Category Archives: Demographics

Hamilton Population Projections

Many of Hamilton City Council’s past population projections have been within one percent of the current 2018-31 projection linear line (p42&p119), excluding the 2012-22 prediction:

2006-16 Long Term Plan (LTP) 2016 prediction of 159,600 (NZ census estimate 161,400): -1,800 [1.1%]

2009-19 LTP 2019 prediction of 166,500 (p34) current prediction 167,909 (p114): -1,409 [0.8%]

2009-19 LTP 2051 prediction of 242,000 (p34) is above current projection line

2012-22 LTP 2021 prediction of 150,000 (current prediction 171,606): -21,606 fail [14.4%]

2015-25 LTP 2045 prediction of 210,000 (p20) is below current projection line

The 2015-25 LTP also has predictions for rateable units:

2016 projected 56,600 units (p143), above actual 55,995* (p119) +605[1.0%]

2017 projected 57,053 units (p143), above actual 56,706* (p119) +347[0.8%]

*(all excluding not-rated) on Historical Benchmarking (p119) would expect this to be the same for 2015-25 LTP for benchmarking between plans.

Former 10-year Plans  10-year plan 2015-25

Draft 10-year plan 2018-28 from council agenda Dec 2017 (in Italic)

 

Looking back at council’s first District Scheme in 1963, it missed how attractive Hamilton was to new people. This was corrected with the 1973 District Scheme getting the 1981 projection bang on, while 1986 was 14% over. The 1991 Town Plan came closer at 5% below actual levels for 1996. The 2012 district plan (p26), which was based on 2001 census figures, estimated 2026 levels just below the census data projection line. The 2017 district plan uses Statistics NZ estimates dated June 2013 (p9) to estimate its 2031 population, which lands on the census date line.

 

Looking forward, the 2018-28 LTP does give warning on the long term risks of planning to the higher line Page 203

“External factors … there has been a modest downward revision to net migration and population growth forecasts nationwide, and this had a small effect on estimated underlying demand for new dwellings. … Over the longer term, if growth was to slow, this could present risks to Council, … all scenarios are based on University of Waikato’s National Institute of Demographic and Economic Analysis (NIDEA) Low which is a conservative growth projection when compared with the medium projection.

To conclude, city populations can and do change. Both New York’s Manhattan Island and Houston’s population grew from about 200,000 to 1,000,000 in a 50 year period, regardless of whether that growth was outwards or upwards in terms of actual building.

http://hamiltonurbanblog.co.nz/2014/05/hamilton-urban-area-and-houston-urban-area/

References:

1963 – City of Hamilton District Scheme – NZ711-409-931-151-HAM (70-page A5 format)

1973 – City of Hamilton District Scheme – REF-S-711-409-931-151-HAM (37-page A5 format)

1981 – City of Hamilton District Scheme  – REF-S-711-409-931-151-HAM (89-page A4 format)

1991 – City of Hamilton Town Plan – REF-S-711-409-931-151-HAM (315-page A4 format plus appendices)

Hamilton city centre – A 2013 Louis Wirth measure

Posted on by 0 comment

Louis Wirth (1897-1952) was a noted urban scholar who created a typology of urbanism that defines cities according to three factors

  1. Large population size
  2. Density of settlement
  3. Heterogeneity [diversity] of inhabitants and group life

Hamilton, with a population of over 100,000, is city-sized and it does have a good number of areas with population densities of over 3,000 people per square km, but no unit areas meeting the urban density benchmark of 10,000 persons per square mile [3,886 per square km] suggested by Mark Jefferson (see p6 in the reference below)

However, as Wirth stated, “The characterization of a community as urban on the basis of size alone is obviously arbitrary” (p5).

This brings us to heterogeneity, which can be interpreted as showing that something that is made up of many different elements, one example being a local dialect that has components from several different languages. Census data uses two measures for language, as illustrated in the examples below.

Louis Wirth also gives a further measure: ‘The foreign born and their children constitute nearly two-thirds of all the inhabitants of cities of one million and over. Their proportion in the urban population declines as the size of the city decreases, until in the rural areas they comprise only about one-sixth of the total population.’

Using factors 2 (Density), 3 (Heterogeneity using Language) and being foreign born, we can identify Hamilton’s most compact and diverse neighbourhoods.

Neighbourhood Density per/ha Multilingual % Foreign Born % Score
University 30.2 32 36 98.2
Hillcrest West 31.5 30 36 97.5
Silverdale 25.4 29 33 87.4
Hamilton Central 11.5 32 40 83.5
Insoll 33.3 30 19 82.3
Brymer 26.5 25 29 80.5
Melville 25.7 27 27 79.7
Hamilton East 24.9 25 29 78.9
Peachgrove 22.9 26 28 76.9
Huntington 20.9 24 31 75.9
Bader 20 28 27 75
Dinsdale South 25.8 16 13 74.8
Fairview Downs 29.5 24 19 72.5
Enderley 28.5 24 20 72.5
Porrit 17 29 26 72
Rototuna 21 21 29 71
Hamilton Lake 11.5 27 32 70.5
Horsham Downs 12 25 33 70
Chedworth 22.5 22 25 69.5
Grandview 34 20 15 69
Claudelands 20.4 23 25 68.4
Crawshaw 34.1 23 11 68.1
Swarbrick 28.6 22 17 67.6
Riverlea 15.7 22 28 65.7
Clarkin 23.8 23 18 64.8
Naylor 19.6 21 24 64.6
Nawton 26.2 20 17 63.2
Maeroa 25.7 20 16 61.7
Flagstaff 18.9 17 25 60.9
Sylvester 6.5 20 29 55.5
Frankton Junction 5.8 20 24 49.5
Temple View 4.2 22 16 42.2

While the University area does well in terms of compactness and diversity, the data also show that the Hamilton Central area is attracting the right type of people; it just needs more of them.

Reference: Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 1-24. Retrieved from

http://choros.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/choros/files/shared/Enseignement/Sciences%20de%20la%20ville/11-12/Wirth%20-%20Urbanism.pdf

Category: CBD, Demographics, News, Planning