05/08/06, Jack Diamond, We have the cure. Where's the courage?
Post
The costs of low-density development are simply too high, says architect Jack Diamond.
Suburban development has become the predominant form of growth in urban Canada, as this week's Globe and Mail series has illustrated. But what about the wider consequences of this form of low-density growth? We microscopically analyze the cost and effectiveness of our health and education systems, and yet only the vaguest of analyses are made of the cost and effectiveness of our cities or urban configurations. At the end of the day, this could be of even greater social and economic importance than health care and education combined.
We have such dysfunctional funding systems that the engines of our economy — cities — while producing large tax revenues, see insufficient amounts returned by the upper tiers of government. Not surprisingly, this undermines the very economic engines on which provincial and federal governments depend. The mayors of Canadian cities would have the federal government return more of the tax bounty, and have provincial governments assume more of the social welfare costs borne by cities.
However, for Ottawa to simply channel a greater proportion of tax revenue to the cities is not the answer, either. For the truth is that the manner in which most urban development is occurring constitutes a profligate waste of land and infrastructure. Current development patterns also exacerbate social problems; indeed, they foster social disintegration that is particularly relevant with Canada's heterogeneous sources of population growth.
Most new urban growth occurs on the perimeter of urban centres, and does so at densities that render residents of those areas automobile-dependent — such low densities make public transit uneconomic. Paradoxically, this also means that significant sectors of the population are rendered immobile. Those who don't own cars, or who are too young or old to drive, have no alternative means of transportation. Automobile dependency also acts as a social centrifuge, segregating land use and socio-economic groupings into discernibly distinct areas. Indeed, urban poverty is now centred in suburban growth, where it is largely invisible, distant from inaccessible, but desperately needed jobs, social services and retail facilities. The rioting in Paris suburbs is an instance of the results of this festering, but unrecognized, problem.
There are other consequences, too: Retail concentration in shopping malls does little to encourage small, start-up enterprises that the more mixed and individually owned Main Streets foster.
Most significantly, the cost of providing services to such areas exceeds the tax revenue derived from low-density development. In an analysis of one such area in Southwestern Ontario, it was found that for every dollar received in real-estate tax, $1.40 was needed to service such low-density development.
This form of urban development has been made possible, and indeed encouraged, by two factors.
The first is what amounts to subsidies that land speculators and low-density developers receive from provincial and federal governments in the form of highway construction, and the provision of trunk-line sewers, water supply and other services. The burden of this cost is not borne by the beneficiaries, but by all taxpayers.
The second factor has been the low cost of oil and gasoline, which has, in the past, made automobile travel cheap. But the amount of fossil fuels in the world is known and finite. We have now passed the peak of oil production. There will be no turning back — oil will only rise in cost as it becomes more scarce and more costly to extract. Essentially, this will render suburban development as we know it obsolete.
So, what can be done to change current development trends? And will those who have the power to initiate such change do so before it is too late?
The means to make these changes is first to institute full-cost pricing. Let the market forces exert their logic: If each increment of suburban growth were to bear the full unit-cost of expressways, trunk water supply and other services, the market would adjust to more appropriate urban forms. That this would create densities capable of supporting public transit, creating a richer mix of land uses, would be an added benefit to affordable development.
Nowadays, development occurs at the extremes of density — either vast expanses of single or semi-detached housing (and low-density commercial uses), or high rise/high density condominiums. There is a wide variety of satisfying housing in between these two extremes, from town houses and duplex dwelling to low-rise apartment buildings of about six to eight storeys. Ingenuity, when confronted with necessity, will out.
The second means to bring about change is for governments to set performance standards for the infrastructure. Imagine a situation where, instead of distributing infrastructure funds across the country, regardless of the effects of the funding or even the quality of the urban development, funds went to those who would build sustainable communities, effective in social, physical and economic dimensions. Imagine building on this excellence in a manner that would buttress our society in an inclusive manner, one that would plan for the inevitable change wrought by scarce and expensive fossil fuels, rather than belatedly reacting to crisis once it is upon us.
Such a system has been operating successfully elsewhere in Canada — consider the Canada Foundation for Innovation that funds research infrastructure. Only those institutions with convincing research programs, qualified researchers and the facilities to undertake the work are given the funds to do so.
It is clear that what we are doing is unaffordable, socially divisive and physically defective. It is equally clear what we should do to improve this state of affairs. Which government or political party has the courage to show the necessary leadership?
A.J. Diamond is a principal of Diamond and Schmitt Architects Inc. He was a commissioner of the Greater Toronto Task Force that made recommendations on governance, taxation, land use and transportation for the GTA.
Suburban development has become the predominant form of growth in urban Canada, as this week's Globe and Mail series has illustrated. But what about the wider consequences of this form of low-density growth? We microscopically analyze the cost and effectiveness of our health and education systems, and yet only the vaguest of analyses are made of the cost and effectiveness of our cities or urban configurations. At the end of the day, this could be of even greater social and economic importance than health care and education combined.
We have such dysfunctional funding systems that the engines of our economy — cities — while producing large tax revenues, see insufficient amounts returned by the upper tiers of government. Not surprisingly, this undermines the very economic engines on which provincial and federal governments depend. The mayors of Canadian cities would have the federal government return more of the tax bounty, and have provincial governments assume more of the social welfare costs borne by cities.
However, for Ottawa to simply channel a greater proportion of tax revenue to the cities is not the answer, either. For the truth is that the manner in which most urban development is occurring constitutes a profligate waste of land and infrastructure. Current development patterns also exacerbate social problems; indeed, they foster social disintegration that is particularly relevant with Canada's heterogeneous sources of population growth.
Most new urban growth occurs on the perimeter of urban centres, and does so at densities that render residents of those areas automobile-dependent — such low densities make public transit uneconomic. Paradoxically, this also means that significant sectors of the population are rendered immobile. Those who don't own cars, or who are too young or old to drive, have no alternative means of transportation. Automobile dependency also acts as a social centrifuge, segregating land use and socio-economic groupings into discernibly distinct areas. Indeed, urban poverty is now centred in suburban growth, where it is largely invisible, distant from inaccessible, but desperately needed jobs, social services and retail facilities. The rioting in Paris suburbs is an instance of the results of this festering, but unrecognized, problem.
There are other consequences, too: Retail concentration in shopping malls does little to encourage small, start-up enterprises that the more mixed and individually owned Main Streets foster.
Most significantly, the cost of providing services to such areas exceeds the tax revenue derived from low-density development. In an analysis of one such area in Southwestern Ontario, it was found that for every dollar received in real-estate tax, $1.40 was needed to service such low-density development.
This form of urban development has been made possible, and indeed encouraged, by two factors.
The first is what amounts to subsidies that land speculators and low-density developers receive from provincial and federal governments in the form of highway construction, and the provision of trunk-line sewers, water supply and other services. The burden of this cost is not borne by the beneficiaries, but by all taxpayers.
The second factor has been the low cost of oil and gasoline, which has, in the past, made automobile travel cheap. But the amount of fossil fuels in the world is known and finite. We have now passed the peak of oil production. There will be no turning back — oil will only rise in cost as it becomes more scarce and more costly to extract. Essentially, this will render suburban development as we know it obsolete.
So, what can be done to change current development trends? And will those who have the power to initiate such change do so before it is too late?
The means to make these changes is first to institute full-cost pricing. Let the market forces exert their logic: If each increment of suburban growth were to bear the full unit-cost of expressways, trunk water supply and other services, the market would adjust to more appropriate urban forms. That this would create densities capable of supporting public transit, creating a richer mix of land uses, would be an added benefit to affordable development.
Nowadays, development occurs at the extremes of density — either vast expanses of single or semi-detached housing (and low-density commercial uses), or high rise/high density condominiums. There is a wide variety of satisfying housing in between these two extremes, from town houses and duplex dwelling to low-rise apartment buildings of about six to eight storeys. Ingenuity, when confronted with necessity, will out.
The second means to bring about change is for governments to set performance standards for the infrastructure. Imagine a situation where, instead of distributing infrastructure funds across the country, regardless of the effects of the funding or even the quality of the urban development, funds went to those who would build sustainable communities, effective in social, physical and economic dimensions. Imagine building on this excellence in a manner that would buttress our society in an inclusive manner, one that would plan for the inevitable change wrought by scarce and expensive fossil fuels, rather than belatedly reacting to crisis once it is upon us.
Such a system has been operating successfully elsewhere in Canada — consider the Canada Foundation for Innovation that funds research infrastructure. Only those institutions with convincing research programs, qualified researchers and the facilities to undertake the work are given the funds to do so.
It is clear that what we are doing is unaffordable, socially divisive and physically defective. It is equally clear what we should do to improve this state of affairs. Which government or political party has the courage to show the necessary leadership?
A.J. Diamond is a principal of Diamond and Schmitt Architects Inc. He was a commissioner of the Greater Toronto Task Force that made recommendations on governance, taxation, land use and transportation for the GTA.
Home