Those places (Redfern, Bondi, CBD) are all in the inner suburbs.
Try living in Cronulla and working in Chatswood?
My flatmate worked in New Castle. :) admittedly he’d stay until friday and return to the flat but he still managed to commute via public transport every week.
Cronulla to Chastwood can be done in ~1.30, according to Transport NSW website ...
Newcastle PT travel is also an option from Sydney, although not a very desirable one
Sydney, and Australia, more generally is no poster child of effective PT though - yes there are systems in place, but the footprint of these was typically established 80+ years ago and has changed little since. Correspondingly the trains are not that fast (but some of this could be down to things like track alignment as well)
Seeing the pictures of AKL motorway traffic at a standstill earlier points towards a hub & spoke type rail system (i.e. imagine trains going down the middle of motorways), but these have limitations for cross city travel, which is where orbital (or ring) systems appeal ... Melbourne actually had two orbital rings 80+ years ago, augmenting the hub & spokes) but removed them with poor foresight
I think tele commuting / remote officing will increase going forward, in NZ and everywhere. In NZ the UFB network will enable this and allow satellite offices to be a much better option for both companies and for employees.
There is some need to get together periodically but I know lots of well compensated sales / business development people who work remotely. In quite a few cases I think low paying jobs do need to be located together to allow for effective oversight and training.
Same as happens to any couple in the same situation in a major city such as Sydney, LA, Houston or London etc. You have a decision to make. Either you make the commute work, you move closer to the new job or you don't accept the new job.
I don't know that you can say the free market has failed, because the choke points seem to be more regulatory in nature.
Regarding densification, NIMBYs certainly are one of the modern world's largest pains in the butt. They want everything frozen just as it is now, despite the fact that their property was once undeveloped. Having said that, AKL suburbs are so beautiful that I can't blame them for not wanting things to change. In a democracy, you can't ram massive unwanted change down people throats, which is the point of democracy, so I can't see how densification is a viable solution. It is part of the solution, but a minority part.
Having the urban boundary jacking up prices is a regulatory problem, not a free market problem.
I think things have to got to such a disastrous state, that hopefully people will be accepting of solutions that they might not like, but recognize have to be done as there aren't any other viable options. A land tax on non residents is a good start. Dialing back on non returning Kiwi immigration would be a good step too.
Designating land from Waitakere, through Kumeu & Dairyflat to Silverdale, and from Glenbrook to Clevedon as future residential land is a must. That would kill land banking and speculation and drop land prices overnight as the prospect of capital gains disappears in one fell swoop.
The infrastructure cost of bringing that additional land on line can be born by municipal organisations that borrow to build the infrastructure and charge section holders over 20 years so the AKL council doesn't have to pay it upfront. Looking at how some of the GST and other taxes collected in a local area can be used to fund infrastructure in that area would be good too.
Expanding AKL will be unpalatable to many on this blog. But what's the realistic alternative? Don't do enough and Kiwis will be truly stuffed with houses at 20 times incomes and a truly epic housing and financial meltdown will be certain at some point in the future, in a downturn or when interest rates normalize, as they will. This has to get turned around, and soon!!
Auckland has an unaffordability edging all the way towards 11 (as a multiple of income)
Ireland sprawled massively and was at 5.5 when it's bubble burst, remember what that was like for Ireland?
Apartments in Tokyo was (I think) at around 18 in 1989 (possibly the most unaffordable in history for the population living there) and the 1990s are referred to "the lost decade" from the fallout.
Census 2001 - average household size in the Auckland region - 2.9 people.
Census 2013 - average household size in the Auckland region - 2.9 people.
People can probably make their own estimates of how much population pressure has been the main causal factor in house price increases in this period.
In a democracy, you can't ram massive unwanted change down people throats, which is the point of democracy, so I can't see how densification is a viable solution
I don't think that's how democracy works, or should work. You seem to be talking about some of the more vigorous forms of propertarianism: "a man's home is his castle and society has no right to tell him what he can and can't do in it". I think the point of government is exactly to override the will of individuals for the good of society as a whole.
I see this more of a question of which group of people/level of government should make the rules. If it's a council or smaller area then yep, the NIMBYs win. Once it's at a city or state level, though, it's easy to ignore most NIMBY groups because they just aren't big enough to matter.
One example is the massive state appropriation of property rights, without compensation, that happened when the anti-smacking bill was passed. Sure, a small group of NIMBYs was very, and vocally, offended - "I can't hit MY child? Waaaahhh!!!". But most people supported it. I reckon you'd see the same in Auckland.
There is a missing component in the transition to intensified living models – interaction education.
I saw a great exhibition of Le Corbusier’s life work at the Pompidou Centre last year – but it seemed to me that his plans were about the buildings and not how to live in them – a big change for rehoused slum dwellers or ex-villagers, anyone really.
I also noted the change in Chhch council housing over the years – last century I used to do a monthly newsletter for the Council Housing Unit, which kept people informed and connected, they organised social events and created a community (heck the Library bus would pull up at least once a week - it doesn't exist now!) – then new brooms swept all that unnecessary expense away (and tried to leap the rents up 25% overnight!) and now we have had neighbours killing each other and living in fear in some of those housing tracts.
Others may have more insight into how they are going these days…
But just what is the ‘bottom line’ for urban dwellers and co-existence?
I used to do a monthly newsletter for the Council Housing Unit, which kept people informed and connected, they organised social events and created a community (heck the Library bus would pull up at least once a week - it doesn't exist now!) – then new brooms swept all that unnecessary expense away...
There was even a City Housing quiz trophy, which my late mum's team carried home on several occasions. A Council minibus would collect participants and drop them home afterwards. All gone now.
In a democracy, you can't ram massive unwanted change down people throats
Councils are charged with reconciling the needs of future as well as current residents, but our system is badly designed in that only current ones get a vote.
Why should comfortable coastal nimbys get to override the interests of future residents who prefer living close to things they value, like high-value work, niche retail, social events and frequent transit services?
Democracy is not mob rule, in any case.
I see this more of a question of which group of people/level of government should make the rules.
And our central government has also declared an interest in its largest economic base and voting population functioning properly. If Council continues to dither, Govt's response may be interesting though probably not pleasant.
Democracy is not mob rule, in any case.
But they can start from that point...