Half the world’s population now lives in cities. In Australia, this proportion is over three quarters, spread across 17 cities of more than 100,000 people. Australia’s cities are the key to our future economic prospects. They provide great opportunities but also face major challenges.
The concentration of people in cities increases productivity and liveability, through scale economies and agglomeration benefits in production – like knowledge sharing; access to wider labour markets – and consumption, such as access to a wider range of cultural and culinary offerings.
There is a trade-off in city size between such benefits and what economists call the external costs of cities, such as traffic congestion, air pollution and noise. Five to 10 million people is seen by US urban scholar, Robert Cervero, as the size at which the costs tend to exceed the benefits. Sydney and Melbourne are in striking distance of this range.
The tension between agglomeration benefits and external costs is not only an issue of absolute city size. It frequently arises when cities grow quickly, leaving infrastructure and services provision lagging behind demand growth – a problem some Australian cities are currently experiencing.
Large cities that are compact and enjoy good accessibility, matched by efficient infrastructure, are among the most effective urban settlements. These cities do not arise by chance, but require decades of careful management and guidance.
A key part of managing the development of cities is finding the right balance between economic productivity, maintaining a high standard of liveability, and achieving long-term social and environmental sustainability – and recognising that there are multiple interdependencies between these goals.
Restoring a higher rate of productivity growth is central to future Australian economic development and to the economic prospects of our cities. Upgrading infrastructure and education, while raising our investment in research and development, is vital.
Liveability has long been identified as an Australian competitive strength and a critical element in attracting and retaining the brightest and best, as well as for providing a high quality of life for all Australians, whether they live in cities or simply visit them. While a high liveability rating has been a defining quality of Australia’s major cities, a recent trend of declining rankings is concerning. This needs attention before it becomes a threat to a key aspect of ‘brand Australia’.
Our cities currently face many problems that reduce their economic, social and/or environmental sustainability – problems that are frequent talking points in the media, in political debates and in wider community conversations. Two examples are the high and growing costs of traffic congestion and high greenhouse gas emissions.
Congestion costs in our capital cities were estimated at almost $10 billion in 2005 and are expected to double by 2020. Traffic congestion is a drag on productivity, liveability and sustainability.
The greenhouse gas emissions from our cities are among the highest per capita in the world. For example, Brisbane’s per capita land-transport emissions are about three times those of London's and Melbourne’s are over twice those of London.
The December 2009 Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting represented a potential watershed in terms of tackling the issues confronting our cities. The relevant COAG Communique set out an agreed National Objective: "To ensure Australian cities are globally competitive, productive, sustainable, liveable and socially inclusive and are well placed to meet future challenges and growth."
The communique spells out criteria that capital city planning systems will be expected to meet. These criteria are essentially process-based. For these processes to meet the national objective, they need to encompass outcome objectives, the achievement of which will provide some assurance that the relevant strategic plans will ensure Australian cities are globally competitive, productive, sustainable, liveable and socially inclusive.
What kinds of outcome objectives or targets might provide some assurance that real progress is being achieved? The 2010 ADC Cities Summit, released last Friday, proposes 16 outcome targets, encompassing productivity, liveability and sustainability:
1. An 18 per cent (at least) increase in city GDP per capita;
2. Youth unemployment rate to be no more than 3 percentage points above the overall rate;
3. Each capital city should increase the relative modal share of its personal trips performed by public transport, walking and cycling combined by at least ten percentage points;
4. 95 per cent coverage of fibre to the property;
5. 75 per cent of working age people to be tertiary/trade qualified at level III or above;
6. Gross urban density to increase at least 20 per cent;
7. All city residents to live within 300 metres of public open space by 2020;
8. Halve the percentage of people living below the poverty line;
9. Homelessness to be at least halved;
10. At least 90 per cent of people agree that their neighbourhood is a good place to live;
11. At least 10 percentage points more school children walk or cycle to school;
12. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 30 per cent on 2000 levels;
13. Solid waste disposal rates (all sources) to be less than 0.4 tonnes per capita;
14. Reduce drinking water use by 30 per cent by 2020;
15. 100 per cent achievement of national air quality targets;
16. Increase in native bird species (diversity) and numbers (abundance).
These targets are not exhaustive but they are comprehensive. If Australia’s capital cities can meet these outcome targets by 2020, then productivity, liveability and environmental sustainability will be moving in the right direction at good speed. In short, our cities will remain great cities.
John Stanley is adjunct professor at the University of Sydney’s Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies and one of the authors of the ADC Cities Report. The Report can be downloaded from www.adcforum.org.
Half the world’s population now lives in cities. In Australia, this proportion is over three quarters, spread across 17 cities of more than 100,000 people. Australia’s cities are the key to our future economic prospects. They provide great opportunities but also face major challenges.
The concentration of people in cities increases productivity and liveability, through scale economies and agglomeration benefits in production – like knowledge sharing; access to wider labour markets – and consumption, such as access to a wider range of cultural and culinary offerings.
There is a trade-off in city size between such benefits and what economists call the external costs of cities, such as traffic congestion, air pollution and noise. Five to 10 million people is seen by US urban scholar, Robert Cervero, as the size at which the costs tend to exceed the benefits. Sydney and Melbourne are in striking distance of this range.
The tension between agglomeration benefits and external costs is not only an issue of absolute city size. It frequently arises when cities grow quickly, leaving infrastructure and services provision lagging behind demand growth – a problem some Australian cities are currently experiencing.
Large cities that are compact and enjoy good accessibility, matched by efficient infrastructure, are among the most effective urban settlements. These cities do not arise by chance, but require decades of careful management and guidance.
A key part of managing the development of cities is finding the right balance between economic productivity, maintaining a high standard of liveability, and achieving long-term social and environmental sustainability – and recognising that there are multiple interdependencies between these goals.
Restoring a higher rate of productivity growth is central to future Australian economic development and to the economic prospects of our cities. Upgrading infrastructure and education, while raising our investment in research and development, is vital.
Liveability has long been identified as an Australian competitive strength and a critical element in attracting and retaining the brightest and best, as well as for providing a high quality of life for all Australians, whether they live in cities or simply visit them. While a high liveability rating has been a defining quality of Australia’s major cities, a recent trend of declining rankings is concerning. This needs attention before it becomes a threat to a key aspect of ‘brand Australia’.
Our cities currently face many problems that reduce their economic, social and/or environmental sustainability – problems that are frequent talking points in the media, in political debates and in wider community conversations. Two examples are the high and growing costs of traffic congestion and high greenhouse gas emissions.
Congestion costs in our capital cities were estimated at almost $10 billion in 2005 and are expected to double by 2020. Traffic congestion is a drag on productivity, liveability and sustainability.
The greenhouse gas emissions from our cities are among the highest per capita in the world. For example, Brisbane’s per capita land-transport emissions are about three times those of London's and Melbourne’s are over twice those of London.
The December 2009 Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting represented a potential watershed in terms of tackling the issues confronting our cities. The relevant COAG Communique set out an agreed National Objective: "To ensure Australian cities are globally competitive, productive, sustainable, liveable and socially inclusive and are well placed to meet future challenges and growth."
The communique spells out criteria that capital city planning systems will be expected to meet. These criteria are essentially process-based. For these processes to meet the national objective, they need to encompass outcome objectives, the achievement of which will provide some assurance that the relevant strategic plans will ensure Australian cities are globally competitive, productive, sustainable, liveable and socially inclusive.
What kinds of outcome objectives or targets might provide some assurance that real progress is being achieved? The 2010 ADC Cities Summit, released last Friday, proposes 16 outcome targets, encompassing productivity, liveability and sustainability:
1. An 18 per cent (at least) increase in city GDP per capita;
2. Youth unemployment rate to be no more than 3 percentage points above the overall rate;
3. Each capital city should increase the relative modal share of its personal trips performed by public transport, walking and cycling combined by at least ten percentage points;
4. 95 per cent coverage of fibre to the property;
5. 75 per cent of working age people to be tertiary/trade qualified at level III or above;
6. Gross urban density to increase at least 20 per cent;
7. All city residents to live within 300 metres of public open space by 2020;
8. Halve the percentage of people living below the poverty line;
9. Homelessness to be at least halved;
10. At least 90 per cent of people agree that their neighbourhood is a good place to live;
11. At least 10 percentage points more school children walk or cycle to school;
12. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 30 per cent on 2000 levels;
13. Solid waste disposal rates (all sources) to be less than 0.4 tonnes per capita;
14. Reduce drinking water use by 30 per cent by 2020;
15. 100 per cent achievement of national air quality targets;
16. Increase in native bird species (diversity) and numbers (abundance).
These targets are not exhaustive but they are comprehensive. If Australia’s capital cities can meet these outcome targets by 2020, then productivity, liveability and environmental sustainability will be moving in the right direction at good speed. In short, our cities will remain great cities.
John Stanley is adjunct professor at the University of Sydney’s Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies and one of the authors of the ADC Cities Report. The Report can be downloaded from www.adcforum.org.