Measuring urban investment

We spend a lot of money trying to make our urban centres better.

Upgraded streets, new public spaces, better transport connections..... the list goes on. But it's more than simply spending money. It's an investment in the things we believe will make our cities better. But routinely we fail to follow through in understanding what the return is for those investments and whether they are actually achieving the desired outcomes?

A place can certainly look better without actually performing better. Perhaps in some locations, looking better is enough; in others, less so.

Either way understanding the return is important. And central to that, is understanding the context you're working in.

Take Dunedin for example.

A recently completed upgrade of George Street, according to online figures, cost approximately $110 million. More than half of this was reportedly spent on underground infrastructure, but it remains a significant investment in the city's primary retail spine. Like any investment, it is reasonable to ask what has been achieved.

The return might be seen in many ways — more residents, more students, new businesses, a stronger local economy, or simply more people using the city centre.

Fortunately, Dunedin City Council undertook pedestrian and public life monitoring in 2020, before construction began, amongst other measures. Now, a little over two years following completion, camera monitoring provides an opportunity to compare with that pre-construction baseline.

The short story is that pedestrian activity today is broadly comparable to pre-construction levels (when normalised against the 2020 monitoring and allowing for differences in monitoring methods).

At first glance, that might seem underwhelming. After an investment of this scale, shouldn't we expect more people? Maybe.

But, this where context matters.

The Covid-19 pandemic fundamentally changed our urban centres and the ripples can still be felt. Pedestrian activity is down. In both Auckland and Nelson that activity remains below pre-Covid levels. In Melbourne, research points to an uneven recovery, with weekday activity remaining particularly subdued.

Against that backdrop, maintaining pedestrian activity at pre-construction levels is arguably a better result than the headline for George St first suggests. It might even suggest that the redevelopment has accelerated the return of people to the city centre.

We can't confidently claim that yet. Pedestrian volumes are only one measure of urban performance, and correlation is not causation. But that is precisely the point. If we are going to invest in our urban centres, we need to understand the implications of that investment, and while not a silver bullet, monitoring pedestrian volumes and public life patterns is a sensible place to start.