Presentación de resultados

a. Separating sensitive land uses - zoning

Until the early 1800s, cities were densely settled and land uses were mixed. There was often a clear distinction between city and country. With transport by foot or animal power, there were no means to travel great distances between homes, services and places of employment within acceptable time frames (Newman and Kenworthy, 2006).

Respectable homes tended to be closer to city centres, for the purposes of easy access (Jackson, 1985) although there were examples of exurban lodges where some well-to-do

many routes from homes to destinations, with streets typically being highly connected.

Overall, cities tended to be spatially cohesive, orderly and transport-efficient.

However, over time, the compact city became associated with the ills of industrialisation. The city landscape became characterised by congestion and pollution, as there was little separation between noxious land uses and associated noise, and people’s homes (see Transportation Research Board, 2005). In response, the mid-late 1800s saw early instances of segregation rather than agglomeration of land uses (Duany et al., 2000).

Llewellyn Park, New Jersey is an example of where this occurred. This was a commuter community with curvilinear streets and lots averaging three acres in size.

Other characteristics included central open space, a ban on industry in the community and prohibition of fences. For those with the means, the settlement enabled separation from noxious industry and the ills of the compact city of the time (i.e. overcrowding and disease), and an attractive suburban lifestyle (Frumkin et al., 2004; Transportation Research Board, 2005). The development of rail as a means of public transport also made this settlement functional. Settlements such as Llewellyn Park could be sited a significant distance from the city centre, while still providing residents with reasonable access.

This is an early example of ‘zoning’, or separation of housing from other land uses due to perceived sensitivity of one to the other. Relph (1987: p67-68) defines zoning as “the practice of allocating different areas of cities for different uses, much as rooms in a

The practice of zoning has had an effect on urban development that cannot be overstated. It distanced places of residence from services, facilities and places of work, thereby increasing travel times (all else being equal) and rendering some travel impractical. It is also an effect that has become more pronounced over time following innovations in transport. By the 1900s, zoning had become an important element of planning strategy. Enthusiasm for the practice in the US was based on it being a mechanism to preserve local character, social stability and property values (Hall, 2002)⁴.

In many US and Australasian cities, zoning continues to be an integral part of planning practice. In a policy context, zoning may be defined as “legislative regulations by which a municipal government seeks to control the use of buildings and land within the municipality” (http://www.answers.com/zoning&r=67, accessed 05/05/2005: n.p.). In Australia, it has been used as a tool to “ensure orderly urban development and to protect basic residential amenity” (Gleeson, 2006: p21).

The spatial distribution of land uses is often achieved by development proposals being checked against statutory planning criteria. For example, commercial uses are often excluded from suburban areas because they do not meet standards relating to preservation of suburban character, scale of buildings and traffic maximums. It is a planning practice that has left a vast legacy and is still common-place today (Christchurch City Council, 1999; McIndoe et al., 2005).

4 Hall goes on to discuss the social implications of zoning, including it being a tool to ensure that the

Even within categories, such as residential, different sub-categories are separated…In addition, the practical effect is to create the long distances between different uses that are a fundamental characteristic of sprawl…These distances, in turn, contribute to a heavy reliance on automobile travel (Frumkin et al., 2004: p38).

Land use (re)integration has only recently begun to figure in policy rhetoric.

Interestingly, zoning emerged as a public health response, as it was a means to separate people (usually the well-to-do) from noxious land uses (Frumkin et al., 2004; Schilling and Linton, 2005). Nowadays, the adverse impacts of zoning (amongst other features of contemporary cities) on public health are being examined (see Chapter 4) and are a key focus of this study.

Zoning codes have made it very difficult to create vibrant, higher density, mixed use neighbourhoods, which are increasingly being seen as more people-friendly and sustainable. Some commentators argue that the vibrancy stems from neighbourhoods being walkable (see Fenton, 2003). Neighbourhoods are not walkable if there are long distances between dwellings, services and places of work (Schilling and Linton, 2005).

Conversely, higher density, mixed use landscapes designed with pedestrian safety as a central consideration are very supportive of walking as a mode of transport (Handy et al., 2002; Pucher and Dijkstra, 2000). Even if there is an increased focus on creating walkable neighbourhoods along with other issues of sustainability, Schilling and Linton (2005) note that because a body of law has been formed round zoning practice, it is very difficult to achieve changes (i.e. mix uses) when existing city plans prescribe land use separation.

b. Early city planning – the Garden City movement

The period 1900 to 1940 saw the development of the Garden City movement, the early architects of modern city planning (Hall, 2002). The movement enjoyed a great following in the US and Europe and was an early advocacy group for polycentric urban planning. The man most credited with influencing the movement was Ebenezer Howard, who would later become disillusioned with planning, as it broke away from his original principles of growth. Howard’s vision was for a town-country plan combining the positives of both urbanism and ruralism. As such, a garden city was to provide for economic and social opportunity, yet be characterised by gardens, agriculture and nature. Housing was to be affordable, with residents having easy access to services and jobs. Developments were envisioned to be of limited size, yet relatively self-sustaining.

At a larger scale, garden cities were to be linked by public transport lines, thereby providing for regional travel where necessary (Hall, 2002).

Some 100 years later there is renewed interest in polycentric city design (fairly self-sufficient communities linked by quality public transport), with the design approach commonly known as Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)⁵. In Perth, the Network City planning approach anticipates such polycentrism (Department for Planning and Infrastructure and Western Australian Planning Commission, 2004).

Garden cities were intended by Howard to be socially just, insofar as housing was to be affordable and land ownership non-discriminatory. Moreover, local governance was to be characteristic of settlement, as was collective asset management: local people would be responsible for local upkeep (Hall, 2002). While they were envisioned as fairly low

density settlements, they would provide easy access to common facilities because they would be limited in size and ringed by agriculture. Car travel was neither assumed nor designed to be necessary, given the proposed diameter of settlements. Also, cars had at the time yet to become one of the driving forces of growth.

While the garden city ‘ideal’ was informative for fledgling US planning policy, it never really was applied as Howard intended. To begin with, the model presupposed that entire urban networks could be built from the ground up. Instead, it was applied in limited contexts. Radburn Park, for example, one of very few ‘garden cities’, was integrated within an existing urban area and eventually became a dormitory suburb: it was too small and not self-sufficient, and many residents became commuters (Hall, 2002).

In a broader sense, the garden city model was undermined by urban development being too piecemeal for sufficient coordination to be achieved and considerable public backlash to Federal control over urban development (Hall, 2002). Market forces, too, appear to have been very important in compromising Howard’s vision. People did not want to be limited in their choices of where to live and in what conditions.

Furthermore, increasing mobility (provided by buses and cars) began to reduce the need for easy walking access to facilities and neighbourhoods to be anchored by fixed public transport lines. Alongside these changes, government policies advocating personal mobility and relatively uncoordinated growth had significant effects on urban form.

c. Transport and housing innovations, government policy and their influence on growth

Patterns of growth were significantly influenced by transport revolutions. Beginning in the 1880s, the emergence of the tram (or streetcar) facilitated linear outward growth at lower cost than rail (World Conference on Transport Research Society and Institute for Transport Policy Studies, 2004). Trams played a critical role in separating homes from workplaces in cities around the world (Pacione, 2001). Decentralisation of cities was aided by strategic partnerships between tram operators and land developers. Linear dense settlements developed around stops since stops tended to be no more than a few hundred metres apart. Residents of these linear developments became commuters.

In the early 1900s, tram services were developed in most main Australasian cities. The first two decades of the 20th Century were also characterised by significant growth of electrified rail corridors (Laird and Newman, 2001a). During this period, Perth exemplified transit-led growth, with land use arranged around transit lines (Selwood, 1979).

Also in the late 1800s, decentralisation was facilitated by innovations in the home-building industry. Housing became more affordable and housing materials became much more easily transportable. A willingness by governments to spend public funds on utilities and favourable tax policies for decentralised housing further stimulated outward growth (Gillham, 2002). Hall (2002) argues that changing urban dynamics, new technologies, market forces and the influence of legislators overshadowed planning reactions to housing conditions and transport arrangements around this time. This is

From 1920 onwards in US cities development continued to be driven outwards by Federal income tax deductions for home mortgage interest and property taxes. From 1954 to 1986 there were also Federal corporate tax deductions for greenfield developments (Hayden, 2004). Tax concessions have been used extensively in Australia, too, to support the growth of greenfield settlements⁶. It is important to understand that these mechanisms were synergistic with transport revolutions; public transport and later cars may have given mobility potential, but affordable housing and finance for land purchase gave reason to be mobile.

The advent of the diesel bus and, more significantly, the widespread adoption of the automobile as mode options meant growth no longer needed to be coordinated around public transport lines (Newman et al., 1992). These conditions became apparent in the three decades following WWII. For Australia, Gleeson (2006) describes this period as marked by convulsive growth in cities and economic boom conditions.

Returning servicemen were able to afford detached dwellings and own land thanks to the War Service Homes Scheme. This alongside rapid motorisation undoubtedly accelerated suburbanisation (Gleeson, 2006). In some respects, the War Service Homes Scheme is symptomatic of the general governmental approach to urban planning throughout much of the latter half of the 20^th Century. Analysis of policy from this period suggests that it tended to be directive but not prescriptive about growth. This is despite there being regional planning strategies formulated in Australia soon after the war, such as Perth’s Stephenson-Hepburn Plan (1955). This plan formed the basis of the Metropolitan Regional Scheme (1963), which continues to be the statutory planning

mechanism for the Perth metropolitan region. Ironically, the ‘strategic’ Plan – with its emphases on low development densities (particularly outside of established nodes), segregation of land uses and a lack of a rigid urban growth boundary - provides the backdrop against which Perth’s current problems associated with urban sprawl and car dependence have developed.

What then precipitated such rapid motorisation in Australia? Until the end of World War Two, there had remained a considerable reliance on public transport. In Australia, this was attributable to shortages of fuel, the relative immaturity of both the market for private motor vehicles and the road network, and as yet relatively concentrated urban development (Laird and Newman, 2001a). As an indicator, only one in every four Melbourne households owned a car at the war’s end (Davison, 2004).

However, for many people public transport was a source of frustration, given shortcomings of services, and following the war, cars became symbolic of freedom, mobility and opportunity (Laird and Newman, 2001a). Innovation, competition, mass production within the vehicle market and mass marketing undoubtedly helped on one hand to sell the private motor car to the public and on the other, to make it more accessible to the relatively less affluent. At the same time, rising relative affluence in Australia as well as elsewhere in the developed world contributed to increasing car ownership (Cameron et al., 2004; Ingram and Liu, 1999).

From the early 1960s, the rapid uptake of motor vehicles can be monitored. In Perth, for example, Kenworthy and Laube (1999) detail a continuing upward trend in vehicle ownership per 1,000 people. In 1961, there were 239 passenger cars per 1,000 people,

which rose to 357 per 1,000 in 1971, 475 per 1,000 in 1981 and 523 per 1,000 in 1991.

Current levels of ownership are estimated to range from approximately 630 cars per 1,000 (Cameron, 2004) to 679 per 1,000 persons (Ashton-Graham et al., 2005). Car ownership has likewise spiralled upwards in other Australian cities (Newman and Kenworthy, 1989; Newman and Kenworthy, 1999).

At some point, the market may become saturated with vehicles. Vehicle ownership per 1,000 people is projected to continue rising in the medium term, suggesting this saturation point is yet to be reached (Cameron, 2004). Using international data and economic modelling, Dargay and Gately (1999) estimated that the saturation point may be 0.85 cars per person. Later work, however, suggests that the saturation point may vary from one country to another, but consistently, vehicle ownership has and will continue to grow alongside increasing income (Dargay et al., 2007). The implications of this analysis are significant: in developing countries, vehicle fleets are predicted to burgeon. China’s automotive fleet, for example, is predicted to reach 390 million by 2030; an increase of nearly 2,000% (Dargay et al., 2007).

Figure 2.1 combines Kenworthy and Laube’s (1999) data with Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001) information and Cameron’s (2004) projections for vehicle ownership in five Australian cities. In this graph, the data for 1961, 1971, 1981 and 1991 has been used as a proxy for 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1990 respectively, to ensure consistent time periods across the graph. Based on available data, the ‘boom’ period for growth in ownership of vehicles occurred in all cities between 1960 and 1980.

Similarly, Kenworthy and Laube (1999) have identified a continual rise in per capita car kilometres (per annum) for major Australian cities, for the period 1961-1991.

Cameron’s (2004) projections for 2010 and 2020 are for further increases. Again, Kenworthy and Laube’s data is used as a proxy for 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1990 to ensure consistent time periods with Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001) information for 2000 and Cameron’s (2004) projections. These data are combined in Figure 2.2.

Comparatively, motorisation in the US has been equally, if not more, dramatic. In 1950, six out of every ten households possessed at least one private vehicle. By 1967, the ratio was eight out ten (Steiner, 1978). By 1990, there was one car for every 1.8 people in the country (Gillham, 2002). In 2001, 280 million Americans owned in the vicinity of 235 million private vehicles (Hayden, 2004). Moreover, since WWII there has been a trend towards lower occupancy and increasing distances travelled (Pacione, 2001).

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Year Car ownership per 1,000 persons (actual and predicted)

Sydney Melbourne Brisbane Adelaide Perth

Figure 2.1 – Growth in Australian vehicle ownership (including projections) (Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2001; Cameron, 2004; Kenworthy and Laube, 1999)

0

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Year

Per capita car kilometres (actual and predicted) Sydney

Melbourne Brisbane Adelaide Perth

Figure 2.2 –Growth in per capita car kilometres (per annum) for selected Australian capital cities (including projections)

(Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2001; Cameron, 2004; Kenworthy and Laube, 1999)

In 2003, the average US household drove in the vicinity of 25,000 miles (40,234 kilometres) (Hu and Ruescher, 2004). Pucher and Renne (2003: p49) argue:

The most salient trend in American travel behaviour over the past four decades has been increased reliance on the private car for urban travel, with corresponding declines in public transit and walking.

In Canada, there was likewise a ‘boom period’ of growth in private motorisation. In 1945, there were 1.1 million registered vehicles in the country. By 1952, registration had doubled and by 1961 it had doubled again, to 4.3 million (Harris, 2004). Even in the UK, where cities have stronger historical roots and there are generally greater constraints on land, there was roughly a ten-fold increase in the actual number of registered cars from around two million in 1950 to over 20 million in 1994

The distance travelled, on average, per person, per day has also grown rapidly. In 1950, the distance was estimated to be 8 kilometres across all modes. In 2001, this had risen to 48 kilometres. By 2025, it is projected to be 97 kilometres (Adams, 2001). The private motor vehicle is overwhelmingly the mode of choice, although again this is inextricably linked to land use planning decisions and policies that have made cars a virtual necessity for many trips.

From early on in the period of rapid motorisation, Australia reproduced many US phenomena; not only was the US seen as the model of motorisation, but for the provision of ancillary automotive services, including drive in facilities, franchised petrol stations and extensive car parking (Davison, 2004). As fast and convenient private vehicle became the most popular means of travel, life began to revolve around driving.

A review of this period suggests that the car contributed to the decline of some social institutions. For example, garages ceased to be as much about social interaction as service stations and, following the development of an oil company oligopoly in Australia, are today more about drive-in and drive-out service.

So, while the shift to the suburbs was not instantaneous – it occurred over decades – rapid motorisation sped-up the process. The car became popular because it created freedom over space (and, before congestion became a significant issue, time) and went on to become the key driver of urban change in US and Australian cities (Laird and Newman, 2001a; Newman, 2003). From an international perspective, the HiTrans International Steering Group (2005) refers to the private motor vehicle as being the largest influence on urban form over the last 50 years or more. The car allowed people unprecedented flexibility in their choice of home and work. It also offered door-to-door

transport and could be used at any time of the day (WCTRS and ITPS, 2004). As cars became relatively more affordable and mass produced, more and more people had access to newly developed land. At the same time, automobile-oriented policy relating to urban growth, road network development and government financing fuelled sprawl.

Given market demand and the pre-eminence of car travel in city policy, public transport became a poor competitor to the car and as such the diesel bus and other public transport lost significance. In 1957, a study by Fortune Magazine found that members of the US public held very negative perceptions of public transport, including its efficiency (Bello, 1957). This reflects the disinvestment in public transport and systematic dismantling of tram networks across the US at the time, given the car was seen as the future of transport. As Davison (2004: p77) argues, the car reshaped cities as we know them and in doing so:

…transform[ed] the regular oscillation of commuters from city to suburb into a more complex web of movements across the metropolis…

In Australia too, while vehicle ownership was rising, public transport was becoming a poor competitor to the car. In 1954 in Melbourne, planning advice from visiting US experts was to scrap the tram system to thereby improve traffic flows, as per US practice (Davison, 2004). In the late 1950s in many Australian cities, public transport was running at an increasing deficit due to service problems and a modal split in increasing favour of the private vehicle. With a significant proportion of transport funding being collected through gasoline tax, the motoring lobby was vociferous about

In Australia too, while vehicle ownership was rising, public transport was becoming a poor competitor to the car. In 1954 in Melbourne, planning advice from visiting US experts was to scrap the tram system to thereby improve traffic flows, as per US practice (Davison, 2004). In the late 1950s in many Australian cities, public transport was running at an increasing deficit due to service problems and a modal split in increasing favour of the private vehicle. With a significant proportion of transport funding being collected through gasoline tax, the motoring lobby was vociferous about