Grputland, if that were the case mate, Sydney would be a ghost town. It would be such a horrible place to live that even it's harbour would not ensure it's survival.

We have all seen what happened to those high rise heavens, built in the 50/60s for public housing in the UK as well as inner Sydney. Why would anyone want to repeat that catastrophe?

To clarify: I'm not a fan of big public housing projects, whether their density is high or low. When tax policies and planning policies are conducive to a plentiful supply of private housing in appropriate locations, we'll see how much need there is for governments to get involved in the housing-supply business. (Very little, I expect.)

Ross,
Just for interest sake how has this 'park' helped your land value?
How would you suggest we house the people who work in the city ...Ipswich perhaps?
What would you suggest for the extra roads/pollution (noise/gases) to facilitate the flat expansion?
How about public transport, isn't it easier in inner city that from the wilds of 40+ ks out?

How far out do you want the food bowl to be? the expense etc.

Let's face it you whole essay is based on self interest and perception, oh yes political bias.

Whoa. The comments to this article seem to arouse a deal of bile. Let me try set my view straight, for what it's worth:
- I am not a sprawl advocate, not a NIMBY, nor 'anti' infill.
- Urban growth can and should accommodate BOTH well planned new suburban communities, AND well planned infill
- Planning systems should recognise the need for balance, recognising community opinion, market opportunity, and social objectives
- There are some outstanding examples of new suburban communities, as well as new infill communities. These provide us with lessons, if we're prepared to examine the evidence
- In Brisbane, the infill result of what was done in New Farm/Terneriffe/The Valley under the Redacliff/Soorley administration of the URTF is exemplary.
- Also worth celebration is what's being done at places like Springfield, North Lakes etc. Good urban and suburban outcomes are not uncommon, we only have to think about them
- There is a place for democracy. It's my view that elements of planning dogma in policy tend now to suggest that communities are not entitled to a view about their local future. Whatever happened to 'no taxation without representation'?

Planning for growth is not an easy subject matter. Silver bullets don't exist. An evidence based approach, with market realism, community support and pragmatic solutions designed to provide for our future surely can't be a bad ambition? And surely no value in the usual 3 point plan: 1 Denial; 2 Pass the buck; 3 Shoot the messenger?

Ross, the whole problem with your last post is the idea of social objectives.

Just who decides what those social objectives are.

This is where planners have a habit of assuming superiority, most falsely.

Most of them have nothing in common with those for whom they are planing, & all to often are more interested in the outcome achieved for the state, or local authority, than the people who are to live with these plans.

As I said earlier, the public would be better off without them.