Merlin the Magician, aka Scott Ludlum, on a sustainable house:

“this single house vanishes into a sea of tens of thousands of large, nearly identical unsustainable homes built in breathtaking defiance of the basic ground truths of the 21st century.” And continuing with the wafting mist of mysterious sustainability: “With persistence and goodwill it is possible to see our way through to the resilient city: the design and re-working of ecologically sane, human-centred communities that will be genuinely at home in the 21st century.”

While the Australian population continues to expand, it is only a deluded magician that can envisage a landscape and society sustainably compatible with each other.
There is no doubt that such compatibility in house and city design could be improved by a factor of two; and there is absolute mathematical certainty that, at current expansion rate of 1.9 per cent, population would double in 37 years

Our governments tax us by stealth through utility charges, and provide subsidy to business through significantly lowered (per kL or bulk per MW/kW) water and energy charges. Also these revenues are used to prop up state budgets by mismanaging state governments such as ours, now nearly if not already facing the kind of rot famous under Cain/Kirner and WA Inc.

Governments won't do too much to mandate water tanks or solar hot water, or put these on all government properties including public housing because they would cut deeply into a critical source of revenue. Its all about money and its wrong, but as long as self-interested gullible bogans and others keep voting in labor (as long as its not that dreadful howHARD's mob in their eyes) they think all will be great.

Same with increased mass transit to fill in the gaps, including a lot more rail for the cities like Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne, because fuel taxes and motor rego are such a big source of revenue (however if you're a megachurch or little one you get free motor rego and absolutely no government tax or charges).

Maybe under privatisation we could make all these things mandatory because then it would not cut into government revenues, but I don't think privatisation's right either. The whole system is rotten.

A nicely written essay but it is all (vaguely) about planning and not about resilience. To be resilient - able to withstand shocks e.g. in essential resources - you need to have spare resource capacity e.g. of fuel, food, water. This is something that is actively discouraged as "inefficiency" in our cost competitive, just-in-time world. All the improvements spoken about such as more public transport etc. are meaningless if population is allowed to continue to grow. After all, the footprint of a city is not just the part covered by buildings and roads, it is the total area used to supply the inhabitants with what they need to live including all the agricultural acreage for this. Future urban planning must consider the location of food growing, how the food will be transported, and how much food is needed (i.e. population size determines consumption). Any measures to increase resilience that do not consider the size of the consumer base (population) and that do not plan for a sizeable reserve capacity in essential resources are just greenwash and doomed, ultimately, to fail (since population growth eats up reserve capacity).

One of the best articles on one of our most neglected opportunities. Well said Scott.

As to the (all-too-usual) knockers here - it's a short article, not a treatise. And how about some sensible debate politely offered, instead of just moaning and gloom. If we all just say it can't be done, we'll be right.

Perhaps the knockers should go out and feel the sunshine and smell the flowers. Then come in and give their woman a hug and kiss. Oh, don't have a woman to hug and kiss? Try making yourself more pleasant to be around and maybe you will.

Geoff - we are trying to make contributions to the debate but how does your comment help in any way? Do you have a contribution? Sounds more like you are just trying to stifle debate.

WTF?

The first two posts by Colin and the trannie nail it.
At the moment we have out of control population growth needed to support the false economy of house building.
Get the punters locked into home ownership debt and then tax them at an ever increasing rate.
It’s only a matter of time before more money will be needed to pay for the breakdown of maintenance-neglected infrastructure such as sewerage and water supply.
I seriously wonder if we still have the capacity to feed ourselves (unless our main food source is wheat).

Enjoy the ride.

Whether an article is short or long, if it assists the perception that the fundamental problem of growth can be overcome by good design alone, it does the community a disservice.

Perhaps such was not the intention here. Maybe so, but it is in keeping with others that blatantly do so in the process of fostering unending growth.

Enormous improvements can be, and should be, made in relation to house design and subdivision to facilitate compatibility with the particular environment. Solar aspect and solar-passive design is (of many) just one component of that. It is of proven capability, but suffers from deliberate neglect by governments, entrepreneurs, housing/property institutes etc..

As to “halting the sprawl once and for all”: is limiting a city’s boundaries a panacea for all its ills, and “Get Railed” still the cure-all? Urban planners are far from united in believing so. And if an article such as Scott Ludlam’s, no matter how short, helps to blind-side attention from unending growth then eventually it will be heaven help the wildflowers – even in Kings Park.

Hi Scott,
great article which neatly summarises what SO many of us are thinking!

Just one thing on transport: I was reading claims that trolley buses are 1/5th the cost of trams.

"By choosing the cheaper trolleybus over tram or metro, Quito could develop a much larger network in a shorter time. The capital investment of the 19 kilometre line was less than 60 million dollar - hardly sufficient to build 4 kilometres of tram line (source), or about 1 kilometre of metro line (source). Lower investment costs also mean lower ticket fares, and thus more passengers."

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

The sources are:
http://www.sxd.sala.ubc.ca/11_news/tyee_tram_june5_08.pdf

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=39000502#post39000502

Some claim that New Urbanism only grows up around the permanent commitment of a tram or train station stop, and that businesses would not necessarily invest in the same way around just a trolley-bus stop. But if we really do get 5 times the transport by trolley bus, which also has other advantages such as being able to be a hybrid (which can service side-streets not on the trolley line, or drive around obstacles and accidents), then which takes priority: our transport needs or the needs for certainty with businesses and town planners that the stop will always be there?

Do you imagine new integrated town planning and public transport authorities being developed that can integrate these smart solutions together in sync?

Lastly, my favourite article on how quickly we can move from cars to 'bright green cities' is "My other car is a bright green city" by my heroes at Worldchanging.

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

Regards