Thanks very much Eclipse Now for your interesting comments to this website.

I must admit,I know very little about eco-city apartments and New Urbanist structures.

In fact,I don't know much about new "density" plans,but you can be sure I know what I don't like.

Regards from Tony2

This article says it all about how modern plans for 'density' EASILY BLITZ the suburban model for energy efficiency, water use, toxic emissions, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and are also pedestrian friendly and business friendly!

No combination of Electric cars or plug-ins is ready to replace oil at the scale with which we will need it. They'll probably scale up 20 years too late.

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007800.html

Add to that the INEVITABLE, PREVENTABLE, and utterly stupid and SUICIDAL population pressures Australia is letting itself experience, and we'll have the mother of all Greater Depressions and social dislocations and crisis in the next decade or so.

We CAN get through this with clever, clean, green city design that is comfortable and trendy. We CAN'T get through this unscathed economically because we have left it too late to do so, and the likes of Tony Recsei keep campaigning against New Urbanism and eco-cities with misinformation and FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt).

The arguments in this piece are so utterly foolish and outdated because they lack any awareness of the very serious resource constraints facing us. Yet there are also fantastic opportunities that we have to live a better life, IF we can build the political consensus to head in those directions. I'm so angry with the blatant lies in this article I don't know where to begin! Just keep it up Tony Recsei, our kids will love you for it! ;-)

Meanwhile, I remain convinced that a major Constitutional overhaul is required to Unify legislation and policy across Australia and hand development power back to LOCAL government.

*We CAN get through this with clever, clean, green city design that is comfortable and trendy.*

That's fine Eclipse Now, let all the trendy chardonay set who
push their pencils around for a living, crowd into inner cities.
You can all be happy together, on top of each other :)

For those of us who prefer the "village" concept, the problem is
urban planners, who want to stop it. It works just fine and worked
fine long before cheap oil came along. Its also a great way to live.

As to energy, given that there are massive gas reserves in Australia,
not even yet developed, ie coal seam gas in the Eastern States and
the NW shelf in WA, which we are rushing to export as there are
no local markets for the stuff, perhaps we can just defer some of
that gas for our vehicles, then it won't have to be chilled to
-160deg C to be put liquid onto ships for export.

In the past we've seen how town planners screwed up going upwards,
especially if it was developments for the not so rich. I won't
hold my breathe to see if it turns out better next time, unless
its big money for the elite of course

The new urban and smart-growth movements show characteristics of an ideology rather than honest attempts to devise optimal planning solutions. In my article I tried to identify what is actually happening rather than cloud-cuckoo land fantasies. As you can see the evidence shows that higher-density constructions (this includes 4-storeys) are less sustainable than the typical Australian suburban home, they have substantially greater greenhouse gas emissions per person, they use more operational energy and more construction energy.

As one example of Alice in Wonderland “green cities” consider “plant covered eco-city apartments with rivers down the street for kids to play in”: Where can we see such a city? For this to be a practical solution a large part of the city must be like this, not just a token street. If there is to be sufficient open space will the density be sufficient to placate the authorities? How will all the people be able to travel to the many destinations that people travel to? Public transport cannot go from everywhere to everywhere unless you live in Hong Kong where 80% of journeys are by public transport. There are no rivers down the streets there or Venetian gondolas.

With regard to the future, all the studies I have seen show by far the greatest practical potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions lies in better technology while different modes of living or behavioural change would result in a comparatively negligible reduction (eg “Climate change and. land transport: achieving emissions reductions”, Adjunct Professor John Stanley, University of Sydney, paper presented to Institute of Transport and Logistic Studies, May 2007). An example of such technological innovation is the one litre per 100 km car planned to be released next hear by Volkswagen.

Hi Tony, a practical solution to this so called "stop the sprawl" nonsense, would be for honest governments to place a higher financial value on private property which contains "green space" their by directly reflecting the communities so called values, anything less will continue the hypocrasy of the nimbys and their political sicophants. Now this value will have to be of a greater financial incentive than any urban residential value to deliver the desired result.

Tony wrote “what is actually happening rather than cloud-cuckoo land fantasies”.
You’re the one with the burden of proof as to how your precious ‘suburbs’ are going to function in a post-cheap-oil-era. You’re debunking soviet styled apartments, not ALL density.

Only if we build public transport can the *right kind* of density spring up around it. If not, then there’s no hope of preparing for peak oil. Buy a bike, and hope the shops have something in them when you get there!

In the meantime San Francisco, Oaklands and Strawberry Creek California are all starting to implement some eco-city principles.
http://www.ecocitybuilders.org/

I only mentioned the kids playing in creeks for those sceptical that density can EVER be appealing. See these illustrations, which will not be practicable for *all* situations.
http://www.ecocitybuilders.org/downtown.html

Or watch this 15 minute movie to UNSW:
http://villageforum.com/

*Half* the Co2 emissions a car ever produces are produced BEFORE it is even purchased. It’s the construction of the car and the maintenance of car infrastructure, superhighways, and car-parks that produce so much Co2.
See point IV.
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007800.html

Did you include all these in your Co2 figures for car transport?

Yabby I agree we need to save our gas, but only to have some transport energy for constructing the post-oil electric transport systems we’ll need. The vast majority of renewables such as wind and solar produce electricity, which is great... as long as we have an electric transport system. Currently 97% of our goods are freighted by truck!
Note: trolley buses are 5 times cheaper than trams.

Trolley-trucks can act as council trucks that run along the main street on the trolley-line and then side streets on (limited) biodiesel / CNG / hydrogen / super-batteries / whatever you have.

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/07/trolleytrucks-trolleybuses-cargotrams.html