The energy footprint associated with cities is one factor, there are a whole lot of other factors relating the nature of the environment as a place to live which any discussion of increased densities should be considering and addressing. I'm not much into the coffee shop, theater scene and much prefer a tinker in the shed, tending to my garden, a run in nearby bush tracks.

High density does not cater living takes away from many much of what's used to relax and refresh. It may suit some but for many others it's a nightmare.

Regionalisation makes sense, many roles don't need to be in or near a CBD and could be easily accommodated in suburban hubs or in regional cities and towns (assuming that the majority of people and or roles are not well suited for permanent full time work from home arrangments).

There are a variety of things government can do to improve some of the issues which make dispersed cities more difficult. Greater support for staggered working hours (and possibly staggered school hours to match). Moving jobs away from CBD and near CBD whenever possible. More comfortable public transport.

Higher densities seem to bea recipe for doing harm to the very population you are trying to support, chasing one outcome at the expense of many others.

R0bert

Agree with the rest RObert, but I can't handle your staggered start times.

Imagine you are on early, with your 6 year old on late, with a 3/4Km walk to the bus stop.

Or a couple on different start times, now require 2 cars to the railway station. No mate, just give them work near home.

Hasbeen I'm thinking mostly of those jobs where staggered start times can be by mutual consent. Singles and parents of older children might find it useful to be able to start early (I can currently) and finish early. Others may benefit from travelling after the peak times. Good for jobs that don't nead a lot of real time interaction with others.

For couples who both catch the same train not so great but a lot of parents would and do benefit from one starting early so that one can drop the kids to schools and the other is home in time to pick kids up from school. Not clear cut and to some extent that is already an option for many.

R0bert

One of the reasons my migrant father came to Australia was to get away from the experience of congestion, high density and high rise living in Europe. Now Australia, as usual unwilling to learn from the mistakes experienced overseas, is following the trend on the faux basis of environmental sustainability. What is environmental about packing more people into smaller spaces? Why are issues of overpopulation once considered a valid topic now deemed too sensitive to be on the agenda?

As for modern day infrastructure problems what happened to the decentralisation models that were so popular in the 70s? Governments can do a bit here in transferring functions that can be easily administered from any location to regional towns. This has happened to some extent including call centres (the old Telstra and Centrelink) and processing centres such as with ATO, however there is a reversal of those processes back to the big smokes.

The fast train project would also certainly alleviate some of those problems as well as provide additional options for travel and freight.

There ought to be some lateral thinking about sustainablity and a recognition that some resources are finite and we are not doing enough to utilise the renewable ones at our disposal. The earth is not just one big open pit mine.

If you were starting from scratch on a plain my ideal would be as follows.

Imagine a CBD centre at the centre of a spoked wheel.
Outside of the cbd would be a toroid of inner city living apartments.
Outside that toroid would be an industrial area toroid.
Outside that toroid would be a toroid of single level housing with
1000 Square metres of land. This would be sufficient to grow a
considerable proportion of their own food.
Outside that toroid the patten would be for the distance from the
spokes to be limited.
Repeat the housing and industrial toroids as needed.
This would leave agricultural land between the spokes and between the housing of each spoke.
As the spokes get further apart more land is devoted to agriculture.

Public transport could radiate out along the spokes and at the
junction between the housing toroids and industrial toroids circular routes
for public transport would connect across the spokes.

This structure would limit the amount of travel needed.

Now geography would modify this patten to cope with mountain ranges,
ocean fronts and rivers etc, but over time current cities could be
modified to comply as much as possible.