating far more economically productive communities, which can be greener, more sustainable, and build vibrancy and social capital.
Liveable, dense cities are faster to get around - they give us more choice, are more diverse and more affordable, and they are good for people and good for business.
They also preserve open space, productive land, and natural ecosystems.
Urban sprawl is financially unsustainable over the long term
Ultimately, development choices have direct impacts on the costs of rates and the running a city.
Urban sprawl requires a lot of infrastructure – roading, footpaths, water and wastewater, power, and waste management. All these systems and services need to be built, maintained, and eventually renewed.
Simply put, low population density requires far more expansive networks and services and there are less people to pay for them.
In higher density environments, more people per hectare creates economies of scale and lower costs, and therefore lower rates over the long run.
A recent study by Canadian thinktank The Smart Prosperity Institute estimated that the costs of low-density development are around twice that of higher density cities.
Many other independent studies have developed similar conclusions.
What’s holding us back?
Admittedly, changing our approaches to urban development is not easy.
From a practical perspective, retrofitting existing areas is extremely complex, and then there are the cultural norms that most Kiwis have around quarter acre sections and the ‘suburban dream’.
The development patterns in most towns and cities in New Zealand have been driven by a range of complex and interrelating factors – including land prices, preconceptions around housing preferences, lending criteria, and a largely laissez-faire approach to development controls.
Tax incentives and land-banking also makes site acquisition difficult and therefore inhibits existing centres being re-imagined and re-designed at scale.
New Zealand also doesn’t have many good examples to point to, making it hard to win over support.
No one wants change, particularly if they can’t see what good looks like.
There are, however, some increasingly promising examples of well-designed, mixed-use neighbourhoods with plenty of green space and are close to public transport.
Hobsonville Point is an excellent example, as well as Wynyard Quarter, however these were both originally greenfield areas.
Slow regulatory change
Following the advice of the Climate Change Commission (CCC), the Government has released its first Emissions Reduction Plan.
While there is a focus on transport reduction (41% target) and acknowledgement of the importance of urban form to enable this, there are no concrete actions or policies proposed to deliver this.
Hopefully, the second emissions budget advice (2026-2030) from the CCC will be strengthened in this regard, as we desperately need far more active and deliberate interventions to re-shape our cities to enable low-emission lifestyles.
Certainly, current policies within some councils are enabling action (regarding density, car parking, height etc), however far more could be achieved if investment was co-ordinated, and projects delivered together, at scale and with strong, cohesive design principles.
A shot in the arm
We need transformation, and we need it done quickly.
However, change will be complex, potentially risky and will require significant capital.
This points to the need for public sector involvement to partner with, and catalyse the market.
A potential solution is to establish Urban Regeneration Agencies (URA) in key centres.
This is not a new idea and recognises that urban renewal needs co-ordination, planning, certainty, long-term funding, as well as a degree of risk-sharing.
International examples include the Perth Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority (MRA), Urban Growth NSW, Renewal South Australia, Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority, London Legacy Development Corporation, and many more.
Locally, Auckland Council has established Eke Panuku which has a broad range of functions in urban regeneration across a range of council-owned sites.
There are a range of structures and operating models which local URAs could adopt, as well as relationships to other initiatives, and stakeholders such as Kāinga Ora, iwi and private developers.
The specific role of a URA would also need careful consideration - from facilitation through to land acquisition and development as well as its funding sources, approval and acquisition powers and more.
If done well, however, these agencies could play a key role in kick-starting the transition we need.
Change is needed and we must learn from others
“What works overseas won’t work here. New Zealanders are different.”
Really?
We must look to overseas examples and learn from them.
People visit cities like Amsterdam and think ‘that is fantastic but could never happen in NZ’.
However, what we fail to understand is that Amsterdam was a very car-centric city following WWII and up until the 70s, following which there were a range of very deliberate changes to make the city more liveable.
Leadership is key, and time is short.
The establishment of entities such as Urban Regeneration Agencies would enable more active and purposeful shaping of our cities.
It would demonstrate examples of success and allow the private sector to follow and feel more confident to invest.
The successful delivery of such projects will demonstrate new ways of living and moving around, create new and vibrant urban areas, and importantly, will make the most of our existing infrastructure investment.
This will ultimately make New Zealand cities and towns more connected and sustainable, with a wider range of housing – including more affordable options – while supporting quality living environments across the housing continuum.
It will also give us a fighting chance to reach our emissions targets to do our bit globally to halt the deafening march of climate change.
