Some excellent comments here from Ludwig and others. One issue that hasn't been raised here is the damage that high rise living does to children's physical and social development, as detailed in Prof. Bill Randolph's "Children in the Compact City".

http://www.fbe.unsw.edu.au/cf/publications/cfprojectreports/attachments/childreninthecompactcity.pdf

Because of the dangers from high traffic densities in modern cities, children who live in flats usually have nowhere to play outside without constant adult supervision, and there is also usually precious little room inside, where the children have to spend most of their time, especially if their mother is depressed or comes from an ethnic group where women are encouraged to stay at home. Parks tend to be taken over by groups of youths and sometimes by derelicts, making them unattractive for parents and young children. Because husbands who are working night shift and neighbours will complain instantly about noise, babies have dummies or bottles shoved in their mouths at the first whimper. Older children are kept pacified in front of computer games or television. Prof. Randolph has a lot more to say.

If a person kept a dog in a tiny cage, they would be fined for cruelty to animals. Why is the equivalent acceptable for children? If we really can't afford to let people have a single family house with a garden, if they want it, and plenty of open space, perhaps we have too many people.

It amazes me that I was nearly taken in by this paper, that it even disturbed me for 5 minutes! When I realized the fundamental flaw, I laughed out loud.

The fundamental flaw is that it analyses what is, not what could be. For example:

What is a house? Is it a whopping ugly McMansion, sucking down the juice from the electricity grid as it tries to power a 10 horsepower enormous great central air-conditioner? Or is it an Earth-Ship built from old tyres and earth and is totally off the grid and Co2 neutral?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthship

What is an apartment? Is it a communist block era monster like the Morehead Street Redfern Housing Commission blocks? Or is it the eco-apartments of Christie Walk, which my sister-in-law helped design to be low Co2 and yet still high density? Is the apartment single use residential, or does it mix and match according to local community needs with some commercial, some residential, some day-care and even educational?
http://www.urbanecology.org.au/christiewalk/

What is density? Is it ugly single use apartments crammed around one railway station, where all residents have to commute every day away from the residential apartments into the CBD? Or is it multi-use, with a large percent of residents finding work within walking distance, freeing up the rail to move goods, not people?

What is a city? Is it a huge bland sea of McMansions from bland suburban horizon to bland suburban horizon, built on the premise of cheap oil and the motor car? Or is it a dense arrangement of exciting trendy diversity of use and functionality?
http://www.ecocitybuilders.org/

Does it freight all food by truck from distant farms, or integrate food production into the New Urbanist local structure? (See movie presentation to NSW University).
http://villageforum.com/

Criticising existing apartment arrangements has its place, but lets be honest and see this paper for what it is: a dishonest attempt to settle the consciences of those who would continue to peddle McMansions and a city plan dependent on the motorcar. The ONLY real question is what happens after peak oil.

Copied to: http://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/online-opinion-gets-new-urbanism-wrong-again/

I can assure Eclipse Now that Tony Recsei's article is about the decline of the traditional single detached house and garden, due to various forces such as developer "donations" to both the Liberal and Labor parties,misguided planning policies by the NSW Dept of Planning high rise zealots,and inaccurate info about the superiority re sustainability of high rise versus low rise.

A perusal of the Save Our Suburbs(NSW) website at www.sos.org.au,see Sustainability,will show that low rise is more sustainable than high rise.McMansions are only a small percentage of single detached housing, and Tony would no doubt agree with you about their power consumption.

But if we're talking about air conditioner usage,high rise would be the top of the usage scale.What with residents falling out of poor window design meaning all high rise windows are now preferred to be sealed,air conditioners are vital for unit living.

Good on your sister-in-law for making a living out of high density apartments.But I repeat-83% of Australians can't be wrong-they prefer traditional single detached housing.

We'll leave the vibrant lifestyle and drinking cappuccino alfresco to the in crowd out at Marrickville.

Regards from Tony2

Higher density living suits some people, and there is no problem with that. My concern is that people who don't want it, families with children and those who just like space, quiet, privacy, and a bit of natural beauty, will be forced into high density anyway because they are priced out of anything else in the city. Such people generally have no real alternative of living elsewhere because the politicians have made sure that there are very few jobs outside of the big metropolitan areas. Unemployed people who try to move to country areas have their benefits cut off.

Eclipse Now, you haven't dealt with the serious issues relating to children that were raised by Bill Randolph. Even if children are not considered, if you mix industrial, commercial, and residential development, you are bound to get noise and traffic problems (due to trucks and buses, even if there are no private cars in your utopia). People lived in small communities long before the era of cheap oil, and there is no reason why people couldn't live that way again, especially since the internet can supply a lot of the cultural advantages that used to require a big city. Yabby's utopia is a lot more attractive than yours. If you are concerned about agricultural land being covered up, this could be addressed by ending population growth, which is entirely due to pro-immigration and pronatalist government policies.

Anyone in favour of urban consolidation should visit the centre of Chatswood, NSW, a prime example of the uglification resulting from this misguided policy. Moreover, Chatswood and similar areas lack private or public open space. Feeble attempts to rectify this deficiency include the demolition of existing homes in order to provide expensive mini-parks.

Like all attempts at social engineering "Urban Consolidation" does more harm than good.

Grandmother of Seven

Tony2 is stuck in a "high rise" V McMansion mindset when there are dozens of alternatives in between! Read around a bit mate! There's ugly neo-communist high-rise blocks OR attractive, plant covered eco-city apartments with rivers down the street for kids to play in. And these are on the extremes of just the high-rises, let alone density via New Urbanist structures with a maximum of 4 storeys. Still more 'density' than suburbia, still walking distance, still car-free and yet totally different to your straw man attack of high-rise hell. Most of these 'density' plans allow a higher quality walking distance community, healthier living, attractive modern facilities yet with a lower consumption of energy and resources.

There are some interesting things on the SOS website, and the Paul Mee's talk is a MUST for anyone that wants to understand why Victoria's planning is such a mess. However, I think Paul would agree with much of my emphasis towards consolidation and "density" even though I'm not necessarily arguing for "high-rises".

As others mentioned, the pressures on our cities not be so bad if we had a sustainable zero growth immigration policy, with net migration out equalling net migration / refugee intake in.

"Bugger new cities, we’ve got enough!!" Well said Ludwig!

However I agree that we don't have much choice between Lib/Labor and am busy working to abolish the State governments and introduce Proportional Representation which should "mix up the parties" a bit. I'm convinced a MAJOR takeover of State powers is progressing in health, and slowly States powers are being eroded. Local powers are virtually non-existent and they are not recognised in the constitution. It’s time to roll all State politicians and services over into one National government, and recognise Local government planning powers in the Constitution so we can return some democratic powers to local citizens! Imagine a united Australian legal system and truly integrated economy, but with guaranteed local powers.

The move on health could be our opportunity to ask larger questions which will ultimately guarantee local rights!