Interesting argument, but here comes the green angle! What about all the carbon sequestered in those suburban front and back lawns? There are no offsets with apartment living. A pot of kitchen herbs doesn't count for much against your 42" Plasma TV.

A green star rating makes good sense and a good selling point. Who would want to bye into a power hungry and water inefficient house.
A house set up with solar and land that is not dependent on a reservoir of water to look tidy is the way to go, and for these innovations you get star ratings.

So wealthier people tend to live in inner-city areas (may well be true) and tend to have a greater carbon footprint than poorer people (no surprise there).

The surprise is that someone thinks this says something about how a city's carbon footprint would be different if it were denser.

And he seems oblivious to the possibility of a better public transport system, which doesn't happen by itself in a medium or high density city, but is much easier to get in place.

I think suburban homes are just fine. I don't understand why so many medias think that are not appropiate. There's nothing wrong with these homes so why should they be critised?

There's absolutely no point in critising suburban houses. Besides, it's not the medias choice on what the Australian nation wants their house to be like, it's what we want, what we desire.

Suburban houses are normal house and I think critisism from the media won't solve anything about their problem.

While I agree that blind fanaticism for any cause is unlikely to be helpful, Mr Elliot obviously comes well armed with his own prejudices. The ACF Consumption Atlas does indeed indicate higher per capita consumption in inner city areas, but it is not until one looks at semi-rural areas that the footprint is significantly reduced. Suburban sprawl is not so innocent in this debate.

To portray the Green Star scheme which encourages better ways of building as an “assault” is plain silly. And to propose that “market forces” are the solution is another chimera; the market can certainly help drive better solutions but only when directed by appropriate regulation for the common good rather than allowed to elbow in for quick private profit.

Perhaps he is examining two ends of the same problem – overconsumption. Affluent city dwellers buy too much stuff, but it would be hard to justify the size of much of the new housing being erected on city fringes. If we accept Mr Elliott’s point that it is behaviour not building type that is the major culprit, then we need to look more closely at building types both in their own life cycle costs and in how they might affect behaviour.

Huge high rises or huge “McMansions” are both extreme, and I support ozideas’ comment above that we might be using our resources better in other forms of housing, that allow both connection with a garden and more efficient use of space and services. Most cities have limited access to productive land and recreational open space and we should be striving to maintain a healthy balance rather than approving endless accretion of what may prove to be an unsustainable dreamland. Housing must be seen in context, both local community and citywide, and there will be a mix of solutions of which high density and the suburban block will both be a part.