".. 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.