• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

Urban development matters

by Simon Longstaff

Few people have a greater influence on the quality of our lives than those who shape the urban environment within which most of us reside. It's not just that our homes meet a fundamental human need for shelter. Nor is it simply a matter of achieving a level of physical comfort and convenience that all of us might hope to enjoy. It's more important than that. This is because the urban environment has a profound capacity to reflect a community's basic values and principles. As such, it tells us a lot about who we are and what we stand for.

For example, a society that values its children and the opportunity for them to grow in an open environment, will design a quite different urban environment to that developed for a community that values nothing more than the efficient use of available space. The first will be likely to create an environment with parks, back gardens and the like. The second will probably opt for high-rise apartments in closely situated tower blocks.

Of course, not everybody wants the same thing in a diverse society. Variety should be accepted as the norm. Instead, the key to seeing how our values shape the built environment is to look for what doesn't get developed. As far as I can tell, there are no Australian urban developments that facilitate communal living for extended families. Why? Because, in our society, relatively few people put any real value on the aged.

Now what does this have to do with ethics in the urban development industry? First, we need to recognise that developers superimpose their values onto the designs they prepare for the community. No matter how much they might argue that they are just responding to 'market forces", the economic realities of their industry or the planning requirements of local government, they cannot escape ultimate responsibility for the way in which they shape the world in which most of us live. As such, developers have a particular responsibility to be clear about the values that they bring to the development process.

If they are only (or primarily) concerned with profits, then a proper concern for the quality of their product (in terms of design principles, materials, workmanship and the like) may give way to the acceptance of low (but cheap) standards. On the other hand, if developers recognise that they have an ethical obligation to accept personal responsibility for the effect of their work on the lives of other people; if they recognise that they have a duty of care (even to total strangers) then they may be inclined to opt for the same high standards that they would expect to find if roles were reversed and they were the consumers.

Second, there are ethical issues to be considered in relation to the way in which developers go about their business. For example, how important is it to tell the “truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” when seeking approval for a development that is opposed by local residents. Is it acceptable to withhold information (but not actually tell a lie) in a way that might be misleading? Or, should the development (warts and all) be revealed so that those most closely affected can make an informed decision?

Most people would, one suspects, opt for telling the truth. But at what cost? What if revealing everything about a proposed development would lead to its cancellation. What of those people adversely affected by such a decision? Some might lose their jobs, some might lose the opportunity to move into an affordable home in a desirable district, others might forfeit the value of their investment. On the other hand, the successful objectors may have gained nothing more than a victory for their own 'privileged' lifestyle.

It's important to note that the kind of tension between competing goods, as outlined above, is quite common. The ethical landscape through which we pass is not painted in tones of black and white. Indeed, it is largely grey. As such, we all need to accept that there will be many times when we are forced to choose the 'least bad' alternative. Having said that, no person can afford to be paralysed by indecision. Life goes on and we must, ultimately, decide how best to act.

Considering all of this, some people will be inclined to 'play safe' and limit the information to that which shows the proposed development in its best possible light. Others will opt for candid disclosure - probably on the grounds that two wrongs don't make a right. Choosing to be ethical will often involve the acceptance of some level of cost. In fact, if people are only ethical when it involves a convenient, cost-free decision, then it can hardly be said to count. This is not to say that a commitment to ethics means a life of misery and disappointment. Ethics is not just about fostering warm, fuzzy feelings. It also requires people to think. Let me conclude with an example of what I mean.

A number of years ago, I was approached by a person working in an industry very similar to that of urban development. This person represented a company that had been around for thirty years - but which was looking at the prospect of going out of business because it could never win a tender. Put simply, it would follow its normal practice of basing its tender price on what it honestly believed to be an accurate assessment of the time and cost of completing a job. On every occasion it would be undercut by a competitor - usually offering a completely unrealistic assessment of what could be done. In almost every case the client was 'burned' by the experience of overruns in cost and time.

This company asked me to consider their options. They thought that their choices were as follows: maintain their reputation for integrity and go out of business, or join their competitors' 'sharp' practices and survive - but with the loss of a reputation built up over thirty years. These, of course, were not the only options. In this case, the company was prepared to put its money where its mouth was. They were so confident of their ability to provide an accurate quotation that they accepted the following suggestion: why not offer prospective clients a bond (say, $20,000) to be kept if there is an overrun of cost or time. This way the client will be protected. But one more thing, ask your clients to require your competitors to do the same!

In one fell stroke, the table was tilted to favour the interests of a company that wanted to maintain its commitment to ethical business practices. If you are thoughtful enough, you can have your cake and eat it too! Unfortunately, many people operate on 'remote control' - doing things because “that's the way we do things around here”. These are the people who end up stumbling into an ethical 'death-trap".

As I noted at the beginning, the work of people in the urban development industry has a profound effect on our society. Realising this doesn't make life any easier in a highly competitive world. However, it does highlight the fact that each participant in the industry has an opportunity to make a positive difference in terms of the way we live. For all the importance attached to money, it can never (in itself) purchase a sense of having done something worthwhile in our lives. That privilege only comes to those prepared to take a broader perspective of their role in society.

discuss this article

---