The Real Costs of Urban Sprawl

In an article this month in the Globe and Mail, architect and urban planner Jack Diamond with policy director at Sustainable Prosperity (a University of Ottawa think tank) David Thompson authored an article considering the “true” costs of urban sprawl.

Their argument — that suburban development “imposes economic and environmental burdens not just for the suburban dweller, but for all Canadians,” is built on the tangible and intangible costs suburban life: upwards of $10,000 a year for a second car, long commutes, higher emissions, higher risk of road accidents, fatigue, and less time at home on a personal level, trunk-line infrastructure on a municipal level.

While some cities, like Edmonton, pick up the capital costs of fire and police, as well as portions of roads and rec facilities and their maintenance, they are going to shortly be faced with costs that substantially outstrip revenues, which means that taxes will have to go up.

Halifax and Calgary have both found that they can save millions by increasing the number of new dwellings in the already-serviced downtown core. Peel Region just west of Toronto recently doubled its development charges after analysis showed that new development wasn’t paying for itself. It’s been estimated, according to the article, that for every dollar raised in real-estate taxes, it costs $1.50 to service low-density residential development.

Innovators, say the authors, are starting to look at policies that encourage more efficient, higher-density neighbourhoods. Such measures might involve allowing single-family housing to become duplexes, redeveloping underutilized sites at densities “somewhat higher” than that of townhouses, and redeveloping shopping malls, with their sprawling parking lots, into transit-serviced mixed-use developments, which would transform them into “vital new urban centres.”

“Addressing the true costs of sprawl will reduce economic distortions and boost economic efficiency. Medium urban density will spread the fixed cost of infrastructure over more individuals and businesses – while bringing social, environmental and quality-of-life benefits. It will also improve access of businesses for workers and vice versa,” say the authors. “If we can reduce the cost of housing in established neighbourhoods with good transit and community facilities, and include the true costs of sprawl in the price of new housing, all Canadians will be better off.”

Fair enough, but aren’t such arguments overly simplistic? The authors acknowledge the “drive till you qualify” syndrome that provides many buyers’ entrée into the ‘burbs, but it’s not necessarily the case for all. Some people want the privacy, or simply the deck space, that the suburbs can offer. City living isn’t for everyone. If we’re paying taxes that support them, I suppose we do have the right to legislate higher density, but do we want neighbours who feel overlooked and pinched for space? That would make anyone cranky.

We pay property taxes based on market value, but that are unrelated to the density of our neighbourhoods. Should those of us in higher-density neighbourhoods pay lower taxes? Should we pay based on the real costs of maintaining infrastructure rather than the fluctuating values of property? If we actually encourage people to live in denser areas, won’t those areas require additional income to maintain as well?

A study released in October by Sustainable Prosperity blames everything from higher taxes to more car crashes and increased obesity on urban sprawl. The study lauds Kitchener for making developers pay higher costs — 74% more — for building in suburban areas compared to the core. Although charging developers realistic fees based on the costs of infrastructure makes sense — taxpayers shouldn’t be subsidizing anyone’s personal preferences — don’t we run the risk of making suburban homes just as unaffordable as homes in more urban locations?

And legislating density? Good luck. Many experts say the top priority for curbing suburbia is to get people out of their cars, and that’s where we should direct our efforts, but people won’t live in pedestrian and transit-friendly mixed-use areas until they have wonderful options for doing so.

Until municipalities stop looking solely at the residential component and start looking at commercial and office as well — how are suburban towns encouraging commercial growth? Enticing head offices to move in? Relieving the stress-inducing, pollution-producing realities of being cocooned inside cars? — there is no solution.

If you build it, they will come. But you have to build it first.