Your New Suburban Home is Killing the Planet
We all need to address the negative externalities associated with sprawling development.
Sprawl. Verb. To spread out over a large area in an untidy or irregular way.
The economic concept of externalities basically means that the things we buy usually cost more than the price we pay. The actual cost of producing a good or service is not completely contained in the price because there are indirect or “external” costs that are not being paid by the producer and are therefore not being passed on to the consumer. This distorts the real cost of our rampant consumption. But what are these external costs and who is paying for them?
Housing, more importantly, the modern proliferation of sprawl development, is the perfect example of an industry that comes with a host of negative externalities that are ultimately paid for by the general public — the effects of which are felt disproportionally by the poor. By continuing to build gated estates on greenfield sites on cheap land on the outskirts of the city, we are prioritising short term savings, which mainly go into the developer’s pockets, over massively increased long term costs for municipalities, taxpayers, and ultimately the environment. These new areas come with little to no basic services and infrastructure, and due to their location and low densities, lack public transport and other amenities which necessitates the use of cars to perform everyday functions like shopping or going to school.
Three things happen when we build new suburbs. First, the municipality (and therefore the taxpayer) is shouldered with the burden of creating and maintaining roads, sewers, water, community centres, and libraries, and providing fire services, hospitals, policing, and schools. Development charges collected by the state (money government charges developers to build new developments) from suburban developers and households never covers all the costs of the new infrastructure.
Second, these suburbs increase the need for and use of cars which cause massive congestion and pollution. Roads are also some of the most costly things to build and maintain, which again is public money, and basically, taxpayers foot the bill so others can ride in cars.
Third, the environment is damaged. Every time we use open land to build on we destroy a little slice of the environment, we remove resources needed to support an ecosystem. Limiting this damage should be the first requirement of any new development. The so-called middle class and elite are very happy to “save the rhino” and go “zero waste” etc. but refuse to accept that the way they live (and that’s just looking at housing, not middle-class overconsumption) has a direct effect on the environment.
As the study Suburban Sprawl: Exposing Hidden Costs, Identifying Innovations notes, for millennia towns and cities were built at the human scale, but now, because of the automobile, they have expanded (sprawled) in a vicious cycle that rewards development on cheap land and the buying of motor vehicles. We are creating a problem and then solving it with something that enables and encourages that same problem.
Cars are one of the leading contributors to climate change, as well as a major cause of negative health effects like respiratory problems and obesity — not to mention congestion, road-related deaths (which are extremely high), and stress. Commuting long distances into the City centre also has many financial implications, which can offset the savings on buying a cheaper house further out.
Most roads are free to use, so where does the money come from to maintain them? Taxes. People complain that government charges too much tax, yet they demand perfect roads so that they can drive their (mostly) single-occupant cars around — cars that on average are only in use 4% of the time. The proliferation of vehicle commuting also causes traffic and congestion which costs cities millions in productivity loss, health costs, and environmental damage. This money could be better spent on public transit, which is more efficient per user and far less costly on the environment.
It seems the only winner in this equation is the property developers, who make huge profits by not paying all the costs (remember those externalities!), while consumers, taxpayers, government, and the public foot the bill indirectly, through tax, the costs of driving, and with their health. The city of Calgary, in Canada, found that by adopting a denser growth pattern that used 25% less land, it could save $11 billion in capital costs. In a city like Cape Town, where state money needs to stretch far, is it prudent to continue with business as usual in the way we plan and build our city?
Eviction of the poor causes displacement and also leads to urban sprawl. Temporary Relocation Areas (TRAs) such as Wolweriver and Blikkiesdorp are built far away from economic hubs to provide alternative accommodation but just like gated estates, they too need some level of services; costing us money, causing climate-changing pollution, and taking away land that plants and animals live on.
In addition to negative externalities, there can also be positive externalities, such as education or increased employment. Goods, services and other investments that create positive externalities should be encouraged at a policy level. We need to take into account the external revenue and external costs of all the things we buy. This is the only way to reach a fair value for goods and services and will illuminate the real cost of antisocial production and consumption.
Another study, done in Europe, called Urban sprawl and climate change: A statistical exploration of cause and effect, with policy options for the EU, concluded that there is a strong correlation between CO2 emissions and sprawl — much more so than the link between CO2 and an increase in GDP or increase in population. In other words, bad city planning and sprawling suburban development are worse for the environment than increases in population.
We need to see housing as one of the main pillars of the environmental movement. We cannot join the extinction rebellion and then commute in and out of town in our four-door sedans for a couple of hours every day, as the only occupants in the car. Building dense, sustainable, and walkable cities is not only good for the taxpayer’ pockets but for the environment a well.
We need to use policy instruments to correct the price relationships currently encouraging sprawl while at the same time revitalising urban cores and neglected transport corridors, and encouraging the densification of existing suburbs, instead of building new ones — even if it “costs” a bit more now. We should not underestimate that how we build our cities is vital to the future of the entire planet. If we really want to save the rhino or reduce carbon emissions to a sustainable level by 2050, then we need to build more sustainable cities. And that means denser settlements and fewer cars.
Send your comments and feedback to shaun@openup.org.za
