Urban Diversity and Inequality in Auckland

  • Jessica TerruhnEmail author
Part of the Mobility & Politics book series (MPP)


In this chapter, Terruhn discusses the relationships between urban policy and planning discourses of diversity and socio-spatial urban inequalities in the context of New Zealand’s largest and most diverse city, Auckland. Centrally, the chapter argues that in spite of aspirations to inclusiveness, discourses of diversity effectively reinforce and deflect from socio-spatial inequalities as a result of processes that are related to the marketisation of diversity in the context of global inter-urban competition. In conceiving of diversity primarily as an economic asset, policy discourses create a dichotomy between desirable and undesirable diversity, whilst spatial planning practices commodify diversity in a way that caters primarily to young, affluent consumers. Low-income residents are excluded from such visions and practices of diversity. At the same time, a preoccupation with shared values and social cohesion as the basis for convivial coexistence deflects from considerations of inequalities and how they affect social relations in diverse urban spaces.


Auckland Urban policy Planning Diversity Super-diversity Housing Discourse 


  1. Ahmadi, D. 2018. Is diversity our strength? An analysis of the facts and fancies of diversity in Toronto. City, Culture and Society: 64–72. Scholar
  2. Amin, A., and M. Parkinson. 2002. Ethnicity and the multicultural city: Living with diversity. Environment and Planning A 34 (6): 959–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amore, K. 2016. Severe housing deprivation in Aotearoa/New Zealand 2001–2013. Wellington: University of Otago.Google Scholar
  4. Antonsich, M. 2018. Living in diversity: Going beyond the local/national divide. Political Geography 63: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arapoglou, V.P. 2012. Diversity, inequality and urban change. European Urban and Regional Studies 19 (3): 223–237. Scholar
  6. Auckland Council. 2017. Mayor outlines priorities to deliver ‘world class’ Auckland. Our Auckland, August 22.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 2018a. Draft Auckland Plan 2050. Retrieved from
  8. ———. 2018b. Draft Auckland Plan 2050 draft evidence report: Belonging and participation. Retrieved from
  9. ———. n.d. Auckland counts: Auckland’s census data. Retrieved from
  10. Berg, M.L., and N. Sigona. 2013. Ethnography, diversity and urban space. Identities 20 (4): 347–360. Scholar
  11. Brynin, M., S. Longhi, and W. Zwysen. 2017. The diversification of inequality. The British Journal of Sociology: 1–20. [online first].Google Scholar
  12. Cassiers, T., and C. Kesteloot. 2012. Socio-spatial inequalities and social cohesion in European cities. Urban Studies 49 (9): 1909–1924. Scholar
  13. Castells, M. 1989. The informational city: Information technology, economic restructuring and the urban regional process. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Collins, F.L. 2016. Temporary migration and urban incorporation in Auckland: Living, working, finance and aspirations. Auckland: The University of Auckland.Google Scholar
  15. Collins, F.L., and W. Friesen. 2011. Making the most of diversity? The intercultural city project and a rescaled version of diversity in Auckland. Urban Studies 48 (14): 3067–3085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dastgheib, S. 2017. Auckland’s high cost of living means there is little dignity for beneficiaries and low income residents. Stuff, July 26. Retrieved from
  17. Fergusson, E., J. Terruhn, A. Gilbertson, K. Ovenden, and B. Wildish. 2016. Youth mobilities in the southern initiative, Auckland: Transport practices and experiences of 15–24 year olds. Technical Report TR2016/014. Auckland: Auckland Council.Google Scholar
  18. Fincher, R., K. Iveson, H. Leitner, and V. Preston. 2014. Planning in the multicultural city: Celebrating diversity or reinforcing difference? Progress in Planning 92: 1–55. Scholar
  19. Friesen, W. 2015. Asian Auckland: The multiple meanings of diversity. Retrieved from
  20. Gibson, A. 2017. High home prices and moderate pay make Auckland world’s fourth least affordable city. The New Zealand Herald, January 23.
  21. Glick Schiller, N., and A. Çağlar. 2009. Towards a comparative theory of locality in migration studies: Migrant incorporation and city scale. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 35 (2): 177–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harris, C. 2013. A divided Auckland? In Inequality: A New Zealand crisis, ed. M. Rashbrooke, 109–111. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books.Google Scholar
  23. Ho, E. 2015. The changing face of Asian peoples in New Zealand. New Zealand Population Review 4: 95–118.Google Scholar
  24. Housing New Zealand Corporation. 2017. Annual report 2016/17. Retrieved from
  25. Howland, P.J. 2017. The urban(e) and the metro-rural in Aotearoa. In A land of milk and honey? Making sense of Aotearoa New Zealand, ed. A. Bell, V. Elizabeth, T. McIntosh, and M. Wynyard, 264–277. Auckland: Auckland University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Immigration New Zealand. 2017. Invercargill chosen as new refugee settlement location. May 1. Retrieved from
  27. International Organization for Migration. 2015. World Migration Report 2015. Retrieved from
  28. Ishizawa, H., and D. Arunachalam. 2014. Ethnic neighbourhoods in Auckland, New Zealand. Urban Policy and Research 32 (4): 417–436. Scholar
  29. Johnson, A. 2018. Kei a tatou. It is us. State of the nation report. Auckland: The Salvation Army Social Policy and Parliamentary Unit.Google Scholar
  30. Johnston, R., M. Poulsen, and J. Forrest. 2011. Evaluating changing residential segregation in Auckland, New Zealand, using spatial statistics. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 102 (1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. LGNZ. 2016. The 2050 challenge: Future proofing our communities. A discussion paper. Retrieved from
  32. McArthur, J. 2017. Auckland: Rescaled governance and post-suburban politics. Cities 64 (Suppl C): 79–87. Scholar
  33. Ministry for Pacific Peoples. 2013. Pacific people in New Zealand. Retrieved from
  34. Murphy, L. 2008. Third-wave gentrification in New Zealand: The case of Auckland. Urban Studies 45 (12): 2521–2540. Scholar
  35. ———. 2016. The politics of land supply and affordable housing: Auckland’s Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas. Urban Studies 53 (12): 2530–2547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. New Zealand Immigration. 2015. Migration and labour force trends: Auckland overview 2015. Wellington: Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.Google Scholar
  37. OECD. 2007. Competitive cities: A new entrepreneurial paradigm in spatial development. OECD Multilingual Summaries. Retrieved from
  38. Peacock, A. 2016. Auckland a melting pot – Ranked world’s fourth most cosmopolitan city. Stuff, January 17. Retrieved from
  39. Pemberton, S. 2017. Urban planning and the challenge of super-diversity. Policy & Politics 45 (4): 623–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Redmond, A. 2018. Large loss to international student economy looms under Govt immigration plans. Stuff, February 25. Retrieved from
  41. Rowe, J.E. 2006. Is Auckland an entrepreneurial or global city? The Town Planning Review 77 (5): 583–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ryan, R., and Y. Selim. 2018. Livable Sydney: Livable for whom? In Livable cities from a global perspective, ed. R.W. Caves and F. Wagner, 111–126. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Salesa, D. 2017. Island time: New Zealand’s Pacific futures. Wellington: Bridget Williams.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sassen, S. 1991. The global city: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Simon-Kumar, R. 2014. Difference and diversity in Aotearoa/New Zealand: Post-neoliberal constructions of the ideal ethnic citizen. Ethnicities 14 (1): 136–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Slater, T. 2013. Your life chances affect where you live: A critique of the ‘cottage industry’ of neighbourhood effects research. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37 (2): 367–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. ———. 2014. 2013 QuickStats about culture and identity. Retrieved from
  48. ———. 2017. Subnational population estimates: At 30 June 2017 (provisional) – Media Release. Retrieved from
  49. Tanielu, R., and A. Johnson. 2014. This is home: An update on the state of Pasifika people in New Zealand. Retrieved from:
  50. Taylor, L. 2017. The new wave of pacific migration: Thousands leave Auckland housing crisis behind for life in the provinces. Sunday Star Times, June 18.
  51. UNESCO. 2005. Convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions. Retrieved from
  52. Vertovec, S. 2007. Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30 (6): 1024–1054. Scholar
  53. Vormann, B. 2015. Urban diversity: Disentangling the cultural from the economic case. New Diversities 17 (2): 119–129.Google Scholar
  54. Wessendorf, S. 2014. Commonplace diversity: Social relations in a super-diverse context. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  55. Wilson, H.F. 2015. An urban laboratory for the multicultural nation? Ethnicities 15 (4): 586–604. Scholar
  56. Wise, A., and G. Noble. 2016. Convivialities: An orientation. Journal of Intercultural Studies 37 (5): 423–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wise, A., and S. Velayutham. 2009. Everyday multiculturalism. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ye, J. 2018. Re-orienting geographies of urban diversity and coexistence: Analyzing inclusion and difference in public space. Progress in Human Geography: 1–18. [online first]. Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Humanities and Social SciencesMassey UniversityAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations