EDITORIAL - Atlantic Canada Settlement Patterns: An Unsustainable Path?

-Kingsley Lewis,MCIP

It there is one distinguishing characteristic of the residential settlement pattern of Atlantic Canada over the past half century, it is urban sprawl. In our case, this destructive form of development has taken the form of strip development along the paved highways which provide the linkage between the traditional: compact cities, towns and villages and the working countryside which houses the resource industries farming, forestry, the inshore fishery and, more recently, tourism -which underpin the Atlantic economy.

This strip development form has taken a heavy toll over the years. We're all familiar with the process and the results. Ho.w many miles of highways intended to move people and goods at reasonable speed and with relative safety have been transformed randomly into being predominantly streets whose main function is now to provide access to adjacent properties? The result is, of course, that the highway system became so poor that it had to be replaced with new limited access highways. This was at a huge cost to a public purse, which could not afford it. The new highways are expensive to build and maintain (this means tolls in some areas), and lower levels of maintenance on the former highways. This strip development pattern has to serviced with schools (and buses to get the kids to them). And on and on and on.

What has driven this trend? From the perspective of the developer (usually the owner) it make sense to subdivide the land adjacent to a highway. The cost is low (no road to build), access to telephone and power is easy and, until recently, at least, governments co-operated by providing the "culvert"; at low or no cost. The need for central sewer and water service is non existent at the time of subdivision. The net result is a lower cost building lot that is usually larger that what is available in cities, towns and villages. And, oh, those rural property tax rates!

From the perspective of the rural landowner, it makes sense because it enables land to be converted to quick cash with almost no risk and a very high rate of return.

So, who are the losers in this very real scenario? First, the professional development community can't compete because of the all the hidden subsidies inherent in strip development: Second, the struggling urban and suburban municipalities see most of the urban development (including the retail commercial sector that chases residential development wherever it goes). The demand for services in these communities does not abate under this pattern because there is still a need for urban services and these are, by necessity paid for by urban residents against a static per capita assessment base. This means ever-higher property taxes, which simply fuels the strip development pattern.

The third big loser in all of this, as we are beginning to see, is the resource industries. It seems clear that the land (and people) conflicts between resource development practices and urban (or ex urban) expectations are increasing at a dramatic rate. The fourth big loser is the strip settlement resident whose expectation of low cost, high quality, pastoral living is negatively impacted by the response to rapidly expanding markets for primary products and tourism.

Can we make the mid-course correction necessary to resolve this dilemma? The jury is out on this one, we think. It is clearly not practical to change the past, and the housing stock that has been built over the past several decades will be with us for the foreseeable future. However, what can be done is to provide our best advice on the options to prevent this destructive path from being followed to its logical conclusion which is an all out contest between those who need the land to make a living and those who want to make the whole world into suburbia.

The root problem is not the strip development pattern. This is a result. The real issue is the way in which we view land. Unlike the other components of the biosphere (air and water) land is treated predominantly as a commodity to be bought and sold and used as the tenant or occupier sees fit ("no one is going to tell me how I can use my land"). We won't solve this dilemma until the policy makers and the general public accept as reality the concept of our economic and social wellbeing inextricably linked to the way in which we use land.

Atlantic Planners Institute

This page and all contents are produced by the Atlantic Planners Institute, an affiliate of the Canadian Institute of Planners.