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.