Reimagining Design: Sustainable Solutions Density by Design

Why living closer together might make us more sustainable, healthier and happier too.

S.E.E.: A formula for a foreseeable future

Let's stay with the environmental discussion for a moment. In addition to preserving and protecting ecosystems and natural habitats, the two largest ­ and most significant ­ components related to environmental sustainability are buildings and transportation.

The building initiative is straightforward. Let's re-use buildings and recycle components of buildings that we demolish. Let's be smart about how much energy goes into constructing new buildings; let's focus on materials and building systems that optimize renewable energy sources in both the capital and operating phases of a building's lifecycle. Well-executed site design can reduce storm run-off and reduce heat island effects. This, to my mind, is exciting stuff and bodes well for our future.

On the transportation side, it appears new technologies could reduce the reliance on fossil fuels. Hybrid cars and bio-fuels are already on the market.

But it doesn't matter how impressive new technologies are for personal transportation; we can't afford to use land the way that we currently do.

Current land use patterns are highlighted by follies. We need to make more efficient use of land. We must also look to more compact urban form, reducing the number of trips that individuals and households make in the course of everyday living, There are social, economic, and environmental benefits of doing so.

Compact urban form is environmentally sustainable.

Buildings should be reused and when demolished, their components recycled.

Compact urban form is economically sustainable.

This land use pattern means that a considerable chunk of all municipal budgets goes to providing and maintaining infrastructure. I don't want to give the impression that new development doesn't pay any of the costs of infrastructure to service itself because that isn't true. In fact, in Kelowna, it pays a significant portion of it, although not all of it; the balance is paid by the taxpayer.

Developers also do not pay the costs of other services, that come under pressure as communities grow, such as libraries, recreational and cultural services.

Another way of looking at this scenario is that low density land use also means a loss of revenue to municipalities. The logic is as follows: land assessments within a municipality generate tax revenue. By requiring more roads on which to drive, and more lots on which to park, we create more land area that isn't taxable. Fully 50% of the land area in any municipality is set aside for movement and parking of vehicles, just to give some idea of how much space is non-taxable.

Why not consider an alternative pattern where less land area is used to service vehicle needs? The result would cost less to serve the same population. That is, compact urban form is more efficient from a revenue and service point of view.

New technologies could reduce the reliance of cars on fossil fuels.

The high price of low-density land use.

At least part of the reason we've ended up in a low-density spending situation is the market system. Many of the costs of low-density land use are hidden. They're not out-of-pocket costs paid directly by the consumer; rather, some of the costs are buried in the taxes we pay.

Normally, consumers make decisions about how much of a good or service to buy based on its price. They ask how much it will cost and how much of it they can afford. But economic theory assumes all costs are accounted for in the price of the good or service. In the case of low-density land use, all costs are not accounted for in the purchase price, and the consumer doesn't pay the full cost.

What happens when the price is artificially low? The consumer consumes more of that good or service than if they were required to pay the full price. What I'm saying is that any municipal infrastructure required to serve new low-density residential development, or auto-oriented commercial development is being subsidized by taxpayers.

These costs are not just those of subsidizing infrastructure, but also the environmental costs of, for example, loss of habitat or natural features in a community, visual blight, poor air quality, increased stress and loss of productivity due to time spent driving, increased obesity and diabetes as a result of suburban-oriented lifestyles, and more.. These costs are often unquantifiable and therefore we tend to ignore or downplay their significance.

The market mechanism has been fooling us. If we recognized the full price of low density land use, we'd be behaving much differently, meaning we'd be driving less and making more efficient use of land, both as households and as a society. Part of the problem, then, is not just that we use land inefficiently, but in doing so, we're unaware that the choice we're making is misinformed and that we might be foregoing other choices that have more value.

To the extent that higher-density urban form makes more efficient use of dollars spent on roads and utilities infrastructure, and minimizes a number of social and environmental costs, we can therefore say that it is economically sustainable. It means costs associated with low-density land use don't consume a disproportionate share of tax dollars, thereby precluding the provision of other services to the community.



Low density land use means a loss of revenue to municipalities.

High-density urban form is related to social sustainability.

When does a community have social capital and what does that mean?

An elementary explanation is that social capital means people are connected through a myriad of networks. People know people. Through these networks, whether it's your service club, your children's school, your church, or people you've come to know because you walk your dog in your neighbourhood, these connections offer many positive benefits. These include finding a good price on a product because someone told you about it, finding a job because someone told you about it, a visit from someone when you were sick, a senior who gets to stay longer in her house because neighbours help take care of her yard ­ the list goes on. Social capital means community.

The benefits of social capital are that they create societies that are more tolerant and stable, with lower costs for many services typically delivered by government. These costs include policing and health care. Social capital also means a sense of attachment to a community and a caring for the general welfare of its inhabitants. It can also mean greater creativity within a population, greater resilience and ability to adapt to change.

In theory, social capital means greater psychological health for an urban population. It's the ability to attain and maintain this health for all citizens over the longer-term that I call social sustainability.

Land devoted to box stores and parking increases costs of serving all land uses.

Steps towards fostering greater social capital and social sustainability.

From an urban designer's perspective, we need to look to creating opportunities for people to interact. Certainly, zoning that allows significant densities is necessary to create thriving urban centres. However, high quality public space is also important. We need to create spaces that promote interaction and familiarity and that make people feel physically and psychologically comfortable. We can't do this until we agree not to let cars dominate public streets.

Project for Public Spaces, a non-profit organization based in New York, actively promotes livable urban environments. Check out the website at www.pps.org. This group says that meaningful public space is the most important ingredient in achieving a successful city. International Making Cities Livable (www.livablecities.org), a similar organization devoted to creation of humane urban environments, highlights the importance of public space, noting that a civic life is essential to the well-being of a community. It points to the role of public space in the socialization of children and young people ­ the place where social values are communicated and there is inclusiveness and a high tolerance for varying values and lifestyles.

These spaces are modeled after traditional European cities where commerce, particularly food and drink, play a key role ­ where the focus isn't on consumption, but on socialization. North American malls are in fact the antithesis of this model as is any auto-oriented lifestyle.

In a perfect world, less tax would be spent on funding roads, utility infrastructure and environmental clean-up and more would be spent on creating livable public space, that is, on urban design. Higher quality exterior finishes, public art, landscaped boulevards and street trees are just a few of the components of highly functioning public space that can be achieved by compact urban form.

Combined with higher residential densities that result from compact urban form, well-designed, decently-funded public spaces become the life-blood of the community, pulsing with activity, passion, creativity, and a sense of self-worth in an often confusing world.

Zoning that allows significant densities is necessary to create thriving urban centres.

The holistic urban environment is the key to the future.

Patrick McCormick works in municipal government. He has undergraduate degrees in business and economics and a master's degree in architecture. He considers urban design to be a discipline where planning and architecture merge; where the prime focus should be on the creation of a meaningful public realm that promotes human interaction, understanding, and cultural expression.

Copyright © 2008 Wheat King Publishing and the authors. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be copied or reprinted without the written consent of the publisher. The opinions expressed in Okanagan Home are those of the writers and editors, and do not represent the official position of the Canadian Home Builders' Association, Central Okanagan, or of its members.