This is an important chart from a recent study commissioned by Greater Wellington, New Zealand. The study looks at the cost benefits of urban intensification and the above chart shows the relationship been density and infrastructure costs. For this study, they specifically looked at the costs that local governments face in providing road, public bus transport, and "three-waters infrastructure." I hadn't heard this latter term before, but it refers to drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater.
What they obviously found was that there are real economies to higher densities. More density lowers the per dwelling cost of delivering infrastructure. In the case of three-waters infrastructure, it doesn't even really matter if you're proximate to reservoirs or treatment plants. The bulk of the cost lies in the local connection pipes. So what matters most is how many dwellings you can service off of the main lines -- even if these lines need to be upsized.
The goal of this study is to enable more support for smart growth within the Wellington region:
Regional councillor Thomas Nash says the report should give councils confidence to press on with plans that support compact mixed-use development in and around city centres and connected by high quality public transport.
“Regional growth needs to be smart growth. This report clearly shows that the best bang for our buck is to focus on upgrading existing water, public transport and local roading infrastructure so that we can build better quality, compact residential form, with improved amenities within our cities and towns,” Cr Nash says.
Of course, this doesn't just apply to Wellington. Every city should read the study.
One way to describe cities is to call them labor markets. Historically, people have chosen to live in cities because they have provided economic opportunities (among, of course, many other things). That's why the data is very clear: wages are higher in larger cities.
But what we have also seen over the last few years -- and what is causing a lot of dislocation in real estate markets -- is an untethering of work. More people are working from home and from locations that offer greater lifestyle benefits (or greater tax benefits).
We spoke recently about what this divide between in-person and remote work might mean, but regardless of this outcome, I think there's an important truth here: Lots of people would like to live somewhere else. (In my case, my daydreams take me to Paris.)
And for the first time ever, really, it is possible for more people to do this and stay connected to work somewhere else. Earlier innovations, such as the streetcar or car, also compressed geographies and empowered people to travel greater distances. But now the catchment area has seemingly expanded to the world.
I'm not saying anything particularly novel here, but I do think it's important to point out that this desire exists in many of us. Because this tension between "I do work here" but "I really want to live over there" seems like it's only increasing.
Last month, I wrote a post called, More people, fewer new homes. And in it, was a chart showing that for the 12 months ending July 1, 2023, Toronto grew by approximately 126,000 people, and the Greater Toronto Area grew by about 233,000 people. Big numbers. At the end of the post, I also mentioned that this is more growth than the city has seen over the six preceding years.
But how does this compare to other cities in Canada and the US? If we look at only central cities (not metro areas), Toronto is, in fact, first. Canadian central cities, in general, also seem to be growing more quickly than their US counterparts. After Toronto is Calgary, which added nearly 87,000 people for the same time period.
Looking at metro areas, Toronto is still first. I don't know why the ~222k figure, here, doesn't reconcile with the ~233k figure from last month's post, but presumably it's some sort of boundary difference. In any event, Toronto is first. But now, once you include metro areas, US cities do much better in this list. Number two is Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington.
This difference between central cities and metro areas likely tells us something about the way in which these city regions are growing. Still, it would be interesting to see how much of this population growth is being accommodated through infill development vs. greenfield development. One way to measure that might be to look at changes in the footprint of their built up areas.
For more about the above two charts, check out this recent post from TMU's Center for Urban Research and Land Development.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
