To a great extent, future Aucklanders will come from current Aucklanders – our kids, their kids and their kids. About 60 per cent of Auckland’s future population growth will come from births in our current population. Consider this: one-third of all children that live in New Zealand, live in Auckland. In addition, people aged under 25 make up 40 per cent of Auckland’s population. That’s a lot of young people in our city. Many of these will go on to have kids of their own, contributing to Auckland’s growth.
The other 40 per cent of Auckland’s projected population growth will come from other parts of New Zealand and from overseas immigration. Total immigration numbers for all of New Zealand are set by central government, and a large number of immigrants will choose to settle in Auckland due to the availability of services, cultural activities, jobs and business opportunities.
Furthermore, the group you seem to be most worried about -- Auckland's Asian population -- actually has a lower birth rate than the Pasifika, European or Maori communities.
What about the number of infill houses and the size of gardens?
Infill has been has been driven by baby-boomers, often in suburbs where existing Pacific immigrant populations have been displaced. You don't see a lot of it in Howick.
But a bigger contributor would seem to be rising incomes. Subsistence farming is more likely to be a lifestyle choice than a function of poverty these days.
Garden centres had a boom when the GCC hit around 2008.
80% of population growth over the last 20 years has come from offshore. NZ used to be the Quarter Acre Half Gallon Pavlova Paradise. Location determines the value of land (around jobs and infrastructure). Population pressures have reduced the size of sections. Kind of obvious?
No, it’s not obvious at all. Because your figure is false.
This myth is busted.
New Zealand’s net migration balance continues to be volatile. In recent decades, it has ranged from a peak net gain of 43,000 permanent and long-term migrants (in 2003) to a net loss of 44,000 (in 1979). Periods of sustained net migration gains have been interspersed with periods when more people left New Zealand than arrived.
In contrast, New Zealand’s natural increase has remained between 25,000 and 35,000 for most years since 1973. So, while net migration usually contributes to New Zealand’s population growth, the main contribution in most years is from natural increase. Since 1970, natural increase has contributed about four-fifths of New Zealand’s population growth, and net migration the remaining one-fifth.
It’s also a nonsense given that the large majority of people even in Auckland, where most immigration is concentrated, continue to live in in low-rise suburban housing – the large majority of which was not built in the past 20 years. The idea that we’ve suddenly stopped gardening and keeping chickens because sections have shrunk is demonstrably wrong. Apart from anything else, home vegetable gardens have been on the rise in recent years.
Also, the forecast increase of one million in Auckland’s population in the next 30 years is predicted to be largely composed of natural increase and internal migration. Not immigration.
I get that you don’t like immigration or multiculturalism, but it’s starting to seem that you’re looking for rationalisations for that view.
Apart from that I really can’t see what you’re getting at.
I think I can see it. Essentially, the question of whether more diversity is a good thing is not settled according to JH. He’s asking why it’s good. Good for whom? Good for what purpose? Good in itself, perhaps?
I meant blaming immigrants for the fact that people supposedly don't grow veges or keep chooks any more. Not seeing the connection at all.
that sounds like a straw man argument; you are using that to represent those opposed to policies promoting diversity -mass migration. In other words there are no reasonable objections.
You're on the verge of "protesting too much" there.
It didn’t bother Dicken’s that England was a (your word) mono culture.
There were many things about his age that bothered Dickens, from the class system to the power of the church. But London in particular has long reflected the world. It has had succession of prevailing cultures, a Jewish population for nearly 1000 years, etc.
When I lived in London, a large part of what I liked about it was the vitality of its immigrant cultures, and how they interacted with the new country.
By the same token, in 2014, it’s hard to imagine an Auckland identity without Pasifika.
And what of the effects on the culture of New Zealand’s working classes of mass migration. How many people these days have hens or grow their own vegetables?
My elderly Chinese immigrant neighbours do both, and very well. Apart from that I really can’t see what you’re getting at.
Lovely video from the forthcoming album by the Phoenix Foundation's Conrad Wedde, uploaded today:
It’s just another word for variety. Not recognition, tolerance or respect, which is what you seem to be conflating it with.
Quite. In some respects, diversity could negatively impact on tolerance, if it means more people with conservative social or religious views.
I do regard a broader range of faces and voices as a good thing, though, and I'm intrigued by how many people seem to feel the same way.