Dear Doug:
Could you or others in the fsb listserv direct me to research that has quantified the costs/revenues of low density urban development compared to more compact forms of development? Here is my premise: Building a city at an average density of, for the sake of argument, 7 units/acre yields a certain property tax revenue stream. It also creates a certain cost stream in the form of highways, streets, transit, recreation facilities, open space, fire and police protection, EMS, etc. If our City of Calgary budget is anything to go by, transportation is the biggest capital cost centre consuming 70% of our tax supported capital budget (deliberately down from traditional levels closer to 75% - a small improvement made by the current City Council). These capital and operating costs outstrip the revenue stream. That gap has traditionally been met (subsidized) by grants from third parties, usually the Province and lately some funding from the federal government. If a city were built at an average density of say, 9 units/acre (a 25 - 30% increase), presumably the revenue stream from property taxes would be relatively comparable (same number of residential units, only built in a more dense form, and commercial/non-residential taxes similar in magnitude also). However, what would happen to the cost stream? My premise is that it would go down compared to the cost stream of the lower density urban form. Is my premise supported or refuted by disciplined research? Are you aware of any studies that support or refute these assumptions? My guess is that it would have to be some sort of an economic study. As a corollary, is there some way of quantifying the order of magnitude in the assumed reductions? Is it immaterial, or is it "significant"? I would very much appreciate any help I could receive with a research/literature review. Anything you could come up with would be greatly appreciated.
Alderman Bob Hawkesworth,
Ward 4
The City of Calgary
PO Box 2100, Stn "M" (#8001A)
Calgary, AB T2P 2M5
403-268-2430
Email bob.hawkesworth@calgary.ca
Quantifying the Costs/Revenues of Urban Sprawl Compared to More Compact Development
Sign in or Sign up to comment
Here in Orange County, North Carolina there is the beginning effort to determine the cost of municipal/county services as part of our affordable housing efforts. Based on those preliminary studies, it appears that services per household are delivered more effectively in more compact areas of the community. However, what I have not seen addressed in our efforts is quality of life. Does crime increase in more densely populated areas? What effects come into play when individuals are more distant from nature, such as wildlife, quiet, and open space? Besides crime and public transportation, what other services must municipal/county governments be prepared to undertake more rigorously as communities become more densely population (stormwater mitigation, air quality,.....)?
Terri
I found this an interesting reading (and a more balanced one as it quantifies both the costs and the benefits):
Burchell RW, Downs A, McCann B, Mukherji S 2005. Sprawl costs: economic impacts of unchecked development. Island Press, Washington DC.
Kind regards, va.
Really great point - after all, isn't quality of life what we are all striving for?? I have been discussing this myself with people within council, here in Australia. If anyone has any info regarding this it would be greatly appreciated.
Kellie
Hi Terry
this isn't a study as such, but have you read Jane Jacobs's "The Death and Life of Great American Cities"? It is 'literature', but it's methodical and sensible and based on great amount of experience in and research on living in large cities, and what makes them work. The author addresses each of these questions that you pose - "Does crime increase in more densely populated areas? What effects come into play when individuals are more distant from nature, such as wildlife, quiet, and open space?" - in a very thorough way.
Amanda
Hi Terri,
Two Australian academics, Prof. Patrick Troy and Prof Peter Newman have had 20 year stoush over the relative sustainability merits of urban intensification (Newman) versus distributed, low impact housing (Troy). As well as being at times entertaining, this debate generated a bunch of publications on the topic in the Aus context and internationally, so it might be worth checking out. http://www.fbe.unsw.edu.au/staff/Patrick.Troy/publications.asp Newman has also very sucessfully partnered with the WA government to institute a bunch of his ideas, see http://www.sustainability.murdoch.edu.au/ A more recent book that I was recommended the other day, after the style of the Life and Death of Great American Cities, is 'How Buildings Learn' by Steward Brand, however I understand it is more about individual buildings than whole neighbourhoods and cities.
cheers,
Stefan Kaufman
PhD Scholar
Human Ecology Program
http://sres.anu.edu.au/
School of Resources, Environment & Society
The Australian National University
) +61 (0)2 6125 9719
M) +61 (0)423 149 185
F) +61 (0)2 6125 3770
(attention: Stefan Kaufman)
Building 48
The Australian National University
I would also suggest Marilyn Waring's If Women Counted. It's subtitled "a new feminist economics", and women's issues are a large focus, but I find how she quantifies the immeasurable brilliant. I believe she was the youngest member of parliament in New Zealand.
Herb
Herb Koplowitz, Ph.D.
Terra Firma Management Consulting
Tel: 416-324-9240
Fax: 416-972-1354
email: herb@tfmc.ca 307
Ontario Street Toronto, Ontario
M5A 2V8 Canada
1. Sprawl's government infrastructure costs are 25% higher than smart growth. For the Salt Lake City region, projected cost savings are in the billions. TCRP (a big U.S. federal government study) Report 74: Costs of Sprawl, 2000 (Part A) http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_74-a.pdf
2. http://www.planetizen.com/node/17991 A new book, 'Sprawl Costs', calculates the cost of sprawl. Leading the list is Las Vegas, which has the highest per-capita cost, at $72,697 per person. "The authors of "Sprawl Costs: Economic Impacts of Unchecked Development" tapped the results of 10 years of research to conclude that shifting to more compact forms of development could save billions of dollars over time. "Sprawl has direct and quantifiable costs to our economy and in our individual lives," said Robert Burchell, co-author of the book ..." ....The Sacramento "economic area," made up of the traditional metro area plus neighboring rural counties, is No. 14 in the U.S. when ranked by sprawl costs, the authors say. The markets facing the highest costs are Los Angeles, Washington/Baltimore and the San Francisco Bay area, with costs associated with sprawl estimated at $535 billion, $384 billion and $378 billion respectively for the period from 2000 through 2025. "
3. http://www.planetizen.com/node/21577 Sprawl Hurts Lower Income Families 18 October 2006 - 7:00am Low-income families in big cities spend significantly less on housing and transportation than poorer suburban families, according to a new study by the Center for Housing Policy.
4. Sprawl versus compact development: annual household energy consumption: http://www.cities21.org/HH_NRG_consumption.htm
5. http://www.planetizen.com/node/3466 Sprawl Consumes Transportation Budgets 12 March 2001 - 9:00am Sprawl and inadequate public transit options cause transportation costs to exceed housing costs in six U.S. cities. "Transportation costs now exceed housing costs in six U.S. cities, according to a recent report by the Surface Transportation Policy Project and the Center for Neighborhood Technology.
Areas where transportation takes the biggest chunk out of the household budget are Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, Miami, Detroit, Minneapolis, Phoenix, Philadelphia, Kansas City and Tampa."
Source: Environmental News Network, Mar 08, 2001
- Steve Raney,
Cities21,
Palo Alto, CA