One of the benefits of increased density (it’s argued) has been the notion that it reduces pollution from people commuting across town to access jobs and other facilities. However there’s little evidence to support this, although living closer to the city may encourage increased use of public transport, our car dependent life styles and inefficient public transport systems, ensure traffic congestion and urban pollution continue to rise. Not only this, but any notion that apartment buildings are environmentally friendly has been put to bed by many organisations such as “Sustainable Population Australia” who have reported;
“Studies have shown that high-rise housing increases per-capita greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30% due to a total reliance on power, switches and being unable to enjoy the natural cooling of shady trees and living sustainability. Department of Planning and EnergyAustralia study (NSW) and the ACF Consumption Atlas show high-rise buildings emit more greenhouse gases per dwelling and per person than smaller blocks of flats, townhouses or detached homes”
Of course, Harry Triguboff managing director of property group Meriton, states that:
“Councils think that people care whether there are tall buildings or lower buildings. People who buy the apartments prefer taller buildings because they allow more light and afford views and are cheaper to run than lower ones – which require more lofts, more stairwells, and more security, all adding to the upkeep.”
This is predictable, but quite astonishing. The costs of running high-rise buildings alone are tremendous when you take into account features such as lifts, electric security gates, lighting, heating of common areas and so forth – not to mention the footprint incurred from so many individual apartments each running a separate fridge, air-conditioner and plasma TV. I’ve not been through one yet that boasts a solar panel to reduce electricity costs. To have the luxury of light and a view adds to the expense and yet there is rarely a guarantee the view won’t be built out.
All of this is evidenced the stark difference in the yearly owners’ corporation fees of high-rise verses low-rise, which can add up to thousands. Furthermore, to keep development costs down, a balcony is becoming somewhat of a dying luxury. The above quote of $75,000 extra for a garden is a little over what the average buyer would shell out for the luxury of a medium-sized balcony on one of these inner-city apartments. A wide expanse of heat-producing concrete increases the environmental footprint. However all this aside, as the original design of the “garden city” proves you can have high-density housing on a smaller footprint of land and still retain lawn space around the buildings, thereby maintaining the streetscape and environmental benefits. However, it does require double-storey living.
We’re lucky in Australia because early planners had the foresight to provide abundant park land in each inner-suburban locality. It’s still possible to look out over our cities and take in an abundance of “green”. However, for how long is debatable – London, which has an estimated population of around 8 million (a number that metro Melbourne is prospected to achieve around 2050) used to hold the reputation of “of being one of the world’s greenest cities because of its extensive public parks and gardens. However a recent report by the London Wildlife Trust has shown Londoners are paving over gardens to avoid maintenance costs associated with gardening in some cases using the area as an extra parking lot at – according to the study – an “alarming” pace. According to the report “an area of vegetated garden equivalent to 21 times the size of Hyde park was lost between 1998 and 2006” simply through the demise of the private backyard.
This kind of transition is not limited to London – it’s a worldwide phenomenon. Modern lifestyles don’t leave time to tend a garden or grow food – after all, it’s argued that Australia has the world’s hardest workers – tending a garden is therefore a luxury reserved for those who are retired. In his excellent publication “The Death of the Australian Back Yard” Tony Hall argues that the change from backyard culture has “has not been subtle or gradual in either space of time”. It’s an excellent paper and well worth a read. In it he demonstrates, through time-lapsed aerial shots, how our living preferences have altered. Even though there’s still evidence of healthy interest from much of the population in gardening, it’s the renovation shows that dominate the media and keep the focus on the interior. A low maintenance garden is a selling point in a modern home; a big back yard is simply an area holding development potential.
The loss or demise of the domestic backyard has an effect far beyond that of the individual household. Issues such as the loss of biodiversity in plant species, the loss of areas of land in which to soak up rainfall, not to mention the role gardens play in micro climate control and combating carbon dioxide and various other pollutants permeating the air.
Whilet there is no doubt the push towards urban consolidation is an inevitable consequence of our population growth and changing cultural shift, we’re certainly not healthier for it – and many would argue that neither are we happier for it. First home buyers have increasingly limited choices when it comes to housing options, and for those that do settle in inner urban areas – as a recent report from the Grattan Institute entitled ‘social cities’ highlights – there’s a worrying increase in social isolation and loneliness due to residential seclusion. It’s impossible to improve the situation without active communication with local residents. Therefore, power needs to be placed in community hands to decide what’s needed in each locality – whether it be a communal garden, ‘pocket park’, games room, or some other form of meeting place. High density planning should have a requirement to make room for some form of freely accessible social interaction.
While gardens may be looked upon as high maintenance and a private area of green space may not be in vogue or high on developer’s priority list, it is down to our urban planners to ensure we don’t lose the joy of an area of green lawn and maturing trees all together. Australia has an abundance of land for everyone to spread out and enjoy the joys of nature if only more effort and expense was dedicated to the development of industry, transport arterials, and growth in the smaller “satellite” cities and regional centers. As it stands at present, we’re losing a part of Australian culture that cultivated an ingrown appreciate of “the land”.
This article first appeared on Property Observer.
Catherine Cashmore is a market analyst with extensive experience in all aspects relating to property acquisition. She is Channel Ten’s property expert on The Circle and a senior consultant for National Property Buyers servicing the needs of property owners Australia wide.
