Recent patterns of residential development in Australian cities are threatening to overwhelm green space in our urban cores. Policies of urban consolidation have concentrated medium to high density residential development in inner ring suburbs where green space is comparatively scarce. And the zoning and development regulations of many local authorities actually allow a reduction of green space for higher density development – usually without any justification.
Everyone likes parks, but we may be greatly undervaluing their importance to our health and wellbeing, and to the wellbeing of other species. Rather than losing our green spaces, we should be assessing the evidence on their value and making informed decisions about how much green space we need.
To the casual observer, urban parks and green spaces might appear commonplace. But even a cursory examination of green space distribution within most cities shows that urban green space is neither uniformly accessible nor equitably distributed.
Generally the older and denser parts of many cities, which often were developed during the industrial revolution, tend to have relatively poor park access. But suburbs that have developed since the late 1950s have comparatively better access to various types of green space.
The spatial pattern of urban green space distribution reflects diverse factors linked to urban land and property markets, changing land use planning philosophies, histories of settlement and development, and in some cases, institutionalised racism and elitism.
Before the development of formalised park and recreation planning systems in the late 1800s and early 1900s, park and green space planning in the United Kingdom, United States, and Australia was relatively haphazard.
Some cities, like Adelaide, are park rich due to visionary administrators. In London royal parks were opened to the public, a product of elite benevolence. Other cities, like Canberra, grew while new ideas about park planning gained popularity.
But some cities are park poor. Inner ring residents in Los Angeles for example, have less public park space per 1,000 residents than the size of a suburban backyard. So can we put a value on urban green space?
Research by John Henneberry, a Professor of Town and Regional Planning at the University of Sheffield, suggests people in Sheffield may be willing to pay sizeable sums to access high quality urban green space.
This should not come as a surprise. From their early origins in the UK and US, parks were known to raise property values and people were prepared to pay a premium to live near them. Frederick Law Olmsted and Harland Bartholomew openly acknowledged this when they developed Central Park in New York.
Studies by John Crompton and others have found widespread evidence supporting the notion that proximity to green and open space pushes up property values. But reducing the benefit of parks and green space to a line on a ledger sheet can be both misleading and inaccurate.
Beyond an economic calculation, researchers have discovered that urban green spaces provide a wide variety of benefits. You don’t have to use these spaces to benefit from them. Parks can improve physical and mental health, ecosystem services and urban biodiversity.
Public health researchers like Ariane Bedimo-Rung and Billie Giles-Corti have found that living close to urban green spaces like parks and trails can increase urban residents’ levels of physical activity and reduce the likelihood of being overweight or obese. This reduces the risk of diabetes and several types of cancer.
Frances Kuo and her colleagues have found that proximity to urban green space can lower the incidence of domestic violence, stress and depression and may even mitigate attention deficit disorder in children.
Ecological economists including Per Bolund and Sven Hunhammar have found urban green spaces also provide a range of free ecosystem services. They reduce noise levels, lower pollution, and reduce flooding. And some ecologists have also found that urban parks can harbour rare and endangered species and promote biodiversity.
We need strong evidence to support the density imperative, evidence that we presently lack. Until we can accurately gauge the green space needs of higher density residents, it may be folly to blindly pursue policies of urban consolidation.
In a time of economic uncertainty, when local councils are looking to develop “surplus” land assets such as “underutilised” park spaces, we need to carefully evaluate the true values of these spaces, before they are sold off to bolster ailing municipal coffers. To do otherwise could be more costly than we might imagine.
Join the conversation
Comments (12)
John Harland
bicycle technician (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Growing up in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne in the 1950s and 60s was to experience a constant loss of the open country we cherished, and which we were allowed to roam in those distant times.
When the Kennett government close the local schools, those area were converted immediately to medium-density housing except for one small area that locals had to fight hard to retain.
Now that area of Mt Waverley has less public open space nearby than where I live in the old industrial heartland of Brunswick. Of the open space that does exist, a significant part is of little use except for playing organised cricket or football, or golf - none of which has ever been part of how my family and friends, at least, use public space.
The generalisation about green spaces in the inner and outer suburbs of Melbourne, at least, should include consideration of how specialised and exclusive that space is.
Paul Richards
(logged in via Twitter)
I couldn't agree more, having lived in WA for most of my life the lack of cycling infrastructure and green space in Melbourne is stagering. I also live in Brunswick, thankfully we seem to have a reasonable access to green space. Even the areas that are green here in Melbourne don't have the detail of care of SA, Qld or WA have.
The cities total dedication to the motor vehicle is evident everywhere, future planners have addressed this but it remains to be seen if the motor vehicle lobby will interveine. Change is slow, my guess is the 'Baby Boomers' are still in decision making roles and are reluctant to touch the grass.
The only reasonable solution to the cites lack of green space is acquiring land and re-vegetating areas. That is not going to be popular.
At least we have good models for Human-ising Cites;
http://youtu.be/-pIAUycJKzQ
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1BE9A8FAB3FDA95D
Robert Nelson
(Associate Director Student Experience at Monash University)
Dr Byrne provides a useful defence of parks and describes their merits helpfully. However, he follows an unnecessary dichotomy, where the survival of parks is opposed to greater urban density. The two are by no means antithetical, as Paris or even Manhattan demonstrates; and I think that seeing urban density and parks as mutually exclusive is ultimately a bit reactive. Urban density is definitely desirable from a greenhouse point of view and, given the huge tracts of private low-density land in Australia and America, it does not need make any incursions upon public parks. I would rather hear us talking of streets as places of recreation, most of which are enhanced by greater urban density. It is a case that I make in The space wasters, http://www.planning.org.au/documents/item/3512.
John Browne
Surveyor (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
So do we still see Radburn as a failure?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Radburn_design_for_public_housing
i.e. is it the amount, location, or quality of open space that makes for healthy communities? Or something completely different.
stephen prowse
(logged in via Twitter)
Governments and councils have a very poor track record in maintaining and developing open space in urban and suburban developments. Some years ago, the Victorian Government was extending the Eastern Freeway down a green corridor. Being an active user of this space I was surprised to received a brochure that stated that there would be no net loss of open space. I wrote to the agency asking how could this be and not surprisingly got no response. I suspect that there are many models of medium/high density urban development that are accompanied by open green space. We need to ensure that our politicians and councilors act in the best long term interests of the community and recognise the conflict of interest in considering developments. Australia needs quality medium/high density developments to support the high level of infrastructure we demand.
Bruce Moon
Bystander! (logged in via email @imap.cc)
Jason
I suggest you are conflating the terms 'parks' and 'greenspace'. I suggest the more common practice is to use 'open space' with descriptions for the type of open space.
Parks are typically constructed spaces dominated by 'hard' surfaces of paving, bitumen, etc, with user amenities such as rotunda's, seating, paths, children's 'distractions', maybe some fenced game area (eg. tennis court), and occasionally some grass and/or trees.
Greenspace is largely devoid of hard construction…
show full comment
Jim Wright
Retired Civil/Structural Engineer, IT Consultant/Contractor (logged in via email @acslink.net.au)
There is a part of the Port Melbourne precinct called Garden City. It was built up in the 1930s in response to the Garden City movement in Britain and Europe, which aimed to provide healthy and sustaining housing for the lower classes. The houses are small and cramped and located on small blocks. However, these limitations are offset by alternating two-storey houses and bungalows, constructing main internal streets as dual carriageways with bushes and grass in the median strips and providing a number…
show full comment
Janet Bolitho
councillor (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Jim - very interested in your comments on Garden City. In my opinion, the recent improvements to Garden City Reserve have transformed an open space into a park. Wonder whether you agree.
Jim Wright
Retired Civil/Structural Engineer, IT Consultant/Contractor (logged in via email @acslink.net.au)
Hi, Janet. I have to say that I have not been back to Garden City for a while, but I had a look at the melway maps to refresh my memory. A very interesting feature of Garden City (because of it was built on sand dunes it was once referred to somewhat derisively as Little Baghdad, whereupon some unkind people said that it was because the forty thieves lived there!) is that there appear to be two sorts of open space. The ones I was looking at are the internal ones off Dunstan Parade, on either side…
show full comment
Giles Pickford
Retired, Wollongong (logged in via email @bigpond.com)
Australian Poet Les Murray once said that "the great thing about Australia is the 75% of it is only good for looking at".
Let's Not Pretend
(logged in via Twitter)
@John Browne: Good point. Quality is at least as important as quantity. The Radburn-style public housing development I grew up in was a disaster. Totally unlivable. One of the worst things about living there was the way the 'green' space (and the community as a whole) was designed and managed (ie by neglect).
Despite Frances Kuo's findings, my experience was that proximity to urban green space increased my proximity and vulnerability to trespass, theft, vandalism, graffiti, assault, noise and antisocial behaviour of every imaginable kind.
Janet Bolitho
councillor (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Jason
Wonder if you have had a look at the Victorian Environment Assessment Council's Metropolitan Melbourne Investigation and recommendations. The report investigates several of the issues you raise.