Causes and consequences of a persistent sprawl: the Belgian case

(1)

Causes and consequences of a persistent sprawl:

the Belgian case

Jean-Marie Halleux

ECOGEO & LEPUR – University of Liege

(2)

Introduction

What are we going to talk about?

Urban sprawl in a confetti

Flanders

Wallonia

Brussels

(3)

Introduction

What are we going to talk about?

Urban sprawl in a confetti

A very important land consumption

Urban built-up areas

(m

2

_{) / inhab.}

Netherlands: 196

United Kingdom : 212

Rep. of Ireland : 257

Germany: 282

France : 348

Belgium: 495

- Flanders: 488

- Wallonia: 626

(4)

(5)

(6)

Introduction

What are we going to talk about?

Urban sprawl in a confetti

A very important land consumption, but in reduction

(7)

Introduction

What are we going to talk about?

Urban sprawl in a confetti

A very important land consumption, but in reduction

Our main questions

Why such an important land consumption?

(8)

Introduction

What are we going to talk about?

Urban sprawl in a confetti

A very important land consumption, but in reduction

Our main questions

Why such an important land consumption?

(9)

Why such an important land consumption?

Residential preferences

(10)

Source : M. Wiel, 1999, p. 35.

Less than 58% of one-family

house in the urban region

More than 58% of one-family

house in the urban region

(11)

Weak planning

Urban built-up area

(m

2

_{) / inhab.}

Netherlands: 196

United Kingdom : 212

Rep. of Ireland : 257

Germany: 282

France : 348

Belgium: 495

- Flanders: 488

- Wallonia: 626

(12)

Weak planning

Abundance of land supply for housing

No systematic zoning before the 1962 Planning Law (NL: 1901 – UK: 1909)

Before 1962: developments along any road as long as they were serviced

1962 Planning Law: sector plans but a clause on land value compensation

(13)

The 1962 Planning law and the sector plans

48 Sector plans

Realized from 1964 to 1987

Juridical potential supply in

the “residential zones”

(14)

Jurisprudence: three

conditions are necessary to

define building land as

regular use:

- being connected to road

infrastructure ;

- being adjacent to other

housing or building-plots ;

- meeting technical

requirements.

Planners afraid to

compensate

_{Linear residential zones}

_{Over-abundance of land}

supply

Traditional

settlement

In 1980

As allowed

by the

sector plans

(15)

(16)

Urban built-up area

(m

2

_{) / inhab.}

Netherlands: 196

United Kingdom : 212

Rep. of Ireland : 257

Germany: 282

France : 348

Belgium: 495

- Flanders: 488

- Wallonia: 626

(17)

(18)

Introduction

What are we going to talk about?

Urban sprawl in a confetti

A very important land consumption, but in reduction

Our main questions

Why such an important land consumption?

(19)

Recent analyses on Wallonia to understand the

limitation in land consumption

Why this reduction in land consumption?

(20)

Analyses based on the housing development models

- Self-provided developments (isolated houses)

- Commercial developments of houses (terrace houses)

- Commercial developments of apartments

(21)

Self-provided developments: usually isolated

single-family houses

Rather low densities

Important

consumption of land

Average on Wallonia

in 2009:

(22)

Self-provided developments: usually isolated

single-family houses

Commercial developments of houses: usually

terrace houses

Intermediate

densities

Intermediate

consumption of

land

Average on

Wallonia in 2009:

491 m

2

(23)

Self-provided developments: usually isolated

single-family houses

Commercial developments of houses: usually

terrace houses

Commercial developments of apartments

Rather high densities

Lower consumption of

land

Average on Wallonia in

2009:

(24)

Wallonia: two major evolutions

Development and spatial diffusion of apartment construction

cv

c

Percentage of apartments in the production of new housing

In the 1990’s : 26 %

In the 2000’s : 34 %

(25)

Decrease of self-provided developments (isolated houses)

In the 2000’s : 51%

Percentage of isolated houses in the production of new housing

In the 1990’s : 63 %

Wallonia: two major evolutions

(26)

How to explain these changes?

Result: the effect of land availability (legal land supply)

Scarcity effects in the western parts

_{Higher prices and higher densities}

Empirical findings + Theoretical framework

Percentage of greenfield land in the residential zones of the sector plans

(2008)

(27)

In the 1980’s : R

2

_{= 15 %}

Relationship between land availability and land prices

y = -1,57x + 117,59 R² = 0,60 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Taux de disponibilité des zones d'habitat en 2008 (%)

P ri x d e s te rr a in s à b â ti r p o u r le s su p e rf ic ie s in fé ri e u re s à 1 5 0 0 m 2(€ /m 2) (m o y e n n e s u r le s a n n é e s 1 9 9 8 , 1 9 9 9 e t 2 0 0 0 ) y = -0,23x + 33,76 R² = 0,15 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Taux de disponibilité des zones d'habitat en 1988 (%)

P ri x d e s te rr a in s à b â ti r p o u r le s su p e rf ic ie s in fé ri e u re s à 1 5 0 0 m 2(€ /m 2) (m o y e n n e s u r le s a n n é e s 1 9 8 8 , 1 9 8 9 e t 1 9 9 0 )

In the 2000’s : R

2

_{= 60 %}

(28)

In the 1990s : R

2

_{= 31 %}

Relationship between land availability and the percentage of apartments

In the 2000’s : R

2

_{= 52 %}

y = -0,49x + 45,20 R² = 0,31 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Taux de disponibilité des zones d'habitat en 1998 (%)

P a rt ( % ) d 'a p p a rt e m e n ts d a n s la p ro d u ct io n d e n o u v e a u x l o g e m e n ts e n tr e 1 9 9 0 e t 1 9 9 9 y = -0,77x + 59,15 R² = 0,52 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Taux de disponibilité des zones d'habitat en 2008 (%)

P a rt ( % ) d' a p pa rt e m e nt s da ns l a pr o duc ti o n de no uv e a u x l o g e m e nt s e nt re 2 0 0 0 e t 2 0 1 0

cv

c

Percentage of apartments in the production of new housing

(29)

In the 1990s : R

2

_{= 46 %}

Les relations entre la disponibilité en zones d’habitat et les maisons isolées

In the 2000s : R

2

_{= 71 %}

y = 0,79x + 30,07 R² = 0,46 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Taux de disponibilité des zones d'habitat en 1998 (%)

P a rt ( % ) d e m a is o n s is o lé e s (q u a tr e -f a ça d e s) d a n s la p ro d u ct io n d e n o u v e a u x l o g e m e n ts e n tr e 1 9 9 0 e t 1 9 9 9 y = 1,23x + 8,60 R² = 0,71 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Taux de disponibilité des zones d'habitat en 2008 (%)

P a rt ( % ) d e m a is o n s is o lé e s (q u a tr e -f a ça d e s) d a n s la p ro d u ct io n d e n o u v e a u x l o g e m e n ts e n tr e 2 0 0 0 e t 2 0 1 0

In the 2000’s : 51%

Percentage of isolated houses in the production of new housing

In the 1990’s : 63 %

(30)

How to explain that terrace houses may outbid isolated

self-provided houses?

(31)

How to explain that terrace houses may outbid isolated

self-provided houses?

Their commercial values are lower (estimation: ± 18%)

Source: P. Dethier , 2012.

(32)

How to explain that terrace houses may outbid isolated

self-provided houses?

Their commercial values are lower (estimation: ± 18%)

Counterintuitive but their production costs are higher (estimation:

10-15%): the developer has to be paid !

Source: Castel J.-C. & Jardinier L., 2011, p.13.

Production cost

- Self-provided isolated house: ± 125’000 €

- Commercial development of terrace

houses : ± 135’000 €

(33)

How to explain that terrace houses may outbid isolated

self-provided houses?

Their commercial values are lower (estimation: ± 18%)

Counterintuitive but their production costs are higher (estimation:

10-15%): the developer has to be paid !

Lower consumption of land

_{Land costs are lower}

☺

(34)

How to explain that terrace houses may outbid isolated

self-provided houses?

Their commercial values are lower (estimation: ± 18%)

Counterintuitive but their production costs are higher (estimation:

10-15%): the developer has to be paid !

Lower consumption of land

_{Land costs are lower}

☺

The cost and value of real estates has to be divided into two

components: land and building

Land scarcity

_{Higher land prices and higher impact of the land}

component in the price of housing

Higher impact of the land component

_{Developments that limit land}

consumption are progressively able to outbid lower forms of density

(35)

Self-provided development: isolated house,

200 m

2

_{of living floor space and 700 m}

2

_{of surface area}

Commercial developments: terrace houses,

200 m

2

_{of living floor space and 350 m}

2

_of

surface area

100 100 100 115 115 115 IH 1 Total cost: 120 TH 1 Value: 96 Total cost: 125

Hypothesis :

- Loss in value : 20 %

- Higher construction

costs : 15%

IH 2 Total cost: 160 IH 3 Total cost: 220 TH 2 Value: 128 Total cost: 145 TH 3 Value: 176 Total cost: 175

(36)

Conclusions

Our main questions

Why such an important land consumption?

Why the current reduction in land consumption?

Why such an important land consumption?

1. Strong « Atlantic » preferences for dispersion and single-family houses

2. Maladapted land planning

Implication for other contexts: how to avoid this conjunction where the

population have an easier access to the single-family house?

Why the current reduction in land consumption?

Land scarcity

_{Higher land prices and higher impact of the land component}

in the price of housing

_{Developments that limit land consumption are}

(37)

Some references

Castel J.-C. & Jardinier L., 2011.- « La densité au pluriel. Un apport à la recherche sur les

coûts d’urbanisation », Etudes foncières, n

_°

152, pp. 13-17.

Dethier P., 2012.- Étude comparative entre les préférences révélées et déclarées. Les maisons

d’habitation en région liégeoise, Université de Liège, Faculté des Sciences, Mémoire de

Master en Sciences géographiques, unpublished. URL: http://hdl.handle.net/2268/146951

Halleux J.-M., 2004.- « Outskirts Dynamics and new Residential Developments in Belgium. A

comparative Analysis with the Swiss and Danish Contexts », European Cities, Insight on

Outskirts. Dynamics (Ed. M. Franzén & J.-M. Halleux), COST Action C10, European Science

Foundation, Brussels, pp. 149-160.

Halleux J.-M., Marcinczak S. & Van Der Krabben E., 2012.- « The adaptive efficiency of land

use planning measured by the control of urban sprawl. The case of the Netherlands,

Belgium and Poland », Land Use Policy, 29, 4, 2012, pp. 887-898.

Halleux J.-M. & Strée J., 2012.- Production de l’habitat et enjeux territoriaux. Partie 1 : les

modes de production, RI5 : Contribution au rapport final de la subvention 2011-2012,

CPDT. URL: http://hdl.handle.net/2268/144127

Sellers J., 2004.- « Urbanization and the social origins of national policies towards sprawl »,

Urban sprawl in Western Europe and the United States (Edited by H.W. Richardson and

C.-H. C. Bae), Ashgate, pp. 195-214.

Wiel M., 1999.- La transition urbaine ou le passage de la ville pédestre à la ville motorisée, P.

Mardaga, Sprimont