Melbourne and Sydney could be heading for between eight and ten million people each by 2050.
We are failing to manage this growth by not building sustainable, resilient communities. Indeed, we are at the point where we risk leaving a disastrous legacy for future generations.
Good town planning is often not perceived as a high priority social justice issue in wider society. This may be because issues such as homelessness, income inequality and carbon emissions are considered more immediate, pressing issues. However, good town planning underpins so many of these environmental and social justice issues that ignoring it would be a major setback for creating long-term sustainable, low-carbon communities.
Professor Peter Newman at Curtin University has described our outer suburbs as the “slums of the future” due to their car dependency and vulnerability to oil shocks. Many Australian outer suburbs are also vulnerable as they often rely on the inner-city for employment opportunities and essential services. His solution is to build upwards, not outwards, by means of urban consolidation.
However, this fix has shown to be problematic. Professor Bill Randolph of the City Futures Research Centre at University of New South Wales has described most of the new higher-density developments in inner-city areas as “vertical slums” due to the very poor quality in which many are built, especially as they are aimed at investors and short-term renters rather than providing quality long-term homes.
The truth is that we are building both new outer suburban and high-rise slums in our capital cities at unprecedented rates and the scale is staggering. Melbourne alone will need two million extra residences by 2050. Due to this ongoing urban sprawl, the city’s food bowl could decline from 41 per cent of its current self-sufficiency to 18 per cent by 2050.
There have been so many skyscraper approvals in Melbourne’s CBD in recent years that the density in Melbourne’s centre is higher than the legal limits in Hong Kong or New York — and many town planners predict it will continue to grow. The building standards in Victoria are low by world standards, and many apartments are fitted with potential safety issues such as flammable cladding, imported asbestos and other cost-saving materials.
It costs a lot to house a city that is growing on average by almost 100,000 people per year. It has been estimated that – if national growth predictions are correct – infrastructure costs may amount to at least half a trillion dollars of the Federal budget over the next 40 years. Australia is currently five years behind in the infrastructure required by its current population and needs, which includes schools, hospitals, TAFEs, neighbourhood houses and so on. It is predicted that the Victorian State Government will invest so much in road infrastructure over the next 20 years that there will be precious little for much else — certainly not public transport, which is currently at peak capacity. Most other states are experiencing similar crises with their infrastructure budgets.
It should not be a surprise that big business mostly will not foot the infrastructure bill. Long gone are the days when property developers were required to input infrastructure costs when designing new suburbs. In the United States, for example, prior to WWII, it was a requirement for property developers to build new tram lines whenever they built new suburbs. These days, the public funds new infrastructure projects either through toll roads, rising utility bills or by exponentially rising house prices.
Town planning and inequality
Otherwise, infrastructure costs are paid by our taxes at the expense of other services, such as schooling, health and social services. Of course, property developers and big businesses reap the rewards through ever-rising house prices, propped up by tax incentives such as negative gearing. Given that an entire generation of young people is being priced out of the housing market, current town planning practices are further cementing a future of inequality between haves and have-nots.
There is an environmental cost too. It takes a lot of resources and mining to pour concrete over our food bowls and the impact to local animal and wildlife has been devastating — and will continue to be so.
Good, sustainable town planning results in communities that are permeable and walkable, with easy access to services, jobs, public transport and natural green spaces. These communities offer a variety of housing options, such as medium density townhouses or larger family dwellings to cater for the fact that people have different housing needs and that individuals’ needs change over the course of their lives. Good designs do not create a dichotomy of high-rise vs sprawl, nor do they rapidly demolish existing housing stock, as this creates displacement within communities.
Ideally, new buildings would be designed for high-energy efficiency, be built from sustainable materials, have affordable access to solar panels and rainwater tanks and include co-housing options. There are occasional examples of these initiatives already in our capital cities: Melbourne has The Commons in Brunswick (an eco-friendly high-rise in the inner city) and Murundaka (suburban co-housing). While it’s great they exist, the tragedy is that they are the exception and not the norm and when they do exist, they are often appropriated by developers as an excuse to raise prices and make these places exclusive.
The reality is that unsustainable town planning processes will continue as long as the main drive behind their construction is profit. Why bother putting effort into your investment property when you know it will double in value anyway? Both negative gearing and population stressors on housing supply will make this possible.
Solving our town planning issues
What are the answers? Town planning is a very complex issue and there are as many ideas to solve our issues as there are town planners. These include tiny houses, co-housing communities, permaculture villages — the list goes on. I believe change is not possible without the following:
- Significant changes to the following policies: political donations, negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions. This would mitigate the lobbying power interest groups have toward government policies on town planning. This includes property developers, the banking sector and individuals of high-existing wealth and capital in the property market.
- Increase the power of local government so that communities are empowered to influence town planning decisions within their own jurisdictions.
- Town planning policies in which minimum standard practice includes sustainable housing design, co-housing options, as well as access to public transport nodes, natural green spaces, and community services and gardens.
- A society that is less focused on “jobs and growth”, and more focused on creating resilient communities that are self-sufficient and contribute, rather than complicate, a path towards a low carbon future. To do so, we will need to have some tough conversations, including a discussion on population policy. It is very difficult to build indefinitely for a country that could be heading towards 42 million people by 2050 and 70 million by 2100, with no endpoint on the horizon. At the very least, population policy should not be influenced by the lobbying influence of big businesses.
Town planning design plays a significant role in the way we live and how we interact with our community and environment. Therefore, good (or bad) town planning decisions have an ongoing effect on many other social justice issues.
Written by Michael Bayliss
Michael Bayliss has been active within environmental and post-growth movements over the past decade. He co-founded Population Permaculture and Planning (PPP) in 2015 as a means to communicate the critical role that town planning plays in the move towards future sustainable communities. PPP has since delivered workshops to activists and environmentalists across Australia. Michael has been involved with Sustainable Population Australia since 2013, in such roles as Victoria and Tasmania branch president and currently as national communications manager.
(This article was originally published 18/02/2018 for Independent Australia titled: Growth, infrastructure and town planning: Cementing a sustainable future)
Published by Redlands2030 – 6 July 2019
Please note: Offensive or off-topic comments will be deleted. If offended by any published comment please email thereporter@redlands2030.net
9 Comments
I would love to catch up with Michael Bayliss to discuss how we can encourage Redland City Council to maintain some Redland soil areas for food growing. Subdivision design has changed little in the time I have been a surveyor with little imagination in how we design our open spaces. Resilient and sustainable community neighbourhoods would develop around small open spaces (1-3 lot size) when distributed throughout a subdivision instead of the large tracts of grassed areas on the fringes of neighbourhoods which poorly service intense housing densities. Open spaces are then within sight of the individual house lots attracting residents to these, allowing small market gardens and creating and strengthening communities to spend more time in their neighbourhood. The usual swings and BBQ’s can have added benefit of inter family activities.
Hi Dave, thanks for your insights. Agreed in that shared open community space is essential for building community, relationships, neighbourhoods. Please feel free to contact me anytime on spamediacm@gmail.com thank you
Yes, all true Michael, particularly with respect the need for a population policy – one that stabilises population. If we are to avoid slums of the future in outer suburbia and high-rise slums of the inner city, then clearly we cannot keep growing. Add the very present problem of climate change and the situation becomes urgent. Paving over food growing areas is potentially disastrous in a world where rising sea levels will flood coastal rivers, taking their flood plains out of production. Our attention should be making the transition away from fossil fuels to renewables to help mitigate climate change, but that in turn requires changes in town-planning. We need medium-density housing close to public transport routes. Even if we all moved to electric vehicles tomorrow, we still need roads and they (paved ones certainly) are the problem.
Hi Jenny,
Agree with your comments whereby our Council is removing good food growing soils from circulation. Small lot housing and market garden spaces can co-exist and developers can still make a dollar but it takes willing planners at State and local government level to have a little more vision.
A refreshing article about planning, which is proving to be a failed and failing profession. Planners need to plan for people and communities rather than the ‘stakeholders” that are wedded to the proceeds of development.
Not sure about the emphasis on local government in planning, both levels of government (State and Local) what is needed is planning needs to be guided by and respond to the community and community values.
I like Mr Edwards idea for Redlands2030 to take a lead….no one else will!
Thanks to Michael Bayliss for pursuing these issues since 2013. The article could have been given a Queensland aspect seen in “A climate for Growth:Planning South East Queensland “2010, the Harbinger Report ,on Public Consultation 2011 and the draconian Qld Planning Acts 2016-17. The article was written in early 2018 but some of the phenomena have been missed and some of the article issues have morphed and gone exponential . Some of the misses are Rob Pynes listing of corrupt councils in Hansard, Lack of Public Participation (PDAs and EDQ s $1.2 Billion Infrastructure Agreement with Logan City Council),Lack of Law Reform, LGAQ ‘s $300M monopoly of 77 Councils with 5 Companies, the impacts of Jackie Trads gutted SEQ Regional Plan and Planning Acts putting residents and the Environment at risk. The demise of Environmental Assessment in Qld( $4.5M in Offsets, 3 levels of Government mapping trashed by consultants,No Koala Surveys, and few environmental referrals to DNRME,DES or DEE by SARA) and lack of Metro and Regional Open Space were also missed. Issues in the article which have morphed include Migration escalating from 500,000 arrivals in 2017-18 to 844,00 arrivals in 2019 and 2.3M sitting on Temporary Visas. This is affecting the Biodiversity Values of the East Coast Forests of Australia(Williams et al 2011) The rate of clearing in SEQ is the same , but Core habitat and koala corridors and Biodiversity Hotspots have gone at Coomera ,Logan ,Ipswich and all over the Sunshine Coast, but another 70,000 ha could go in the Urban Footprint. RSPCA Native animal admissions have unsustainably trebled in 3 years to 24,000 per year because of roading and clearing.. The Power of the State continues to rise with more PDAs, the $1.2Billion Infrastructure Agreement in Logan for 40×4 lane roads without Notification,Public Consultation or EIS, and mandatory little boxes rezonings and CODE Approvals escalating in SEQ. Serious Independent mapping of vegetation , Koala Habitat ,Threatened Species Habitat ,Climate Change Refugia and Category X vegetation needs doing.(not modelling) All of this has Town Planning Threads being absolutely trashed at 3 levels of Government.
Without mentioning any names I can tell you that some of our councillors who are involved in decisions with regard to small lot housing, live on acreage in the Redlands. Do you think they would vote for the sort of small lot housing now evident in Thornlands (see above photo) if this was proposed next to their land? Not bloody likely. Small lot housing leads to ghettoes and brings down the market value of surrounding properties. No one wants to live in or beside a ghetto. So the question arises – Why are developers given the go ahead to construct such small lot housing on both sides of the already congested Boundary Road as we drive from the big round-a-bout at Victoria Point towards Thornlands?
Well said, Michael Bayliss.
Now would be opportune for Redlands 2030 to step out with other like-minded bodies into your fourth arena and hold some signature event to put this critique on the public agenda. Now that the poor quality of apartment buildings is in the news.
To your four “answers” I would add “Counter the Murdoch press”, which repeatedly pours scorn on “green tape”, the “regulatory burden” and environmentalists. Time to pour some public scorn on their columnists.