Cancerous cities

A collection of images published at Wired.com and The Atlantic Cities shows various satellite photos of cities by NASA’s Landsat satellite system – two images of each, from decades ago and more recent. All cities have grown alarmingly, deadly grey concrete swallowing up the green and brown land. It is disturbing to look at and realize how much pressure population growth is placing upon the landscape. Growth advocates love to counter with the argument that city densities should be increased by building upward rather than sprawling outward, but not everyone wants to live crammed into small apartments like battery hens. By keeping populations low people can have it both ways – minimize city spread and live in single houses with backyards.

Battery-hen living

“Hong Kong’s High-Density Housing & Cramped Living Conditions”, ChinaSMACK.com, 23/5 (via Kotaku). These are a series of photos showing the incredibly cramped living conditions that are normal for that city. To my view it looks rather hellish, though I suppose someone who grew up there would regard it as normal. I guess such cramped apartments are preferable to being homeless, but it seems a very Nature-deprived way of living – humans did not evolve to live like termites. I can’t imagine such conditions as being good for their long-term health. Many regard such dense living as desirable for its supposed reduced “ecological footprint”, but the people in the buildings still need all their supplies brought in from elsewhere. I would hate to have to climb up and down hundreds of stairs, or rely on lifts, just to go outside! If a fire took hold in one of those apartments, it would be a major disaster if the residents could not access fire escapes.

A recent Daily Mail article shows the even more nightmarish-looking Kowloon Walled City in China before its (thankful) demolition, an unplanned, unregulated and claustrophobic rabbit warren housing 50,000 or so residents. I don’t envy the children growing up there! They would undoubtedly have many health problems, given China’s pollution, and be very Nature-deprived if they never went outside its walls. The io9 sci-fi site mentioned the place a few times – a few commenters there seem to have romanticized views of the place as it resembled a science fiction dystopia.

Families are squeezed together in tiny apartments, with all their possessions crowding the rooms. (I have to admit that my increasingly cluttered bedroom does not look too different! But at least I can go outside into the backyard or for a walk around the streets.)

“No room for a view”, The Age, 14/5. Melbourne CBD residents are increasingly facing a problem with overshadowing from the many tall apartments being erected, though on a much smaller scale than Hong Kong. Planning here is generally poorly-thought out, with developers given far too many concessions. Problem is that most cities have not been planned properly from their inception and have grown in a messy organic fashion over the decades or centuries – Kowloon was an extreme example of this – so new developments are shoehorned in as best city planners can.

“Population clock shows Japan faces extinction in 1000 years”, 13/5. Yet another alarmist article concerning Japan’s ageing and declining population! It seems to have become a favorite trope. Given their advances in technology (somewhat exaggerated in a satirical Onion article from 2007, “Earthquake Sets Japan Back To 2147”), perhaps they will have robot helpers by then, and people won’t stop having children altogether, so the article is just silly. A couple of letters in response, 16/5:

Falling population

ANYONE who has battled crowds on Tokyo’s trains will welcome the news that Japan’s population is declining (“Population clock shows Japan faces extinction in 1000 years”, theage.com.au, 13/5). Japan is an overcrowded country with few natural resources, and its population needs to decline.

As for disappearing altogether, it’s not going to happen. When the population gets close to what is deemed ecologically sustainable, all the government needs to do is introduce baby bonuses to boost the fertility rate. After the baby bonus was introduced here, our fertility rate went from 1.7 to 1.9.

As for ageing, look at the Okinawans. They live to a ripe old age and are largely independent as they age. Other Japanese can do the same once they are given a bit of space and fresh air – splendid side effects of a lower population.

– Jenny Goldie, Michelago, NSW

Act on East Timor

IT’S good to see the “urgent” matter of the extrapolated extinction of the Japanese race in 1000 years being raised.

But we never hear about the doubling of the population of East Timor (an infertile and seasonally dry country already food-insecure) within 25 years due to unwanted and preventable births happening now.

The Japanese may well decide to have more children – for example, when an average couple can afford a home with more than one bedroom. In the meantime, they have everything to gain from population shrinkage. The East Timorese, on the other hand …

– Jane O’Sullivan, Chelmer, Queensland

Addendum: Letter from MP Kelvin Thompson regarding Melbourne’s sorry excuse for high-rise planning, 27/5:

THE article “Chasing the sun among high-rises a heated issue” (20/5) raises very important issues about Melbourne’s headlong rush to high-rise.

The loss of sunlight is a very important point. As is the fact that high-density high-rise buildings have big carbon footprints, consume more energy, generate more pollution and detract public amenity through the large shadows they cast. The proliferation of high-rise development is threatening not only our environment, but also our social fabric.

I am a fan of the suburban backyard. I believe children who grow up in concrete jungles are subject to more bullying and are more vulnerable to traps such as crime and drugs. What do you call a kid in a backyard? A free range kid. I think free range kids have a better time of it than battery kids. The more high-rise developments that are shoved down the throats of local communities, the more our communities will be suffocated.

– KELVIN THOMSON, MP, Federal Member for Wills

Evacuate 13 million?

“Japan Weighed Evacuating Tokyo in Nuclear Crisis”, NYT/The Age, 27/2. This article describes the Japanese government’s then-secret plans to evacuate Tokyo after the earthquake and tsunami if the damaged Fukushima Daiichi reactor plant went into meltdown:

Mr. Kan and other officials began discussing a worst-case outcome if workers at the Fukushima Daiichi plant were evacuated. This would have allowed the plant to spiral out of control, releasing even larger amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere that would in turn force the evacuation of other nearby nuclear plants, causing further meltdowns. The report quotes the chief cabinet secretary at the time, Yukio Edano, as having warned that such a “demonic chain reaction” of plant meltdowns could result in the evacuation of Tokyo, 150 miles to the south.

Not described in the article is how the government would undertake the immense task of evacuating a huge city of 13 million (though looking at the Wikipedia page, the greater Tokyo region is an astounding 35 million). Japan is pressed for space on its islands as it is (despite gloomy alarmist reports about a declining birth rate). Perhaps other countries might take some of the evacuees, assuming they wanted to go, but nearby China is overcrowded already, and places such as Australia are mostly desert and the infrastructure in the cities are not coping with the current population. So disasters like these demonstrate that a large and growing population rapidly becomes a liability in such times.

Urban nightmares

“The future is a high-rise world”, The Age, 22/12/2010. I have come to detest architects in general; most seem to be enraptured by the idea of cramming millions of humans into futuristic hi-tech cities, and rendering utopian artwork of such. One of the most extreme examples is that of housing up to one million people in a single tower in London (architect’s webpage) to accomodate its growing population. To me that sounds like a nightmarish way to live, crammed into a small space with that many people – “battery-hen living” is my name for it. The architect in the first article, Thom Mayne, seems to be one of those arrogant types who think city living is sophisticated and sneers at suburbs – I just want to slap him!

“What future for intelligent life in space?”, The Space Review, 7/11. This opinion piece by Stephen Ashworth asserts that colonizing space (as opposed to other planets) and exploiting its resources will enable humanity to keep expanding almost indefinitely. This comes across to me as “Space Cadet” thinking – an overly-optimistic view that going into space will magically solve humanity’s problems. Somewhat alarmingly, he notes that such expansion will supposedly allow the human population to expand hugely:

In this way, very large future human populations are conceivable. For example, John S. Lewis has reckoned that the material resources of the main asteroid belt, together with large-scale use of solar power, would allow at least 10 million billion people to support themselves (Mining the Sky, p.196). When one adds in the Jupiter trojans and the opportunities presented by the outer solar system, even larger populations become possible. Frank Drake and Dava Sobel have put the overall carrying capacity of our system at “more than a hundred billion billion human beings” (Is Anyone Out There?, p.128), while Marshall Savage suggests an even larger figure (The Millennial Project, p.303). We do not need to quibble over orders of magnitude in order to make the point that the propensity for economic and population growth characteristic of industrial civilization is well matched with the opportunities offered by its local environment, provided that the 21st century sees a shift of the focus of industrial and population growth away from Earth and onto large-scale development of the natural resources of near-Earth space.

It’s the same old infinite growth mentality that is causing so much damage to humanity and the enviroment on Earth. Realistically, I can’t see space colonies happening before mid- or late-century – if ever. And most people would want to stay on Earth, on which humans have evolved and are intensely adapted to.

China’s population reached 1.34 billion last year – attributed mainly to people living longer rather than more births. But now the furphy of the “ageing population” is being raised:

Cai Yong said allowing more births now would help the country cope with looking after its large and growing elderly population. “To have a stable society, you better start now, to think ahead of time because it takes 20 to 30 years to have another generation come down the line,” he said.

And then they will be back to square one, because the increased number of young people born will grow old, and require yet more young people born to look after them… *Sigh*

Cramped city

Tokyo’s population has reached an astonishing 13 million (13.1 million as of 1/4), packed into a dense urban area of 2000 km² (Victoria, in contrast, has 3.4 million people in nearly 9000 km²). I suppose some would say that such density is an efficient use of space, but to me it sounds nightmarish. Granted, Japan has a cultural mindset that allows people to mostly live civily in such crowded conditions (one can imagine how those from a relatively uncivilized and violent Australian culture would cope – namely, not at all!), but it is hardly a desirable way to live.

Some officials in China are pushing to ease the one-child limit, because of alarmism over an aging population. (However, the one-child limit does not apply to ethnic minorities and rural families.) The surfeit of younger people will supposedly slow down economic growth. But the population is still growing, expected to reach 1.4 billion in 2026 before shrinking – how do they expect to find employment and resources for such huge numbers? Some are opposed to relaxing the limit.

Still, not all experts agree the one-child rule should be dropped. Li Xiaoping, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, welcomes the coming population decline, saying it will ease food and water shortages and limit pollution. Writing in the state-run China Daily newspaper, Li said the government should stand firm on the one-child limit while finding ways to boost the earning power of a smaller work force.

“Taiwanese solution to soaring house prices: don’t have kids”, The Age, 27/4. Like Australia’s housing market, Taiwan’s is also out of control, no thanks to investors, and one inadvertent result has been a decline in fertility. Its population at over 23 million is only a little more than Australia’s, but crammed into a small island, so such a decline is a good thing – but not according to the writer, who raises the usual ageing population alarmism.

But not having children creates even bigger costs ahead. Right now, Taiwan has 6.8 people of working age for every retiree. But preschools are already closing for lack of children, and the population is set to shrink dramatically. By 2032, demographers project, Taiwan will have just 2.5 potential workers for every retiree – and by 2056, just 1.4. If nothing changes, Taiwan – like China, Japan and Korea – will slowly become economically unviable.

“The shock of the old: Welcome to the elderly age”, 8/4. This article states that an ageing population is not necessarily a bad thing, and even a positive thing in many respects – one being that the pathological social obsession with youth might abate. Society will need to make some adjustments, such as being prepared to employ older workers, but it won’t be the disaster many doomsayers predict. Another positive aspect not mentioned: with fewer young males around, violence should also lessen.

“Too many people packed into dirty, crowded cities”, Daily Telegraph, 11/2. An opinion piece by businessman Dick Smith, who has become an opponent of population growth (one of the good guys, in other words!). Australia should not seek to emulate the megacities of the world, which are horridly overcrowded.

Mad at Madden

The Age readers were quick in responding to Planning Minister Justin Madden’s article (I sent in a letter but it was not published):

26/6:

Low density, high amenity can’t coexist

Justin Madden’s defence of his Government’s decision to abandon Melbourne’s green wedges and release huge tracts of land for development demands a response. Attacking critics as elitist is unworthy of a minister.

The proposed low-density developments will lock Melbourne into further unsustainability, with the car the overwhelmingly dominant mode of transport. With global warming and peak oil, this is locking in serious problems for the future. While I hope the new railway projects Madden talks about eventuate, his Government has been in power 10 years without any substantial extension of the rail or tram network.

With current rates of growth we will hit the 5 million population target within 10 years. Unless growth is substantially reduced – and that is not on the agenda – we will then see Melbourne at 6 million, 8 million, 10 million. The 10 people per hectare proposal for the new outer suburbs simply will not be able to cope and Melbourne will continue to devour prime farmland. There are few cities anywhere of the size of 5 to 10 million at the low densities being proposed for Melbourne.

The Government has been reacting to change after it has occurred rather than having a clear vision it is able to implement, while the Opposition remains silent. We cannot simultaneously have high population growth, low taxes, low urban densities, high amenity and a sustainable city. Something has to give. The question is what? Let’s have that debate.

– Peter Hogg, North Melbourne

27/6:

Far cry from suburbia of today

Justin Madden (Comment, 25/6) declares that he grew up in Airport West and therefore understands suburbia. Airport West is a far cry from the suburbs of today. It has a train, a tram, a vibrant shopping strip with lots of locally owned shops and employment opportunities. Few of the suburbs being built today have these things. Because public transport hasn’t kept up with growth, many households in outer suburbia have higher costs associated with having to run more cars.

This is an added burden on households on the fringe who can least afford it, causing increasing social disadvantage and household stress. It isn’t about snobbery, Minister Madden – quite the opposite. It’s about providing people with appropriate opportunities through better planning.

– Alison Lee, urban and transport planner, Collingwood

Migration patterns

Justin Madden’s statement that Melbourne’s growth “is lopsided and needs to change” displays a shocking ignorance of the factors driving sectoral growth, which were well documented in Suburbs in Time, a 2000 report by the Department of Infrastructure. It showed that despite lopsided growth, no major net migration moves to the north and west were occurring. The report concluded that migration patterns showed local, generally outward moves, mainly because of the desire to remain in familiar areas and close to family, friends and work.

The notion that limiting outward growth to the east or south will result in a redirection to the west or north is not supported by research carried out by the Government in 2000.

If constraints to the east are implemented, then land prices will inevitably rise and low-income groups will be greatly disadvantaged.

Increasing divergences between urban research and government policy and actions are deplorable and must be redressed urgently. There is a pressing need to re-establish a multifunction planning and development authority for a Melbourne-based region, staffed by experts, with security of tenure, modelled on the former Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works.

– Geoff Harris, former acting director of planning, MMBW, Bentleigh

The real “elitism”

Justin Madden may not have realised, but the use of the word “elitist” to denigrate those arguing against your point of view went out with the Howard government. To argue against urban sprawl, against 1960s-style planning, against energy-hungry suburbs, is not elitist and to suggest so is insulting to the wide range of people who want to achieve a sustainable built environment.

The real elitism in Madden’s argument lies in the suggestion that Melbourne can continue to spread across vast areas, up to 44 kilometres from the CBD, consuming vast quantities of resources and natural heritage in the process, while in other countries people live happily – and consume fewer resources – in densities far higher than the 10 people per hectare that Madden advocates. As for the suggestion that the city is lopsided; just because the sprawl spreads beyond Cranbourne, does that mean it has to go to the You Yangs in the other direction?

– John Ford, West Melbourne

Stop mad growth

Justin Madden, you have missed the point. “Cultural snobbery” and “NIMBY-ism” are not my reasons for being against urban growth and I strongly doubt they are the reasons held by other Melburnians. We are against the destruction of green wedges and native fauna habitat that results from urban growth. A better answer for Melbourne lies upwards, but a perfect answer would involve an effort to stop this mad population growth.

– Lola Jones, Malvern East

This comment from the article “Property owners slugged an average $64 more”, Herald-Sun, 27/6, infuriated me (aside from the main subject of greedy and wasteful councils):

Wyndham City Council Mayor Shane Bourke said it was not an ideal situation for his residents and businesses to have the highest increase, but said he would listen to residents before anything was set in stone. “It’s one of these things which we’d prefer not to happen,” he said. “But we’ve just had 9000 people move in during the last 12 months and we know we’re going to average about 10,000 people a year over the next 30 years. It’s booming and there are challenges with it, but you’ve got to maintain infrastructure and it’s exciting to have so many people coming to our area.”

“Exciting”? WTF?? More like stressful and unsustainable. Growth should be made a dirty word; it is never good.

“World’s megacities ripe for ‘megadisaster’ ”, SMH, 17/6. A not-very-surprising article saying that cities with high populations are vulnerable to natural disasters (i.e. lots of people killed).

IVF entitlement fanatics

“IVF baby is priceless, but who pays?”, The Age, 12/4. This article gives some details of the costs of IVF treatments, 80% of which is funded by Medicare. There is talk of paring back such rebates as part of budget cuts, but again the selfish irrationality of the lobby group, Access Australia, is evident:

But Access Australia, which represents IVF consumers, is taking no chances. It has been encouraging its members to flood the offices of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Treasurer Wayne Swan with angry emails. Sandra Dill, Access chief executive, argues that infertility is a medical condition like any other funded through Medicare and should not be singled out.

These fanatics seriously anger me. As I have said before, while infertility is a medical condition, it is not life-threatening, disabling or disfiguring – an infertile person can lead a normal life and perhaps find other means of fulfilment. Some ideas for curbing funding:

• Funding for one child per woman.
• No funding for women over 40 (when fertility declines and risks of birth defects increase).

“Water cut off in Mexican capital ”, BBC News, 10/4; “Dry Taps in Mexico City: A Water Crisis Gets Worse”, TIME, 11/4. Mexico City is currently enduring a water supply crisis. It has a growing population of nearly 9 million (and ~10 million in the outer region), so you can imagine the ensuing disaster should supplies dry up altogether. This is an ominous warning for other drought-prone cities, such as those in Australia.