In defense of urban living

Almost 40 years ago, by accident or by the hand of God (these can look remarkably similar) we bought a decrepit old house in a very tiny rural town. We bought it only because we needed a place to live in that vicinity, it was available, and it was affordable. Oh, and there was a small leaded glass window in the front hall that cast rainbow-coloured light into the night.

We were so young, so naive and so accustomed to suburban life that we never thought to ask about the septic system or cistern mentioned in the real estate listing, or to consider what happens when you run out of water or your septic tank overflows.

Needless to say, in addition to making the house habitable, reasonably comfortable (it doesn’t have air conditioning in summer, but it does have drafts in the winter), and raising three children, we have learned a lot about rural living and small-town Ontario, and we feel immensely grateful for the privilege we have of living in the country.

But I wouldn’t recommend it.

Why not?

For the same reasons that our three adult children are now choosing to live in cities, I think we need to give up the dream of living on an acre in the country. Mostly because it’s bad for the planet.

Our oldest child was the first to permanently defect to the city. The one who joyfully climbed trees, built forts, pressed flowers, planted hundreds of acorns and chestnuts, and told me she was praying for more dandelions in our yard, now insists on living a car-free life in Canada’s biggest city.

Although she loved the wide-open spaces of her childhood, by the time she became a teenager, she realized that seeing her friends, going to church, or participating in many fun activities all required at least an hour-long round-trip by car. Once she got her driver’s license and we handed her the car keys, she was wise enough to begin counting the environmental and social cost of all that newfound freedom.

And she’s not alone. In her book, Refugia Faith: Seeking Hidden Shelters, Ordinary Wonders and the Healing of the Earth, Calvin University English professor Debra Reinstra writes that it was her students who alerted her to what they saw as the injustice and hypocrisy of their parents and elders. “In addressing the great injustices of the day, most of all the peril of the planet,” says Rienstra, “young people often see the church as largely ineffectual or indifferent – unfaithful to its principles and distracted by matters perceived by the young as secondary or preposterous.”

Thanks to our children, we now know that if you love nature and you love three meals a day, most of us need to live in a city, as densely packed as possible. Instead of dreaming for a green monoculture lawn or relaxing in a private backyard oasis, Christians should be intentionally choosing to live, work, play and sustain themselves in a city. The future of rural Canada, indeed all of creation, requires it.

I admit, it’s easy for me to say because I have the privilege of ownership of a garden and trees and a private place to relax. If you, like me, have these things, picking up and moving to the city is not the solution. Someone else will buy our house and keep driving wherever they need to go. But if and when we do move, or when your children grow up and move out, set your sights on the city. And until then, it’s important to think about and act in ways that encourage people and their leaders to prioritize density over sprawl, and to make cities as joyous places to live as possible.

Farmers think so too.

Farmers feed cities

There’s a yellow bumper sticker I used to see on pick-up trucks around here that says Farmers Feed Cities. I have always liked it because it so succinctly made its point. That campaign, which ran for about a decade, ending in 2014, featured tractor parades, helped spur the local food movement, cheekily called attention to the rural-urban divide, and successfully raised consumers’ awareness of the importance of the people who grow our food.

The campaign was launched by the Grain Farmers of Ontario in response to crushingly low global grain prices, but today’s farmers are raising awareness about different issues. One of them is sprawl.

Last month, the 4,000-member Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario responded to the Ontario government’s Bill 185, known as the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, with a warning against prioritizing efficiency at the expense of fair process, and housing at the expense of farmland.

“By labeling necessary consultations and input from landowners as ‘red tape,’ the government risks overlooking the crucial role of farmers as stewards of the land and essential contributors to Ontario’s agricultural sector,” wrote Makenna Roth, the Christian Farmers Federation’s marketing communications coordinator, in the statement. “The government’s emphasis on expediting the development process to address the housing supply crisis is understandable, but it must not disregard the long-term implications for agricultural sustainability and food security.”

The race to build housing without consideration for the impact on farmland could lead to the “irreversible loss of productive agricultural land,” Roth said, which will only serve to make it harder for farmers.

The best way to ensure Canada’s farmers can keep feeding cities is to give them space to do it.

Forced car dependence

Another problem with sprawl is that it forces people to rely on cars, and cars need highways, and places to park. Adding more automobiles and more pavement is not good for the planet, and even electric vehicles are not a panacea. The environmental costs of mining the lithium, cobalt, and nickel for vehicle batteries is well-documented, and manufacturing an electric vehicle is more energy intensive than manufacturing a vehicle with an internal combustion engine. The heavier weight of an electric vehicle means they can be deadlier in a crash and their tires wear out faster, increasing the amount of pollution caused by tire wear. At city speeds, EVs can be quiet, but at highway speeds, their tires make more noise. If we want to preserve rural Canada’s farmland and wild places, we all need to drive less. Most people should not be commuting by car to work, because commuting puts a burden on the planet, and on the budgets of local and provincial governments who are tasked with providing the infrastructure that cars need. A 2015 Vancouver study on the environmental and social costs of various forms of transportation, based on a European strategy known as full-cost accounting, shows that people who drive cars and trucks cost society much more than people who ride bikes or take public transit. Public debates about spending on transit infrastructure or the cost of operating a public transit system assume that transit users are being heavily subsidized by taxpayers, but it’s the drivers of individual vehicles who are the ones who are subsidized the most.

“For every dollar drivers pay into the system through direct taxes and levies in Metro Vancouver, for example, society pays $9.20 for infrastructure, road maintenance, increased healthcare costs due to air pollution and other impacts,” write Graeme Stewart-Wilson, Christine McLaren and Erin Millar, who developed a Cost of Commute calculator. “In contrast, for every dollar bus riders contribute, taxpayers put in $1.50 collectively. While cyclists and pedestrians don’t contribute much financially upfront, their travel habits result in health care savings and improved workplace productivity thanks to the additional exercise they are getting. So their commutes, on average, contribute a net benefit to society.”

By living in cities and avoiding sprawl, cycling and walking become feasible modes of transportation, and public investment in transit or in cycling infrastructure becomes an even greater common good – especially because of their ability to reduce congestion.

“Anywhere you can live your life without adding too much driving is not going to make traffic worse,” said Madeleine Bonsma-Fisher, a transportation analyst (full disclosure, also my daughter) with the University of Toronto’s Data Sciences Institute. The way to reduce expense, congestion, and pollution “is continuously investing in transit. Investing in a combination of transit and cycling is always more cost-effective than building highways.”

Adding more lanes to already crowded highways doesn’t reduce congestion, it only makes it worse because it encourages more driving. To really unclog our streets and highways, we need to get out of our cars and onto bikes, buses, or our feet.

Equity and privilege

Another obvious problem with choosing to live in the country is that it would be bad if everyone did it. People like me, who live in the country but who aren’t farmers, are exceedingly privileged, and that privilege comes at a cost to others.

Choosing to live in the city instead of the country is also an equity issue. Cities with good transit, cycling and local walkability provide freedom of movement and access to amenities for those who don’t or can’t drive, such as children and the elderly, those who can’t safely qualify for a driver’s license, or those who can’t afford a car.

Density also increases the services that a municipality and other levels of government can afford to provide, such as transit, libraries, schools, pools, parks, and concert halls, and the protection of wild spaces and connected green corridors that are good for humans and for wildlife.

The grand narrative arc of Scripture begins with humanity living in a garden, and ends with life in a glorious city. As is the case with most cities, the holy city in John’s revelation is situated on a body of water – a river. And the trees of that city, with their roots in the life-giving river, are a source of healing for the nations. Yet our modern cities are seldom seen as being glorious places to live, and we can easily focus on the problems of cities, such as crime, poverty, homelessness, addiction, or litter. But imagine what could happen if Christians intentionally chose to live in cities and turned their attention to helping solve the problems of their neighbours. By being present, as Jesus was, by entering into relationship, by seeing what is going on around us and by spending our time and resources on helping to make things new, we really would be sources of healing for our nation. We could help solve the problems, instead of fleeing to escape them.

Embodying our spirituality in this way would give us a better chance of being in right relationship with all of Creation, and could help ensure that rural Canada – with its farms and wild spaces – will survive as places to nourish our bodies and our souls.

Rethinking our definition of the good life

It turns out that the North American dream of a bungalow on a wide lot for everyone, with a white picket fence and a car in every driveway, might seem good for us as individuals, but it is bad for us and for the more-than-human world.

Living that dream also allows us to think we are avoiding many of the problems that affording that dream actually exacerbates. But instead of ignoring the tensions of diversity, poverty, or homelessness, we could think about the systems that cause them and work to dismantle them. In a city, we can work together to solve the problems for all of us. Instead of being something we want to avoid, living close to others gives us the ability to create flourishing communities and good health for all.

Two more of our children just bought a house – in another big city. Shortly after taking possession, they learned that there is a proposal to demolish the buildings across the street and replace them with a six-storey, multi-unit condo development. I am proud to say they are not going to oppose the plan. Thankfully, they understand, as do many of their peers, that density is good, and they look forward to being good neighbours.