Thursday, June 10, 2010

Save the Planet … Live in a Strata Apartment


Apart from all the other great reasons why you should live in an apartment … it now seems that it will also help save the environment.

Sydney-siders’ (and Australians’) love of big houses and big blocks of land means that Sydney has one of the lowest population densities of any major city in the world with fewer people per square kilometre than most other cities of comparable size.  And, Australia is one of the least populated countries in the world.

Here’s some facts about population densities.
  • Australia ranks 233 out of 239 countries for population density with a population density of 2.903 people per square kilometre
  • Only places like Namibia, French Guiana, the Western Sahara, Mongolia, the Falkland Islands and Greenland have lower population densities
  • By comparison New Zealand has a population density of 15.953 people per square kilometre, the USA has 32.134 people per square kilometre and East Timor has 76.24 people per square kilometre
  • The most densely populated country in the world is Macau (in China) where there are 18,534.247 people per square kilometre
  • The most densely populated city in the world is Manilla with 43,079 people per square kilometre
  • Whilst, as a city, Sydney only has 6,500 people per square kilometre

Find out more about world population densities at this Wikipedia page.

All this low density has a social and environmental cost.

First, it's not environmentally friendly. It increases our carbon footprint per person by increasing our use of fossil-fuel-burning transport to get around and larger house sizes mean higher material use per person, they’re harder to heat and cool, use more power and cost more to fill with stuff.

Second, it matters because if Sydney remains a low-density city, the building of the majority of new houses will have to occur on the outskirts, well away from employment centres and existing infrastructure. This has consequences for the provision of more (and more) physical and social infrastructure, more travelling and commuting for people and the use of fossil fuels, the loss of recreational and green space, etc. 

Thirdly, affordable housing for first home buyers and lower socio-economic parts of society  will be much harder to find within 20 kilometres of the central and other business districts.

And, there's lots of other reasons too.

But, whilst it's likely that most people rationally understand and accept these things and the logic of my proposition that we should live in higher densities, actually doing it is much harder and less likely for most.  And, even those who do are striving for a bigger (and lower density) place to live.

Many people would prefer not to live in apartments ... equating higher-density living (especially at the lower end of the property market) with large blocks of faceless apartments, increased levels of crime and lower living standards.   

But, modern planning, architecture, technology and construction techniques means this is no longer the case.  

Higher-density living can be an important part of a safe and thriving local community with more multi-dwelling apartments and smaller living spaces. But the advantages are environmentally friendly living and, more importantly, the availability of affordable housing in Sydney.


Francesco …




1 comment:

  1. sounds great Francesco - I've loved living in my inner Sydney unit for the last 15 years ...

    but - one downside - water consumption per person in units tends to be higher, particularly with overcrowding tenants, with no obvious incentive to save.

    This is because the typical single meter water supply usage is billed invisibly to and paid from strata funds.

    Yet it is typically the largest single expense item - I know a city highrise where the annual water usage bills are something like $250,000.

    Shared bills are a disincentive to individual saving - e.g. in a 100 unit complex, if I reduce my consumption by 20%, and no-one else does, my share of the total bill would reduce by 20%/100, or only 0.2% ... hmmm - why would you bother.

    We got around this in the highrise by a strata committee decision to waterfix every unit, paid for from strata funds - this cost $7000 and saved probably $80,000 in the first year alone, with savings continuing.

    ReplyDelete