Hamilton for capital city? Our fourth-largest town central to a future New Zealand

Wednesday, 30 May 2018

As Wellington burns - or falls into the sea - Hamilton could come into its own.

For those who enjoy wild speculation, the prospect of a new capital for New Zealand provides ready fodder. Our long islands are shaky and disaster prone; our windy capital more so than most. 

The first capital, near Kororāreka, and another former, Auckland, are frequently named in such discussions. Palmerston North is close to military bases and has been granted a mention. 

But could the often-maligned and often-claimed 'city of the future' become politically central to New Zealand?

**READ MORE:

* If a quake crippled Wellington, what are the alternatives for a seat of government?

* Wellington still paying the price for Kaikoura quake and the 'big one' could cost $29b

* Disaster plan moves Government to Auckland

* A proportional representation of NZ - 3/4 of us live in the North Island**

The country's largest inland city, Hamilton, is poised to grow quickly with New Zealand. With an estimated population of 160,000, it is expected to grow to 190,000 by 2031.

But this is only part of the picture: Hamilton is one corner of the Golden Triangle, a term which encapsulates Auckland and Tauranga and with it 53 per cent of the population by 2031, according to a Ministry of Transport figure.

Already the median centre of the country's population (the line which divides the country's population) is 1km west of Kawhiā on the western Waikato coast.

To be clear: no-one is saying Hamilton should be New Zealand's capital city.

Well, except for Hamilton mayor Andrew King. Forever an advocate of the city, King said Hamilton 'just beats everybody, hands down. It's just a matter of when'.

Here's his pitch - the city owns an airport with existing permission to expand: 'It will be Auckland's second airport one day'. There are rail links to Auckland, Tauranga and Wellington; half the country's population is two hours away; there's limited natural disaster risk and 'this is one of the most prosperous areas in New Zealand'.

'This is naturally going to come. We all know that Wellington isn't the right place, it's a dying town.

'It's just a matter of where we build the Beehive really, we could build it up where the old courthouse was.'

Some experts at the University of Waikato agree Hamilton could be the capital, and at least agree the city will be central to New Zealand.

Professor in earth sciences David Lowe says his new slogan for the city requires consideration: 'Hamilton's got its faults.'

Quite literally: the city has some 25 faults running north to south, with at least five severe shaking events in the past 20,000 years and some which pose a risk to its hospital and university.

'We were sitting fairly smugly here until about 25-years ago when we discovered these wretched faults.'

Lowe - who was at pains to explain he is more a volcanologist than a earthquake specialist - said by all accounts Hamilton would be a better bet than Wellington, with adequate access roads and its central position to the country's population. 

'Times have changed. I'm not a demographer or a politician, but it should be considered for two reasons: firstly, the risk of serious natural disaster is probably lower in Hamilton, as we don't have a tsunami risk … And we do have faults, but they may not be as frequently active as the ones in Wellington.'

University of Waikato associate professor in hydrology Earl Bardsley​ has a track record on this capital subject, making headlines in 2005 by suggesting public servants should relocate to Northland. 

This is for the same reason as Lowe: earthquake risk. 

But Bardsley concedes the tectonic argument is one-dimensional; in other aspects Hamilton could be favoured. 

'It can grow out, and it's central, and it's got infrastructure and a water supply, which Northland doesn't have so much. There would be much more infrastructure to be made in Northland.'

Though, it's important to consider a city's long-term running and the data for Hamilton doesn't make a compelling case, he said. 

'If you take the long view, Wellington is a blimmin' expensive capital to have. You're going to have to be rebuilding it every couple of hundred years.

'I wouldn't want to go advocating Hamilton as a potential site, as we might get into just as much trouble. You just need to think of Christchurch, we thought it was stable for a long time, but it wouldn't have been a good capital, obviously.'

Professor of environment planning Iain White was less willing to speculate on Hamilton's potential capital value, and was lukewarm to the 'city of the future' moniker.

'It depends on our politicians. The city of the future is created by the decisions of today, are those decisions long-term, strategic and aspirational enough?'

He said Hamilton is on the cusp of transforming from a regional service town into a fully-fledged city, better equipped to serve cultural offerings.

'The next two decades will really cement that growth, and our city will then have a big enough size where it can sustain a regional theatre quite easily.

'Not only have you got good sustained growth … but we've actually got the right kind of growth. We're already the youngest city in New Zealand, and we're getting a lot more of that kind of migrant. Twenty and 30-year-olds who want to start a family, they're very economically active.'

And the city has all the structural building blocks of a city: access to housing, space for development and industry. 

'You can't accommodate that much extra in Auckland, and one of the benefits of Hamilton is it does have a really good foundation of infrastructure, which enables it to go fast.

'It means we can grow regardless, if we're the capital or not.'