What do you do when you’re draining water from your underground aquifers so fast your city is sinking? If you’re [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4508062.stm](Mexico City) the answer is, apparently, not much: apparently they lose 40% of their water through cracked water mains, which presumably become worse as the city sinks further.
In and of itself it’s pretty interesting, but I find it quite comparable to Auckland’s development here: we’ve built ourselves a city bigger, area wise, than London, with less than one-sixth the population. There are obvious and well-known problems with all manner of Auckland’s infrastructure; transport is the worst. Yet there’s no way forward, because Aucklanders themselves are locked in battle over what to do about it: many appear to think that just building more roads will make it go away (please feel free to visit LA and tell me how well it’s worked out there); others want all-singing, all-dancing mass transit systems, but how do you build them to support such low population density? It’s hard to make them work in Wellington, and we at least only have two principle ribbons of development out of the central city.
Probably the most effective answer - increasing density in the areas around Auckland, so as to increase the bang-for-buck of any spending - is the least politically acceptable, because people have the dream of the quarter acre section, and those inner areas are some of the richest in the country, and hence carry immense clout. To offer an idea of how intractable the problem is, while I was working there this year, a furious regional body politician was opposing moves to restrict further greenfield conversions to the south of the current greater Auckland boundaries, claiming there was no good reason the Auckland conurbation couldn’t expand as far south as Pukekoe and the Bombay Hills.