Is Auckland too dominant?
 

Even though by global standards Auckland is not a big city, it is still very big for the country it occupies. Fortunately, Auckland is not the capital of the country; they are quite capable of taking care of themselves without a capital- status.

Has there been any debate in NZ whether it is healthy for the country that one city is so dominant compared to others?

Re: Is Auckland too dominant?
 

I don't know many countries where one city is NOT more dominant than others :confused: London/Paris/Amsterdam/NY etc.etc.

Re: Is Auckland too dominant?
 

You're right but Auckland in NZ is much more dominant in NZ than most cities in their respective countries.

Re: Is Auckland too dominant?
 

I beg to differ, THR. I wager that your list of countries with a single dominant city will be longer than countries that don't fit that description.

How's Helsinki by the way? I hear its a nice place.

Re: Is Auckland too dominant?
 

The population of Helsinki is about 560,000 out of the population of Finland which is at 2007/2008 5,300,000.

In addition to the city-proper there are satellite towns and the metropolitan area of Helsinki is considered to be at 1.3m people. About 25% of the country.

In Auckland and NZ that ratio is much higher. Of course, in your situation we must remember the South Island which is larger than the North Island but still like some sort of southern hemisphere Lapland.

Re: Is Auckland too dominant?
 

Well, its not a patch on Wellington though :D

I still see it as a bit of an Edinburgh/Glasgow thing, bit of a love hate relationship between Welly and Auckland, with the smaller city being the capital

Re: Is Auckland too dominant?
 

My point was that the population of Auckland is 1.3m out of a population of 4.3.

Re: Is Auckland too dominant?
 

Thanks. I like that. Here I live in Christchurch, the dominant city in the southern hemisphere's Lapland.

:thumbup:

Re: Is Auckland too dominant?
 

I didn't mean it any offensive way. After all, here in Europe the whole of Finland is considered one big Lapland by people who live closer to the main centres of the continent.

Arrogance really and I don'twant to be arrogant. I'm sure life in Christchuch or Dunedin is just fine though not as stimulating as it is in a city like Auckland but it really depends on what you want from life, doesn't it?

Re: Is Auckland too dominant?
 

No, I didn't take it any way as offensive.

:D <- See, I'm happy.

I'm sure crawling through the traffic jams on the motorway in Auckland is very stimulating. ;)

Re: Is Auckland too dominant?
 

:lol: ^^ One of the main reasons we don't live there. Plus I like being in a smaller city with excellent public transport. Heck we just moved over from a sprawling metropolis, certainly didn't want to come to another one! :eek:

Re: Is Auckland too dominant?
 

However, good afternoon to you people over there on the other side of the world.(Isn't the internet a wonderful thing?) Here where I am, I'm just gonna go to the pub because it is Friday-night.

Re: Is Auckland too dominant?
 

Enjoy!
:beer:

Re: Is Auckland too dominant?
 

I think people are getting Auckland region mixed up with Auckland City. The city itself has a population of 404,658, it's just that you can't see where it stops and the other cities start (Waitakere, Manukau, North Shore etc.....)

The population of Christchurch City is 348,435, Wellington's is 179,466.

Re: Is Auckland too dominant?
 

I like Auckland :rofl:

State Highway 1 as soon as you hit motorway you know Auckland is not to far way so you go somewhere else. I reckon it helps to keep the Aucklanders from getting out scared of the narrow single lane roads and helps remind the rest of New Zealand to keep clear :rofl:

Closest I get is Hamilton to scarey traffic further North, not used to roads with more than 12 cars per 100km:eek: