There seems to be some problem in the use of the terms low,medium,and high density developments

Di Beamer,former Assistant Planning Minister,attempted to settle this question once and for all ,and at the same time rewrite the English language,when she addressed the 2004 NSW Annual Local Government Association meeting.

Ms Beamer annnounced,no doubt under the influence of the Dept of Planning,that she had no problem in now considering villas,town houses,dual occupancies and 2 storey apartments as low density.She had no problem in now considering high density as medium density,though the actual sizes were not specified.

Single detached housing is,BY DEFINITION,low density

Villas,town houses,dual occupancies and 2 storey apartments are,BY DEFINITION,medium density.

Anything else is,BY DEFINITION,high density

The NSW Dept of Planning,in their maniacal-like zeal to densify Sydney suburbs,was prepared to rewrite the English language to achieve their ends.We Proles were to be fooled into thinking nothing was changing re higher density development.

Anyone who has read the novel 1984,by George Orwell,would know what these new definitions from the Minister are called-NEWSPEAK.The brave new world of the Dept of Planning was turning NSW into an Orwellian like state,Oceania in the novel-how appropriate for NSW-run by Big Brother and the Inner and Outer Party,aka the NSW Labor Government and the bureaucrats.We Proles were to be told what's best for us-Big Brother always knows best.

Similarly,on this site we have town planners telling us what's best for we Australians-they always know best.

Eclipse now suffers from the same delusions that most greenies do:

- I am right therefore sod the 84% who want something different,
- I am right and there is only one way to achieve the desired results and that is my way.

With correct insulation, the single houses can get nearly the low power consumption of higher density dwellings, people can use smaller cars, and the gov can sponsor de centralisation of businesses and industry.

But that would require inovation that most greenies lack. They have solutions proposed from decades ago that they follow with religious fanatacism, and asking them to change is like asking creationists to re write the bible.

Creationists should not rewrite the bible but should learn how to read it in the first place! (The early chapters of Genesis are largely symbolic writing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

It's not that I completely hate the suburbs or am following dogma, it's that your suggestions are too little too late. If you think I'm ordering you around, what do the V8 driving boat-trailer dragging "BIG MEN" with their big car philosophy think about your little buzz-box suggestion above?

What do people think about having their homes REALLY insulated? To be truly insulated and passive solar we should probably be building with all our windows facing north, have thicker thermal mass absorbing walls, and totally reconsider the "look" of our houses. But what do you think the latte sippers will make of that?

The reality is YOUR solutions are probably just as obnoxious to many people as mine. Everyone is so self-indulgent in the current energy paradigm.

The REALITY is that we're running out of oil, FAST, and the systems we depend on are threatened. You can fart around suggesting little cars (which I'm quite sympathetic to, especially the Better Place 100% Electric cars coming in 2012 to Australia), but you haven't solved airlines, international tourism, freight around Australia, the sheer SCALE of replacing the entire suburban car fleet quickly enough, and population growth which got us into this problem in the first place.

Let alone that if we DID manage to save the suburbs with little electric buzz-boxes, and DIDN'T solve population growth, we'd soon pave over and plough up every last bit of green space left in Australia and then we'd only have the 70% of desert, 40% of which is SAND DUNES left in which to expand.

If that's where you want to live, go for it!

Eclipse, quite frankly methinks that you are getting your tits in
a tangle over nothing.

I say that for the following reasons:

Peak oil does not mean no oil, it just means that oil will become
far more expensive over time. That also means that it will be used
a bit more wisely then before.

Yes, when oil hits 300$ a barrel, kids might not travel 300km
in their v8s, just to bring home some kentucky fried chicken,
as is happening now. You will be amazed at the savings possible,
once the price screws are clear. That is simply not the case
right now.

I think that you also underestimate Australia's reserves of gas,
coal, etc. They are still frankly huge and I note that when South
Africa needed oil, they soon started converting coal to oil.

Yes, we should plan our houses according to the weather. The
main windows on this place all face north, I built that 25 years ago.
But even now, something like 70% of Australian houses don't even
have solar hot water systems! It seems that only energy prices will
make people wake up and change their habits.

Given that people did ok in a village concept before the advent
of cheap oil, no doubt with modern technology, internet and solar,
wind etc, they will thrive. Most people, with a bit of dirt and
some permaculture, could just about grow most of their own food.

But they won't do it, crowded in to a human zoo of people on top
of people. Well... rather you then me lol.

Choice favors the productive

Yabby you done the math on how much South Africa converted from coal into oil each day and yet how much oil we USE each day? Theirs was the world's largets coal-to-liquids plant in history.

From memory, I can't be bothered looking it up, at their PEAK it was about 110 thousand barrels a day. That's AMAZING! But Australia uses over a MILLION barrels of oil a day. Also, the "Hirsch report" (google it) concluded the world would take 20 years to wean off oil into ALL the alternative liquid fuels, including gas-to-liquids, biofuels, etc.

Ooops.

You got any idea what letting the market solve peak oil means? The market "solving" peak oil is the PROBLEM! As you pointed out, it means less travel, it means less tourism, it means job cuts in tourism (a major employer), it means rationing, it means airlines bankrupting (except maybe for the uber-rich and government), it means queuing 3 days to fill up, it means farmers in trouble... and while it might not mean "Mad Max" I'm pretty sure it's going to be a "Greater Depression".

But in your view it's no problem, we're all just going to grow our own food in some kind of permaculture paradise?

And you thought attractive modern New Urbanism gradually replacing suburbia was a fantasy? Wow! At least I was offering an easy to achieve trolley bus system that would encourage vital city cores (that many young people are moving into anyway!)

Unlike me, you don't want to offer people an attractive town-house, you just want them all to become serfs working the land! Now who's the dictator?

And while we are at it, do you want to tell us all how much land it actually takes to feed an adult male their daily calories on a decent diet, and not give people false hope that they can grow all their own food on the tiny little skid marks that pass for gardens these days around the great, glorious cathedral to consumerism, the McMansion.

Dream on hippie!