For those who are interested, here is an article with a picture showing the proposed development, which puts 20,000 people into five blocks, not big city blocks either.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/miltons-population-to-double-due-to-development/2008/05/06/1209839581523.html

Similar high rise apartments (30 storey) are proposed in other centres near railway stations ('transport nodes'). There has been prolific growth in apartment living in Brisbane, but at the same time there has also been the development of new adjoining 'cities', where hastily-built pine frame and cheap cladded houses spring up like mushrooms.

The developers and builders do well while the tradies and consumers get what they deserve for voting in such weak politicians.

The problem for South East Queensland is that the floods of immigrants for our Kev's 'Big Australia' do not want to live in dry, dusty, hot and boring places like Emerald. They will always gravitate to the big cities.

Although government has recently discovered an interest in moving people to the country, the same political parties in government have consistently turned away from supporting country people and have presided over policies that resulted in a long-term population drift to the coast. There are only a few petrol pump lessees and war widows left in most country towns, where even the tiny RSLs, CWAs and lawn bowls clubs have had to close their doors through lack of membership.

Only a fool would believe the platitudes and promises of either side of government. For decades both have implemented policies ensuring that smaller farms and country towns could not remain viable. All in the interests of 'efficiency' and globalisaton.

Mr Rudd's priorities are 'diversity' and a 'Big Australia'. However he has yet to explain or win a mandate for either and avoids public debate. The capital cities will continue to be the preferred destination of migrants and both high density infill and urban sprawl are the inevitable results.

contd..

It will not be long before government decides that the public park near you is 'too costly' to maintain and could be put to better use by a developer who could put a medium or high rise apartment block on part of it while converting the remaining part for 'improved' use. Hold on, that is already being done where some developers are being permitted to claim adjoining public park as recreational green space for their development, enabling them to fill even more of their available land with concrete.

Yesterday we drove past one of the most ugly medium rise apartments possible, which was built on the site of a beautiful old State primary school. Interestingly, had the original structure been privately owned, local government approval would never have been forthcoming for its demolition. It was a historic site, the buildings were in good repair and relatively unchanged, it was placed high and the land content was small. The apartments of galvanised iron and cheap cladding that replaced the school now occupy every available square metre of the land. The roof has almost no eaves and it is obviously so hot that most owners are putting ugly airconditioning units on the outside of the building. It already looks like a slum building.

That is the sort of result that we can expect from population infill - cheap and nasty, with no prospect of long life and a host of maintenance problems. Built in haste and for maximum profit.

However at the root of the problem is the over-enthusiastic 'Big Australia' and its rolling population explosion, but Mr Rudd doesn't want to talk about that and never you mind.

If the two extremes are a problem(see pelican above).. what's really wrong with apartment buildings along transport coridoors?? what is the name of this style of development?(ps i havent been off this page to see all the articles you have referenced as yet, so I havent read more than is here..) I'm interested in forming an opinion.

One of the problems I see with high density infill near transport nodes is that provision is not being made for green space and for the various facilities that can make life liveable and enjoyable for any but those who are young professionals, who are at work during most daylight hours and can and do seek their recreation and entertainment elsewhere (back to the cars, one each).

Have a look at the picture of the Milton infill project in the link I gave above and imagine for a moment that you have a child, or are old or that you stay at home. There is a sea of concrete and bitumen, no park and no neighbours at home and no to many of the other environmental factors necessary for daily living and maintaining physical health and sanity.

If government was willing to acquire land to provide such facilities that would improve things, but life in a thirty storey apartment would not suit most people for most stages of their lives.

Is the huge increase in population really necessary and will the community ever be consulted?

If high density is so universally sustainable and environmentally desirable, "urban sprawl" or stand alone dwellings, the most popular family choice of a home with a backyard would not be put up as the devil. Therefore high density should be market "demand" driven, not as we have today with these apostles of political correctness driving housing choice. If the planners and celebrity chefs, want others to buy off their plans, lets see them put up their own money to prove the comfort of their ideas. Or are these density regulators and their lackeys in it for some other politically financial reason.

This population debate reminds me of the joke about the drowning man - when someone came by in a boat he said 'no God will save me', when a swimmer got to him he said 'no God will save me', a canoist turned up to help him, again 'No, God will save me' only to lament at the Pearly Gates 'why did God not save me? Peter responded but for goodness sake I sent someone in a boat then a canoe, another swam out to you....

The same goes for the growthists idea that man will do alright 'No innovation and technology will save me' - we can face those issues caused by overpopulation. Man can face these problems yes...but the solution of striving for more sustainable populations is not regarded by the growthist mentality as just that - a testament to man's innovation and ability to adapt.

Adapting to rising populations in the cities by building yet more buildings, having people like in the US, living right above or below railways with all the associated noise and fumes. These living conditions are not found in the more affluent suburbs - it will be the poor that have to live under these conditions to accommodate growing populations. Cornflower is also right about green space, we are losing it continuously to dodgy planning approvals.