Kalli-Benetos
Cities can save our planet: The case for large urban centres July 6, 2005
Moving to large urban centres and adopting a city lifestyle and all the
its advantages and may be the only way to save our planet from the ecological
disasters the ever-increasing population is inflicting on it. The world's increasing population and its demand for land means we are
quickly running out of wilderness and farmable land. Providing housing solutions for an increasing population while minimizing
damage to the environment is a formidable challenge. Concentrating populations in large urban centers may offer the some
solutions and with a rethinking of the way our cities are built, perhaps not too
much of a compromise.
Most cities and its outskirts are founded on arable land that drew
settlers initially to the site. Development of farmland that often surrounds
cities for housing and industry often uses up a region's best farmland, making
local regions dependent on costly imports and often destroying local
agricultural economies. Much of our existing farmland surrounds our cities
and is the first to go as cities expand in territory.
However, many see development of
land as a cause and effect of economic growth and something that indicates and
adds to a better quality of life. Land development may lead to short term economic
gains, but continuing to develop land without considering the long term impacts
of losing local agricultural customs and economies and being increasingly
dependant on imports will inevitably lead to a diminished quality of
life.
Farmers watching the encroachment of developments upon arable land,
are often forced to expand into wilderness spaces, critically dimishing the
space and diversity of habitats available to wildlife, and devastating forests
that are obliterated to make room for livestock and farming.The destruction of natural habitats reduces
enviroments' natural capacities to filter water from runoffs, prevent soil
erosion and other natural or human-induced ecological damage.
The idealized "cottage with a large yard driveway and multi car
garage" -style housing developments, use large amounts of land inefficiently. It has
been noted that there is no difference in land use (the amount no longer
available for farming or wildlife) between a population density of 1500 people
per square kilometre and 6000 people per square kilometre.
Many argue that cities are
crowded, congested and dirty and they prefer to live outside the city and travel
to work each day. Cities allow for a greater concentration of
people and the services they require. This is often what brings people living
outside city centers to them everyday, requiring more roads, more car-related
space consuming facilities and resulting in the same congestion and pollution
people complain of. If people lived centrally they would travel less on a daily
basis and be more inclined to use public transport or walk. This would diminish
car traffic and its consequences greatly.
One reason for
living outside of large urban centers often cited is that cities are dangerous —
the large populations offer an anonymity that increases crime. In fact, it would appear that areas where there are
great spaces between dwellings and other "privacy-ensuring" barriers, foster a
greater anonimity than the proximity offered by a densely populated
neighbourhood where people walk and meet in neighbourhood grocery stores and
other shared amenities. And knowing your neighbours makes a neighbourhood
safer.
The possibility for a greater population density is an option to slow down
the deterioration of our environment and eradication of farmland that is vital to our
survival, while retaining the cultural and community-building opportunities offered by
living in proximity with one another.
Greater concentrations of people means less developed land area, not
less development. It is the shape of our development that needs to be rethought.
With proper urban planning that focuses on accessible public transport
and diverse neighbourhoods that combine dwellings and services, urban centers can
offer the ecological, security and social benefits that many perceive only available
in small towns.
Allowed to continue, increased housing and industrial development will use up
arable land at an alarming rate, forcing farmers out of business or to expand into
wilderness spaces, critically dimishing the space and diversity of habitats available to
wildlife, and devastating forests. The problems that keep people from living in city
centers will be exacerbated by the commutes to city centers that will get longer,
demands for roads and car facilities greater until every piece of land that can be
'developed' will be paved over.
|