Page 1547 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 12 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Discussion so far has centred on the financial gain to be made from such policies, but is this a valid argument in itself? Professor Patrick Troy recently wrote a paper he called "The New Feudalism", which looked at the various arguments put forward in favour of urban renewal. He attacked the idea that higher housing densities would lead to economies in infrastructure and land as ignoring the fact that recent research has shown that only a small proportion of urban land is used for residential purposes, and to achieve significant savings planners would have to contract services as well.
He also argues, and I feel it is a valid point, that higher population densities mean greater demands on water, sewerage and energy infrastructure, and that, while there are opportunity costs in renewing these services and at the same time increasing capacity, these are not great savings. Professor Troy also points out that in many inner urban areas schools and other facilities have been closed and resources diverted as the population mix of suburbs changes. This is particularly pertinent to the debate on urban infill in Canberra, as the inner northern suburbs which have been targeted for urban renewal have lost two schools in recent times and would perhaps require either new infrastructure or a review of the ACT's neighbourhood school concept and new transport arrangements to accommodate the increase in population. The claim that the road infrastructure is in place and would not incur extra cost is also questionable, given that by increasing the population in a private vehicle oriented city such as Canberra there would be a resultant increase in traffic and subsequent accelerated breakdown of the pavement surface.
Let me now turn to environmental considerations. Professor Troy - and I acknowledge my indebtedness to his paper - mentions environmental considerations in some detail. Firstly, he says that claims of reduced car usage because of closeness to existing public transport infrastructure are at best only half met by the models. His second point addresses the issue of household waste. Professor Troy points out that in the traditional home on a block - not a quarter acre, but more likely 700 square metres - more organic waste can be composted on site than in medium density dwellings. This is only one part of the process. People will not compost organic material unless there are ways to use the resultant compost. Balcony gardens and small patches of space do not lend themselves to the effort needed to compost materials and then use the end product.
The problem of increased pressure on stormwater channels is also pointed out, and Professor Troy says that the traditional house and land offer more opportunity for the reduction of run-off. With the increases in water charges, decreased allowances and higher excess water charges, this has been topical. While the measures outlined by Professor Troy may not be widely used at present, they argue the case that increased housing densities, while they may lower water consumption by restricting the garden area available per dwelling, will put added pressure on stormwater outlets.
Professor Troy also says that the increased density of housing reduces the density of trees, which in the inner Canberra suburbs would remove one of the major attractions of our environment. Trees are recognised as important in reducing the impact of greenhouse gases and should be encouraged to grow. Professor Troy argues that this can be best achieved in a traditional suburban garden. In addition, he points out that traditional housing needs less sound insulation, is generally less noise polluting and gives people more opportunities to use solar energy.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .