Hoorah economic recovery must be on the way then as the UK Government keep telling me that recovery all depends on house and infrastructure building (and if it is on green field sites the margins are better than for derelict and neglected land - that can stay, well, derelict - so go on lads, build on the green!)
This is all great short term economic output, but what is the long term effect and is it economic in the long term. Well here's a thing I will try to explain, sustainability is not about houses with extra insulation (that's cost-saving) sustainability is about ensuring the three pillars of society, economics and the environment are not degraded for future generations.
Let us understand the time bomb, look at it's wiring and fuse before we fiddle too much. I have done a flow diagram below so that even developers can follow the story.
The green parts of the diagram are the good bits. I believe it was The Mersey Forest Project who used the phrase 'a great place to work and live'. This is the driver behind why I do the work I do, I want great environments for all to use be that an individual or a business. Great landscapes and green facilities attract top companies.
Building cheap boxes on greenfield land lowers quality and depletes places to go. When this begins to happen society enters the yellow zone as more and more of the aesthetic and natural capital is lost. On the whole the need for Government to get rid of planning controls, because the guidance was too long, means less quality in design and build. The need to meet alleged housing demand means that too many houses will be crammed in to green field spaces.
You can be assured the senior people at these 'development' companies won't be living in any of these 'sustainable communities'. No, they will be living far far away where there is green space and peace to count their % increase in profit. But oddly enough that's because they value a great place to live; they do actually understand that while there is no monetary value in the aesthetic, there is a value in buying aesthetic places. It is their paradox for which the negative part falls on those who are labelled NIMBY's.
So, in my yellow zone above land and buildings become increasingly threadbare and tatty over time largely through bad design and planning due to a lack of engagement with others and polarised debate. Need examples? I am sure we can all recall developments we see now from the 70's and 80's that are in decline.
Furthermore add to this the disinvestment in the public sector less and less things are being maintained, especially in austerity and the usual public sector bashing from the private sector and (again) polarised media. This further wearing out of the land and infrastructure result in people who can move away emigrating from the area and whether we like it or not the first to move will be the higher earners, leaving more lower earners in the area, this applies to businesses too. High flying businesses do not want to be associated with low value environments. So the downward slope continues to the red zone.
The red zone results in low employment, low staff retention, low investment, low quality housing, low health standards, high social cost, high crime and high unemployment, all for the sake of saving money by building on green space and leaving derelict land derelict. The net result over time is increased dereliction and all the socio-economic costs that go with that.
Somewhere out there an economist could extrapolate the costs of this, where y= the benefit and profit from a green field site turned over to little boxes crammed tightly in, and z is the saving they have made by not building on a derelict site or renovating empty properties.
y+z = a (Opportunity cost of building on greenfield and resultant profit)
I am sure this would be a pretty figure.
Now let us consider the future costs of
a = low employment
b = low staff retention
c = low investment
d = loss in housing value
e = costs of increasingly poor health
f = costs of a dysfunctional community/society
g = costs of crime
the list could go on so collectively we will call this 'n' as a whole for neglect or negligence or even nonperformance.
giving an equation of
a-n = j (real cost of squandering green space over time)
I am sure that figure would not be so pretty - but the economists nor the developers will ever tell you that 'j' even exists, let alone calculate the size of the bomb. Business confidentiality will always ensure you never know the real costs in any case.
So when the diggers start to rip up your fields, think of the company directors and others enjoying their aesthetics where they live, soaking up the visual and aural splendour of a rural retreat from the places where they work. From their iPad on the veranda they will be instructing others to remind us that it is our moral duty to accept housing.
Recently built shop (chippy) showing signs of disinvestment
Disinvested housing and perhaps a clear demonstration of why we should not be building more houses on greenbelt
New build with no maintenance, new disinvestment
A succinct list of further reading?
Dwyer, J.F., McPherson, G.E., Schroeder, H.W., Rowntree, R.A. 1992. Assessing the Benefits and Costs of the Urban Forest. Journal of Arboriculture 18(5): 227-233
Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C. 1993. Aggression and Violence in the Inner City - Effects of Environment via Mental Fatigue. Environment and Behaviour 33(4): 543-571
Kaplan, R. The Role of Nature in the Workplace. 1993. Landscape and Urban Planning 26: 193-201
Good to read your take on the reducing signpost to planning and housing - See The sign of a good place to live/Building for life 12.
ReplyDeleteThankks for helping me get a clearer link to the 'S' word