Cities Grow by Adding Centres, Not Erasing Them

There is a persistent idea in urban debates that cities must choose between growth and heritage. The evidence from successful cities suggests the opposite. City centres change over time, but unless there has been bombed they rarely need to be torn down to make that change possible.

It helps to start with a basic distinction. Towns often revolve around a single central square or main street. Cities, by contrast, function as networks of streets and developments throughout which numerous activities take place. As technology, transport, and construction techniques evolve, new centres emerge alongside older ones, linked together by increasingly efficient transport systems.

Historic areas are usually products of the building technologies of their time. Edinburgh’s Old Town, for example, reached the limits of medieval construction long before the city stopped growing. Rather than demolish it, Edinburgh expanded into the New Town, created with newer techniques and a different layout. The centre of gravity shifted, but the Old Town remained intact and alive.

The same approach can be seen today in places like Freiburg, where post‑war growth was channelled into new districts such as Vauban, allowing the historic centre to continue as a charming, pedestrian-focused attraction (and the malls were the competition) without being forced into unsuitable intensification. This reflects the long‑standing advice of urban economist Alain Bertaud, who argues that historic areas can be worked around, not forced to perform like modern high‑density districts. But there does need to be more housing enabled nearby. If the whole city is a conservation estate it becomes very expensive to sustain.

Importantly, there is no technical formula for deciding what must be preserved. These are value choices, made by the people of a city. The role of planning is to respect those choices and find ways to grow around them. The vast majority of Auckland’s buildings are not recognised for their historic value and yet Plan Change 120 keep most of the metropolitan area low rise even when close to bus routes.

It is normal for newer areas or brownfield developments to be taller than older ones. Vienna strictly limits heights in its historic districts while accommodating density in outer districts and along transport corridors. Seestadt Asper is Vienna’s answer to Whenuapai. It transforms a former airfield into a high density, walkable mixed-use low traffic neighbourhood with 20,000 homes, services, schools and jobs designed around a new rail station (built before the houses). Other suburbs, Sonnwendviertel, Nordbahnhof, Kagran / Donau City have been developed in a similar way.

Many planners argue it is hard to retrofit established suburbs to become mid or high density. They say it is much easier to masterplan high density at the start. There are a few examples of mid-density masterplanning in New Zealand. The Wynyard Quarter, Stonefields and Hobsonville are successful mid-rise developments and the Carrington development has similar aspirations. Drury however seem frustratingly low-rise - satellite suburbs are expensive for the city and residents who much rely on a car. A high density master planned development is yet to emerge. Will the crown land on Lincoln Road offer an opportunity to integrate transport with land use effectively? I hope so.

In London’s Lewisham, recent development around the station is significantly taller than the surrounding Victorian neighbourhoods, precisely because it has the transport capacity and fewer heritage constraints. Height and intensity follow transport and modern construction, not historic cores. King’s Cross was designed taking into account its history, and is a huge success. This came through design and intention, not laissez faire economics.

Cities do not stay vibrant by freezing themselves in time. They do so by adding capacity where it fits best, allowing centres to multiply, and letting history and growth coexist—side by side, connected, and deliberately planned.