Compact and Sustainable Communities

By
Pastor C. Paa, Jr.

Urban planning is a technical and political process concerned with the welfare of people, control of the use of land, design of the urban environment including transportation and communication networks, and protection and enhancement of the natural environment1. It integrates land use and transportation to improve the quality of life for each individual in the community economically and socially by creating compact and sustainable communities.

Land use and its effects on the environment is now becoming a major concern not only in Canada but also around the world. Climate change and pollution are two of the major problems brought about by ineffective urban planning and land use.

So how does land use affect climate change and the sustainability of a community?

The build up of green house gases due mainly to the use of fossil fuels is the primary concern in the immediate future. Green house gases destroy the ozone layer of the atmosphere which protect the earth from the harmful effects of solar radiation such as rising global temperature, freak weather conditions and smog formation to name a few. Most of the green house gases coming from the use of fossil fuels are from vehicular emissions. Land use therefore is an important factor because it affects the need for travel from residential areas to the work place. A compact community where homes, jobs and entertainment places are in close proximities could prove to be one that is sustainable.

Land Use: Compact vs. Sprawl
There has been a remarkable consensus in recent years that planning for more cities that are compact is one of the most important ways of reducing energy consumption and pollution. The consensus arises because of a limited amount of academically produced evidence that such a policy is an appropriate way of reducing environmental problems. Secondly, because governments are anxious to make their contribution to that most fashionable of causes: sustainable development (Breheney 81). While sustainable cities have been promoted as a desirable goal within a variety of policy contexts, critical questions concerning the extent to which cities and local governments can address the challenges of sustainability remain unanswered (Bulkeley and Betsill 42)

Low-density development and suburbanization are regarded as the primary components of urban sprawl. Compact city proponents have argued for higher density regulation and mixed land uses. However, they ignore the individual’s preference for low density living. The idea of owning a single family home, the need for an adequate environment for raising a family, a strong desire for privacy and the appeal of a rural ambiance are among the most prominent reasons for choosing suburban localities. The spatial manifestation of these values has permanently shaped the structure of the American city.

Finally, innovations in transportation and communications have reduced the importance of centrality for households and firms. Urban analysts reassessed sprawl as the emerging urban pattern of postindustrial society, a deconcentrated and highly interdependent urban structure organized around advanced transportation and communications technologies on a time-cost (rather than a spatial distance) basis. Given these observations, policy efforts to revert the present urban pattern into obsolete, central city, physical forms and the implications of high-versus-low density development should be critically examined.

However, recent studies found that close links exist between density and the efficiencies with which land and infrastructure are used and the degree of automobile dependence. These observations support the arguments of smart growth advocates that smarter development is more environmentally sound, fiscally prudent, and consistent with quality of life goals2.

David C. Soule sums up the effects of sprawl in his article “Defining and Managing sprawl” (Soule 1).

“In its path, sprawl consumes thousands of acres of forests and farmland, wood-lands and wetlands. It requires government to spend millions extra to build new schools, streets and water and sewer lines. In its wake, sprawl leaves boarded up houses, vacant storefronts, closed businesses, abandoned and often contaminated industrial sites, and traffic congestion stretching miles from urban centers”.

William H. Whyte (Whyte 133), in his original Fortune magazine article, wrote:

“Sprawl is bad aesthetics; it is bad economics. Five acres is being made to do the work of one and do it very poorly. This is bad for the farmers, it is bad for communities, it is bad for industry, it is bad for utilities, it is bad for the railroads, it is bad for the recreation groups, it is bad even for the developers”

One of the leading indicators of sprawl is increased traffic congestion, caused by people living far from where they work and shop (Hallsmith 73-74). Hallsmith further explained that the typical response to this issue, widening the roads, deals only with the symptoms of sprawl and actually makes the matter worse because it creates an increasing development potential which in turn serves to worsen the situation.


The Canadian Land Use Pattern
Most North American cities were built using technologies that assumed abundant and cheap energy and land would be available forever (Roseland et al 18). These resulted in inefficient growth, which were dependent on lengthy distribution systems. Cheap energy influenced the construction of our spacious homes and buildings, fostered our addiction to the automobile, and increased the separation of our homes from workplaces. Calthorpe, in his book “The Pedestrian Pocket Book” (Calthorpe ) wrote:
“The current round of suburban growth is generating a crisis of many dimensions: mounting traffic congestion, increasingly unaffordable housing, receding open space, and stressful social patterns. The truth is, we are using planning strategies that are [now over seventy] years old and no longer relevant to today’s culture. Our household makeup has changed dramatically, the workplace and the work force have been transformed, real wealth has shrunk, and serious environmental concerns have surfaced. But we are still building World War II suburbs as if families were large and have only one breadwinner, as if jobs were all downtown, as if land and energy were endless, and as if another lane on the highway would end congestion.”

Consequently, Canadian land use has severely relied on these inefficient strategies. These include separating homes, jobs and shopping from each other. Roads and parking lots in turn connect these places where housing, retail and office parks are at low densities. This is reflected in the fact that, over the last three decades, the rate of BC’s population growth was only about half of the rate of land urbanization – (87% vs. 162%)2 This inefficient use of land has severe consequences on our economy, our environment, our farmland, our health, and our safety.

The resulting traffic congestion and the subsequent pollution from car emissions is now one of the most serious problems that came from this inefficient urban planning. The need for transportation resulting from development of areas away from city centers has increased the need for fossil fuel and thus resulted to more air pollution. The cost of connecting these spread of communities has become considerably unaffordable due to the increase in the maintenance costs for roads and infrastructures. Most importantly, health problems related to vehicle dependency such as obesity, diabetes, and asthma is increasing.

Transportation and Air Quality
The quality of the air we breathe has recently become one of the most prominent issues in the minds of Canadians from schoolchildren to the most powerful political decision makers. The green wave that is currently sweeping our country has helped make all of us aware of the fragile nature of our planet, and more and more of us are now voluntarily making positive personal and business decisions about the resources we use in the new light of awareness3. Air pollutants, which are of concerned according to the BC Lung Association, are described below:

Particulate Matter (PM) refers to a combination of microscopic solid and liquid particles that are suspended in the air we breathe. Particle size is usually measured in units of one millionth of a metre – a “micron”. PM10 refers to particle size of 10 microns or smaller. When inhaled, particles between 2.5 and 10 microns in diameter tend to get trapped in our upper and middle airways. Particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter, referred to as PM2.5 or fine particulate matter, are the biggest concern to our health because they can be inhaled more deeply into the lungs. PM2.5 is a component of regional haze, which results in impaired visibility.

Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) is a colourless gas with a pungent odour that smells like a struck match. It is irritating to the lungs and, in high concentrations, can damage leaves on trees and agricultural crops. SO2 is emitted by the burning of sulphur-containing fossil fuels and the processing of sulphur-containing ores. SO2 reacts in the atmosphere to form sulphur trioxide, which in the presence of water vapour can readily transform to
sulphuric acid, a major component of acid rain.

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) are a group of highly reactive gases that include nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitric oxide (NO). In the atmosphere, NO reacts to form nitrogen dioxide (NO2), an odorous, brown, highly corrosive gas that is harmful to our health and environment. NO2 is also of concern because it contributes to the secondary formation of ozone and PM2.5. NOx is formed when fuel is burned at high temperatures.

Ozone (O3) is an extremely reactive gas with molecules composed of three oxygen atoms. The ozone found high in the upper atmosphere shields us from the sun’s ultraviolet rays. However, at ground level, O3 can cause damage to crops, trees and
materials and is harmful to human health. Ground-level O3 is formed in the air through complex chemical reactions involving NOx and volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight. Because the production of ozone is dependent on sunlight, the
hourly ozone levels tend to be highest in the summer. Ground-level O3 is a key ingredient of smog.

The Border Air Quality Study3 is a combination of research projects looking at health impacts related to air quality in the Georgia Basin-Puget Sound airshed. The airshed includes Vancouver, Victoria, the Sunshine Coast, the Fraser Valley, Seattle and Puget Sound. The Study found that traffic pollution increases the risk of premature births and low birth weight. It also found a connection between pollution and the respiratory health of young children. Specifically, the study found evidence for a link between bronchiolitis and traffic-related air pollution. Bronchiolitis, an infection that affects the tiny airways, is the main cause of hospital stays for young children4.

According to Smart Growth2 president and CEO, Geoff Anderson, the largest percentage share of transportation emission in BC is passenger vehicles. Moving to more fuel-efficient vehicles and cleaner fuel sources are important steps in reducing GHG emissions, but local governments have limited jurisdiction in these areas. Local governments however, can help people drive less by encouraging smart growth development. Compared to conventional, low-density single-use development, smart growth reduces the amount people drive by 20 to 40 %. This translates into an 18-36% reduction in GHGs emissions compared to a business-as-usual scenario.

One key strategy for countering the effects of vehicular emissions would be to reduce the need for travel. Policy makers need to look beyond fuel efficiency and low-carbon fuels towards reducing emissions. This can be done by building compact communities where people can accomplish more without having to travel. Researchers at the Urban Land Institute estimate that shifting 60% of new growth to compact patterns would save 85 million metric tons of carbon-dioxide emissions annually by 20301.


Recommendations

Strategies for creating Smart Growth
Smart Growth BC5 recommends these strategies for creating a compact and sustainable
community:

· establish and adhere to urban and rural containment boundaries;

· offer housing diversity for all ages through affordable housing strategies and homes of all sizes for all stages of life;

· limit service provision (no servicing above a certain elevation or outside the containment boundary). This includes roads, sewer and water lines, fire protection and policing;

· allow natural places to continue to provide recreation, aesthetic, and health benefits by protecting them from urbanization.

Benefits include:
· improvements to our health by providing safe and attractive ways to get around on wheels (bike, rollerblades, wheelchair) or on foot;

· mitigation of climate change by providing shopping, schools, and other services within easy walking distance, thereby reducing our dependency on vehicles;

· protection of our farmland by keeping the town in the town and the country in the country;

· reductions in the costs of servicing (and therefore taxes) by extending infrastructure over shorter distances and are shared by more people through densification;

· on of the local economy by allowing people to work from vibrant, mixed-use neighbourhoods that attract and keep residents;

· more time with family as commuting times are reduced, which in turn allow neighbours and to get to know one another better and the social fabric of the community to strengthen.

Conclusions

Land use and urban planning that ensure enhanced quality of life by providing enough privacy, open space, and other features associated with single-family living will certainly be the “meter stick” with which urban centers will be measured against. The compact urban form therefore must not ignore the essential needs of the community if it is to be a successful alternative to urban sprawl. Enhancing walkability around town centers can be achieved by designing features such as street art, parks and water features and arranging commercial businesses and entertainment spread all over the compact community. Bike and rollerblade lanes can also encourage exercise to and from the workplaces within the community. These features of an urban center will certainly reduce the need for cars and thus reduce energy consumption, the amount of pollution from car exhaust, and ensuring a sustainable community and a cleaner and safer environment.





References
Notes
1. What is urban planning? McGill School of Urban Planning. http://www.mcgill.ca/urbanplanning/planning/ (Accessed November 22, 2009)

2. Alexander, Don, and Ray Tomalty. "Sprawl : The BC sprawl report 2001." http://www.smartgrowth.bc. Sprawl : the BC sprawl report 2001. SmartGrowthBC, 2001. Web. 3 Dec. 2009

3. BC Lung Association, state of the Air in British Columbia. www.lung.ca [accessed November 2009].

4. BC Ministry of Health Services. Provincial Health Officer’s Annual Report 2003. Every Breath You Take – Air Quality in British Columbia, a Public Health Perspective (Chapter 4).

5. Actions for Land Use. BC Climate Action Tool Kit. http://www.toolkit.bc.ca/solution/land-use-solutions (Accessed November 22, 2009)

Bibliography
Alexander, Don, and Ray Tomalty. "Sprawl : The BC sprawl report 2001." http://www.smartgrowth.bc. Sprawl : the BC sprawl report 2001. SmartGrowthBC, 2001. Web. 3 Dec. 2009

Breheney, Michael. The Compact City and Transport Energy Consumption. Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers). Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, Vol. 20, No. 1 (1995), pp. 81


Bulkeley, H., & Betsill, M. (2005). Rethinking Sustainable Cities: Multilevel Governance and the 'Urban' Politics of Climate Change . Environmental Politics, 14(1), p. 42

Calthorpe, P. “Introduction : A reverse definition.” In The Pedestrian Pocketbook: A New Suburban Design Strategy, ed. D. Kelbaugh. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. 1989

Hallsmith, Gwendolyn. The Key to Sustainable Cities. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers, 2003. 73-74. Print

Whyte WH Jr. Urban Sprawl. Fortune January 1958. Reprinted in Whyte WH Jr.,Ed. The exploding Metropolis. New York; Doubleday, 1958, reprinted Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993, p 133

Roseland, Mark , Sean Connelly, David Hendrickson, Chris Lindberg et al. Towards Sustainable Communities: Resources For Citizens and their Governments. Revised ed. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers, 2005. 18. Print.

Soule, David C, ed. Urban Sprawl : A comprehensive reference guide. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2006. p1. Print.

Stone, Brian, Adam C. Mednick, Tracey Holloway, and Scott N. Spak. "Is Compact Growth Good for Air Quality?" Journal of the American Planning Association 73.4 (2007): 414+. Print.

Urban Land Institute. "Stopping Sprawl will aid Planet." Engineering News Record 259.12 (2007): 13. Print.