I remember a time when some smart person (now doing time) creating a program to pay all Q'ld public health service workers from a single central main frame. This sort of sounds a lot like that, given the much higher cost of resuming inner urban locations.

That said, halfway decent future planning and ensuring the corridors are acquired decades ahead of need and or plans, would help to reduce the costs, much of which is created by totally unproductive opportunistic land bankers, often with inside knowledge, (legal insider trading) looking for some money for nothing outcomes?

And fairly bristle with (oscar award winning)outraged indignation at the suggestion some of these society harming practises could be limited by an increase capital gains.

The real increases in infrastructure costs are inherent in delay, and given every decade of delay doubles the capital cost, the real villain in the piece, regarding higher infrastructure costs!
Rhrosty.

And let's not conveniently confuse service charges with the actual infrastructure the provides them!

Simply put, service costs rise as population density seriously diminishes, and then only because of the centralization of the delivery systems?

Electricity could be provided onsite by a combination of solar panels and methane produced in waste digestors, to power whisper quiet ceramic fuel cells. As opposed to hundreds of miles of costly wires and more costly and eternally ongoing transmission and distribution losses, that in some cases could reach past 75%?

Tanks collect rainfall and wind powered dehumidifiers can and do collect pristine water from the atmosphere. As opposed to the cost of laying pipes over distance and then building and relying on rain filled dams as the water source.

While localising most if not all the services might incur greater rollout costs. Maintenance and delivery costs, go way down?

There is a lot of research going into thorium reactors, with some suggestions that very modest miniaturized electricity producing systems costing as low as $1000.00, could power a street of ten houses for as long as a hundred years, and with just cursory, triannual maintenance?

We really do need to stop requiring/allowing others to do our thinking for us, or confine it inside some (smoking) locked and bolted box!
Rhrosty.

What is the meaning of these reports, who are they for, & what do the hope to achieve?

Developments are not done with public money today, so the question is rather academic. Once done, infrastructure paid for by the householder, through development costs being added to the land price, become council property, & make a handy contribution to council income, at no cost.

An acreage development beside us spent a lot of money on water boors, treatment plant & reticulation system, all now transferred to council.

Personally I have a $12,000, [in 1995 money], investment in my domestic water catchment, reticulation & grey water disposal system, & they can keep town water. However town water is ideal for most residents, & very profitable for government & council.

Similarly, mickey mouse home power generation is a pain in the ass. The grid is the only sensible way to go, for any who can get it at reasonable cost. Again this is provided by the developer in any development of any size, costing the public purse nothing, & providing on going profits to electricity generators, usually government.

The whole thing is a furphy, put out by academics & Town planners, all of whom it appears are in love with the bicycle city Copenhagen. I think we should send the lot of them there, to live happily ever after, & get their navel gazing, & stupidity, the hell out of our lives.

Another thoughtful article from one of the best urban commentators going around in my view.

SKM produced a report in 1993 that focused on South East Queensland (Identification of Cost Savings associated with Urban Densities, May 1993), which concluded that the most cost-effective form of urban development is building to higher densities at the urban fringe (and on vacant infill locations, which are getting progressively scarcer), rather than redevelopment (involving the demolition and replacement of existing dwelling stock and infrastructure).

Prof Pat Troy’s book, 'The Perils of Urban Consolidation', which analysed infrastructure and housing costs concluded (referencing the AURDR 1995 report, 'Smart Planning Not Sprawl'):

'...the claim made for significant infrastructure cost savings by developing cities to higher density is overstated. Where such savings do accrue in infrastructure costs they may be offset by increased cost of construction at the higher density or increased recurrent costs of urban services. They will also be accompanied by loss of amenity. The question which has to be posed is: if the infrastructure savings are as small as the report identifies but people are prepared to pay for them why should policy be directed to forcing people to live at higher density?'

Likewise, the Industry Commission in 1993 pointed to the essential flaw of most of the cost-based critiques of suburban development: they ignore the demand side of the equation. It's the full sum of costs and benefits, who pays how much, and the resultant value proposition for consumers that ultimately matters most in a market based economy, not the interests of compulsory monopoly utility providers such as the water or electricity authorities.

The US research on the subject (including the oft-cited 'Costs of Sprawl') was thoroughly reviewed in Robert Bruegmann’s book: 'Sprawl: A Compact History'. He concluded that that was a ‘great deal of reason to be dubious’.