As the population of our major cities continues to grow with increased migration, urban planning urgently needs to be addressed otherwise Sydney-centre living will become increasingly unaffordable and more people will be forced to the outer fringes of the city.

This not only results in longer commutes for residents, but also in the loss of vital agricultural farmland from our food bowls. High-density living is vital to contain our sprawling cities, and new and workable strategies are needed to meet our ever-changing societal needs.

A SHORT HISTORY OF LAND

In so many ways, land is still the world’s most significant asset class. For centuries it represented the only true wealth of people: the crown, nobility, and the landed gentry all derived their near-plenary power from what they could sow, reap, extract, and harness from the land. There were also the primary assets of livestock, cultivated crops, serfs, and soldiers, all requiring land availability in its various productive forms. Landed estates have generated unrivalled income and influence for their owners through their siting, form, size, and capacity to produce, feed, and house. Thus, the long-established economic capacity of land to generate wealth and power is not only historic, it is logical.

For centuries, property represented the only means of production in kingdoms, territories, and colonies for the oligarchic elite who owned the established and conquered realms and all upon them. People were born on the land, worked on the land, grew up on the land, and died on the land, but never owned any part of the asset.

It was not until the late 1700s that land became a tradeable commodity in Britain, Europe, and the colonies, and somewhat accessible to ordinary citizens (Florida, 2002). It was arguably the commercialisation of the steam engine and the advent of the railway that began to break the inextricable bond between people’s place of employment and landed property. As factories that were located away from traditional estates began to produce goods and satisfy demand distally, so too did many workers have to travel to work for the first time.

Cities not only grew but were subdivided into new areas with commercial districts, housing for the factory workers, and housing sections for the capitalists and managers. Social life had come to organise itself around the emergence and clash of new economic classes, segregated into new special zones mostly related to function or based on historical needs.

With the inevitable development of towns and cities, came further land-use change and new urban wealth. New settlement patterns of workers were inevitable, due to the waves of rural dwellers who had come to reside nearer their employment in new dormitory settings at the outskirts of burgeoning towns and cities. At the base of much historical wealth therefore, whether industrial, feudal, regal or colonial, remained the primary tangible ingredient: the land itself. This was fundamentally different to other economic drivers because its supply was and remains inherently limited.

THE VALUE EQUATION

Land’s limited supply, and its ability to produce income or capital for its owners, remains as relevant today as it was during the reign of the Tsars, The Ottomans, or William the Conqueror. The notion is that land holds value as a direct consequence of its use. This is central to the value equation today as it was for thousands of years gone past. Translating this to today’s Australian landscape, our cities such as Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane continue to be shaped by land’s physical attributes; delivering functionality, beauty, and lodging, but also wealth and power to their millions of inhabitants.

The shaping of cities has been with man throughout history. From the time that Alexander the Great built the greatest ancient metropolis on the shores of the Mediterranean in 331 BC, to Baron von Haussmann’s iconoclastic modernisation of Paris in 1853, we as humans have long been defined by the places we inhabit. Take John of Damascus, St Teresa of Avila, William of Okham, Catherine of Aragon, and Marie Louise of Austria as examples. This view is endorsed by Murphy (2007) who suggests that due to the shortage of land in inner city areas, a major task in metropolitan planning is to identify new areas for future urban development at the edge of a city, and to manage processes that will bring this land into an urban state.

This becomes increasingly necessary because many people now prefer to live in new housing at the edge of the city and because housing demand often cannot readily be accommodated in a city, nor can new office and entertainment precincts (Murphy, 2007). In my view, the dichotomous effects of urban renewal and zoning on civic urban outcomes can only be realised, and made effective, if cities are ready to accept their urban failures and embrace change.

THE CHALLENGE AHEAD

As Australian cities such as Sydney grow, the question of accommodating change functionally and sustainably takes on ever-challenging proportions. Within the complex labyrinth of designable possibilities, for decades many city planners have attempted to create more liveable cities. Everything has been attempted from decentralisation, multi-centralisation, consolidation, and rebuilding, all of which have had some measure of success and failure. Physically, the centre of a CBD as well as areas at the edge of a city have to be redefined and calibrated against changing needs and circumstances in demographics, employment and housing. This is not a simple challenge. The movement back to the inner-city gentrification is also linked in many cases to the migration trends and the propensity of new migrants to want to live more proximally to the main urban and city centres.

A study by the Milken Institute in 2000 identified immigration as one of the two most powerful demographic trends reshaping American cities, again highlighting the link and importance of immigration numbers and patterns to the urban settlement patterns of America’s changing civic landscape. This is also true for Australian cities. However, space is generally lacking in most inner areas of large cities for many solutions to be effective. Access to employment, retail facilities, medical services, and public transport are all essential but become difficult to retrofit due to gentrification and urban consolidation. Nonetheless, consolidation in my opinion is still far better than sprawl in planning terms. Urban settlement patterns would reduce reliance on motor cars and better support public transport, which is better for the environment.

CONCLUSION

As the population of our major cities continue to grow with increased migration, we need to ensure that our urban centres are accessible, liveable and, importantly, affordable.

If we do not address these important issues, we will continue to witness people being forced to live on the ever-expanding extremities of our cities where land prices are cheaper. This not only results in longer commutes for residents, but the increased erosion of important agricultural farmland. In short, as our population grows, we must move to a more sustainable model by embracing high-density living and containing our sprawling cities. It’s not easy, but we need to adopt new and workable strategies to meet our ever-changing societal needs.