Australian Urban Consolidation and Its Impacts

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Main impacts of urban growth
Argument for and against urban consolidation
Environmental sustainability
Achieving higher strategic consolidation capacity within the local government
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

The changing demographic patterns and the ever-increasing population sizes have exceedingly changed the Australian cities since the second half of the last century. In the light of the growing populations across the Australian cities, cities like Sydney will require additional new settlements in a bid to address the issue. According to Randolph (2006), urban consolidation entails the process of increasing or improving the density of housing in existing residential zones. In other words, this criterion aims at bringing more people to reside in the already established areas where the fundamental infrastructure is already in place. The major idea behind urban consolidation is to minimize new developments in the perceivably delicate areas of the city. Major aspects that influence the consolidation of cities revolve on three key issues, viz. social, economic, and environmental.

In a bid to achieve urban consolidation targets, factors that influence locations where people choose to inhabit have to be addressed within the urban policy agenda. Such factors include land prices, distribution of resources, employment, and access to convenient transport (Harris 2009). In addressing the issue of urban life and culture within the Australian cities, this paper will show that efforts have been put in place to consolidate these cities and the consolidation agenda is achievable and sustainable. Some cases will involve answering the question, how, and where to settle the populations that choose to reside in the greater Australian metropolitan areas.

Main impacts of urban growth

The majority of Australian cities are facing huge pressure to keep abreast with the challenges of bulging populations, which is a global issue. Since the rate of urbanization has skyrocketed in the last three decades, Australian cities have been in an inescapable state of trying to catch up with up to date trends that are requisite in meeting the needs of the high population. Urban life has developed many issues in the Australian environs that bring controversy as one divide translate it to economic benefits and the other sees the array of problems linked to the physical and built environments (Randolph 2006). As the inner city becomes congested, thus resulting in the mushrooming of suburbs to contain the pressure from the growing populations, consolidation becomes inevitable. This assertion means that the natural ecosystem becomes vulnerable to adverse human activities, as extra space is needed for construction (Harris 2009). As few people choose to live in the inner city, the standards of urban lifestyle fall into social decay.

The processes of urban growth and decline take shape and accelerate its consequences. Despite Sydney being regarded as the core of urban Australia, cities like Melbourne, Perth, and Brisbane have reported higher rates of population increase than Sydney since 2000 (Randolph 2006). The intense urbanization has given Australia environmental, social, and economic nightmares on how to counter the situation. City planners and decision makers respond by formulating policies targeting to achieve urban consolidation. However, the call to initiate urban consolidation comprehensively has sparked a divide among those who support the idea and those who advance urban sprawl. Therefore, the government has emerged on urban renewal to decrease infrastructure and halt social cohesion problems such as vandalism (Aulich et al. 2011).

Argument for and against urban consolidation

For social, economic, and environmental considerations, consolidation has been seen as a rationalized or preferred move to establish new and modern residential infrastructures on the Australian metropolitan inner city. As noted by Victorian minister, Andrew McCutcheon back in 1991, addressing the problem of urban sprawl is a social justice challenge that needs to be tackled with immediate effect (Davison 1995). In response to these sentiments, the 1992 House of Representatives incumbent committee on long-term strategies for urban renewal was engaged in the consolidation matters. The committee was charged with the responsibility of examining the state of the cities, favorable trends in development, density of housing, the urgency of action, and the challenges of urban consolidation. Consolidation became the central issue of urban policy debate since the growth or fall of cities signals direct effect to the social, economic, and environmental goals. As crucial and fragile ecological natures border Sydney, for instance, the Nepean River and the forest cover, it became inevitable to decrease the impact of urban growth in these zones (Randolph & Holloway 2005).

Social aspects

The proponents of urban consolidation claim that higher densities of settlement will assist in the distribution of facilities and services to become accessible to residents (Bunker, Holloway & Randolph 2005). In addition, such efforts would probably improve the awareness of civic life and generate the culture of communal responsibility when people start to experience certain levels of urban consolidation. Although consolidation to some extent will be socially and culturally regressive, residents may be compelled to spend more money for fewer services, based on the idea to preserve the best for the future, which holds under such situations. Whilst the expenditures and gains of urban consolidation may be hard to predict, the Australian government has employed substantial efforts to deviate from experiencing the avoidable risks of expanding the metropolitan. Apparently, this agenda is being articulated through actively addressing policies of urban consolidation.

Consolidation is currently solving the issue of social injustice; for instance, an individual traveling for long distances without a car is a challenge since s/he has to wait for public transport to access other services. The social divide created between the poor and the rich continues to widen. Social crimes such as theft as well as noise and pollution affect everyday lives. However, consolidation can resolve these issues. The exercise encourages the growth of vibrant and diverse communities within the inner city unlike the individualistic settling observed in the suburbs. Suburbanization risks the loss of community, which results in the reduction of social capital. In the inner city, dwellers have the opportunity to build connectedness through social welfares, which enhance trust coupled with improving social equity (Bunker, Holloway & Randolph 2005).

Economic aspects

The controversial debate thrives on the argument that urban consolidation is a procedure that can enormously assist in the minimization of capital expenditure on urban development. This idea is viable when urban planners limit new infrastructures by ensuring effective and maximized utilization of the available land and established structures. Critics share a different notion such as the inherent high costs of maintaining the inner city structures (Randolph & Holloway 2005). By examining the bigger picture of the economic challenges of costs of consolidation, it suffices to conclude that the benefits are overwhelming. Economic savings emerge when consolidation is achieved, such as cutting on travel duration, which results in fuel saving and reduced land exploitation since no need for more roads. The reduction of the air and noise pollution is another desirable goal attained via consolidation.

While many people applause the economic perspective as key driving factor for urban consolidation being undertaken by the government, the approval for this rationale is contestable. The opponents argue that the proposition that suburban sprawl is inept and urban consolidation is economically viable is built on slipshod premises, which are lacking factual cues on the economics of settlement in the Australian cities. On contrary, the Australian urban consolidation is achievable; for instance, the New South Wales region has developed policies referred to as smart growth policy that pioneer sustainability and plan first ideas (Burgin, Parissi & Webb 2014). The policies advocate the preservation of open space, coordinate regional planning, and expand zones set aside for green belts among other factors encouraging consolidation.

Environmental sustainability

The environmental claims amplified to reaffirm urban consolidation have been largely advocated not only in Australia, but also across the international arena for the involved collective effect on the global climate. First, compact settlements consume less fossil fuel and greenhouse gas emissions are experienced at reduced rates. In addition, more cost-saving modes of public transport are availed, whilst green belts are developed to enhance agriculture, water catchments, and purification. Despite the critics’ argument that rise in urban density may result in increased pressure on inherent environmental space and outdo the benefits of consolidation, the efforts by the Australian government to actualize consolidation continue to bear fruits. Consolidation involves dimensions such as a decline in car and revitalization of the public transport. During the 2001 Forum on Sydney’s Population Prospects, Councilor McCaffery, the Mayor of North Sydney Council, emphasized the need to quit the retrogressive debate on whether consolidation was helping environmental sustainability and instead focus on the progress, which was evident and being echoed across other cities in the world (Burgin, Parissi & Webb 2014).

Achieving higher strategic consolidation capacity within the local government

In the past five years, the local government sector in Australia has introduced several policy reviews and reforms on urban consolidation. For instance, the reform agenda has been initiated in Auckland, New South Wales (NSW), and Western Australia. Back in 2010, the NSW government introduced its so-called ‘fit for the future’ document of incentives to guide the local government to accelerate urban consolidation agenda (Aulich et al. 2011). These reforms seek to revitalize incentives for the consolidation of the present 41 local councils in entire Sydney as well as regional joint efforts aimed at increasing the chances by local councils to collaborate with the community members and state government amongst other stakeholders. As envisaged in the reform agenda, NSW managed to put in place the Greater Sydney Commission to steer the metropolitan consolidation agenda. Its main role is to oversee urban planning, advise on current and future priorities, and evaluate the consolidation progress. Apparently, the government efforts are demonstrating encouraging sustainability for natural conservation and dealing with the menace of housing (Aulich et al. 2011).

The government is actively publishing information and collecting public opinion concerning urban consolidation and other related issues. The idea is to ensure that the public is well informed on matters of urban renewal and the people’s ideas are incorporated into the implementation process. This aspect gives the community an upper hand and an understanding of the benefits as well as injunctions of urban consolidation. The Greater Sydney Commission Policy principles are highly realistic and achievable with less alteration to humanity. These principles ensure that all members of the community acquire affordable housing based on their choice. In addition, such a move will form a connection between the diverse vibrant inner city dwellers and the suburb residents to create sustainable and conglomerate communities that cherish public infrastructure (Burgin, Parissi & Webb 2014). Finally, the move will ensure that the consolidation process does not foster divisions, but it boosts local character coupled with improving the natural ecosystem quality.

Conclusion

Most Australian cities and particularly Sydney are geographically enshrined in a natural bio-system, thus boosting long-running rivers and an array of animal and forest species. This aspect of Mother Nature gives city planners and opinion movers a debatable issue in terms of the sustainable way to advance urban development. Despite this contentious debate to articulate consolidation, the Australian cities including Sydney are increasingly absorbing thousands of people every day either through natural growth or immigration. In this scenario, despite the contending arguments against consolidation, the Australian authorities have identified the issue as the assertive option to counter urban sprawl, whilst achieving growth demands. History gives an insight of how urban revolution changed the outlook of cities culturally, socially, economically, and politically, and thus the same elements should serve as pointers to attain sustainable urban development.

As indicated by Randolph (2006), in Sydney and other cities, the interesting opportunities projected for consolidation belong to the will by the government to observe and preserve the sustainable growth policies. Since consolidation is widely agreed to provide sustainable solutions, joint commitment amongst the government, community members, and industry players is requisite for any sustainable growth. As aforementioned, urban consolidation may not replace established suburbs, but emerging urban sprawl will be outweighed by the developing commitment from all stakeholders. With the ongoing international peer encouragement and government incentives to adopt energy saving activities such as public transport and energy saving building designs, Australia will gradually consolidate its cities.

Reference List

Aulich, C, Gibbs, M, Gooding, A, McKimlay, P, Pillora, S & Sansom, G., 2011, consolidation in local government: A fresh look. Web.

Bunker, R, Holloway, D & Randolph, B 2005, ‘The expansion of urban consolidation in Sydney’, Social impacts and implications Australian Planner, vol.42, no.3, pp.16-25.

Burgin, S, Parissi, C & Webb, T 2014, ‘The unintended consequences of government policies for public open public open spaces for inner urban Sydney’, International Journal for Urban Studies, vol.71, no.2, pp.2-11.

Davison, G 1995, ‘Australia the First Suburban Nation’, Journal of Urban History, vol. 22, no.1, pp.40-74.

Harris, J 2009, The nation in the global era: Conflict and transformation, Leiden, Brill.

Randolph, B 2006, Delivering the compact city in Australia: Current trends and future implications, University of NSW, Sydney.

Randolph, B & Holloway, D 2005, ‘The Suburbanization of Disadvantage in Sydney: New Problems, New Policies’, Opolis: An International Journal of Suburban and Metropoltan Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 49-65.

Click Here To Order Now!