The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Forcing density in Australia's suburbs > Comments

Forcing density in Australia's suburbs : Comments

By Tony Recsei, published 24/7/2009

Mistaken 'green' ideology and financial rewards to developers have made high-density an enduring feature of Australia's planning policy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. 13
  13. All
Maybe I am ignorant, but why is urban sprawl such a bad thing?
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 27 July 2009 3:24:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course an expanding world population is the central problem but that subject is for another article at another time.
There is plenty of farmland available – just ask the farmers who are trying to sell their produce. That said, it is the ecological footprint of a city that is important, not the physical area of a city. This is the area needed to supply the energy and materials required by the city and to absorb wastes, which is 150 times greater than the area of a city itself. This ecological footprint depends on the number of people and does not decrease if the city gets denser.
There are many options available to house an increasing population. Very few states in the world rely on just one capital city. Possibilities include:
1.Whole of State Development and repopulation of declining regions
2. A viable decentralisation policy. A mix of incentives and infrastructure provision can be used to deal with the time and distance issues raised by decentralisation. These include high-speed rail, top class telecommunications and tax incentives.
3. The creation of new green Satellite Cities. Each to be as autonomous as practical and linked by high-speed transport and communications.
4. Judicious expansion of capital cities.
The Commonwealth should take some responsibility for its population policies by partially funding the infrastructure required and any necessary tax incentives. All that is needed is some long-term leadership from currently spineless politicians.
Posted by Tony Recsei, Monday, 27 July 2009 3:40:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mary/Choice is quite welcome to live in high rise.However,83% of Australians can't be wrong-they prefer to live in traditional single detached housing (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2004).

Miacat is right.High rise developer greed via windfall profits from rezonings, and "donations" to the Labor and Liberal parties in all spheres of government, is what's really driving our planning policies.What Australians really want is being ignored.

Tubbitt asks what can we do to be heard.Lately,I've been Emailing my local member over these issues.Tell them what you think.Most Labor and Liberal MPs can't think for themselves,or at least can't vote how they would like.They are told what to think and vote by the Cabinet,Caucus,or by the faceless men of both major parties.

Put Labor and Liberal candidates at the bottom of the ballot paper, and give someone else a go.The Libs and Labor have stuffed up over the last 20 years with many policies that the majority of Aussies don't support.

Finally,we have to ask do we need massive increases in population?Mary/Choice says Sydney is increasing at 50,000 per year.On the latest 400,000 new Australians per year, that figure is probably closer to 100,000 per year.The NSW Dept of Planning always underestimates population growth for whatever reason.They can't build what Australians want and should be pensioned off for incompetence.Every man and his dog can see how Sydney has degraded over the last 20 years of their medium and high density policies.

The latest massive increases in population growth make a mockery of the Rudd Government's policy to lower our Carbon imprint.Their promise to make housing affordable is a lie.400,000 new Australians a year hugely increases demand and pushes up housing prices.

Finally,good on you Yabby-you're True Blue mate.

Regards all from Tony2
Posted by Tony2, Monday, 27 July 2009 5:49:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Tony2. It is the only chance we Australians have - get rid of the lib/lab setup that has been corrupted by vested interests' expansive pockets. I cannot really BELIEVE that they are really as stupid as they appear to be. Its all about lowest common denominator politics.

And Tony Recsei... overpopulation is the overriding world problem but it is also the case for Australia and the housing shortage is just one manifestation of it.
Posted by kulu, Monday, 27 July 2009 6:59:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Of course an expanding world population is the central problem but that subject is for another article at another time.”

What about Australia’s population growth Tony Recsei? That is vastly more important to the issue of domestic high-rise and urban sprawl. And it certainly isn’t a subject for another article, it is an integral part of the current discussion.

“There are many options available to house an increasing population.”

Oh dear, it really does seem as though you have completely set aside the issue of our rapid population growth and put your mental energies entirely into addressing one of the symptoms!

That is most unfortunate!

“A viable decentralisation policy”

What is the point of decentralisation if the population is just going to keep growing rapidly?

Firstly, the population growth in areas that some of the growth is being diverted from are just going to continue to expand, with all the associated problems, just at a slightly slower rate.

Secondly, the problem of urban sprawl and high-rise and the conversion from natural ecosystems or productive land to intensively humanised landscapes is just going to be spread around a bit, instead of being confined to our capital cities and a few mostly coastal regional centres.

There would be merit in some decentralisation within a stable population scenario. But not within a rapid population growth scenario.

“The creation of new green Satellite Cities”

Bugger new cities, we’ve got enough!! No matter how green new cities might be, they’ll be an enormous extra burden on our resource base and environment.

“Judicious expansion of capital cities.”

What about the judicious end to expansion of capital cities??

“The Commonwealth should take some responsibility for its population policies by partially funding the infrastructure required and any necessary tax incentives.”

The Commonwealth should take responsibility for our population policy by winding immigration down to net zero and abolishing the baby bonus.

“All that is needed is some long-term leadership from currently spineless politicians.”

Yes Tony. But in quite a different manner to what you envisage.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 27 July 2009 8:36:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sue is right, the big P is the thing (Population). But no politician or mainstream NGO will "touch" or campaign on this issue because:
(a) They are afraid of alienating their religious constituency/supporters - and in the process creating adverse media coverage and bad PR
(b) It opens the door to anti-immigration attitudes, and that opens the door to extreme racist elements (unfortunately)
(c) As long as the population keeps growing it is easier to keep the economy growing, and this also helps to reduce the adverse effects of the aging population
(d) It smacks of eugenics and forced sterilisation

But how I wish we could stop our national population growth - it may slow the economy, but would be so much better in the long term. We would be a happier nation I think - not so much pressure on housing prices, water resources, energy (CO2), infrastructure, space, biosphere, land-fill and freedom, so the list goes on. In fact, if we stopped our population growth, we could probably get rid of half our government departments, especially those in the environmental and planning areas. Think of how much money that would save!! But then again, maybe the bureaucrats like population growth - it keeps them in a job because of the problems that population growth creates.
Posted by Budgeon, Tuesday, 28 July 2009 1:55:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. 13
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy