RISE OF HIGH-DENSITY LIVING A NEW LOW FOR SYDNEY BY TONY RECSEI
We are blessed with a sunny climate and enough space to enjoy a relaxed lifestyle that is the envy of many. But single house communities are becoming threatened species. Attractive suburbs with flowers and foliage are being overrun by concrete and bitumen. Bewildered long time residents find themselves in the shadows of unit blocks.
High density is a central feature of plans being developed for the land around stations on the future metro lines but the supporting authorities are unable to prove that high density is better for society or the environment. There is evidence that it makes things worse, not better, in at least six ways.
1) Greenhouse Gases
The Australian Conservation Foundation’s consumption atlas shows people living in high density areas have greater greenhouse gas emissions than those living in low density areas. A study by Energy Australia and the NSW Department of Planning shows the energy used by a resident in high rise is nearly twice that for a resident in a detached house. Think of all the lifts, clothes dryers, air conditioners and lights in garages and foyers. The per resident energy to construct high rise is nearly five times that needed to build a house.
2) Transport
Research in Melbourne shows people squeezed into newly converted dense areas did not use public transport to any greater extent and there was little or no change in their percentage of car use.
There is not enough difference in the emissions of public versus private transport to counter the increased emissions of high density living. For each kilometre City Rail carries a passenger, it emits 105 grams of greenhouse gases, while the average car emits 155 and modern fuel efficient cars such as the Toyota Prius emits just 70.
Additionally, congestion increases with high density. Any increase in the proportion of people using public transport authorities also fail to acknowledge many people still need cars, for visiting relatives and friends, and for moving things not welcome or banned on public transport.
3) Increased Congestion
Increased Congestion cause by high density damages health. Vehicle exhaust contains micro particles that kill 3 million people each year, the World Health Organisation says. High density is also bad for mental health. A study of more than 4 million Swedes showed the rate for psychosis was 70 per cent greater for dense areas and there was a 16 per cent greater risk of depression. The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index shows the happiest electorates are those with lower population densities.
4) More People To Existing Infrastructure
Adding more people to existing infrastructure means overload. The standard of Sydney’s roads, rail, water supply and electricity have all deteriorated from the imposition of high density policies. Adding more capacity to existing services in overloaded area is more expensive than laying out new infrastructure on Greenfield sites.
Energy Australia, on its website, cites an example of these “forgotten” costs: the augmentation of electricity supplies in the central business district, mainly necessitated by 4,900 additional apartments, will eventually cost $429 million or $80,000 each new apartment.
5) Effect Of High Density Policies On Housing Cost
The effect of high density policies on the cost of housing has been devastating to our younger generation. By trying to force people into higher density on existing land, the supply of new land for housing has been cut. The cost of land now comprises 70 per cent of the cost of a home, instead of 30 per cent as it used to. A new dwelling should cost about $210,000 but is closer to $500,000.
6) Cost Of Commercial Land
The cost of commercial land has spiralled and employers take their business elsewhere. In 2000 the NSW proportion of the national economy was 35 per cent. This has dropped to 30 per cent and the cost of land is a factor.
We have no quarrel with those who prefer living in a high density area, nor with those developers who take advantage of the free market to fulfil that limited demand. But Bureau of statistics figures show 83 per cent of us prefer to live in a free standing home and we do object to draconian policies forcing us to live in bland high rise units.
Tony Recsei, and environmental consultant, is president of Save Our Suburbs.
Editor’s note: I would add to Tony’s article, that the State and Local Governments are manipulating a flood of high density unit development in what appears to be a grab for the mighty dollar without implementing infrastructure for health, transport, road and water. In fact the pressure applied by the State and Local Governments, Nationwide, is not too dissimilar to the way Hitler ruled Nazi Germany.