Yes Jenny we seem destined to make the same mistakes as the apartment-dwelling Europeans and New Yorkers and inherit with it all the associated psychological and social effects.

Immigration fosters a developer's paradise and the pressure from these groups is immense. Governments need to get their head of the proverbial growth cloud and look at more sustainable ways of managing the economy.

But I suspect they won't, instead relying on natural disasters and human conflict arising from depletion of resources to stem rising populations. In other words a horse has already bolted approach.

Open spaces and large yards have become dirty words. Australia has only limited fertile spaces and much of it of late is being developed. It has not only implications for the health of cities but for food security.

I tend to remain pessimistic at this point about government action on this issue, it will take strong community and local action to have any effect on government policy and corruption (particularly at State level).

You really cannot blame people for wanting to live in the city, Dr Stewart. I for one wouldn't live anywhere else. And if our cities could be as vibrant and exciting as New York, it would be a distinct improvement.

Peter Carey saw the city at its very best in 2000.

"Peter Carey noticed the contrast when, just after the Olympics in 2000, he returned to Sydney briefly from New York"

Restaurant kitchens actually stayed open after 10p.m., for one thing. But he probably worked out that we'd soon go back to our lazy ways, and did the sensible thing.

But in talking about "urban space", there are two major factors at work.

One is, as you say, the proliferation of apartment blocks.

We lost our architectural virginity on that score with the (apparently) much-revered RIBA gold-medallist Harry Seidler. This particular national treasure started the rot with this monstrosity...

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/27/1032734319538.html

Can you imagine what the place would be like if he'd actually been allowed to complete the project?

"Seidler intended it to be only the first stage of a grand vision for the entire McMahons Point peninsula, with seven or eight towers similar to the existing one occupying the ridgeline along the top of McMahons Point. Below them on the slopes would have been 10 or more medium-rise apartment blocks"

But this is art, apparently.

http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/architecture/harryseidler/

"Seidler believed that architecture was an art form; art that flows out of simple yet functional design. He was committed to making a better physical world, wherein architecture is modern, socially aware and ecologically sound"

With friends like that, Sydney doesn't need enemies.

The second issue is price.

Without the apartment blocks, a place to live in the city would be the sole prerogative of the insanely rich. That's merely supply and demand operating, and nothing to do with the madness of architectural philistines.

Stop the world, I wanna get off!

Obviously if you live in a city, you're not going to have that feeling of wide-open spaces.

Developers have no power other than what is given to them by the consumers. Your argument is with others people's values, not with 'developers'.

Yes the architectural profession have disgraced themselves, and it is a wonder how people have such poor taste to buy their offerings.

But they do. We are no more justified in using policy to control it in the name of habitat, than we are to stop people from reading trashy detective novels in the name of intellect.

"Much of the land is simply too dry and too infertile for agriculture. As a result, most Australians live in cities on the coast."

That is not why most Australians live in cities: - because they would be farming if only the land were fertile enough. They live in cities because the marginal productivity of what they can do to satisfy their wants is greater in the cities, compared to what it would be if they lived in the country.

Other people, no less than you, take into account the advantages and disadvantages of apartment living.

Politics is not about making choices. The market is. Politics is always about using force to prohibit choices.

Why do you want to get off the world Peter?

Your faith in the market and faith that choice exists (in real terms)is admirable Peter but does not take account of factors like shortage of affordable housing. Choice implies there are no other imperatives. There are many people who choose to live in cities only because that is where the jobs are - it is not necessarily a first choice option or a lifestyle choice.

I am not denigrating city living for those that choose it. Cities certainly have many attractions and if the infrastructure is adequate can be fun diverse places, vibrant and interesting. The point is if we grow cities without adequate infrastructure and open spaces the advantages of living in one would seem to be moot.

What is wrong with the idea of decentralisation into areas that can support more people in terms of water supply and create better opportunities for regional areas for those that might wish a non-city lifestyle if there were real opportunities to choose.

Whether you like it or not the market does not provide choice when the consumer is a silent player at the ground level. The consumer can only choose a particular style of apartment if there is a choice of styles in the first place that also meet price and location needs.

Sydney used to be fun but I spent time there recently and the traffic (even with the M5) was not what I would call fun but if others are willing to live with it that is their choice.

As I said we are destined to repeat the mistakes of others. Whoever said we can learn through history was overly optimistic.

I admit I only read the first two paragraphs of this. But at that point, I say, the notion that moderate density and green space are incompatible is just plain wrong.

It is possible for a city to be dense enough to support a decent public transport system and yet have plenty of open space.

Eg, Munich. I've stayed there twice, both times in a house, on a bolock of land, divided into 3 or 4 apartments.

The first time, 10 mins by train from the centre, and 20 mins walk to a large park of between 1 and 2 sq km.

The second time, 25 mins by train from the centre - that far out, it's mostly green fields (eg, at _both_ ends of the street I was staying on)

The city itself has an elongated park about 1 km wide, extending from the center pretty much to the outskirts of the build up area.

In terms of green space, the only difference from Sydney is that not everyone feels the need of their own private quarter acre. (The green space is there, just not outside your own back door). In terms of density it's high enough to support the sort of public transport system that we can only dream about.

I'm surprised that you say that the Local Liberal Reps haven't taken up the cudgels over North Shore Development.
Last Mondays papers had stories of O'Farrell et al being abused by Greens at the Sunday march on NSW parliament over this issue for daring to politicise the event.
DOH!
Barry has been banging on about the over development of Kuringai for years.
However, as another refugee from Sydney, I agree with you that planning in the state is fatally flawed.
Staff at our Local Council on the Monaro are frustrated that the new LEP still hasn't made it through the State Planning Dept.
The Planning Dept changes the goal posts/ guidelines with distressing regularity which means that the Local Council has to use their limited resources to redo the plan each time the State Planning Dept changes its mind.
Even Steve Whan, local Labor member for the Monaro, has complained about the the State Planning Dept. He cant get a response from them over constituants issues.
I would have thought that the development of two new green field Cities, one on the North Coast and one on the South to take up the anticipated growth would be the way to go but they still want to promote Sydney as the "International City" and that means it has to grow.
I listen the 702 local ABC Radio over the web each morning just to remind myself how good it is to not have to go to that slowly strangulating city of Sydney on a daily basis.
Nice place to visit................ for a short time.

There is no "one size fits all" here. I'm still of the opinion
that there is some kind of genetic input here, for even as a little
kid, I was happiest going out into the country, with lots of
animals around etc.

I lived in various European cities, one African city, but when
I came to Australia, it was in fact the open space and ability
to live outside of cities, that really attracted me.

Reactions of others to bush life, is always interesting to observe.

Some get really nervous out in the country, fear of the unknown
perhaps, people conditioned to city life, who look at nature and
see "nothing", rather then what is actually there in all its splendor.

Many women have a problem with country life, they just need those
shopping malls and manicure salons etc. Our town has a real problem
keeping an doctor, not because the doctors don't like it, but
because their wives commonly rebel at the thought of country life.

Yet if we look at many top businessmen, rock stars, politicians
and others, the moment they can afford it, they are off to the
country to breed some horses, grow some wine grapes and somehow
go back to their earthy roots of what life is all about. They'll
play around with tractors, like big boys with big toys and be
far more content with the world, then they ever are in the rat race.

So I am of the opinion that somehow our instinct matters in all this.
Some people take to those open spaces like ducks to water, others
need city life to be happy, each to their own I guess.

"Conservation does not just mean trying to preserve species. It means conserving what we value, and having the guts to stand up for our heritage."

I second that and could I add that less interference in our private lives by government is also a vital part of our heritage that must be preserved.

It is the lunacy of record immigration levels year by year and by both sides of government that has put so much pressure on infrastructure, housing and water. Australia's population is growing faster than that of some Asian countries that are typically criticised for having their populations out of control.

As far as the major political parties are concerned, immigration policy is all 'never you mind'. There has never been any realistic attempt to find out what the electorate wants and nor have there ever been any real discussion as to what the individual Australian actually gains from immigration levels that are plainly over the top when compared with any developed nation world-wide. It is complete nonsense to claim that 'diversity' is a goal. Why and how much is too much, destroying the culture and quality of life of the present population?

Why the urgent rush to reach the most optimistic guesstimate of the peak human carrying capacity of Australia when it is already obvious that government cannot solve such basics as water supply and housing for the present inhabitants and we are losing vital farming land for housing estates?

Plainly neither side of government has the courage to engage in a proper consultation process with the public on the goals and limits of immigration. This being so, there is room for a minor party to seize the initiative, especially regarding Senate seats. I wouldn't be depending on the flakey Greens though, who have yet to connect the dots and whilst some might mumble about population, all they are saying is that Australian women shouldn't have children while turning a blind eye to record levels of migrants.

Pelican
'Your faith in the market and faith that choice exists (in real terms) is admirable Peter but does not take account of factors like shortage of affordable housing.'

Yes it does. That's exactly what it does take into account. If there were no scarcity, and no costs, then we could all have what we want without sacrificing any lesser value either. The fact that there is scarcity, that we have to choose and value things relative to each other, gives rise to economic goods. Neither market nor government can make this universal fact go away.

"Choice implies there are no other imperatives."

No it doesn't. The fact that we can choose doesn't imply that there is no scarcity, an ability to get something for nothing. It means that, of the different things we value, we need to sacrifice this value in order to attain that one; and that the latter is higher in our scale of preferences.

"There are many people who choose to live in cities only because that is where the jobs are - it is not necessarily a first choice option or a lifestyle choice."

If they are choosing to live in a city because that's where the jobs are, it means that has priority over the other things they value. In that sense it is a first-choice option. My lifestyle choice is to be sippling a pina colada poolside without having to work for a living. The fact that I can't afford to do this, doesn't mean my current job or housing is not a first choice option - it means it is.

The point is, there is no reason to think that people should be able to live in a city, with a job, and with the wide-open spaces of living in the country. This is just a fact. It's not an argument against making decisions based on consent, nor in favour of making decisions based on coercion.

We can't keep subdividing our market gardens in good rainfall areas to create suburbia. Urban workers might benefit from living closer to their workplaces.

I think that Australians could support denser populations in habitable apartments if larger districts were redeveloped at a time, rather than the current piecemeal sell a house and build 24 apartments, sell the next house and build another 24 apartments.

If larger areas were [compulsorily acquired and] redeveloped then there is a chance of putting in open parkland/space, rebuilding the sewer, electricity, gas and water mains to support the larger population as well building pleasant apartments with views and adequate cross ventilation and I would like to see adequate car parking.

I like the flats around Drybergh St in North Melbourne where the hexagon shaped buildings mean that when you look out the lounge window you are angled away from the neighbouring windows.

The current building regulation's concern about overlooking neighbours is leading to the development of windowless boxes with inadequate ventilation almost as bad as the Brazilian favelas of Rocihina in Rio de Janerio.

The problem is quite simple.There are too many people.Australia has already overshot the sustainable level of population by more than 100%.

The solution is to immediately introduce a zero immigration policy and abolish welfare for breeders.

Is that too hard or too harsh for you? Then stop whingeing about the results of population growth.

Peter Hume: You appear the be the only one talking sense here. Keep up the good work.

I think development reaches the point where it defeats its own purpose. The city is great, the inner suburbs are great, but when we reach that dreaded fringe of outer suburbia, the greatness declines somewhat. People live in our capital cities, possibly because they choose to and possibly because that's where the jobs are. It's the people who travel from the suburban fringes who suffer the most from ridiculous traffic jams, and who find themselves trapped in an unnatural environment but without the benefits a city brings.

The development of 'subsidiary centres' such as Chatswood and Hornsby could help to solve this problem. I lived just outside Hornsby, in Mount Colah, for part of my childhood, and my family had to travel quite a long way to experience any of the benefits of city living. We had the benefit of a national park at the end of our street, which was where our focus lay; the treasures of Sydney were lost to us. Perhaps the reconfiguration of suburban centres into urban centres could reduce the need for people to travel to work, to travel to experience the joys of city living and to go about their daily lives. Obviously, governments can't just click their fingers and make this happen. Perhaps we shouldn't be so resistant to that idea.

I admit here that I'm talking about things that don't really affect me. Living in the outer fringes of Townsville, I don't have to worry about big city stuff. But I am still a long way from the action and, as new housing developments see the centre of gravity shifting west of the city itself, I see the gradual creep of suburban mediocrity overtaking the town.

Unlike ants and naked mole rats, people did not evolve as hive animals. It is therefore not surprising that many do not cope well with crowding, noise, pollution, being cut off from nature, constantly having to interact with strangers, etc., etc. Prof Robert Cummins in his Australian Unity Wellbeing Index found that people in general are happier at lower densities, even if they have less money.

http://acqol.deakin.edu.au/index_wellbeing/report-19-1-part-a.pdf

The correlation only breaks down for the highest income group, the sorts of people who are likely to have a country house as well as a city flat.

Another source of enlightenment is Prof Bill Randolph's "Children in the Compact City" on the effects of high density on children's physical and social development. (Even Peter Hume would admit that children aren't given a choice.)

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

In summary, high traffic densities in modern cities are so dangerous that children cannot be allowed to play outside without constant adult supervision. Parks tend to be taken over by gangs of youths and sometimes by derelicts, making them unattractive for parents and young children. Children are often kept indoors, especially if their mother is depressed or belongs to an ethnic group that encourages women to stay at home. When they are at home, neighbours will complain instantly about noise, so the children are kept pacified with television or computer games, or distracted with junk food.

The relentless population growth that is driving urban consolidation is almost entirely due to deliberate government policy. 63.4%, on the latest figures, is due to immigration. With only natural increase, we would get perhaps another 3 or 4 million people before it ended and then went negative, not a doubling in 33 years. When have we been given a choice or vote about the migrant intake? The Rudd government concealed its intentions to further boost the population before the last election. Why is Peter Hume against the government imposing taxes, but (apparently) in favour of the government imposing population growth?

"Why is Peter Hume against the government imposing taxes, but (apparently) in favour of the government imposing population growth?"

I'm not sure that it is. The number of people in the world who are ready, willing and able to immigrate into Australia is enormous; far more than we let in. What is stopping them is government. So in that sense, government is by far the single biggest factor preventing population growth.

It only seems that government is causing population growth if we assume a hypothetical stasis that is based in... what?

I used to live in Sydney but moved away because of the traffic, and I now live far far away where it is more beautiful but inconvenient in just about every way. My father-in-law came from Newcastle, whose environs were a veritable paradise in the 1930s and 1940s, which he has seen overrun with people. And I have seen the same in my favourite haunts on the Central Coast. So I sympathise with the desire for what have we loved but lost; and the desire for open spaces. Sometimes we just want the world to stop but you know, it is neither practical nor desirable to stop it, because other people have their values and happiness to pursue, and it is not for us to call for policy to try to curtail their liberties, engineer society or impose a one-sided dream of stasis.

Also, what about equity, and sharing, and all that? I like people and if they want to live and be free, that is good enough for me. I think we need to learn to be more tolerant, not always trying to use the state to impose our values on other people. People come here and insist on breathing our air and taking up our view with their damn want of food, clothing and shelter and I say, that's life. If you want more space, don't live in the city! There's plenty of space and sometimes, we just have to be tolerant and rely on your own liberties, not on suppressing others'.

"It means conserving what we value, and having the guts to stand up for our heritage."
Who is we and our? Why should the values of we override the values of them?

Australia does indeed have plenty of space. Unfortunately, the vast majority of it is desert. We already have serious problems with finding enough water for just the existing population. That is why there is endless conflict over irrigation rights, why Ramsar listed wetlands are threatened, why there are permanent water restrictions in almost all of our cities, and why the politicians are building expensive, energy hungry desalination plants up and down our coasts.

Libertarians put a halo around private property, but ignore the fact that we also have collective property. If Melbourne, say, is a good place to live, with an attractive environment and good public services and infrastructure, it is because the current residents and their predecessors have made it so. In my view, I have no more right to move to a city or country where a majority of the existing residents feel that the population is already large enough than I do to help myself to Peter Hume's car, television set, or bank account.

While there are a number of ways that we can (and should) help the world's poor to help themselves, immigration is not the solution to global poverty. If anything, it makes the problem worse, because people see it as a personal solution, reducing pressure for the reform at home that will provide the only real and lasting solution. As plerdsus likes to say on this forum, Australia could take in 80 million people and turn the whole country into a stinking slum, but this would only amount to one year's global population growth. Open borders is a recipe for making Australia as poor, populous, and environmentally degraded as the places that people are risking their lives to escape. The people who promote it for their own economic or other advantage, because they want a nanny or gardener who will work cheap, for example, are nothing but traitors.

Sydney is one thing but to witness the same dramatic changes evolving on the Gold Coast is visual evidence of the decline in livability in the sunshine state. The GC has a population of half a million people and is a city created out of a beach culture and tourism that revolves around the natural environment.

But the drive for densification is rapidly destroying the goose that laid the golden egg or put another way altering the very element that made it what it is. The GC has learnt little from the development of Sydney or for that matter overseas cities.

The GCCC recently confirmed in writing that natural enjoyment was something that is undertaken in the hinterland, which is akin to saying that Centennial Park and others should be developed and Sydneysiders travel to the Blue Mountains for a natural experience. They see no need to protect the natural environment.

The point is that Europeans generally understand the need to be conscience of their open spaces and green fields for obvious population reasons. However, we take conservation for granted but in reality are rapidly destroying the lifestyle that we have bragged about for years, taken for granted and vacated out of apathy.

Conserving the habitats of people, I suggest, is extraordinarily vital. When a city urbanizes its parks and green fields at the same time as the city we are going backwards