Density, sprawl or a touch of the two?
Jason Byrne says he wants a more mature conversation about how to soothe our capital’s growing pains
HOBART is caught up in a rancorous, long-standing debate that presents a false dichotomy between sprawl versus density.
This is framed as cars versus public transport, developers versus planners, and conservatives versus greens. This has used a lot of oxygen, without improving our capital city. It is divisive, harmful and unnecessary.
As one of nation’s most cardependent cities, with high levels of entrenched disadvantage, we can do better. It is time for a mature, informed conversation.
There are good reasons to promote density. It allows us to better use infrastructure and land, and enables more efficient public transport by reducing long commute times, and the attendant problems of traffic congestion, pollution, poor physical and mental health and negative impacts on family function, such as social isolation.
But density poses serious challenges, including how to protect heritage, high costs, loss of trees and green spaces as well as neighbour issues including noise, overshadowing, loss of privacy and amenity.
There is good reason to develop the urban periphery. Land is cheaper, as is the cost of building on unconstrained sites. That’s why developers argue housing is more affordable. Some people also want larger homes and bigger blocks for their family and the suburban lifestyle. It’s hard to argue with this logic when the cost of a new two-bedroom apartment (without a garden, and exposure to noise) is substantially more expensive in the city than a house in the outer suburbs.
Sprawling development on the fringe has serious habitat impacts from land clearing, as well as hidden economic costs that are shifted to the broader community — traffic, energy consumption, loneliness, housing stress, car reliance.
Planning is often blamed for many of these issues. Developers argue that planning mechanisms such as growth boundaries lock people out of affordable housing by artificially inflating housing prices. The fact there are large areas of land in a growth boundary that speculators sit on for years to realise a profit, by essentially doing nothing, is usually ignored. Planning laws are unable to force someone to develop their land.
The pandemic is also changing cities. Many are uneasy about public transport. The lockdowns showed that suburbanites usually had a better experience than citydwellers. In Australia, many are leaving large cities for regions. So what are the alternatives?
It need not be all or nothing when it comes to density. Many planning scholars have highlighted what they call the missing middle. Higher density can be achieved by subdividing backyards for an additional dwelling and by having small lot developments — still with a yard, such as the workers cottages, townhouses and terraces of bygone days. And it is possible to convert garages into units and studios, so older people can age by renting out their house above and living comfortably in a modern, convenient smaller dwelling in the neighbourhood they love, where they often have rich social links and a sense of belonging. Or they could rent out the new garage studio to students and singles — or potentially sell it — enabling people who would otherwise be unable to afford to live in the city to purchase a home with access to a garden. And within the urban footprint there are other areas, such as former light industrial land that could be redeveloped for other use, including housing.
Perth in West Australia has a planning mechanism called the Metropolitan Region Scheme. It was introduced when Perth had a population of 450,000 in 1963. The city now has two million, so it’s hard to argue it stifled development. The MRS is like a high-level town planning scheme that covers the metropolitan region and strategically co-ordinates local government activities. The MRS zones areas for future urban development and protects precious water catchments, regionally important habitat and green space and prevents the ad hoc development of important natural resources, such as areas of state forest, areas with gravel and road-building materials and higher value agricultural land.
Local government cannot change the zoning of their schemes without amending the MRS first – and developers need to mount compelling, evidence-based arguments to change the zones of the MRS
and local schemes, requiring state and local approval. This provides a safeguard to limit urban sprawl.
A key mechanism in the MRS is the metropolitan region improvement fund. The MRIF discourages land banking and land speculation. It levies vacant, undeveloped land in the metropolitan region with an annual fee, that is collected by the state and pooled for improving the metropolitan region. Not only does this reduce the incentive for land speculation, it also solves a source of potential conflict between state and local government, and between local governments.
If the City of Hobart, for example, gets to develop land in the core for apartments — as part of a strategy to increase density — it sees an increase in its rates revenue, and there’s more economic activity. But outlying local governments do not see this benefit by supporting urban density.
They are also prevented from developing land outside growth boundaries, a potential source of rates revenue. In other words, we rob Peter to pay Paul. But the MRIF in Perth allows for the pooling of revenue raised from the levy on unimproved vacant land, and enables its redistribution to improve regional infrastructure. It is managed by the state in the interests of the metropolitan region.
If we did something like this in Greater Hobart, we could put the money towards a light right or bus rapid transit system for the northern suburbs. We could fund park and ride facilities in Brighton, Sorell, Clarence or Kingborough. We could strategically target areas for infill development to take advantage of infrastructure in the missing middle. And we would reduce pressure for new, poorly planned development on the urban fringe. Imagine setting up a
park and ride facility at the Eastlands Shopping Centre and allowing the redevelopment of nearby land for townhouses, terraces and workers cottage style houses. This would increase density without the problems of apartment buildings, and could make a ferry or bus rapid transit to the city viable.
Much of Hobart has a density of 10-12 dwelling units per hectare which is wasteful. We could double this density in the missing middle, or even triple it, without negative impacts if done the right way. Higher density in the missing middle would help to deliver the 15-minute city. It would improve people’s access to shops and existing highquality open space, would make better use of existing facilities across the region, and would reduce the pressure for sprawl on the periphery. Imagine using a MRIF style system to fund a new high
school, park and ride, commercial facilities, healthcare, and medium density housing options in Sorell, Brighton or Kingborough, linked to rapid transit, allowing people to get to the city without using their car. Better still, it could reduce the need to commute at all.
These options eliminate the sprawl versus density debate and put to rest tired arguments about multi-trip travel, because we create 15-minute neighbourhoods where people can meet their needs where they live — housing, transport, employment, recreation, healthcare and the like. It’s time we worked together to achieve more liveable cities.
Jason Byrne is Professor of Human Geography and Planning at the University of Tasmania. He has been a town planner in Western Australia and has worked on planning issues in Los Angeles and the Gold Coast.