# Coasts and the Urban Growth



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

_Cobucci (SSC)_


I've been thinking about this issue for a while: *are we running out of wild beaches*? The fast urban growth is transforming in a very fast pace our shores, and I don't think that's a good trend.

I organized a list with some Brazilian coast regions to show how fast the population growth between Census. It's quite disturbing. Firstly Brazilian figures:

*------------------- 2010 -------- 2000 -------- 1991 ------- Grow.% ------- Grow.%
BRASIL* --- 190,732,694 --- 169,799,170 --- 146,825,475 --- *12.3%* --- 15.6%



And now some coastal regions:

*Florianópolis, Santa Catarina*

*-------------- 2010 ----- 2000 ----- 1991 ----- Grow.% ----- Grow.%*
Population --- 952,116 --- 769,411 --- 582,511 --- *23.7%* --- 32.1%









_JucaLodetti - Panoramio_





*Itajaí-Balneário Camboriú, Santa Catarina*

*-------------- 2010 ----- 2000 ----- 1991 ----- Grow.% ----- Grow.%*
Population --- 571,027 --- 404,854 --- 276,994 --- *41.0%* --- 46.2%









DuduItajaí (Flickr)





*Praia Grande-Peruíbe, São Paulo*

*-------------- 2010 ----- 2000 ----- 1991 ----- Grow.% ----- Grow.%*
Population --- 453,925 --- 352,126 --- 221,365 --- *28.9%* --- 52.1%

_k4michel (SSC)_













*Caraguatatuba-São Sebastião, São Paulo*

*-------------- 2010 ----- 2000 ----- 1991 ----- Grow.% ----- Grow.%*
Population --- 281,778 --- 224,656 --- 147,704 --- *25.4%* --- 59.1%









_ppeanno (SSC)_





*Angra dos Reis, Rio de Janeiro*

*-------------- 2010 ----- 2000 ----- 1991 ----- Grow.% ----- Grow.%*
Population --- 169,270 --- 119,247 --- 85,571 --- *41.9%* --- 39.6%


Angra dos Reis por anitaboeira





*Cabo Frio-Araruama, Rio de Janeiro*

*-------------- 2010 ----- 2000 ----- 1991 ----- Grow.% ----- Grow.%*
Population --- 485,789 --- 351,293 --- 232,420 --- *35.4%* --- 51.1%









http://www.flickr.com/photos/visitbrasil/3859069671/sizes/l/in/photostream/





*Macaé-Rio das Ostras, Rio de Janeiro*

*-------------- 2010 ----- 2000 ----- 1991 ----- Grow.% ----- Grow.%*
Population --- 361,226 --- 199,698 --- 134,740 --- *80.9%* --- 48.2%









_Gladstone P. Moraes, Flickr_


We should keep in mind the number of households grows much faster than people. While Brazilian population grew *12.5%* between 2000-2010, the number of households grew incredible *27%*!!! More than twice as much. Therefore, the regions aforementioned have experienced a growth between *50-100%* in households for the past 10 years.

Any thoughts or data for other countries?


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> Any thoughts or data for other countries?


Fantastic beach pictures! 

Tons of high rise condos near the beach. 

Good though that the development is set back from the beaches. 

Brazil too must have laws that require development setbacks?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

bayviews said:


> Brazil too must have laws that require development setbacks?


I think all beaches in Brazil are property of the federal government and, if not a natural preserve or military facility, must remain publicly accessible.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> I think all beaches in Brazil are property of the federal government and, if not a natural preserve or military facility, must remain publicly accessible.


Makes good sense. 

Many US states also have coastal development & coastal access controls.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

I was checking on Spain and things are even worse than Brazil:

*--------------- 2011 -------- 2001 -------- 1991 ------- Grow.% ----- Grow.%
SPAIN* --- 47,190,493 --- 40,499,791 --- 39,433,942 --- *16.52%* --- 2.70%









http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7205392104/sizes/l/in/photostream/

*------------------- 2011 ----- 2001 ----- 1991 ----- Grow.% ----- Grow.%*

*Alicante* ------- 1,934,127 --- 1,490,265 --- 1,334,545 --- *29.78%* --- 11.67%

*Islas Baleares* --- 1,088,514 --- 878,627 --- 745,944 --- *23.89%* --- 17.79%

*Islas Canarias* --- 2,126,769 --- 1,716,276 --- 1,589,403 --- *23.93%* --- 7.98%


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Here in the UK it is extremely difficult if not impossible to get permission to build a house next to a quiet beach outside an existing town/village and even within those still quite difficult.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Jonesy55 said:


> Here in the UK it is extremely difficult if not impossible to get permission to build a house next to a quiet beach outside an existing town/village and even within those still quite difficult.


UK has the most restrictive planning and cumbersome planning laws in Europe, and that is a major reason for which housing in UK, even when adjusted for income, is so damn expensive on a price per livable sq. meter or income/price ratio.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> UK has the most restrictive planning and cumbersome planning laws in Europe, and that is a major reason for which housing in UK, even when adjusted for income, is so damn expensive on a price per livable sq. meter or income/price ratio.


No, I think there are other factors at play here such as the comparatively small rental market compared to other European nations that you are comparing to. Couple that with the penchant for single occupier housing relative to the continent too and you inflate costs more. Next factor in density and you've got a trifecta of smaller rental market, more single occupier housing and the UK (particularly England) squeezes people into a small area and you have a recipe for high housing costs. Plus, people treat their houses as an investment more in the UK than in other parts of Europe too with the real estate market being particularly large. This culture continued in NZ, Australia, Canada and the US too and is very evident there.

So no, I don't think it's as simple as saying that planning laws have led to the high house prices in the UK.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

I think it depends which countries in Europe you are comparing to. Netherlands, the German-speaking countries, Denmark, Sweden and to a certain extent France have much higher proportion of private rentals while in Italy, Spain/Portugal, Ireland and much of Eastern Europe owner-occupation is as common or even more so than in the UK.

Having historically very low levels of new home building at a time of rapidly increasing population was clearly a recipe for rising prices, especially when combined with a relaxing of credit conditions in thatperiod so you had more money and more people chasing a fairly static stock of housing, and I think that the planning system has to be at least partially responsible for the low levels of construction. 

The preference for houses with gardens over apartments probably also has an effect on costs of constructing homes though apartments too went up in price during the boom at similar rates to houses despite them making up around 50% or more of new homes in recent years.

Since the market peaked in 2007 though prices and income multiples have been falling while the fall of sterling against the Euro since that time has also contributed to a smaller difference with Eurozone prices. The average home here now costs just over £160,000 or Eur 200,000 which is still too high but almost 20% down from the peak in sterling terms, or over 30% down in Euro terms.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Like I said, it's a trifecta that isn't really seen in other European countries - IE there are many with high home ownership but they don't necessarily have the same predilection for the type of houses seen in the UK or in the case of the Dutch they have a predilection for houses in a very dense country but have a healthier rental market. The UK I think, is unique as it has all three factors there. But the reasoning behind the prices seen on UK houses I don't think is as simple as Suburbanist painted it to be (due to bad planning laws).


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ I wouldn't call the rental market in Netherlands "healthy". Social housing programs on steroids created a gap between upper bounds of social housing rents and lower bounds of free market rents.

It also leads to tenants whose income grew a lot staying in the same social housing unit because waiting lists in some cities are like beyond 8 years.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ I wouldn't call the rental market in Netherlands "healthy". Social housing programs on steroids created a gap between upper bounds of social housing rents and lower bounds of free market rents.
> 
> It also leads to tenants whose income grew a lot staying in the same social housing unit because waiting lists in some cities are like beyond 8 years.


I said "healthier" rather than healthy - we have a similar situation in Sweden to that which you describe except it's the "first hand contract" compared to a "third hand contract" rather than social housing vs. "free market" housing. Stockholm inner city has waiting lists of up to 25 years in some areas due to phenomenal demand. This doesn't stop renting from being a far more popular choice here than in the UK which was my argument.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

I think *Florida* is maybe the most tragic example of it. Lately, the growth has been slowing down, but it's mostly due the lack of space as pretty much both coast of the peninsula are heavy urbanized.

For the past 60 years, while the US population only doubled, in those areas, it grew several times more:


*US*
1950 --- 151,325,798 --- 14.5% 
1960 --- 179,323,175 --- 18.5% 
1970 --- 203,211,926 --- 13.3% 
1980 --- 226,545,805 --- 11.5% 
1990 --- 248,709,873 ---- 9.8% 
2000 --- 281,421,906 --- 13.2% 
2010 --- 308,745,538 ---- 9.7% 
1950-2010 --- *104.0%*


*Miami*
1950 ----- 693,705 --- 79.0% 
1960 --- 1,497,099 -- 115.8% 
1970 --- 2,236,645 --- 49.4% 
1980 --- 3,220,844 --- 44.0% 
1990 --- 4,056,100 --- 25.9% 
2000 --- 5,007,564 --- 23.5% 
2010 --- 5,564,635 --- 11.1% 
1950-2010 --- *702.2%*


*Port St. Lucie-Sebastian*
1950 ---- 39,859 --- 47.0%
1960 ---- 81,535 -- 104.6%
1970 --- 114,863 --- 40.9%
1980 --- 211,092 --- 83.8%
1990 --- 341,279 --- 61.7%
2000 --- 432,373 --- 26.7%
2010 --- 562,135 --- 30.0%
1950-2010 --- *1,310.3%*


*Palm Bay-Melbourne*
1950 ---- 23,653 --- 46.5%
1960 --- 111,435 -- 371.1%
1970 --- 230,006 -- 106.4%
1980 --- 272,959 --- 18.7%
1990 --- 398,978 --- 46.2%
2000 --- 476,320 --- 19.4%
2010 --- 543,376 --- 14.1%
1950-2010 --- *2,197.3%*


*Daytona Beach-Palm Coast*
1950 ---- 77,596 --- 36.8%
1960 --- 129,885 --- 67.4%
1970 --- 173,941 --- 33.9%
1980 --- 269,675 --- 55.0%
1990 --- 399,413 --- 48.1%
2000 --- 493,175 --- 23.5%
2010 --- 590,289 --- 19.7%
1950-2010 --- *660.7%*


*Bradenton-Cape Coral-Naples*
1950 ------ 97,709 --- 42.7% 
1960 ----- 228,949 -- 134.3% 
1970 ----- 388,343 --- 69.6% 
1980 ----- 700,390 --- 80.4% 
1990 --- 1,087,670 --- 55.3% 
2000 --- 1,423,851 --- 30.9% 
2010 --- 1,802,533 --- 26.6% 
1950-2010 --- *1,744.8%*


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Why is that "tragic"? The coastline of warm Gulf or Atlantic waters is pretty much the draw for Florida.

Else you'd have weather with the same (albeit somehow weakened) hurricanes, humidity but no sand beaches. It would be like - say - Greenville, MS.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

Smaller beginning populations usually have a higher percentage growth, so of course the total U.S. population hasn't kept pace with Port St. Lucie. :nuts:

Yeah, I don't understand why growth on the coast of Florida is "tragic" either.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
Of course, but if you group all the areas together, they'll start with a rather important population. Also, do the same with 1960-2010 or even 1980-2010. The growth will be equally spectacular.

In any case, the point of the thread is showing the fast occupation of coastal areas, and whereas they started from zero or with a sizeable population, is irrelevant.




Suburbanist said:


> Why is that "tragic"? The coastline of warm Gulf or Atlantic waters is pretty much the draw for Florida.
> 
> Else you'd have weather with the same (albeit somehow weakened) hurricanes, humidity but no sand beaches. It would be like - say - Greenville, MS.


Tragic as there isn't any wild beach left. The whole place is developed and crowded.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Some density maps:

*Brazil*




























In Brazil, 85% of the population is concentrated in Northeast, Southeast and South regions, while only 15% live in the big hinterland (North and Midwest). 160 million people living relatively near the shores, undoubtedly leaves coastal areas under constant pressure.


*Spain*










From Barcelona down to Alicante, almost everything is urbanized.


*Florida*










Pretty much everything is urbanized. And with a lower density, the damage is even bigger. Development everywhere.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

WeimieLvr said:


> Smaller beginning populations usually have a higher percentage growth, so of course the total U.S. population hasn't kept pace with Port St. Lucie. :nuts:
> 
> Yeah, I don't understand why growth on the coast of Florida is "tragic" either.


Once beautiful coastlines are filled with villas, bars and car parks they generally lose that which attracted people there in the first place and there's no getting it back.

So many parts of the European Mediterranean coastline have suffered that fate.

Of course you need to balance economic development with conservation of natural environments but all to often the prospect of short term money wins over other considerations.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Florida still have the Everglades (that should be fully drained and converted into polders like the ones we have here in Netherlands, especially because of its hostile wildlife like alligators and snakes).

As for Spain: most of the interior areas of Spain on an arch from the foothills of the Pyrenees all the way to Salamanca are dry or outright arid.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
Good Lord!




Jonesy55 said:


> Once beautiful coastlines are filled with villas, bars and car parks they generally lose that which attracted people there in the first place and there's no getting it back.
> 
> So many parts of the European Mediterranean coastline have suffered that fate.
> 
> Of course you need to balance economic development with conservation of natural environments but all to often the prospect of short term money wins over other considerations.


That's what I'm saying and led me to open this thread. I think it's a big issue.

I don't know, but maybe there should be policies in place to curb new development on the coast. In Brazil, there are some restrictions, specially on islands, but I don't think it's enough.


----------



## Talbot (Jul 13, 2004)

Suburbanist said:


> Florida still have the Everglades (that should be fully drained and converted into polders like the ones we have here in Netherlands, especially because of its hostile wildlife like alligators and snakes).
> 
> As for Spain: most of the interior areas of Spain on an arch from the foothills of the Pyrenees all the way to Salamanca are dry or outright arid.


Wait, do I understand this correctly.. you are saying that the everglades should be drained and converted into a big retention pond basically because of snakes and alligators? :lol:


----------

