This article promotes a protectionist stance that seeks to perpetuate NIMBY practices which are environmentally damaging, socially divisive and economically unsustainable for Australia.

First, the entire article is built on the premise that people are being "forced" into high density housing, but no evidence whatsoever is presented for this. Compared to many other countries, Australia has more significant issues caused by urban sprawl.

Second, of course 83 per cent of people prefer to live in a free-standing home. I'd say 83% would want to own a helicopter too. Not everyone can have what they like.

Third, comparing the environmental impact of current public transport with that of current cars or even future cars is syllogistic. We currently have unsatisfactory public transport because our policies support the primacy of the car in Australian life. The solution is better public transport, not more cars.

Fourth, the same argument for public transport is applied to high rise buildings. Of course many buildings are inefficient, does the author really think that new buildings are being built the same way? We need better designs for buildings and retrofits to old ones.

Fifth, higher density housing is more affordable. In this economic climate, it is reckless to promote low density housing, forcing families to spend more of their income on housing and many to take mortgages they cannot afford.

Groups like Save Our Suburbs are often overrepresented by residents of more affluent areas who seek to protect their large properties. And unfortunately housing is often used as a proxy issue for those opposed to "new Australians" who are seen as different and threatening. This attitude is divisive and dangerous.

The author fails on these many fronts and has not even covered other issues such as water use. We continue to open up new estates further away from city and satellite centres and groups like Save Our Suburbs continue to block higher density housing. Backward looking NIMBY attitudes protect entrenched interests and damage Australia, we need solutions that conserve energy and water and reduce the cost of living for all Australians.

I am fairly green in my politics.

To have low density housing I think we would need it to be designed differently if it was to be sustainable. I think this would be easy to do.

High density leads to lots of proplems with noise and needs supportive infrastructure, which developers aren't usualli inclined to provide.

I think co-housing is a promising way forward.

I am somewhat dismayed at the narrow focus of this article.

There is not even a mention of or an allusion to continuous rapid population growth.

How on earth can this factor just be left out entirely in a discussion about high-density versus low-density urban housing?

For as long as we continue to have rapid population growth in Melbourne, Sydney, Perth, etc, there is very little point in discussing the merits of high vs low density dwellings... because we will be getting BOTH!

High-density inner-city dwellings won't prevent the negative aspects of urban sprawl. They will at best reduce the rate of worsening, slightly. And vice-versa.

Come-on, in the absence of concerted efforts to reduce population growth and steer this country towards a stable population, not least in our badly stressed major cities, arguments about housing density are MOOT!

It would appear that 'Save Our Suburbs' is concentrating on the wrong issue here. If they are really concerned about protecting out quality of life, then they need to focus a large part of their energies on the promotion of a sustainable future, not just in our cities but in the whole country. And that necessitates an end to rapid expansionism and the embracing of a stable population.

<... maddening traffic congestion, more greenhouse gases, a creaking and overloaded infrastructure... >

What's the essential factor in addressing these issues? It certainly isn't high density living. And it certainly isn't urban sprawl. It is population stabilisation.

Nicholas Goodwin claims that the article promotes environmentally damaging, socially divisive and economically unsustainable practices in affluent areas.

I live in a house worth around $330,000 in an outer suburb of Sydney - hardly affluent you’d have to agree.

I have two Water Tanks in the backyard fed from rainwater from my roof, one of 5,000 litres and another of 1,000 litres. Hardly environmentally damaging I’d say.

I have a Solar Array on my roof that generates more kWhrs of electricity than I use on an average day. Hard to do if you live in a block of units, especially when you have such a limited roof area to share amongst such a lot of people under it.

Like most people in my area, I only need to travel into the Sydney CBD once a month or less. My travel costs are minimal, clocking around 8000km by car each year and using bus and train when suitable.

I have lived in blocks of units before. My experience is that living in a suburban street is a lot more socially cohesive and friendly, with frequent chats with the neighbours, sharing passionfruit off the backyard vine and sharing local news when walking up the street and assisting one another in hard times. Hardly socially divisive.

I think Nicholas Goodwin needs a reality check on how much easier it is for the average Australian to achieve an environmentally sustainable and socially cohesive lifestyle by choosing to live in a suburban house compared with a block of units.

As cities expand they encroach on productive farmland - and we don't have an awful lot of it. Some creative design is required to ensure that we strike a happy medium between horrible high-rise and stand alone houses on large(ish) blocks.

The author gives no indication of knowing what a decent public transport system is like. So it's natural perhaps that he doesn't realise that such a system reduces traffic congestion. And it needs to be supported by a medium-density (at least) of population. (I assume medium density is the right term, since the author associates high-density with residential buildings which have lifts).

For the record, too, it's important to be aware that medium-density cities can have plenty of green space - it's just not located in everyone's own back yard.

The higher the density the more complex a structure is, and therefore the less affordable. Better design is unlikely to happen because the cost advantage that low density development has will only get wider.

Higher density housing only marginally protects important farmland, because higher density housing requires more public open space as compensation for the lack of private open space. Maintenance of higher density areas is also more expensive due to the greater consumption of services per capita.

If 83% of the population prefer to live in a house with a garden, and their is obvious advantages to this setup, then it should not be restricted.

Australian's have a right to determine what our country's population size will be. Open border arguments are divisive and lack common sense.

Many thanks to Save our Suburbs for reminding people of this.

I agree with the article. Perth's rapidly growing population obviously needs accomodation and my suburb sadly is losing a lot of it's older houses replaced by high density units, mainly due to investers making the most of the land for higher returns.This equals more cars, unsightly units which are poorly constructed, and arguements with neighbours which you are living an top of. Stablising the population before it's too late woud be a good start to help ease congestion.

The High Density Housing of today tends to be the Slums of the Future

Great article Tony, & one that needs to be heard.

The current bunch of planners have got it entirely wrong. They all appear to have come from a couple of schools, which are the flavour of the moment, & want to turn Oz into Amsterdam. They are in love with the close packed inner city life style, hated by the majority, & arrogant enough to want to enforce their school of thought on all.

Why is it that public transport enthusiasts never think of what it can't do. I would suggest they try getting one kid to child minding, & one to a preschool, the first 2Km from home, & the second 1.5 Km from that, then get to work by public transport. They should arrive in time for a quick lunch, before starting the return trek.

I watched the Tour De France this year, & found it very interesting, not for the bike race, but for the view of those horrible French villages & towns, so packed that a long stride out the front door of many homes would have you under a bus. I shuddered at the thought of living there in what is most picturesque to our planners.

While on bicycles, what fool planner convinced the Brisbane city council to introduce a bicycle hire scheme. They must have been in the pay of a bike maker. It is costing rate payers heaps for more of the Amsterdam syndrome.

It reminds me of that crowding experiment with laboratory rats. They crowded progressively more of these gentle creatures into a confined space. They were well fed, & had all their needs but space. At a certain density they started killing each other.

This made me think of the increasing violence in our inner city areas, where bashings & glassing is now a regular Saturday night activity. More density anyone?

If we could just make it illegal for academics to talk to each other, more than once a year, we just might get some reasonable ideas appearing, instead of this horrible group think that passes for thought among them today.

An excellent article by Tony Recsei, simply pointing out studies that specifically discredit the claims of 'greener/cheaper' human environments, and also studies of double rates of schizophrenia in high-density against low density areas.

I might add that in an actual house with an actual garden, there exists the capacity of the owner to grow their own food, and dry their clothes in the sun and air- cutting dependence of energy consumption and farming space each.
And of course that planting high-rises alters the value of the surrounding houses (and their chances of getting a client if you try to sell them).

Followed on by the most dubious and nonsense post by "Nicholas Goodwin"- and though I won't go so far to claim what industry he most likely works in to warrant him suddenly appearing just to throw dirt and incorrect slander on someone who opposes the developer industry-
I CAN easily accuse of not actually reading the article and complaining about it anyway- as he accuses the author of saying things that never once mentioned in the article, and makes lazy proposals that the article specifically contradicted with evidence.

Even his claim about 'anti social' settings is blatantly contradicted by both studies in the article, as well as even a quick glance at the behaviour of people in high-density areas, where people are always angry, misanthropic and dog-eat-dog, stepping over homeless people, etc; against those of low-density areas, where people cooperate in more communal events.

The little quip of "people can't always get what they want" I don't disagree with- For example, if a development company wanted to build a high rise and the locals didn't want it- well that developer would have to learn how to accept he won't be building the high rise.

Great article from Tony Recsei and very good comments from Hasbeen and Ludwig. We do need to also consider the overall population, as there are issues with covering good farmland with development.

What Nicholas Goodwin needs to consider is whether the economy exists for the sake of the people or the people for the sake of the economy, even if he is right about efficiency. Cage eggs are cheaper than free range because it is more efficient to keep laying hens in little cages where they don't waste energy moving around. You can always keep them dosed with antibiotics to keep pathogens down and cut off their beaks to prevent them from pecking each other to death. However, many of us don't believe that efficiency trumps even the welfare of a chicken and are happy to pay more for free range.

The Australian Centre on Quality of Life at Deakin University has been looking at the issue of density and quality of life as expressed in its Wellbeing Index. It has repeatedly found that people are happier at lower densities (unless they are extremely remote) even if they have less money. The correlation only breaks down for the very highest income group, people who are likely to have a country house as well as a city flat.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2010/06/01/2915141.htm

See also Prof. Bill Randolph's report, Children in the Compact City, on the negative effects of high density on the physical and social development of children.

http://www.fbe.unsw.edu.au/cf/publications/cfprojectreports/attachments/childreninthecompactcity.pdf

Children need to run, play, make noise, and explore the world. It is hard for them to do this if their parents are under constant pressure to keep them quiet and they cannot play outside without constant adult supervision because of danger from traffic.

Contra Nicholas Goodwin, of course we can have what we want. We just need to keep putting the politicians who won't give it to us last on each and every ballot paper.

Ok, I'll bite.

"The issue we have is with the enforced imposition of high density housing upon the bulk of Australians that don’t want it."

Who is behind this "enforced imposition"? The article doesn't make this clear, but simply charges on as if it is a given.

"The premise behind this government totalitarianism..."

Totalitarianism? Really? Are we not exaggerating, just the teensiest bit?

Right down to the conclusion, where it is reiterated:

>>What we object to, is having draconian high density policies based on demonstrably faulty premises forced upon the 83 per cent of people that Australian research shows prefer to live in a free-standing home.<<

Once more - who is doing the "forcing"? I don't know what happens in Victoria, but here we have a local Council that is required to give their approval to any building developments. Where there is sufficient reason to believe they are not doing their job, the State government gets involved. At every step of the way there is community consultation, and while some folks may still be unhappy at the end of the process, it is about as democratic as it is possible to make these things.

So, come clean. Where are the "draconian high density policies" that the article makes such a noise about, but fails to illustrate?

Without them, the article is nothing more than empty polemic.

No wonder the immediate response was: "NIMBY alert!"

I don't know where Pericles lives, but the NSW State Government has enforced a policy of urban consolidation upon councils, the practical effect of this policy has meant requiring high density regardless of what the people living in that area want.

You can google "nsw state government urban consolidation" if you want more information.

I regard both the push for ever-expanding suburbs and the one for urban consolidation as equally stupid in Australia. I have done a long post on Melbourne planning <a href= http://melbourneurbanist.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/what-should-we-do-about-melbourne/ >here</a>. That site has lots for really thoughtful and detailed discussions on planning issues, the sort you don’t get in the daily press.

I live in NSW, webd.

>>I don't know where Pericles lives, but the NSW State Government has enforced a policy of urban consolidation upon councils, the practical effect of this policy has meant requiring high density regardless of what the people living in that area want.<<

Not happening.

In fact, the opposite is occurring, with the repeal in June this year of SEPP53

http://www.urbanalyst.com/in-the-news/new-south-wales/627-full-planning-powers-returned-to-ku-ring-gai-council.html

It is official, State Government policy: "The NSW Government has again affirmed its commitment to handing planning powers back to local councils"

http://www.nsw.liberal.org.au/tags/sepp-53

You were saying...?

That's great new Pericles! Given the damage these policies have done for many years under previous governments, I hope it is true.

Part of me wonders, however, when i read recent headlines like "High-rises could resurface in Ku-ring-gai's new plan".

And i also read comments by the new government that 'Targets are being re-assessed' and will be 'updated if necessary'.

See http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/highrises-could-resurface-in-kuringgais-new-plan-20110805-1ifdf.html (Aug 6th 2011)

So, whilst i hope you are right, i wonder...

(by the way, i don't live in Kuringgai so am no NIMBY, i live in a much more down-market outer region of Sydney)

Two half years ago I Iived in a highrise in the Sydney CBD. I went to work in a highrise at Circular Quay. My wife went to work in a highrise near Circular Quay. My son went to day care in a highrise near Wynyard.

The daily crush on the bus with a pre-schooler was overwhelming. The nearest play areas were Tumbalong Park at Darling Harbour and Victoria Park on City Road.

Too many people, way way way too many people.

Now I have a Queenslander in regional Australia for half the price of a CBD dog kennel with enough yard for a trampoline, a dog, fruit trees, a game of footy, vege plots, a game of cricket, flowers and trees, a game of tennis and fresh air.

Swapped the GoGet care share for a gas guzzling falcon. I walk my son to school and home again and my wife rides her bike to work. In between I renovate, do some gardening, walk the dog, go for a ride to the pool and work over the net.

Feeling that I have earned this after working hard for years, the only left for me to do is tattoo NIMBY across my forehead if 'urban consolidation' or any other violation decides to visit.

".. of course 83 per cent of people prefer to live in a free-standing home". This was the norm a few years ago. It's the most environmentally option, it means a lower per-capita greenhouse gas emissions, the ability to recycle, harvest rain water and own solar panels. It's more human-friendly too, and most families prefer room for kids too. It shouldn't be compared to wanting to own a helicopter. Housing is a basic human right, not a luxury. It's nothing to do with our economic climate or being more affordable to own a high rise apartment - housing costs have been forced upward. The source of the problem is our population growth - the "big Australia" policy forced onto us for a bigger "tax base", and for property developers.

Another good article on the downside of the population/economic growth ponzi scheme.

As for Pericles' question "Who is behind this "enforced imposition"?", it's quite clear that Labor/Liberal and developers are in cahoots in rail roading developments through despite the objections of local communities.

In my suburb, locals have been fighting a series of objections against the projects of one developer in particular.

The developments involve multi-storey buildings (4 to 12 floors in an area where no other buildings exceed 2 storeys). There were huge numbers of objections against the developments and the local council also denied planning permits.

As per usual, the developer appealed to VCAT and pretty much got what they wanted with a few minor alterations as cosmetic appeasement. Not surprising considering that the planning tribunals are stacked with pro-development hacks. The developer even haughtily declared that outcome would occur even before the ruling.

These new buildings are nothing more than human battery farms.

Locals who have built up the local infrastructure over generation can suck it up because, in the new hierarchy of public interest, private profit trumps communal capital.

You don't need to be Einstein to join the dots between Labor/ Dirty Ted's Libs (tweedle dum/tweedle dee)and donations to these parties by developers and the assault on green wedges.

"Force development"
Basically, in societies where local residents have no actual direct voting power to turn down any construction projects in their area at their own discretion, a developer merely needs to get an ok from the council (who may or may not be looking out for the resident's needs)- and they are free to build, whether the residents like it or not.
Hence, they are forcing high-density development into their area.

Now, there is definitely progress in that since the corrupt NSW Labor party was kicked out, their horrible policy allowing developers to bypass councils in the need for permission to build in a location has been overturned.

Now, ideally, local residents would have an inalienable right to a petition and a vote to reject any local development they do not approve of, and it is the builder's responsibility to not create projects that infringe on the rights of the local residents to live in the environment they prefer- and if that means the 'mob' doesn't let that person have their way with them, too bad for them- the rights of locals to retain their local environment trump the rights of entrepreneurs' business opportunities.

The other huge problem that the Government has caused in NSW, is that they have drastically throttled down the approval of new land for housing over the last decade. The resultant shortage of land has caused real estate prices to skyrocket way out of reach for our young people, thereby condemning them to the tenuous insecurity of a lifetime of renting, always at the whim of their landlord and unable to improve the property they and their kids live in.

The root of this argument seems to be 'not in my backyard' surrounded by a bunch of other weak arguments against high density housing. Blaming the cost of living increases and traffic congestion on high density housing is just misguided noise. There is an argument for only building medium and high density housing in particular areas but the author completely fails to address these issues.

In my opinion it’s low density towns that cause traffic and environmental problems, not low density residential suburbs. The development of single use business parks and shopping centres forces us into our cars. Our town centres are no longer built on civic spaces and transport links, but local government greed for section 49 contributions. The ancient ideas of good town planning; villages, towns, city centres, with transport in-between, where the free market and entrepreneurial small investors can build a business has been abandoned to attract big developers and their section 49 contributions.

We need to build new towns and cities for these high density residential and commercial developments with world class public transport links between. We also need to develop sustainable low density residential and industrial areas served by a world class network of freeways and public transport interchanges. The issue is not what we build but where we build it.

What we need to do is fund a trip to not Amsterdam, but to some British council housing estates. I'll bet these disasters are not on academic itineraries when the travel vouchers are being given out.

We had some of these built & trumpeted as the new nivea in Sydney in the 60s. Disaster followed as sure as the cart follows the horse.

Remember when the uni took over the agricultural college at Gatton. The latte sipping members of the veterinary school, [among others] screamed at the thought of having to move out onto the boon docks.

The horror of joining the real world was too much for them. While we have an academic community, & senior public servants who know only the pleasure of the leafy green part of inner city life, we will be stuck with this stupidity.

I can assure Ludwig that some of us Save Our Suburbs members are also members of the Stable Population Party of Australia,a party formed and registered last year to stand candidates at the next Federal election.We also see the need for a sustainable population, and I believe one of the SPPA policies is to match immigration levels with emigration levels.No doubt more of SPPA's policies will come out in the campaign.

Regards

Very good. Thanks Tony.

Great piece. The fact is that energy usage,if it is something worth minimising, is not strongly related to density. It is just another kitchen sink' thrown in to support the prejudices of those who want to impose their own preferences on others.

People should be free to choose where they want to live and be free to build and develop land - after all we have far more of it in
Australia than elsewhere. it also follows that existing householders in existing suburbs have only limited rights over the redevelopment of their areas.

Limited rights over the decisions of other people is the key

Alan Moran
Rub

Or alternatively Alan, seeing that- as you said- we have plenty of space in this continent, it would be perfect encouragement to start making use of that space, by allowing people of the local areas to vote on if they want a development or not- encouraging the construction of new cities in the 'space' we have, rather than trying to congest existing areas.
That way, the right of someone to build where they like still exists- except when it conflicts with the right of locals to not have private individuals applying adverse changes to their environments.