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