tip off
9

Why is Sydney’s CBD growing slower than Melbourne’s?

Jobs grew faster in Melbourne’s centre than in Sydney’s over 2006 to 2011. It might be that Melbourne makes it a lot easier for firms to locate in and near the CBD.

Change in mode share for journeys to work in Sydney CBD, 2006 - 2011

I was fascinated by the many and varied ways the media reported this week’s release of the latest edition of the Commonwealths’ annual report, State of Australian Cities 2012.

My first sighting was The Age, which ran its report under the headline Jobs shift from suburbs to CBD.

That’s big news as it seems to confirm the theory, pushed hard by the report, that the knowledge-driven economy demands higher and higher levels of agglomeration (i.e. density). The story suggests the CBD is accordingly consolidating its position as the dominant business centre.

However despite its importance, no other paper picked up on the theme of changing employment geography. The West Australian told its readers the report says sea-levels in Perth are rising at three times the Global Average.

The Courier Mail reported Anthony Albanese wants Brisbanites to copy “scooter-mad Italy” and get on a Vespa. The Brisbane Times highlighted the “push for a taller, denser city”.

The Sydney Morning Herald ran with the headline that Sydney has the nation’s least satisfied commuters.

When I looked at some new Census numbers put together by the City of Sydney, it became clear why the Sydney Morning Herald, at least, didn’t run with the jobs theme.

The data shows jobs grew by a vigorous 8.9% in the Sydney CBD (Central Sydney) between 2006 and 2011. But they grew even more vigorously – by 10.4% – across the entire metropolitan area.

There was a substantial and welcome improvement in public transport’s mode share (see exhibit), but the CBDs share of all the jobs in the metropolitan region remained static at 12% over the five years.

I dug around in the Census data myself and compared the numbers for the larger area of the municipality of Sydney. This showed jobs grew 11% over the intercensal period.

That’s stronger growth than at the metro level but not enough to suggest a major re-balancing in the economic geography of Sydney. It’s no wonder the Sydney Morning Herald ran with a different theme.

Sydney’s lacklustre performance is at odds with the State of Cities report’s stress on the value of agglomeration economies. It is after all Australia’s global city and has the lion’s share of Asia-Pacific regional headquarters.

It’s also the nation’s leading financial centre, ranking fifteenth out of 77 cities on the Global Financial Centres Index for 2012. That puts it well ahead of other major world cities, like Paris, Shanghai, Beijing, Vienna, Amsterdam and Munich.

If any city should be reflecting business’s demand for greater density in the centre it ought to be Sydney.

Melbourne tells a very different story to Sydney, though. Jobs grew by a spectacular 21% between 2006 and 2011 in the municipality of Melbourne.

I couldn’t find a comparable areal unit for 2006 and 2011 on which to compare growth at a metropolitan level, but estimates by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations suggest it was around 13% over the five year period.

Thus the centre clearly out-paced the rest of the metro area. That level of jobs growth in the centre was expected by most informed observers.

It’s consistent with the view that the rapid growth in public transport patronage in Melbourne in recent years – faster than in Sydney – is largely due to job growth.

While Melbourne is an important financial centre in its own right, even in world terms, it’s not in the same league as Sydney. Melbourne’s markedly higher growth suggests there might be a prosaic explanation for the difference between the two cities.

Perhaps much of it is down to the greater “elasticity” of Melbourne’s CBD. The ability of businesses to expand into large areas like Docklands and Southbank has moderated CBD prices and permitted more businesses to locate centrally.

I’ve noted before that large firms like NAB were able to integrate “backoffice” functions with headquarters functions in Docklands. In most other large cities, those sorts of routine functions are packed-off to lower cost locations like the suburbs or regional centres.

Sydney’s potential equivalent of Docklands is Barangaroo. It’s expected to accommodate around 15,000 jobs when built out, equivalent to three quarters of the jobs growth in the CBD over the last five years.

I’ve thought for some time that Barangaroo might be on course to emulate some of the mistakes of Docklands. There’s a miraculous opportunity for Australia’s global city to create something really great by the harbour, but the visions articulated so far are mundane.

But now I also wonder if the city mothers and fathers are getting as much value from Barangaroo – in terms of space for Sydney’s commercial heart to grow – as they should. That sort of opportunity doesn’t come along all that often in a water-locked CBD.

Of course there might be other reasons for the difference between the two cities. It might simply be that redevelopment is more difficult in Sydney’s CBD – there could be more planning obstacles, for good reasons or poor ones.

Maybe the more highly developed network of suburban activity centres in Sydney gives firms a viable alternative to the CBD. Or perhaps it’s simply that the GFC hit the finance sector and hence Sydney’s CBD especially hard.

On the other hand, perhaps the net value that theorists attribute to density in increasing productivity (it’s increasingly incorporated in BCAs for new transport projects) is over-stated, at least for some sectors.

When firms consider the benefits of agglomeration, they also have to consider the costs. Melbourne’s centre appears to offer its firms a more attractive option at the moment than Sydney’s.

Sydney might think further about the scope to increase economic activity in the centre. Melbourne might think about whether its centre is under-mining its suburban job centres strategy .

9

Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :



  • 1
    syrah 56
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    Alan

    The growth that the report talks about is value of economic activity, not job numbers growth. The industry sectors that are experiencing rapid growth as a proportion of the economy are located in city centres and rely on increasingly on job densities to drive their productivity. The growth in the number of jobs in outer areas may still be strong but they are increasingly losing relative value to those in the inner city. I think this is the key point the report makes in trying to understand the restructuring forces at work in our major cities.
    On the productivity theme another nice little nugget was the fact that female participation in paid workforce has increased by nearly 10 percent since 1988 and that female human capital is increasing at a faster rate than that of males. In Melbourne, the estimated value of human capital for males with a higher degree in the city increased by 108 per cent between 1996 and 2006, whereas for females it increased by 248 per cent….interesting food for thought!
    Cheers
    Syrah

  • 2
    Alan Davies
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    syrah 56:

    The higher productivity of firms in the CBD has been known for many decades but the link to density has only been fully recognised by practitioners relatively recently. Employment is customarily used in the urban literature ahead of the value of output. That’s partly no doubt because of data availability but primarily because employment has a direct physical relationship to key variables like density and infrastructure demand.

  • 3
    kevrenor
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    Because Sydney is becoming more decentralised into multi centred CBD! Oranges/Apples.

  • 4
    Steve777
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    Do the figures for Sydney’s CBD include North Sydney, which is in many ways almost an extension of the main CBD? It is also almost as accessible to most by public transport, more so for those living North of the Harbour. Then we have a growing secondary CBD at Parramatta, close to the geographical centre of the Sydney Metropolitan area. Then we have other CBDs in Chatswood, Bondi Junction and other centres and concentrations of Knowledge / Technology industries around Ryde.

    Whether Sydney would function more effectively with a single gianormous CBD growing out from the place on the Southern shore of Port Jackson where Captain Philip found fresh water is a moot point. The current CBD is choking now and Sydney’s geography is against it. I’d guess it would take tens (hundreds?) of billions of additional infrastructure spending to make it work. Of course, had the city fathers in the early 19th century persisted with the idea of moving the capital and main city to Parramatta, with the area around Sydney Cove probably becoming a raucous and probably disreputable seaport (a sort of combination of Kings Cross and Fremantle), it might have worked.

  • 5
    Alan Davies
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

    Steve777 #4:

    No, the two areas I cite are Sydney Central (roughly the area north of Haymarket) and the entire municipality of Sydney (which is all south of the harbour).

    Sydney has (much) stronger sub-centres than Melbourne due, in part, to it’s more constrained geography. There are though some sorts of high-level firms that will only locate in the CBD proper.

  • 6
    Patrick Reynolds
    Posted December 7, 2012 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    “It’s consistent with the view that the rapid growth in public transport patronage in Melbourne in recent years – faster than in Sydney – is largely due to job growth.”

    Bit of chicken and egg here isn’t there? Isn’t it that the rapid growth in economic output in the Melb CBD was possible because the transport capacity was there? Any if so, isn’t continued growth at risk as capacity is constrained?

  • 7
    melburnite
    Posted December 7, 2012 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    Good to know that the jobs growth of 21% in melbourne’s CBD is actually job value – I was wondering where all these new workers could be, since the only major office buildings built since 2006 are the ANZ and NAB ‘back offices’in Docklands.

  • 8
    Alan Davies
    Posted December 7, 2012 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    melburnite #7:

    The 21% refers to employment not value – there are no figures in the State of Cities report on value at any scale lower than the entire metro area. Also, the 21% refers to Melbourne LGA, not the CBD, hence it includes Docklands, Southbank, and more.

  • 9
    hk
    Posted December 11, 2012 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    The final statement, “Melbourne might think about whether its centre is under-mining its suburban job centres strategy .” Makes us ask whether Melbourne thinks at all? Who is “Melbourne”?
    Does “Melbourne” have a suburban jobs strategy?…or has Cabinet made a decision quantifying the the targets for a suburban jobs strategy? If there are strategy targets readers, might appreciate the news break.

Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :



Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...