Sprawl #1

peter_j

The word says it all, "Spraaawl". It's a lazy, yawning, crawling sort of word, without proper boundaries. But is Sprawl an unsustainable desire for tiny blocks in the boondocks on which to plonk oversized homes, or the natural and preferable way for cities to grow?

I'll go the former, but apparently that's because I'm a latte-swilling so and so. Sprawl is being defended now by academics like Robert Bruegmann and Patrick Troy who say that those who criticise sprawl are discriminating on the basis of class. In short we are elitist toffs who wouldn't know how to light a BBQ. They argue that suburban living is more sustainable than apartment living, and that it's a whole lot more pleasant.

Australian 10.12.05

The article doesn't give much space to the anti-sprawl voice, just allowing NSW's urban planning director Chris Johnson seven words on the matter.

My caffeinated bile starts to rise when I see ideas discredited because the people who have them are elitist inner city sorts. For me the anti-sprawl arguement is not about class or privilege or how you spend your Friday evening, it's based on the following:

* that sprawl encourages car use, increasing cross-city traffic and pollution while wasting time.
* that sprawl requires expensive roading and services infrastructure - money that could be better spent elsewhere.
* that sprawl is uncoordinated and lacking in essential services and shops.
* that sprawl lowers city density, stretching public transport, which often doesn't exist in new suburbs.
* that each city has a limit, that they can't grow outwards forever without becoming extremely inefficient, not to mention depressing.

Anonymous

These pro-sprawl arguments seem to be gathering momentum-a few months back Radio National's token right-wing programme "Counterpoint" had an attack on increasing densities of our cities dismissing arguments for density as "destructive". Is this some sort of conspiracy or an inevitable backlash to change? I am an inner city dweller by choice but my closest relatives live in areas that would accurately be described as sprawl and suffer from isolated social lives, expensive dependency on cars etc. and they want change.Density is not some middle-class fashion inflicted on unsuspecting victims.In my experience people would swap space for the variety of experience and exposure to a variety of people that comes with increasing density and the increased wealth that local governments could afford if they weren't always dealing with providing a backlogue of infrastructure to new areas.

peter_j

"Is it some sort of conspiracy?"

Not sure about that, a bit of ferreting around has led me to several articles in the U.S. libertarian magazine Reason, which really got into the antisprawlers about six years ago. In 1999, a bit before Al Gore lost the "hanging chad" elections, he launched his campaign with a speech about the evils of sprawl. These pro-sprawl articles seem to be a response to Gore and his ilk.

The anti-sprawl campaign isn't just a bunch of slogans. It's a vision of one best way to live, and the determination to impose that way by political action. Like the black-and-white establishment in the movie Pleasantville, the anti-sprawlers are upset with the changes unleashed by other people's choices. And as in the movie, they intend to convene the right sorts of people to pass "democratic" regulations to keep everything "pleasant"--with no room for deviation. Instead of banning double beds and colored paint, as the movie's establishment did, they'll ban free parking and new single-family houses. They, too, will make sure there's nothing "outside Pleasantville," no homes outside their jurisdiction or control.
REASON 1999

It seems that as those who question sprawl gain power here and there, the laissez-fairists / libertarians / free marketeers get worried about individuals' (and developers') rights to sprawl being endangered. They are seeing the city differently - not as a (dys)functioning organism in need of planning controls, but as something more fragmented, a network of subdivisions extending boldly where no asphalt has gone before...

Sprawl photo essay, San Francisco style:
EXUBERANCE

NEWS 18.12.05: Urban sprawl may not be so bad after all Another angle.

captinsane

Densification and challenging the council was the topic of a recent architecure assignment in 2nd year. I think that the sprawl will eventually concentrate itself, and result in densification, but this is determined by the economic and social investment of corporations, as well as eyes wide opn approach by town/city planning officials planning for an eventual densification once an area hs the means to sustain it. I would assume that densification cannot exist without both substantial continual capital investment, progressive council considerations with views to creating an enironment for a natural densification through cause and effect.

I personaly see the greatest hindrance to densification through the need for 'secure open space' IE: backyards big enough to run around in. This is an emotional national icon and considered a necessity for young families.

anon

My issue with sprawl is in its execution. most sprawl has occured as an extension of the 'body' of the city. its as if your leg grew another leg on it. still one heart, 3 legs. Suburban growth needs to be treated in relation to the rest of the city. the proportions need to be retained.

peter_j

Elizebeth Farrelly let roar yesterday at a motorway advocate releases housing affordability surveys that support his claims.

The clear-eyed fact is that sprawl - in eating arable land, destroying forest, polluting air (with extra car-miles), bankrupting public transport and wasting money on attenuated services - busts Cox's "absent material threat" principle wide open.
SMH 30.08.06

Australian Prime Minister John Howard has also been banging on about housing affordability in recent weeks, arguing for State Governments to release more exurban land for residential development. He had been reading Alan Moran's book "The Tragedy of Planning: Losing the Great Australian Dream" (which is available for download here.) Moran is director of the Deregulation Unit at the Instutute of Public Affairs, a political think tank that supports the freeflow of money and limited government. Treasurer Peter Costello spoke at the book launch this month.

This book is a 93 page raging rant against those of us who would see big problems for cities expanding in an unregulated manner. It's language is so intimidatory that an even-handed look at the book is difficult.

Anti-sprawl campaigns now dominate urban planning. Fuelling them and
mightily facilitating their media profile are the arrivistes and others seeking
to preserve a suburb or a favoured rural hideaway by keeping out the hoi
polloi. (Author's italics)

it is only in recent times that opposition to [sprawl] has assumed mystical respectability on a par with saving whales, stopping global warming and preventing GM foods. As with those other goals, opposition to urban sprawl is cloaked in a mantle of moral superiority that pretends to self-denial but is invariably laced with self-interest.

He then throws a lot of mud at people who question sprawl (which thankfully includes most of the planning establishment). The text is littered with references to "cafe latte society".

The book accuses anti-sprawlers of a misplaced nostalgia for the preindustrial city and an over-fondness for Parisian cafes. He makes the point that Australian sprawl covers only 0.3% of our landmass, much less than the UK's 8% - so what are we worrying about.

The book tackles the sprawl vs. public transit question by attacking public transit. Spending all that money on public transport that no one really wants! Moran advocates removal of subsidies for public transport - it should be user pays of course, even if it means prices go up five fold. And another reason for not putting money into public transport - more people would use it - and it would become cramped and uncomfortable. I do believe this guy is clutching at straws. My favourite - here he argues for sprawl by complaining about the lack of public transport except closer to the city:

The areas that are almost universally best served by public transport subsidies are those located relatively close to city centres; routes converge on these areas, which not only means improved frequency but also closer proximity to transit stops. Hence, subsidies from general taxation would amount to a redistribution, most often from poor to rich.

Moran asserts that his view point is not just the, ' the ‘inevitable unhappy result
of laissez-faire capitalism', but it's what people really really want - "people prefer to live in greater personal space, both internal and external, and detached somewhat from their neighbours."

Issues not adequately addressed by this book* or John Howard:
- the government's promotion of homeownership as a necessity through its first home owners grant.
- the government's concurrent promotion of investment in residential property (through negative gearing).
- the media's general boosting of home ownership through the advertorials accompanying their lucrative property classifieds.
- the impact of increasing petrol prices on the viability of living at the edge of town.
- the responsibility of government to reduce carbon dioxide emission and vehicle pollution. Moran believes 'growing out' means less pollution.
- hidden infrastructure costs (the book states that the infrastructure costs of new suburbs are less than those of adding to the load on existing drainage and sewerage).
- the time wasted in long distance commuting
- the value of the area cars require in cities (usually up to 30% is asphalted)
- the success of the public transportation systems of low density cities like Toronto.

The book does make a few points which make more sense - but they identify other already known issues in planning - for instance the problems of radial cities, and the contradiction between anti-development local planning schemes and state government densification policies.

* Well I've reviewed all the way up to page 25 - I feel a little sick - must be caffeine withdrawl. So I must pass the baton to someone courageous enough to venture beyond page 25. If John Howard and Peter Costello can be bothered skimming it and spruiking it it then it must be worth a read.

http://ipa.org.au/files/MORANPlanning2006.pdf

mark_melb

And architect and Victorian state opposition leaders platform? Open up more land for exurban housing developments.

cardboardbox

Baillieu's policy is so saddenning...

A few years ago there was an article published in the New Yorker in which the writer described his move from Manhattan to a much less dense environment...can't remember where...somewhere green and leafy and slightly rural. He did the environmental impact math on his move and discovered that with the increased transport requirements, heating/cooling a stand alone dwelling as opposed to benefitting from the thermal mass of an apartment building and some other factors which escape me now, he was making a far greater environmental impact in his new 'green' lifestyle than he had been as an urban new yorker...in fact i think the article reached the conclusion that New Yorkers had the least greenhouse gas emissions per capita within the USA.

But our Federal Govt. don't seem to believe in the impact of greenhouse gas emissions...so our state Liberals are evidently following a similar short term and blinkered view.

peter_j

I've just had a look at the Victorian Liberals Metropolitan Planning Policy and it seems a little contradictory, with sound-bites and bullet points to please all. It talks about preserving green wedges yet it also talks about giving local authorities back some control of their urban growth boundaries. I guess that means that the outer boundaries go but the 'wedges' stay. Though it's hard to tell what they mean.

Oh here's a clue...

Urban Growth Boundary
In establishing its new definition of Green Wedge Land the Bracks Government abandoned long standing growth area plans in the Wyndham, South East and Northern corridors. Those growth area plans had guided future growth for more than 20 years. They had also guided the long-term provision of infrastructure. Having retreated from those long term plans, the Bracks Government has resumed a growth strategy in those very same areas and has, through secretive processes, shifted its once immutable Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) toward the original growth area plans. In the process, the price of land within the UGB has skyrocketed. And the processes involved in
moving the UGB have lent themselves to inappropriate influences. Given that a change to the UGB has the potential to significantly affect land value, a UGB change is equivalent to a re-zoning. However, it does not require the same open processes as a
re-zoning. Smart Growth Committees considering changes have met in secret and have considered publicly only general propositions for change. There has been no public process or consultation associated with definitive proposals for change. Ratification of ministerial positions has been rammed through the Parliament without adjournments associated with the usual passage of legislation

A Liberal Government will ensure:
• A comprehensive, independent public review of Melbourne’s metropolitan growth strategy;
• Reinstatement of long-standing growth area plans and realignment of the UGB;
• Establishment of 30 year growth area plans;
• Resumption of traditional re-zoning processes for changes to the UGB;
• Substitution of disallowance provisions for ratification provisions for UGB changes and
• Removal of confidentiality provisions for any future Smart Growth Committees or their
equivalent.

VIC LIBERALS PLANNING STATEMENT - PDF

There are some interesting statements about contemporary (post war) heritage and the role of the government architect but they are a bit off topic for here.

Here's Gabrialla Coslovich with an.. obituary(?) for 2030 in todays Age. She concentrates on developer abuse' of the activity centre idea, and ties increasing density to gentrification - an odd leap.
THE AGE 05.09.06

3am

The latest pro-sprawl rhetoric has nothing to do with planning policy. It's straight politics. See for instance Christopher Pearson's in The Australian last Saturday (2 Sep):

"The outer suburbs are pivotal to the federal election strategies of both the main parties, although you'd never guess it from the way some Labor politicians go out of their way to sneer at McMansions and the people who aspire to live in them."

This is pure electioneering. If Pearson is beating something up it is because it suits the Liberal Party.
Howard and Costello have latched onto the pro-sprawl argument because it is a classic wedge issue. It allows the conservatives to side with the outer-suburban "battlers" against the "inner-subrban elites".

This was Howard yesterday (6 Sep):

“It is about time that the inner-urban elites that dominate the policies of state Labor governments were put aside in the interests of young home buyers who want to have a home of their own on the outer periphery of our great cities.”

This is designed to work like the Tampa "crisis" at the 2001 election and split the progressive environmentalist left from the conservative base of the Labor party.For the government, environmental and planning concerns are beside the point, just as concerns for human rights were beside the point in 2001.

Also, the land release argument distracts from rising interest rates as a cause of high mortgage repayments, allowing the conservatives to shift blame onto Labor state governments.
This is now being done as a coordinated effort right up the east coast. The Vic, NSW and Qld opposition leaders are all using this line of attack in their election campaigns.

Like most of the Howard government's strategies, including the demonisation of "inner-subrban elites" and "latte-sippers", the pro-sprawl stance has been imported straight from the US, where it is being driven in part by reactionary New Urbanist anti-modernists.
In Australia it has been picked up by the IPA, who are right wing anti-environmentalists. These people are global warming denialists and have no credibility on scientific or technical issues. They are only worth reading if you are looking for ways to irritate greenies or lefties.
This week they are hosting Wendell Cox in Perth. Cox will present his latest findings on housing affordability (it is decreasing), and his solutions (more sprawl).

The Moran publications are part of IPA's "Great Australian Dream Project", which is being run by Bob Day. Day owns a housing company in every major Australian city. Apart from his conservative views, his interest in this is primarily to sell houses where they are most profitable for him - in new subdivisions on the suburban fringe.

Counterpoint was also back on message last week, and gave the IPA another plug. Presenter Michael Duffy said Moran's book was "a good report" just before a story that claimed soccer is unpopular in Australia and the US because it is too socialist. I kid you not; you can still get the podcast.