GEOG 352 – ENVIRONMENTAL GEOGRAPHY
Essay
Assignment:
Discuss the claim that a compact city form will contribute to urban sustainability.
Joshua Arbury – 2522603
Lab Time: Wednesday 10-11am
In recent years city planners, developers and policymakers have
increasingly looked towards designing a more ‘compact city’ in order to achieve
a more sustainable urban form. There are many perceived benefits of the compact
city over ‘urban sprawl’, which include: less car dependency thus lower emissions,
reduced energy consumption, better public transport services, increased overall
accessibility, the re-use of infrastructure and previously developed land, a
rejuvenation of existing urban areas and urban vitality, a higher quality of
life, the preservation of green space, and the creation of a milieu for
enhanced business and trading activities. (Thomas and Cousins, 1996) As
‘sustainable development’ relies upon the combination of economic, social and
environmental elements, it is important for the compact city to show
improvements across all three spheres and for most, if not all of the perceived
benefits listed above to become a reality. Unfortunately for proponents of the
compact city model, in-depth research has shown that simply employing policies
to stimulate compact city style development will not necessarily lead to
sustainability of the urban environment. In this essay, I will argue that the
compact city model is necessary, but not sufficient for sustainability, and
that “some aspects of intensification, in some places, have contributed to
sustainability, whilst others have clearly not,” (Williams, 2000: 44).
The concern with
sustainable development, or sustainability, has grown enormously in the last 15
years. Following the publication of the World Commission on Environment and
Development’s (WCED) Our Common Future in 1987, which introduced the
idea of sustainable development, there has been a focus around the world to
pursue policies seen as ‘sustainable’. Defined by the WCED, sustainable development
is: development designed “to ensure that it meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs.” (WCED, 1987: 8). It is clear that many, if not all cities throughout
the world are functioning in highly unsustainable ways at present. It has been
estimated that London requires 50 million acres of land to sustain its
population – the food and timber requirements as well as the vegetation
necessary to absorb carbon dioxide emissions. This area is roughly 125 times
the actual surface, a vivid example of how unsustainable a city can be.
(Williams et. al., 2000) Unrestrained economic development throughout the
‘developed world’ has led to unsustainable levels of resource use, and
increasingly inequitable lifestyles. The effects of this unsustainable
lifestyle are felt not only in the developed world, but are exported to
developing countries due to the unfair share of resources used by developed
nations. This has led to a growing gap between rich and poor nations, resulting
in increasingly unsustainable development. As Williams et. al. (2000: 2)
conclude, “it is clear that cities in developed countries are not functioning
in a sustainable way. They are using more than their fair share of resources and
producing too much pollution.”
The ‘solution’ to the
unsustainable nature of cities throughout the world has been frequently
referred to as making these cities more ‘compact’, to make better use of the
resources currently available. Many planners and policymakers believe that
“sustainable communities are places that exhibit a compact urban form.”
(Beatley, 1995: 384) However, there is debate about the very definition of a
‘compact city’, and in particular what policies need to be undertaken to achieve
urban compaction, let alone whether these particular policies in fact do
contribute to sustainability. According to Breheny (2001: 39) “policies of
urban compaction involve the promotion of urban regeneration, the revitalisation of town centers, restraint on
development in rural areas, higher densities, mixed-use development, promotion
of public transport and the concentration of urban development at public
transport nodes.” Researchers such as Gordon and Richardson (1997) have
renounced many of these policies as being uneconomic, and against the wishes of
the general population who have characterized the twentieth century by a
rejection of inner city living, and the invention of suburbia. The nature of
intensification is also important; while development in mixed-use town centers
is usually perceived to have a positive effect, especially if landscaping and
urban design improvements are subsequently implemented, infill housing
developments in residential suburbs are frequently perceived as being of poor
quality and therefore having a detrimental effect on the environment, and
sustainability in general.
As sustainability
requires a combination of environmental, social and economic improvements it is
important to discover whether the claims of the compact city model can be
substantiated. Possibly the least explored, but potentially most important
aspect of the compact city model is whether or not it contributes to social
equity and a higher quality of living. As Elkin et. al. (1991: 203) importantly
point out, “sustainable development involves more than just environmental
conversation; it embraces the need for equity. Both intra-generational equity
providing for the needs of the least advantaged in society, and
inter-generational equity, ensuring a fair treatment of future generations need
to be considered.” From empirical research conducted by Burton (2000) it
appears that there is a positive link between city compactness and social
equity, although no definitive answer. Many variables prevent any clear conclusions
from being made. In many cases equality rather than equity is enhanced, and
therefore the absolute position of the poor does not improve, even though some
improvement about their relative position is evident. Moreover, the influence
of the compact city on social equity depends upon the form it takes, while
cities with a large proportion of high-density housing in the form of terraces
and flats combined with a large quantity of locally provided services and
facilities had the highest levels of social equity, in other areas such as
residential infill housing there is little evidence of any improvements in
social equity. Many factors contributed to social equity other than urban
design. Socio-economic and ethnic factors are important agents for social equity
that often operate completely independently from the city’s ‘compactness’.
Therefore “the research provides evidence to support the view that the compact
city may support social equity, but only if it is implemented in such a
way that maximizes the benefits and ameliorates that potential problems.”
(Burton, 2000: 29)
Another related claim
of the compact city’s advocates is that urban intensification improves a city’s
vibrancy and culture, and leads to a sense of community, local identity and
safety. This claim has been strongly challenged by researchers, who have
discovered that any findings generally vary between mixed-use centers and
residential suburbs – with town centers offering more cultural and
entertainment facilities, because of the concentration of retail and employment
activities. (Williams, 2000) Simply linking an increase or decrease in urban
vibrancy to intensification or decentralization ignores many other factors that
may play an even more important role, changes in social behavior or increasing
affluence could be seen as playing a more important role in an increase in the
number or restaurants, bars and clubs than urban density. In suburban areas,
the link between intensification and a sense of community, local identity and
safety is largely negative. Intensification has often led to a decrease in the
number of home-owning families in the area, replaced by small households,
sharers or single-person households. Higher densities has meant more neighbors,
as well as neighbors of increasingly diverse socio-economic backgrounds which
has led to a loss of local identity or a sense of community. In terms of
improving a sense of safety, this appears to have been most successful in town
centers, where a higher densities and redevelopment have led to a greater sense
of safety due to security cameras, increased policing and the concentration of
entertainment facilities in the town center. However, in residential suburbs
the sense of safety has declined, as residents felt safer when they knew more
of their neighbors, even though increased density claims to improve
surveillance due to more people being in public spaces.
In the socio-economic
spheres, the influence of compact cities on sustainability has been mixed. The
rejuvenation of existing urban structures as well as urban vitality seems to be
just as reliant upon independent factors as they are on urban density, while
quality of life and social equity are highly dependent on the particular form
of intensification undertaken. To generalize, it appears that the compact city
model has a more positive socio-economic impact in inner-city areas or town
centers, where perceived safety has improved as well as the profitability of
business and trading activities (such as entertainment facilities, restaurants,
bars and clubs), although once again this may be the result of other factors.
In contrast, any intensification in the residential suburbs appears to have had
a negative socio-economic impact, as there has been a loss of local identity or
any real sense of community as well as a loss of perceived safety.
One of the strongest
arguments for the compact city model, in the opinion of its advocates, is the
theory that a compact city will reduce the need to travel, and will increase
the feasibility of public transport, thus reducing emissions and contributing
to environmental sustainability. According to Roger and Burdett (2001: 9) “the
more you move away from a town center the less efficient services become.
Public transport becomes either more expensive or more scarce (or both), sewers
and rubbish collection become inefficient.” They believe that high-density
environments can provide the critical mass necessary to make public services
work more efficiently. However, the results of empirical testing by a number of
researchers (Breheny, 2001 and Williams, 2000 among them) linking higher
densities with a reduced number of trips made by cars have proved less than
conclusive. Any significant switch to public transport has been found to
require significantly higher densities than currently evident in suburbs, while
other factors such as gasoline prices have proved to be just as important as
urban density in determining the transport mode used by residents. The type of
trip undertaken by residents also influences the impact of intensification,
while short trips to local employment or shopping may decrease; there is no
evidence that urban density will have any impact upon those seeking specialized
employment or a different shopping experience and/or leisure pursuit. Growth in
car ownership as well as increasingly diffuse life patterns are considerable
factors that have led to the inability to reduce travel demands of energy-rich
modes of transport, and it seems that changes outside the realm of planning
through education or culture change will be required to influence travel
patterns at a sustained level. (Williams, 2000)
Possibly the most
successful argument for compact cities is that urban intensification represents
the most sustainable use of land. The desire to retain rural and agricultural
land and to re-use urban land for development indeed does represent a far more
sustainable use of land than urban sprawl. The use of ‘brownfield’ sites for
development rather than the urban fringe is clearly beneficial as it not only
conserves the valuable countryside, but also potentially regenerates the
inner-city areas, some of which had become semi-abandoned in the
post-industrial era. De Roo (2000: 152) argues that this is the crux of the
issue, as “the compact city is most of all a spatial concept with the intention
of intensifying the use of urban space ‘as much as possible’, thereby improving
the quality of urban life and sparing the countryside.” However, he also argues
that the compact city is likely to have a detrimental effect upon the
environment in the city, as the result of an ‘environmental clash’ between
housing, industry and traffic that can no longer be solved through the
traditional methods of placing distance between ‘environmentally intrusive
activities’ and ‘environmentally sensitive areas’ through zoning. As a result
of its mixed-use and compaction ideologies “the compact city policy makes it
difficult to solve environmental conflicts by keeping a sufficient distance
between intrusive forces and environmentally sensitive areas, activities and
functions.” (de Roo, 2000: 154) The impact of intensification policies on the
urban landscape is a highly debatable subject, and is critically important to
the overall sustainability of the compact city, as the unsustainable nature of
the city might just be shifted from the urban fringe to the central city.
The potential loss of
greenery in towns has been identified a sign that compact cities are not in
fact contributing to sustainability. In
London, this fear has been justified to some extent, especially in suburban
areas that have experienced intensification, as “backland and infill
development had meant the loss of trees and shrubs in gardens and public
spaces.” (Williams, 2000: 36) In more densely populated areas it has generally
been found that more stringent regulation governing the removal of trees and
shrubs has led to a reduced impact – to the extent that some inner-city suburbs
in London have the same percentage of green-space as those on the urban fringe.
(Williams, 2000) The impact of intensification on the built environment is also
spatially varied, as in some areas (particularly mixed-use town centers)
development has been seen to be done in a tasteful manner and therefore has had
a positive effect one the city; while in other areas (typically residential
suburbs that have experienced infill housing), “new development has been on
such a large scale, or of such poor quality and design that it has had all the
opposite effects of disfiguring cities.” (Williams, 2000: 37) Unsurprisingly,
the impact of intensification on the built environment is greatly dependent
upon how it is managed, and that if landscaping and planting are given priority
by developers and planners from the outset, any loss of amenity value is not inevitable.
In a similar scenario to the socio-economic impacts of the ‘compact
city’ model, any environmental effects, either positive or negative, are varied
depending on location as well as other variables unrelated to urban density. It
also appears that the best results of intensification can be found in city or
town centers rather than the residential suburbs. The method of intensification
also has a profound influence on whether sustainability is being achieved or
not, and careful planning and design is essential for any form of
intensification to ‘work’. The lack of a correlation between urban density and
reduced traffic flows is damaging to the ‘compact city’ argument as it can be
seen as of critical importance to sustainability that fuel emissions be
reduced. In summary, the ‘rush’ by planners and policymakers to adopt ‘compact
city’ policies seems to be based solely upon a very narrow conception of
sustainability – that of solely environmental sustainability and finding the
most sustainable way to use land. For more comprehensive correlations to be
made between intensification and sustainability a wider perspective needs to be
employed, and problems surrounding socio-economic, and amenity value aspects of
sustainability need to be addressed. This is, of course, an incredibly
difficult proposition, and therefore means that this debate should continue
well into the future.
LIST OF REFERENCES:
Beatley, T. (1995) “Planning and Sustainability: the elements of a new
(improved?) Paradigm.” Journal of Planning Literature, 9, pp.383-395.
Breheny, M. (2001) “Densities and Sustainable Cities: the UK
experience.” in M. Echenique and A. Saint (eds.) Cities for the New
Millennium, London. pp. 39-51.
Burton, E. (2000) “The Potential of the
Compact City for Promoting Social Equity.” in K. Williams, E. Burton and M.
Jenks (eds.) Achieving Sustainable Urban Form, London.
pp. 19-29.
de Roo, G. (2000) “Environmental Conflicts in
Compact Cities: complexities, decision making, and policy approaches.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 27. pp.
151-162
Elkin, T., McLaren, D. and Hillman, M. (1991)
Reviving the City: towards sustainable urban development, London.
Gordon, P. and Richardson, H.W. (1997) “Are
Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal?” Journal of the
American Planning Association, 63. pp. 95-106.
Rogers, R. and Burdett, R. “Let’s Cram More
into the City.” in M. Echenique and A. Saint (eds.) Cities for the New
Millennium, London, pp. 9-15.
Thomas, L. and Cousins W. (1996) “The Compact
City: a successful, desirable and achievable urban form?” in M. Jenks, E.
Burton and K. Williams (eds.) The Compact City: a sustainable
urban form? London, pp.53-65.
Williams, K., Burton E. and Jenks, M. (2000) Achieving Sustainable Urban Form (Introduction), London.
Williams, K. (2000) “Does Intensifying Cities
Make Them More Sustainable?” in K. Williams, E. Burton and M. Jenks (eds.) Achieving Sustainable Urban Form, London, pp. 30-45.
World Commission on Environment and
Development, (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford.