Urban economics

To avoid creating ghost towns, we must find a way of saving lives without destroying the cities they inhabit.

George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, delivered nothing short of a revolution to the way that Britain is governed. A radical devolution of power and money from central government in London to the cities of the UK has begun.

Good ideas are more powerful than political posturing. I presume David Cameron would not call his Chancellor’s views insane now.

I am not from Auckland, nor can I claim to be an expert on port operations, but I cannot help but wonder whether instead of talking about an extension of the port we should be talking about an entirely different question: Is the Port of Auckland really in the right spot?

Australia’s big cities are now less different (or more similar) to their neighbours in the Asia-Pacific. Not only are they becoming more ethnically Asian but Asia’s cities have become wealthier, more productive, and more Western.

Aristotle was right. A great city does not need a big population. It can even be as small as Dunedin’s. But every great city needs a population that is passionate about itself, ambitious for its future, and optimistic about its outlook.

Perhaps it’s time to admit humbly that the best cities usually just happen without anyone making them happen. Cities are organic, evolving and spontaneous institutions; the result of human action and less of human design. Maybe it is this that really makes them great, too.

What sounds like a paradoxical experience may not be so much of a paradox after all. House prices, quality of life and economic growth are very much interlinked in Britain’s recent history, and it is not always easy to disentangle the three. However, if we want to understand why they are connected, it is necessary to subject them to an economic analysis, and that means analysing the way Britain’s built environment has been planned.