Eclipse Now, no, it's not just the consumerism of inner city dwellers that is relevant (although that is strongly related in any case, because new housing in inner cities tends to be occupied by smaller, wealthier households due to the nature of construction of new multi-unit accommodation, and they tend to have more consumerist lifestyles: eating out, overseas travel, etc.); it is also that larger (family) households in the suburbs tend to be more efficient users of resources (water, energy - including transport energy) by virtue of increased sharing of resources, as well as having less consumerist liefstyles.

"users of resources (water, energy - including transport energy) by virtue of increased sharing of resources, as well as having less consumerist liefstyles."

So let me get this right: larger McMansions in the suburbs SHARE resources better? Like adjoining walls of townhouses (LOL!) or space (LOL!) or walkable community townships and shops (LOL!) or more efficient use of zoning, plumbing, electrical wiring, cable internet (LOL!)? Excuse me while I choke... that was just too funny.

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any real world sense to me at all. New Urbanism/ecocity principles create dense and diverse city functionality that allows commerce, light industry, residential and well designed public space to become an integrated city life that can exist without "as much" car use. Europe demonstrates this in that they use HALF THE OIL we do! Denser zoned (but with plenty of walkable spaces and parks) cities mean *almost* everything you need is walkable. On the rare occasions you need a car, hire one or borrow a friends. Denser zoning means far less wiring and piping and pavement and tarmac per household and per person.

How does spreading it all out as far as possible, and creating THOUSANDS MORE km's of piping, plumbing, wiring, pavements, roads, and the EMBODIED ENERGY all of that *extra stuff* represents make suburbia "share it" more?

It's just plain WRONG!

Eclipse Now, perhaps you should read the science (e.g. from the University of Sydney, CSIRO) on this. It simply does not support your propositions.

I read your ACF & Residential Development Council study. It appears to analyse the *status quo* in Australia, without asking what *could be*.

Summing up the demographic findings in 4 words: "Australian families like suburbs". That's it! Because the current culture says families with kids should move to a McMansion, on a per household basis more people live in suburbs than the singles or young couples that live in the inner city. Well du'h, I'd agree with that! Less people per dwelling = more embodied energy in constructing that dwelling and more energy running costs to maintain that person in that townhouse / apartment.

In other words, it appeared TOTALLY dominated by the demographic pecularities of our context and did not study the potential for different demographics. What if families lived in townhouses or attractive eco-apartments in town? What if the demographics per household in the inner city changed? Not studied. This is a study blinded to Australian family preferences today, and did not once refer to European towns. When it DID refer to Europe it railed against the Soviets? What has that got to do with modern town planning?

But what about European families? Why is it that the average European uses half of the oil of the average American? Traditionally designed city planning, public transport systems, green spaces and town squares all contribute to Europeans living in a more traditional city space and being less oil dependent.

What about embodied energy in all those highways and massive McMansions and building all those cars? I searched, nothing.

One MAJOR fault with the study was that it didn't consider the possibility of oil shocks. I searched "peak oil" and the term did not come up once, whereas other Aussie studies have shown the outer suburbs to be EXTREMELY vulnerable to oil shocks.

Instead we can turn cities from car dependent car-parks into adventure playgrounds for kids and local economies for us.
http://www.ecocitybuilders.org/downtown.html

What's missing in the final shot? The cars! 95% of vehicle use is eliminated. You can't tell me that isn't more energy efficient, not only in the absent fuel consumption but the embodied energy in making the car!

For REAL Studies on this issue try "My other car is a bright green city"
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007800.html

10 things wrong with sprawl
http://newurbanism.org/

Summing up the international moves AWAY from sprawl and the ENERGY SAVINGS in doing so.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5280

Again, all I can do is encourage you to read the science. As for the alleged link between higher density and reduced fuel use, that is a canard that was put to bed nearly 20 years ago. Read 'Lies, damned lies and automobile dependence' by Ray Brindle in the Australian Transport Research Forum, 19():117-31, 1994. That would be more productive than your quasi-religious entreaties for us all to live in flats and walk to the local shops. (Even the Europeans don't live like that anymore, once you get out of the touristy inner suburbs.) You're clearly a well-meaning amateur, but your solutions would be contrary to your stated aims, and politically and socially impossible to boot.