cityplanner.ca
Discussing big picture urban/city planning and design issues.
Jul 15, 2009
Roads are expensive to build. Over time, they will crack and develop potholes. The cracks and potholes can only be fixed so long before they need to be completely replaced. Times how many roads in a city, and this is just one example.
In our city environments, much of our infrastructure depreciates in value over time and is very costly to replace. These replacement costs are not always budgeted for. And because much of our most expensive infrastructure does not bring in any revenue (e.g., sewers, interchanges), paying more for a higher quality capital product up front, or not building it at all, makes more financial sense...
Not building it at all? How do we do that?
Drainage Infrastructure
Drainage infrastructure such as sewers are very expensive. Fixing and replacing sewers is often very costly because a road has to be ripped up, the pipe has to be replaced, and then the road has to be replaced again. Conventional engineering practices mandate sewers, but they are not necessary if bioswales (drainage ditches and landscaped basins), green parking lots, constructed wetlands, and rain collection systems are used. Edmonton's Big Lake Neighbourhood, designed by Stantec Consulting, is incorporating some of these features.
Detractors of these emerging low impact development practices point to the cost of maintenance as, but these people are not thinking big picture. Natural features are aesthetically pleasing, and typically boost property values. They promote the health of citizens and the environment. They sequester carbon and produce oxygen. Many natural features filter contaminants out of the water. At the individual house level, collecting rain water means that less water has to be supplied for flushing toilets, washing dishes, etc.
Incorporating these sorts of features into neighbourhoods would reduce the demands on existing water treatment plants, and extend their capacity to serve new residents before another (costly) new treatment plant needs to be built.
Road Infrastructure
Roadways, parking lots, interchanges, and bridges are all expensive to construct and replace, and typically do not generate any revenue.
Of course, iconic bridges such as San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge generate significant tourism dollars, and Winnipeg's Riel Esplanade Bridge is an example of a bridge with a restaurant (Salisbury House) on it to help pay for the cost of construction over time, but these are the exception to the rule.
Because of this, we want to be choosing the most durable materials we can find and afford up front, and maintaining them to ensure they last as long as possible.
However, the municipal request for proposal (RFP) process often excludes this sort of initiative, since contracts tend to be awarded on the basis of overall cost. A contractor may win a parking lot rehabilitation contract by cutting costs on the quality of material used, and once they are paid, and a few years later, significant cracks are forming, the municipality again has to find money for fixes. For better or for worse, it is typically much easier to secure additional capital funds (to construct a new project) than to secure additional operating funds (to maintain an existing project).
Therefore saving 5% on an infrastructure project up front on a lower quality material will cost more to fix and replace in the long run.
Cobblestone sidewalks or streets, for example, cost a lot more up front, but last far longer. In European cities, many have lasted hundreds of years and continue to retain their character and charm.
In layman's terms this is the equivalent of going with 25-year shingles instead of 40-year shingles on a new roof. You could save $500 on a $4500 roof, but you'll be paying for a new roof 15 years sooner. A homeowner may not plan to stay in the house that long (and therefore inadvertently makes an unsustainable decision to save money which a topic for a whole separate article), but a corporate entity like a municipality has no excuse, and needs to think long-term like this. Standard practice for many municipalities is to amortize a piece of infrastructure over its expected life. The yearly cost, then, of a 40-year roof might be $112.50/year ($4500/40 years), whereas the 25-year roof might cost $160/year ($4000/25 years).
More and more cities, including Seattle and Las Vegas, are opting to abandon roadways and related infrastructure and favour additional park space. Studies have shown that removing a road will not send all of the traffic onto adjacent roadways, because people find other ways of getting around. Better yet, using opportunities to replace roads with quick transit lines should take even more cars off the road and thereby help nearby roads to last longer.
On occasion, I have joked with colleagues that we shouldn't fix any more potholes except on roads used by high speed bus lines, to frustrate drivers and provide the "incentive" needed to "encourage" people to take transit. Then when people realize they can get around without the use of certain roads, those roadways can be converted to other uses (e.g., housing, greenways, etc.).
Recreation Facilities
People have gotten used to driving, and people have gotten used to "going to the gym". The significant majority of users of Edmonton's River Valley Trail System use it to exercise, instead of to enjoy nature.
But although our habits and patterns of recreation have changed, that doesn't mean we have to continue those patterns if they have not been for the better. People used to walk more, often as a daily practice of relaxation and enjoyment, and not necessarily specifically for exercise. I remember visiting family in Florida and going for a walk around the neighbourhood every night for fun, and this practice is popular in many parts of Europe. But many suburban neighbourhoods don't have sidewalks, and people have to drive to go to a place where they can get some exercise.
Some municipalities favour fewer, larger facilities because the cost of managing them is lower (fewer staff, fewer entrances requiring security, etc.), but this only perpetuates car culture and urban sprawl. (This is not big picture thinking, of course.)
Larger facilities tend to have larger parking lots, and the larger the facility (e.g., twin arenas, multi-purpose recreation complexes), the larger the cost of future maintenance is going to be.
Typically, recreation facilities are revenue losers. The City of Edmonton's Office of the City Auditor conducted a comprehensive audit of Social and Recreation Services in 2005 and found that Budgeted Revenue was $16.5 million and Budgeted Expenditures were $36.8 million. Likewise, the City of Edmonton's 10-Year Arena Capital Development Strategy (2009-2019) indicates that 65% of the City's arenas recover three-quarters of their yearly expenses or less.
There are an enormous number of recreational activities that people can do without going to an enormous (expensive) recreation facility, but people's habits have changed and they use them because they are there. But people could walk, run, or bike. They could rollerblade, play field sports, or do a host of other free activities which would connect them more with people in their own neighbourhood, thereby strengthening community interaction. Maybe citizens would be open to this idea if they knew how much it could save them on their taxes. Edmonton's forthcoming Southwest Recreation Centre was expected to cost over $100 million.
Parks
Parks typically generate revenue by events but not by much else, and not every park hosts paid events. However, the literature shows that even smaller neighbourhood level parks increase nearby property values (known as the Proximate Principle, written about by John Crompton at Texas A&M), and the corresponding increase in overall city tax revenues can be used to maintain the parks.
Much like with recreation facilities, the logic of many North American planners and developers involves promoting very large parks in the centre of neighbourhoods to reduce development and maintenance costs, and to maximize the number of lots in a subdivision. One larger mower can make fewer passes on a larger site and cut the grass faster than an park operations crew travelling around the city with small equipment to mow a number of smaller sites. Unfortunately, this practice promotes unsustainability through urban sprawl and car use, and reduces the opportunities for community interaction, health, and exercise. Therefore other costs such as health care and roadway infrastructure will be much higher, even though these costs may be borne by other civic departments or even other levels of government. (Again, this is not big picture thinking.)
Some parks generate revenue by having amenities such as cafes and restaurants on site. One example that I am particularly impressed with is "Inn the Park" in London, England's St. James Park. In addition to being a good revenue generator, the building is constructed of natural materials and blends very sensitively and tastefully into the park environment. An excellent Canadian example is The Forks in Winnipeg, with a market located in a beautiful waterfront park that draws upwards of four million visitors each year.
In our city environments, much of our infrastructure depreciates in value over time and is very costly to replace. These replacement costs are not always budgeted for. And because much of our most expensive infrastructure does not bring in any revenue (e.g., sewers, interchanges), paying more for a higher quality capital product up front, or not building it at all, makes more financial sense...
Not building it at all? How do we do that?
Drainage Infrastructure
Drainage infrastructure such as sewers are very expensive. Fixing and replacing sewers is often very costly because a road has to be ripped up, the pipe has to be replaced, and then the road has to be replaced again. Conventional engineering practices mandate sewers, but they are not necessary if bioswales (drainage ditches and landscaped basins), green parking lots, constructed wetlands, and rain collection systems are used. Edmonton's Big Lake Neighbourhood, designed by Stantec Consulting, is incorporating some of these features.
Detractors of these emerging low impact development practices point to the cost of maintenance as, but these people are not thinking big picture. Natural features are aesthetically pleasing, and typically boost property values. They promote the health of citizens and the environment. They sequester carbon and produce oxygen. Many natural features filter contaminants out of the water. At the individual house level, collecting rain water means that less water has to be supplied for flushing toilets, washing dishes, etc.
Incorporating these sorts of features into neighbourhoods would reduce the demands on existing water treatment plants, and extend their capacity to serve new residents before another (costly) new treatment plant needs to be built.
Road Infrastructure
Roadways, parking lots, interchanges, and bridges are all expensive to construct and replace, and typically do not generate any revenue.
Of course, iconic bridges such as San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge generate significant tourism dollars, and Winnipeg's Riel Esplanade Bridge is an example of a bridge with a restaurant (Salisbury House) on it to help pay for the cost of construction over time, but these are the exception to the rule.
Because of this, we want to be choosing the most durable materials we can find and afford up front, and maintaining them to ensure they last as long as possible.
However, the municipal request for proposal (RFP) process often excludes this sort of initiative, since contracts tend to be awarded on the basis of overall cost. A contractor may win a parking lot rehabilitation contract by cutting costs on the quality of material used, and once they are paid, and a few years later, significant cracks are forming, the municipality again has to find money for fixes. For better or for worse, it is typically much easier to secure additional capital funds (to construct a new project) than to secure additional operating funds (to maintain an existing project).
Therefore saving 5% on an infrastructure project up front on a lower quality material will cost more to fix and replace in the long run.
Cobblestone sidewalks or streets, for example, cost a lot more up front, but last far longer. In European cities, many have lasted hundreds of years and continue to retain their character and charm.
In layman's terms this is the equivalent of going with 25-year shingles instead of 40-year shingles on a new roof. You could save $500 on a $4500 roof, but you'll be paying for a new roof 15 years sooner. A homeowner may not plan to stay in the house that long (and therefore inadvertently makes an unsustainable decision to save money which a topic for a whole separate article), but a corporate entity like a municipality has no excuse, and needs to think long-term like this. Standard practice for many municipalities is to amortize a piece of infrastructure over its expected life. The yearly cost, then, of a 40-year roof might be $112.50/year ($4500/40 years), whereas the 25-year roof might cost $160/year ($4000/25 years).
More and more cities, including Seattle and Las Vegas, are opting to abandon roadways and related infrastructure and favour additional park space. Studies have shown that removing a road will not send all of the traffic onto adjacent roadways, because people find other ways of getting around. Better yet, using opportunities to replace roads with quick transit lines should take even more cars off the road and thereby help nearby roads to last longer.
On occasion, I have joked with colleagues that we shouldn't fix any more potholes except on roads used by high speed bus lines, to frustrate drivers and provide the "incentive" needed to "encourage" people to take transit. Then when people realize they can get around without the use of certain roads, those roadways can be converted to other uses (e.g., housing, greenways, etc.).
Recreation Facilities
People have gotten used to driving, and people have gotten used to "going to the gym". The significant majority of users of Edmonton's River Valley Trail System use it to exercise, instead of to enjoy nature.
But although our habits and patterns of recreation have changed, that doesn't mean we have to continue those patterns if they have not been for the better. People used to walk more, often as a daily practice of relaxation and enjoyment, and not necessarily specifically for exercise. I remember visiting family in Florida and going for a walk around the neighbourhood every night for fun, and this practice is popular in many parts of Europe. But many suburban neighbourhoods don't have sidewalks, and people have to drive to go to a place where they can get some exercise.
Some municipalities favour fewer, larger facilities because the cost of managing them is lower (fewer staff, fewer entrances requiring security, etc.), but this only perpetuates car culture and urban sprawl. (This is not big picture thinking, of course.)
Larger facilities tend to have larger parking lots, and the larger the facility (e.g., twin arenas, multi-purpose recreation complexes), the larger the cost of future maintenance is going to be.
Typically, recreation facilities are revenue losers. The City of Edmonton's Office of the City Auditor conducted a comprehensive audit of Social and Recreation Services in 2005 and found that Budgeted Revenue was $16.5 million and Budgeted Expenditures were $36.8 million. Likewise, the City of Edmonton's 10-Year Arena Capital Development Strategy (2009-2019) indicates that 65% of the City's arenas recover three-quarters of their yearly expenses or less.
There are an enormous number of recreational activities that people can do without going to an enormous (expensive) recreation facility, but people's habits have changed and they use them because they are there. But people could walk, run, or bike. They could rollerblade, play field sports, or do a host of other free activities which would connect them more with people in their own neighbourhood, thereby strengthening community interaction. Maybe citizens would be open to this idea if they knew how much it could save them on their taxes. Edmonton's forthcoming Southwest Recreation Centre was expected to cost over $100 million.
Parks
Parks typically generate revenue by events but not by much else, and not every park hosts paid events. However, the literature shows that even smaller neighbourhood level parks increase nearby property values (known as the Proximate Principle, written about by John Crompton at Texas A&M), and the corresponding increase in overall city tax revenues can be used to maintain the parks.
Much like with recreation facilities, the logic of many North American planners and developers involves promoting very large parks in the centre of neighbourhoods to reduce development and maintenance costs, and to maximize the number of lots in a subdivision. One larger mower can make fewer passes on a larger site and cut the grass faster than an park operations crew travelling around the city with small equipment to mow a number of smaller sites. Unfortunately, this practice promotes unsustainability through urban sprawl and car use, and reduces the opportunities for community interaction, health, and exercise. Therefore other costs such as health care and roadway infrastructure will be much higher, even though these costs may be borne by other civic departments or even other levels of government. (Again, this is not big picture thinking.)
Some parks generate revenue by having amenities such as cafes and restaurants on site. One example that I am particularly impressed with is "Inn the Park" in London, England's St. James Park. In addition to being a good revenue generator, the building is constructed of natural materials and blends very sensitively and tastefully into the park environment. An excellent Canadian example is The Forks in Winnipeg, with a market located in a beautiful waterfront park that draws upwards of four million visitors each year.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact Myron Belej, MCIP, AICP at myron@cityplanner.ca to:
- invite Myron to speak at a conference or event
- feature a version of this article in another publication
- inquire about Myron's consulting or coaching services
- request more information
Learn more about 'How to Hire Myron'.
Contact Myron Belej, MCIP, AICP at myron@cityplanner.ca to:
- invite Myron to speak at a conference or event
- feature a version of this article in another publication
- inquire about Myron's consulting or coaching services
- request more information
Learn more about 'How to Hire Myron'.