Wellington needs better advocates

This was originally published on the 30th of October, 2024 on my previous blog.

In the windows of many Wellington businesses, you'll find notices decrying the "deluded bureaucrats" of the "undemocratic WCC" and how their plan to give cars slightly lower priority in the city will kill their businesses. You'll see them in the windows of convenience stores and restaurants on the notoriously boozy Courtenay Place; a place you'd hope few people are driving to. Indeed, a visit to Courtenay Place on a Friday or Saturday night raises the question: if even half these people drove here, where are all the cars?

Every week there's a new opinion piece, blasting cycleways as the cause of Wellington's downturn (written by people who are presumably unaware of the 6000 cut govt jobs, and the years of doom and gloom about Wellington that predate the council's current transport strategy). "If nobody can park directly in front of the entrance of my business, nobody will visit," is the line trotted out over and over; even by owners of businesses with ample parking and no nearby cycleway.

The implication of this rhetoric is clear: "Wellington sucks so bad that nobody would visit if they couldn't spend most of their time here in an insulated box."

But if you listen to many of the people who move to Wellington, you'll hear a different story. You'll hear about a Wellington that despite its transport woes, is more walkable than anywhere else in the country. You'll hear of a Wellington whose steep rents are balanced out by not needing to own a car. You'll hear of a Wellington whose public transport issues aren't enough to cancel out that the bus can get you to most of the places, most of the time.

Listening to people talking about the "golden age" of Wellington, you won't hear tales of a city that's easy to drive and park in; you'll hear of a city whose cheap rents enabled creatives to spend less time grinding to make ends meet and more time doing what they do best—giving the city its vibrant, creative reputation that it's been coasting on ever since.

The rhetoric from Wellington's loudest supposed advocates is negative, unimaginative, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the kind of place Wellington is or what made it great in the first place.

The growing pains of construction and roadworks are difficult. But what's the alternative? Roadworks must be done whether it's to enable better access for more users, or to re-seal the same old street designs we've had during Wellington's long, slow decline. Should we leave the city full of condemned buildings because knocking them down or bringing them up to code is too noisy?

Successive city councils have kept rates low by kicking the can down the road on infrastructure spending; and now the roads are flooded with kicked cans. Our Prince Charming in the form of national 3 Waters reform got stuck in traffic, so the bill comes to current ratepayers to pay.

High rates bills suck. But the idea that cutting the smallest section of the city's transport budget will work to keep rates lower is simplistic and untrue (and not just because the city would be paying out contractual obligations anyway).

If Wellington’s loudest critics are sincere in their concern over rates rises and the decline of local business, here’s something they can advocate for rather than against:
The most effective way to keep rates low is to spread the burden across more people, and the only way to do this is increasing housing and—this part is key—to do so by increasing density in existing areas rather than by sprawling. Suburban sprawl cannot pay for itself, and new ratepayers cost the city more if the infrastructure to support them costs more than new ratepayers bring in.

Even when Wellington was doing well, hospitality businesses in the “CBD” closed at or before 5pm. Why? Because the city from the train station to Manners St has been propped up by commuters coming in from places like the Hutt, then leaving again right after work.

With so little housing in the area, there's nothing protecting businesses in the area from, say, a huge shift to Work From Home; or massive government job cuts. This leaves businesses with few customers, but still huge rents and rates bills to pay.

More housing in and around the inner city means more ratepayers per unit of infrastructure, and provides a more stable and round-the-clock source of patronage to support local businesses.

This synergises well with the council's current approach to transport—an approach that comes as a part of a larger wave of urbanism sweeping the globe. With housing close to work and amenities, everything you need is within walking/cycling/bussing distance (this is how cities are supposed to work, by the way).

This is a win-win for those who would rather live in the suburbs, too. With would-be city-slickers not being forced to choose suburban living out of necessity, more suburban housing becomes available—and closer to the city. And with those living centrally well-served in terms of transit, folks who need to drive in will not have to contend with as much traffic.

Those worried about Wellington's decline could be advocating for increased urban density, or lowered rents, or free/cheap public transport to enable people to park further out and bus in. But these are complex issues that require proper thought and planning—and that’s a lot harder than just saying NO.